Priests should compensate victims, not Church – Mgr Scicluna
Interview with The Sunday Times tomorrow
Video: Paul Spiteri Lucas
Victims of clerical sex abuse should receive compensation, but from the perpetrators rather than the Church as a whole, Malta’s new Auxiliary Bishop Charles Scicluna tells The Sunday Times in an interview that will be appearing tomorrow.
Mgr Scicluna, who in his role as Promoter of Justice at the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith had a frontline role in uncovering some of the most difficult abuse scandals, had spoken on the need for compensation after the Maltese bishops’ decision not to make a pay out to victims last year.
When asked if he would be supporting calls for the victims to be compensated, Mgr Scicluna says: “I hope they (receive compensation). When I said previously they deserve compensation I was referring to the principle of natural justice which is personal responsibility. That is, a person who does damage to somebody is liable to pay for that damage.
“I support the stand of the Maltese bishops in offering victims pastoral psychological counselling because they are part of our flock. It’s up to the courts to decide whether there’s going to be monetary compensation.
“I feel that victims have an extra title to the Church’s concern and support. They are members of our family who have been wounded. The people responsible for that need to pay for their sins and for their crimes and they need to pay compensation whereas the Church needs to take care of the victims.”
In a wide-ranging interview, Mgr Scicluna also talks about his nomination and how the Church needs to improve its communication skills.
Read the interview in The Sunday Times tomorrow and watch excerpts on timesofmalta.com.
Popular Stories
Old buses, drivers to return
Former Judge Ray Pace found dead
Updated: Minister apologises for...
Three new Nationalist MPs elected –...
Where’s Everybody staff is given notice
Updated - Director of Prisons submits...
Update 3 - Woman trapped as car crashes...
Revealed...the face of a Maltese woman...
PL reacts as PN labels Franco Debono's...
In Discussion
Old buses, drivers to return
Updated: Minister apologises for...
PL reacts as PN labels Franco Debono's...
Updated - Director of Prisons submits...
Enemalta seeking minimum five year gas...
Protected birds shot and trapped as...
Mario de Marco, Zammit Dimech concede,...
PN postpones salaries as financial...
Updated - PM's offer to Opposition MPs...
118 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Alex Buds
Oct 14th 2012, 17:05
Sure... no institutional responsibility mela. As if these heinous crimes were not enabled/facilitated/outright covered up by the parent institution of the perpetrators. Mhux hekk...
Peter spiteri
Oct 14th 2012, 12:33
I did not know that priests had big,fat wallets enough to get expensive lawyers defending their sick crimes!OR is the church forking out the cash?In any case seems to me there's enough to compensate the abused.
Louise Vella
Oct 14th 2012, 11:07
The curia’s refusal to pay compensation is disgusting and shows the bishops' true colours. They are probably thinking they can avoid litigation and get away without paying compensation. Someone with guts needs to take them to court. That’s how they started in the US. It seemed hopeless at first. Now, 25 years later, it has cost the US Catholic church about 2.5 billion dollars and counting.
Joe Zammit
Oct 14th 2012, 19:51
Futile words get us nowhere. Our law does not envisage any compensation for child sexual abuse. Every pretence for compensation is unfounded. That is our law! For such crimes there is only imprisonment which can ALWAYS and at any time be pardoned by the victim.
Louise Vella
Oct 14th 2012, 09:30
The curia should open its secret, and hopefully not yet shredded, records for a full public enquiry. These should reveal when MSSP and the curia became aware of the abusive behaviour of Fr Pulis and Fr Scerri. We need to understand what they knew and what action they took after the allegations first surfaced. Let’s hope they will not wriggle out of their moral obligations and pay compensation.
carmel muscat
Oct 14th 2012, 08:54
il vitmi deret car hafna li FLUS kull ma ridu il knisja ofrit lajnuna issa sta ghal vitmi jekk johduwiex jew le bil flus u minajr flus xorta sa jibqu imwegajn mela lahjar imorru al ajnuna - - - - - - -
Gustav Svensson
Oct 14th 2012, 07:48
Shame on the Church for not making the honest thing and admit their part of the guilt in this. It stinks.
Carmelo Aquilina
Oct 14th 2012, 03:50
No your excellency - the church IS responsible for recruiting, employing, monitoring these priests and then responding to complaints. Your answer is a pathetic self serving answer of a church that has lost all credibility as a moral guide
Mr Anthony Agius
Oct 14th 2012, 03:44
The perpetrators were indiividuals and not the church so its they personally who are responsible . Those who blame the church certainly have other motives in mind.
Joe Zammit
Oct 14th 2012, 02:21
The law can be changed but a retroactive law would be an unjust law and so our legislators will never resort to a retroactive law.
Matthew Tonna
Oct 14th 2012, 00:42
totally agree. I'm sure that the Archbishop did not send them to abuse the children. Finally, a Priest with some guts.
Joe Fenech
Oct 14th 2012, 00:02
I find his comments fair, however those employers who closed an eye should also be involved in the compensation process.
Warmer Libri
Oct 13th 2012, 23:59
It is quite shocking that one like Mgr Scicluna came out with such idea ignoring or forgetting all the facts. The facts are the priests who abused the children were put by the church in church properties or institutions where the full the responsibilities will be on the hosting institution which is the church in this case.The duty of any one is to implement the justice in this case.
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Oct 13th 2012, 23:45
Legislation should be passed by an incoming government clarifying duty of care. Church organisations should not be permitted to wriggle out of their responsibility. If they cannot provide adequate supervision, they should get out of the business of running schools and orphanages. End of matter.
Christian Gauci
Oct 13th 2012, 21:56
The Maltese Catholic Church will never learn. It is not up to the Church to hand down judicial sentences or judicial advice but the State. Let the justice of the State run its course and decide who should pay and we, as good citizens, abide by the law and its outcome. After all, according to its teachings, God will hand down justice at the end of time not the Church!
Francis Saliba M.D.
Oct 13th 2012, 21:27
@ P Cauchi & Lawrence Grech
You were promised help and you were offered tangible help - but the only help that interested you was cash.
Most of your "supporters" were only irreligious people who were interested only in impoverishing cash payments, extracted from the pockets of innocent Malta Catholics, and that would hamstring the Church's mission worldwide.
Joe Fenech
Oct 14th 2012, 03:17
What do you think happens abroad? They have had help over the years, but this is to compensate the fact that their life was jeopardised by these lewd acts.
roberto bordino
Oct 14th 2012, 05:36
Well at least everyone is admiting that these disgusting things happened. Thats a step in the right direction. Now about these innocent catholics, these were the ones paying the wages of these monsters, am I correct in saying?
Francis Grech
Oct 13th 2012, 21:15
Of course Mgr Scicluna will say that compensation should be paid by the priests concern it is the easiest way for the Maltese Catholic Church to get out of it's responsibility as far as it concerned the priest were representatives of the church and therefore the church is responsible for their action no more no less.
mary borg
Oct 14th 2012, 07:27
So if I was a government teacher and abused children in my class, the government would be responsible? That wouldn't be fair!
Joe Naudi
Oct 14th 2012, 08:22
Hi Mr Grech
I fully agree with you that the Catholic church and all who runs it are just washing their hands and they do not want to take full responsibility about what has happened by the priests who abused children in the past. They will also be judged like us by God when this world comes to an end . Joe P
Mr Anthony Zarb
Oct 13th 2012, 20:38
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v2n1/homepage.html
A good way of reading ethics.....from St. Clara University.. The Jesuit University in Silicon Valley
Mr Anthony Zarb
Oct 13th 2012, 20:13
The idea of using the family as an example does not hold water. If an airline company's plane crashes will you ask the captain for his carlessness to pay all those victims or the airlines? Come on, who are you trying to fool? An organisation is set up legallywith rules and regulations to cater for such events. A family is not a bureacratic organisation with outsiders (employees) to serve it.
charles caruana
Oct 14th 2012, 09:36
Mr Zarb, are you trying to fool yourself? You have to prove in a court of law that any organisation had neglected or wilfully broken the 'rules and regulations' that legally bind it before it can be held responsible and liable. The airline's responsibility for a crash has to be proved, not automatically assumed. Is that too diffiicult to understand?
Mr Anthony Zarb
Oct 13th 2012, 20:06
The answer is simple if nothing exists in law, amend the law to include it with retroactive effect for these cases and apply it as a deterrent for future cases. A yardstick has to be established, otherwise there is no justice and these people will continue to suffer.
P Cauchi
Oct 13th 2012, 19:56
Skantajt u tnixxift meta l-unuku xaqq ta' dawl li jien rajt kien min Mgr Scicluna u Fr B Gatt li jien irnexieli niftah qalbi maghhom. Ma kienx facli li ftaht qalbi maghhom u ergajt ftaht ferita ta passat ikrah li jien provajt nahbi ghal bosta snin. Hsibt li Mgr Scicluna kien se jghin lili u lil shabi huti li ahna trabbejna flimkien! Tkomplux tkissruna - Vittma ghal hajti kollha sal-mewt
Elvin Muscat
Oct 13th 2012, 19:50
Finally a priest with some guts, may God guide him well.
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Oct 13th 2012, 23:42
On the contrary, he seems to be pushing the same old line. Very disappointing.
Charles Grixti
Oct 13th 2012, 19:34
No, no, the compensation should come from the institution that employed them, promoted them and hoisted them on the population and in many cases covered up these crimes. The Vatican who is ultimately responsible even for the Maltese Curia should pay up.
C Busuttil
Oct 13th 2012, 21:14
Produce the proof that the church authorities had knowledge about the abuses and covered the crimes !!!! ejja fatti mhux paroli ghax kulhadd bravu jparla.
Qatt ma kont xi ammiratur tal-Knisja imma isbah mill-verita m'hawnx nies li jivvintaw jew idawru l-fatti jdejquni hafna anke jekk biex jikkritikaw il-knisja, hemm elf kritika li tista taghmel fuq il-knisja u bir-ragun, biss mhux fdan il-kaz
Raymond Sacco
Oct 14th 2012, 11:42
Proof:
"The Response Team had told (then Fr) Pulis, who at the time was the housekeeper at St Joseph Home, to "continue looking after the children like an honest parent".
The Times 14-10-12.
Raymond Sacco
Oct 14th 2012, 11:45
Proof:
"Mgr Scicluna accused the Response Team of dragging its feet and also said that the Curia would do well to create a Victim Solidarity Fund."
Sunday Times 7-8-11.
Raymond Sacco
Oct 14th 2012, 11:48
Proof:
“How could so many professionals – from religious superiors to psychiatrists – know of Mr Pulis’s personal problems and seemingly not insist that he refrain from continuing with his leadership role at St Joseph’s?"
Mgr Scicluna to The Sunday Times 7/8/11.
Joe Zammit
Oct 13th 2012, 19:16
If both Maltese law and Canon Law are silent about compensation in terms of money, how can Mgr Scicluna suggest a compensation? And in case, who is going to decide the quantum since both laws are mum? Relying on natural justice is too vague. We are not used to similar compensations, notwithstanding natural justice.
Joe Zammit
Oct 13th 2012, 19:10
"Victims of clerical sex abuse should receive compensation, but from the perpetrators rather than the Church as a whole" according to Mgr Scicluna.
Under Maltese law there is no compensation envisaged. Our criminal law speaks only of punishment.
As far as I know Canon Law too does not award any compensation in terms of money to victims of child sexual abuse by priests.
silvio loporto
Oct 13th 2012, 19:06
Is this a diplomatic way of making sure that they receive nothing?
Where doe ones expect these ex clergy to get hold of the money to compensate the victims?
C Busuttil
Oct 13th 2012, 18:55
Well said Mgr Scicluna
In Malta the archbishop was not aware of these abuses, once they came to be known Archbishop Mercieca took prompt action. In other countries bishops either covered or turned a blind eye on these abuses. That is why the local church is NOT liable to pay.
If a relative of yours commits an abuse is it the fault of your family ? Its all about personal responsibilty
Raymond Sacco
Oct 13th 2012, 19:21
Mr. Busuttil, these cases were presented in front of the commity formed by the catholic church to handle similar cases and this commity turned a blind eye. So you cannot say that the catholic church did not know about the abuses.
C Busuttil
Oct 13th 2012, 19:59
When the abuse took place did the church authorities know about it ? No
Had they been aware YES in that case the church would have been an accomplice.
The church authorities became aware of these abuses years after they occured.
What has the committee formed by the local church in handling these cases to do with compensation and responsibilty? Taf x'int tghid jew !!!!
Raymond Sacco
Oct 14th 2012, 07:38
@C.Busuttil:
"Taf x'int tghid jew !!!!"
It's not me who's saying or inventing these things Mr.Busuttil. Just read the following articles and get up dated with the facts.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110808/local/curia-silent-on-mgr-scicluna-s-criticism.379409
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110807/local/Vatican-official-intervened-to-speed-up-sex-abuse-probe.37905
Raymond Sacco
Oct 13th 2012, 18:54
The pedophile priests are the only ones responsible for their acts, so, yes they should be the ones to compensate their victims, but the catholic church knew about the abuses, turned a blind eye and left the wolves hounding on their prey. So the catholic church is responsible of collaborating with the crimes committed and should compensate the victims for allowing such crimes to happen.
C Busuttil
Oct 13th 2012, 19:09
The local church was not aware of these abuses, stop distorting the truth, once these abuses reached the Archbishop he took prompt action, thats why the church is not responsible.
Raymond Sacco
Oct 13th 2012, 19:57
Mr. Busuttil, these cases were presented in front of a tribunal formed by the catholic church, headed by an ex judge and this tribunal failed to take action. So if these cases were arraigned in front of this tribunal, it is logical to say that the catholic church knew about them! All you have to do to check this fact is go to 'The Times' archives!
Mr Anthony Zarb
Oct 13th 2012, 18:34
The persons who committed the crimes against these children were at the time members of an organisation (the catholic church). Compensation should come from both the individual and the organisation for material and moral damages (including monetary compensation). These are principles of natural justice applicable to most organisations in most countries. So why not Malta?
C Busuttil
Oct 13th 2012, 19:07
With your reasoning if a relative of yours commits some sort of abuse/crime shall we ask you for moral damages !!!!
Tajba din..... jisraq hija u nehel jien ghax membru tal-familja tieghi !!!!
Think before making absurd comments.
On the contrary its the church that should seek compensation from these individuals for the damages they caused it.
Luke Lanzon
Oct 13th 2012, 19:38
They abused kids in church property, if that's not negligence from the church's side then I don't know what is!!! Also don't say something silly like if I invited people to my house for a party, and someone stole something from a bag so I should compensate, its a party my house is not a company like the church is I don't employ people to 'take care' of the kids.
Carmel (Nenu) Aquilina
Oct 13th 2012, 18:33
Fid-Dinja kullħad responsabli ta' għemilu!
Lawrence Grech
Oct 13th 2012, 18:31
Mgr Scicluna have you forgotten us when you called me and said that you will help us when we meet and had a one on one interview and also gave me you private number.
Do you remmber when I told you that iam sick and tiered off my sittuation about our our case off child abuse ,and you all so said that the curia is giving you the run around will you be one off those who gave us the run around too.
Joseph Meli
Apr 12th, 17:15
Curia Communications Office Apr 10th, Contrary to the assertions mentioned above, Mr Lawrence Grech and the other persons involved, were contacted by the MSSP in writing and invited to approach the Society for help. This was in October 2011, as soon as the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith published its decision about this case. In fact a number of those involved approached the Society. So...
W Cassar
Oct 13th 2012, 18:25
The church is responsible for the priests as there are rules that the priests have to abide by. I think he is washing his hands.
Bad case of logic!
Mr Emanuel Farrugia
Oct 13th 2012, 18:07
An intelligent and ethical decision from Malta’s new Auxiliary Bishop Charles Scicluna.
Emanuel Farrugia [TARXIEN] former student Faculty of Theology UOM
Chris Gatt
Oct 13th 2012, 19:24
I seem to remember that, at law, when a company employee does something illegal ( such as crash with the company car in company time), then the company is equally liable. If that is the case then both the individual and the company may be held liable.
This is not a god start for the auxiliary bishop and is certainly not going to attract many lost sheep.
Joseph Camilleri
Oct 13th 2012, 17:57
Prosit Mgr Scicluna a very good decision.
Joseph Camilleri
Oct 13th 2012, 17:56
when a man shoots another person the court prosecutes the person and when found guilty sent to prison. Who is compensating the person who was attacked?
G Buhagiar
Oct 13th 2012, 17:42
A very good comment by Mons Charles Scicluna, the 'ex-priests' who abused them should give them compensation not the Church! The Church did not tell them to do these scandals.
We all know that these ex-priests, had very good lawyers to defend them. As they paid these lawyers, they should give compensation to the victims!
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Oct 13th 2012, 23:43
How do you know that the Church or the Society they belonged to did not pay for their legal fees? After all, they had a vow of poverty!
Joseph Meli
Apr 12th, 17:18
@J. Carmel Chetcuti:::>But In Malta, child sex abuse is contemplated only in our criminal code. If convicted, the perpetrator will be awarded only a prison sentence, NO COMPENSATION. So according to our law such victims cannot sue for any compensation whatsoever, Curia offered other help. Compensation that is Civil...if one wins it and has funds to pay - cannot force them (Priests) ?
Joe Fenech
Oct 13th 2012, 17:19
Fair comment!
M Cassar
Oct 13th 2012, 17:05
Not a very good start for Mons Scicluna. In most countries where children have been abused the Church had to pay compensation even if it did so very reluctantly. So why is the local church now pinning responsibility on individuals when it is clear that they represented the Church ?
charles caruana
Oct 13th 2012, 17:39
If your brother mugged an old woman for money, is he doing so in the name of your whole family? Should you and your family compensate the old lady, because he 'represents' you and your family, who are law abiding citizens. Let us be a little more reasonable, shall we?
J. Debono
Oct 13th 2012, 17:47
So if I understand you correctly, if a Minister is found to have broke the law against an individual, the Govt. should compensate that individual not the Minister (in this case the Govt is the Church, the Minister is the clergyman).
I beg to differ.
Maryann Borg
Oct 13th 2012, 17:59
It must be rather difficult for Mons. Scicluna coming into the situation after Arch. Cremona already said no to compensation by the Church. I guess this is an attempt to save everyone's face. Everyone except that of the victims.........
Charles Grixti
Oct 14th 2012, 01:32
@Charles
But your family do not hold themselves to be a privileged class and the highest moral arbiters nor hold a fiduciary position in society, so much so that parents willingly surrender their children to them. When such an institution breaks this sacred trust and its representatives commit abhorrent acts, it is morally responsible and should be held accountable from the top down.
charles caruana
Oct 14th 2012, 14:51
Mr Grixti, for the nth time. you have to give solid proof in a court of law that an institution has, in your words, broken ' this sacred trust' through willful collusion,criminal negligence, or intentionally hiding evidence, before assuming its responsibility and liability. The rest, like'privileged class' , 'highest moral arbiters' etc is mere empty verbiage from a legal point of view.
Joe Zammit
Oct 13th 2012, 16:39
In Malta, child sex abuse is contemplated only in our criminal code. If convicted, the perpetrator will be awarded only a prison sentence, NO COMPENSATION. So according to our law such victims cannot sue for any compensation whatsoever.
P Bonnici
Oct 13th 2012, 17:22
I agree with you. If victims are compensated, some 'victims' of sexual abuse could make things up just to get compensation.
charles caruana
Oct 13th 2012, 16:38
The Church would be liable to compensate abuse victims if it is proved in a court of law that its higher authorities had colluded, by negligence, omerta or deliberately hiding or protecting the perpetrator of the abuse. Otherwise only the latter is liable - the state has never compensated victims of child abuse committed by teachers. Even the bigoted church bashers can follow this argument, I hope
GL Calleja
Oct 13th 2012, 17:01
The State is only liable if these acts happened on school grounds, like the church is only liable if these deeds happened on Church grounds (property)..
charles caruana
Oct 13th 2012, 17:34
@GL Calleja
Place or crime scene have nothing to do with criminal responsibility. Willful negligence or direct and indirect collusion determines responsibility and liability. If a guest is robbed while staying in your house and you have nothing to do with it at all, is it you or the arrested robber who should compensate? It is called natural justice, and not too difficult to understand.
Joe M Borg
Oct 13th 2012, 16:35
OTHER questions need answers first!
1. In the past , we heard of RELATIVES, MFA employees, and recently even a mayor supposedly doing the same crime. WHO should shoulder the expences in such cases? The family, the MFA, the political party?
2. We heard also that one of the 'victims' himself stripped a boy during a party. If so, isn't that boy entitled for compensation by the alleged 'victim'?
francis x caruana
Oct 13th 2012, 16:23
fhis is news...................as thou these priest are not part of the church.Stop insulting these victims they have suffered so much in the hands of the church. I guess nothing will ever change. no wonder so muh are abonding the church................isthis the new way foward?
Martin Saliba
Oct 13th 2012, 16:19
And what if the priest is flat broke , nice try and you havnt even been here one week .
Paul Micallef
Oct 13th 2012, 16:08
I always thought that before you become a priest you give everything to GOD (the church), so how are they going to pay???? NO, if the priest shames the church the church must pay up like other countrys do, yew ahna fkollox speciali???????????????????????????
Angelo Polidano
Oct 13th 2012, 15:49
If the church happens to compensate the victims, whose money will be used at the end? The public's. That is exactly what happens when a Government entity is fined for a wrong doing. In all cases the culprits ought to pay as part of the punishment.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Oct 13th 2012, 16:51
And who pockets most of the filthy lucre extracted from the innocent bystanders?
It is not the intended victims, but their lawyers.
A typical case of justice not being done and not even appearing to be done.
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Oct 14th 2012, 06:58
You should have trained to become a lawyer Francis MD! I am sure you did quite well out of your practice.
david debattista
Oct 14th 2012, 15:08
Francis Saliba MD You would not be talking like this if it was a relative of yours that had been raped !
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Oct 14th 2012, 21:48
David, do not expect Maltese Catholics to have any empathy.
GL Calleja
Oct 13th 2012, 15:37
One question remains: Why is it that these two convicted and sentenced pedophile priests are still running around free instead of serving their sentences in prison? Why are they roaming around free, pending their appeal? Is that standard procedure for all convicted criminals?
Victor Rodenas
Oct 13th 2012, 15:06
Well, the church should take what it can from the Priests then makes an addition to it from the Church`s coffers and give it to the victims.
Raymond Sammut
Oct 13th 2012, 15:06
The Commonwealth of Australia has just paid (following court orders) $50,000 as part of a settlement with one of its employees after it had been alleged that this employee was sexually harassed by the Speaker of Parliament. The court orders constitute natural justice whereby an institution failed in its duty of care to provide a safe environment. Maltese courts please take note and show civility.
mark bates
Oct 13th 2012, 15:04
The document called crimen soliicitionis was reissued by the current pope in 2001 see link below and then decide who is responsible
http://reform-network.net/?p=4525
Mr Terry Gosden
Oct 13th 2012, 14:58
Who is paying the priest legal bills?
Alfred Vassallo
Oct 13th 2012, 16:27
Precisely! A case of what is good for the gander is not good for the goose?
simon galea
Oct 13th 2012, 14:58
Definitely that the individual shoud always be liabile. Agree. Having said that if the institution/organisation/church was aware of the wrong doings by its member and did not act accordingly then it too is liable. Hence before exempting the church from liability, Mons Scicluna must first establish if said church authorities took the right precautions or shut one eye.
Paul Zammit
Oct 13th 2012, 14:55
sure ... and which institution was supposed to safeguard the well being and incolumity of the kidddos? To which institution were the kids trusted? To the priest or the priest's institution?? Please, stop trying to 'dis-shoulder' your responsibilities because, effectively, you're only diggin u pit deeper ...
A. MICALLEF
Oct 13th 2012, 14:50
This is a clear sign that nothing will change. The church is and will remain 200 years backwards.
SHAME !
Victor Pulis
Oct 13th 2012, 14:49
Considering the vow of poverty most clerics take on their ordination the victims can kiss any form of monetary compensation bye bye!
Pippo De Marco
Oct 13th 2012, 14:05
If you cause injury or damage whilst working for your employer, then your employer is liable for your actions. But seemingly the Bishop doesn't accept this principle. This principle should apply even more so in the case of Church employees who, because of their position, we are supposed to trust and respect.
Besides, how many Priests (officially) have the means to compensate their victims?
J.C. Borg
Oct 13th 2012, 14:52
But, Mr De Marco - it was not the first time that employees who did not follow the rules of the employer had to pay for their damages themselves.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Oct 13th 2012, 15:05
@ Pippo.
You do not demand that education departments, boy scout movements, organisations of sports activities among youths, etc be mulcted for the crimes committed by their wayward members against their protegees. You do not ask if the criminal members in these organisations have the means to compensate their victims.
You discriminate against priests as a class and we can guess why.
Anthony Mizzi
Oct 13th 2012, 15:05
Apparently these have! They afford the most expensive lawyers there are on the island!
Pippo De Marco
Oct 13th 2012, 16:10
@ Dr Saliba.
The laws relating to Employers Liability apply to all employers, including the Church, Police, Education and Health Departments.
I would be scathing of a Doctor, Teacher, or anyone who abused their position of trust for their own perverted purposes, but I believe that the condemnation and punishment should be even more severe for supposed teachers of morality.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Oct 13th 2012, 17:05
@ Pippo
I did not say that the law was discriminatory. I said that you were invoking it in a discriminatory fashion selectively against the clergy to the exclusion of other criminals abusing children entrusted into their care,
Yes, you "could" be scathing when dealing with all lay abusers of children but in actual fact you, and others, are scathing only regarding clergy.
Lino Apap
Oct 13th 2012, 13:41
Sorry but this argument does not hold water. The abuse took place in Church-run institution by Church-appointed representatives. If anything the Church should fork out the compensation and then try to reclaim it from its disgraced priests! Look at how different a position was taken by the Church in the USA, Australia and other places.
Here the Church forked out millions to its victims.
Joe Zammit
Oct 13th 2012, 16:44
Our criminal law provides only a prison sentence in case of conviction of child sexual abuse. The victim cannot sue for any compensation in such a case.
Maryann Borg
Oct 13th 2012, 13:39
The victims where abused whilst under the care of a Church organization. This organization was responsible for their well-being and care. If abuse took place the organization is the one that has to pay compensation. Let's take a different scenario: if other boys living in the same house had abused, or injured their mates and nothing had to been to stop them...who would be responsible?
John Demanuele
Oct 13th 2012, 13:35
I agree 100% with Mgr Scicluna's thinking. Whereas it is the church's mission to care for its members - indeed for all of humanity - it does not follow that it should offer monetary compensation.
Does anyone who is a victim of burglary seek retribution from Government because the thief happens to be Maltese? The principle of justice is always that the criminal pays for his crime.
Pippo De Marco
Oct 13th 2012, 15:13
As far as I know, the Government doesn't EMPLOY burglars. That's the difference.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Oct 13th 2012, 18:24
@PippoDeMarco.
Government does not employ burglars but neither does the Church employ child molesters. The "burglars" and the "child molesters" emerge against the wishes of Government and Church.
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Oct 13th 2012, 23:41
Francis, does the Church have a duty of care towards children in its institutions? John, the government does not have a duty of care towards people who are victims of burglary. You are comparing apples with organes. Typical disingenuous approach.
william cauchi
Oct 13th 2012, 13:09
Why do we always have to be different. All over the world, the Church has compensated the victims. In Canada, USA, Holland, Germany, UK, Ireland etc. just to mention a few, and to the tune of millions of euros/dollars/pounds. But in Malta, no, we are special here.
Let's not start on the wrong foot Bishop Scicluna. Now that you have changed your job, you are suddenly seeing things differently.
R. Balzan
Oct 13th 2012, 17:06
Well said William. I am hugely disappointed and surprised at Mgr Scicluna's change of stance in the few days he has been in Malta. What's good for abused children in the US, Canada, Australia and wherever compensation was paid for abuses by clerics, should also hold good for Malta. Nothing more and nothing less.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Oct 13th 2012, 18:29
@WilliamCauchi
Yours is an outmoded colonialist mentality that whatever is practiced abroad must be adopted blindly in our small former colony.
Francis Saliba M.D.
Oct 13th 2012, 18:38
@R Balzan.
Mgr Scicluna has not changed his stance. He is disappointing the local malcontents that had wrongly assumed that he had been posted here as an auxiliary bishop so as to infiltrate the local hierarchy and to promote a different message from that preached by Christ.
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Oct 13th 2012, 23:39
Exactly, William. The monsignor is being disingenuous.
david debattista
Oct 15th 2012, 10:37
( A ) Francis Saliba MD What out modeled colonialist mentality . Is not our legal system based on the British system and is not the British society for all their boasting about British law one of the most troubled societies in the world . FACTS Francis M D In other Catholic countries like Malta compensation was paid . The offenders got off the hook and looks like the victims will get nothing.
david debattista
Oct 15th 2012, 10:54
( B ) As a citizen I am worried as to how things developed . The result was that the offenders were released on a technicality even if the crime took place and now it also seems that the victims are being portrayed as opportunist , Do you think with your arguments you are doing the church any favours . I think most are going to distance themselves from the church ! the court we know the story .
Adrian Pace
Oct 13th 2012, 13:06
You are right mgr!!!
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Oct 13th 2012, 13:04
What is the offence takes place when children are being cared for by an institution run by the church? Is there no duty of care by the church?
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Oct 13th 2012, 13:02
What if the priest have vows of poverty, chastity and obedience?
Mr Mike Farrugia
Oct 13th 2012, 12:55
I like the final sentence. How about short and effective homilies as a start?
Charles W. Sammut
Oct 13th 2012, 12:50
"That is, a person who does damage to somebody is liable to pay for that damage."
And whoever covers up a crime is a partner in that crime as well. Even more so when that crime was being sustained for decades.
Luke Lanzon
Oct 13th 2012, 12:42
If the abuse was taken in church property, the church should also be responsible. Just like in the case of the guy of top of the pops (can't remember his name) the BBC must shoulder responsibility, which they are, so why doesn't the church???
Wilfred Camilleri
Oct 13th 2012, 15:07
So using your argument, if someone visiting your house or staying with you robs a visitor to your house, you should compensate him because the crime took place on your property? Just asking.
Luke Lanzon
Oct 13th 2012, 16:04
In theory yes but there's one difference, my house isn't a company I don't employ anyone, I don't install security cameras in my house. Point made?
Mr Joseph Carmel Chetcuti
Oct 13th 2012, 23:37
Wilfred, it all boils down to whether or not there is a duty of care. If a guest slips on your floor because you happen to have left it dirty, then you have a duty of care too. If a guest steals money from another guest, it is unlikely that there is a duty of care. The Catholic Church has a duty of care whenever abuse takes place in its institutions provided that there is a duty of care.
Anthony Mizzi
Oct 13th 2012, 12:39
Tend to agree, why spend it on lawyers , better to spend it on the victims!
Please choose the reason of your report below: