Neil Comer
I must ask you, as I asked GUEST mg, to be more explicit.
To say "How can a bishop walk into a room and discover a priest interfering with a child and simply ignore it? (this is not a hyphothetical example)" is just not good enough. For all legal purposes this is a fairy tale. You *must* name and shame, especially since you claim it is not hypothetical. If you *can* name, then you must report this to the police. If you do not, then you are part of the conspiracy of silence and culpable. There is no middle way!
Again, with respect to your second accusation:
"How can a Headmaster of a school allow a clerical member of his staff, about whom rumours abound, accompany a group of students on a three week summer course as their 'medical officer?"
The key words here are "rumours" and "abound". Rumour is "hearsay" and is not admissable as evidence of guilt. "Abound" is as woolly and unmeaningful a phrase as those I asked GUEST mg to quantify in another post.
Am I right in suggesting that the "three week summer course" consisted of a visit to Donegal for the purposes of improving the pupils' grasp of Irish? I have contacts in Ireland in this field and I find it extremely hard to believe that *anything* untoward could have taken place. The supervision of the pupils is very tight and it is virtually impossible for an adult to be alone with a child.
In any case, the medical care of the students is in the hands of the authorities running the courses. No one else has any access to them. A teacher describing himself as a "medical officer" would find his credentials under very severe scrutiny.