That’s the sensationalistic headline of this story in the New York Times. As usual, it’s by Laurie Goodstein, and as usual she makes significant errors in her reporting that make the story more sensationalistic in a way that (just coincidentally) paints the Holy See in an unfavorable light. (So . . . what’s up with that, Laurie? You’ve been on the beat long enough that you should be better informed on these matters.)
As with previous stories of the same nature, this one involves a document from back in the 1990s that has now come to the attention of the press. It was a letter written by the Apostolic Nuncio of Ireland (that’s basically the Holy See’s ambassador to Ireland, though he also has a liaising role with the local bishops). In the letter the Nuncio—then Luciano Storero—communicated a message to the Irish bishops from the Congregation for Clergy concerning a document that the Irish bishops had drafted on child sexual abuse.
This letter was immediately hailed by groups like SNAP as the “smoking gun” they’ve been waiting for, showing that the Holy See took part in the cover up of sexual abuse, allowing it to be sued in court, humiliated, and have money extracted from it.
You can read (a tiny, low resolution image of) the letter itself here.
Now let’s walk through it and see how the claims made about it stack up against the document itself . . .
APOSTOLIC NUNCIATURE IN IRELAND
N. 808/97
Dublin, 31 January 1997
Strictly Confidential
To: the Members of the Irish Episcopal conference
—their Dioceses
Your Excellency,
The Congregation for the Clergy has attentively studied the complex question of sexual abuse or minors by clerics and the document entitled “Child Sexual Abuse: Framework for a Church Response”, published by the Irish Catholic Bishops Advisory Committee.
So here is what has happened at the time the letter was written: Priests and religious in Ireland abused children. This came to light and caused an enormous scandal. (In fact, it brought down the Irish government.) In response, the Irish bishops conference (in conjunction with the Conference of Religious in Ireland) created an Advisory Committee to draft a document proposing how to respond to cases of child sexual abuse. The result was the document referenced above, which is online here in .pdf form. At least that’s a version of the document. Whether it was the version referenced in the letter is not 100% clear. In any event, this document came to the attention of the Congregation for Clergy in Rome, and now the Congregation for Clergy has asked the Irish nuncio to convey its impressions to the Irish bishops.
Note well: The Congregation for Clergy is not the same as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict) was the head of the doctrinal body, not the Congregation for Clergy. The head of that in 1997 was Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos. More on him in a bit. For now the important point—given the press’s invariable attempt to read everything Vatican in terms of the pope himself—is that Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict has no connection with this letter. It wasn’t his department that was involved.
The congregation wishes to emphasize the need for this document to conform to the canonical norms presently in force.
So: The Congregation for Clergy has concerns that provisions in the document did not conform to canon law as it was in 1997. Fair enough. That’s not anything sinister. To give a civil law analogy, it’s a little like warning someone that parts of his proposed law appear to violate the U.S. Constitution. Warning someone that parts of his law appear unconstitutional is not a sinister thing. It’s a way of ensuring justice and avoiding a lot of headaches for everybody.
One might be wrong, and provisions of the law in fact might be fully constitutional (read: canonical), but saying, “Your policy needs to be legal in terms of Church law” is not evidence of evil intent.
The text, however, contains “procedures and dispositions which appear contrary to canonical discipline and which, if applied, could invalidate the actions of the same Bishops who are attempting to put a stop to these problems. If such procedures were to be followed by the Bishops and there were cases of eventual hierarchical recourse lodged at the Holy See, the results could be highly embarrassing and detrimental to those same Diocesan authorities.
So the Congregation for Clergy (who is being quoted in this paragraph; note the open quotation marks) is concerned that some proposals in the Irish Advisory Committee document appear to be contrary to canon law. As a result, bishops acting on those parts of the proposal might take canonical actions against priests that are legally invalid. In other words, there could be miscarriages of justice. So what happens if miscarriages of justice occur? Well, the priests might appeal their case to Rome, and Rome might agree that there was a miscarriage of justice because the law was not applied correctly. In that case the bishop would be put in an embarrassing position.
And that’s quite true. A bishop would be put in an embarrassing and detrimental position if he violated canon law and a miscarriage of justice resulted and his actions had to be undone. There’s nothing sinister about telling a bishop that. People in positions of power need to be reminded regularly that their authority has limits and they must provide justice for those whose cases they handle. The law needs to be followed closely so that we (a) don’t have innocent priests being wrongly convicted and (b) we don’t have predator priests escaping punishment because the law wasn’t followed. The exact same concerns apply in civil courts: We need to follow the law to avoid miscarriages of justice.
Now, you’ll notice something that hasn’t yet been mentioned in this letter: the issue of reporting predators to the police. That hasn’t come up yet. All the discussion so far has been about making sure the Church’s own internal legal system is followed so that we don’t have miscarriages of justice.
How did Laurie Goodstein frame this in her article for the Times? She wrote: “It [the letter] said that for both ‘moral and canonical’ reasons, the bishops must handle all accusations through internal church channels. Bishops who disobeyed, the letter said, may face repercussions when their abuse cases were heard in Rome.”
WHOA! MAJOR MEDIA DISTORTION!
The only “repercussions” mentioned in the letter is the embarrassing situation a bishop would find himself in if he failed to follow the law and a miscarriage of justice resulted and Rome overturns it on appeal. Yet Goodstein makes it sound as if the letter is threatening bishops with some kind of retaliation if they don’t “obey” the letter. This is wrong on several levels. First, the letter is not an ultimatum. It is not a set of orders. It is an advisory statement cautioning the Irish bishops that they need to make sure they follow canon law so that miscarriages of justice don’t happen and then get overturned on appeal. There is no threat of retaliation here.
Worse, Goodstein makes it appear that the Vatican is threatening bishops with retaliation if they report predators to the police. The subject of reporting pedophiles hasn’t even come up yet. And she is wrong when she says that the letter states that “the bishops must handle all accusations through internal church channels,” as opposed (presumably) to reporting predators to the police. But the document says nothing of the kind. There is nothing in the document saying that a bishop must keep information about predators secret. What the Congregation objected to was mandatory reporting. One can think what one likes about the wisdom of mandatory reporting, but there is a big difference between saying, “You must keep all cases of this from the eyes of the police on pain of Vatican retaliation” and saying, “Hey, maybe there needs to be some discretion exercised and it shouldn’t be automatic reporting.”
Goodstein thus implies that the letter suggests something it doesn’t. The letter doesn’t state that the Congregation for Clergy is opposed to reporting predators to the authorities. Instead, it says . . .
In particular, the situation of ‘mandatory reporting’ gives rise to serious reservations of both a moral and canonical nature”.
This is the end of the quotation from the Congregation for Clergy. Note the closing quotation marks.
So the Congregation for Clergy is saying, “We’ve got reservations about the situation of ‘mandatory reporting’ on moral and canonical grounds.” That’s an expression of concern. It’s a cautionary statement, but it is not an order. It’s telling the Irish bishops about an issue that could come up down the road. And how unreasonable is the concern expressed? An overzealous application of a mandatory reporting policy could result in entirely innocent people being put through the wringer and having their reputations and livelihood destroyed.
Would that be moral? Would you like to be on the receiving end of a policy like that? It is easy to see how one might have moral concerns about automatic reporting policies and want to make sure that there are appropriate safeguards to keep innocent people from having their lives destroyed.
It also is easy to see how such a policy could fall afoul of canon law, which contains provisions protecting an individual’s right to his good reputation. An overzealous application of a mandatory reporting policy could unjustly deprive innocent people of their reputation—and more.
And these moral and canonical concerns don’t just apply to priests. Think about the repercussions of a mandatory reporting policy for the victims!
It has been a common experience in years past for people to come to Church authorities to warn them about the behavior of a particular priest but only on condition of confidentiality. They don’t want to get involved with the authorities. They don’t want to be hauled into court and put on the witness stand and forced to relive horrible things that were done to them under cross examination. They don’t want to come to the attention of the media and have their private sexual trauma exposed for the whole world to see.
But a mandatory reporting policy would prevent Church authorities from giving these people the assurances of confidentiality that they seek. It thus could deter them from reporting predators and result in more sexual predation.
Before we get back to the nuncio’s letter, let’s detour for a moment and look at what the proposed Irish policy actually says about reporting:
2.2. Recommended Reporting Policy
2.2.1 In all instances where it is known or suspected that a child has been, or is being, sexually abused by a priest or religious the matter should be reported to the civil authorities. Where the suspicion or knowledge results from the complaint of an adult of abuse during his or her childhood, this should also be reported to the civil authorities.
2.2.2 The report should be made without delay to the senior ranking police officer for the area in which the abuse is alleged to have occurred. Where the suspected victim is a child, or where a complaint by an adult gives rise to child protection questions, the designated person within the appropriate health board/health and social services board should also be informed. A child protection question arises, in the case of a complaint by an adult, where an accused priest or religious holds or has held a position which has afforded him or her unsupervised access to children.
2.2.3 The Advisory Committee recognises that this recommended reporting policy may cause difficulty in that some people who come to the Church with complaints of current or past child sexual abuse by a priest or religious seek undertakings of confidentiality. They are concerned to protect the privacy of that abuse of which even their immediate family members may not be aware. Their primary reason in coming forward may be to warn Church authorities of a priest or religious who is a risk to children.
2.2.4 The recommended reporting policy may deter such people from coming forward or may be perceived by those who do come forward as an insensitive and heavy-handed response by Church authorities. This is particularly so where the complaint relates to incidents of abuse many years earlier.
2.2.5 Nonetheless, undertakings of absolute confidentiality should not be given but rather the information should be expressly received within the terms of this reporting policy and on the basis that only those who need to know will be told.
WOW!
If this policy means what it says then just on suspicion that abuse may be taking place (suspicion being a subjective state that is very easy to come by) you’ve got to report the priest or religious to the police. No provision is made (at least in this section) for distinguishing between suspicions that are credible or well-founded and those that aren’t. Similarly, no provision is made for doing a preliminary investigation. Instead, Church workers are to make the mandatory report “without delay.”
Furthermore, the Advisory Committee is aware that this policy will put victims on the spot and force them to relive their traumas as the authorities handle the case. It is further aware that the policy of mandatory reporting may seem “insensitive and heavy-handed,” “particularly so where the complaint relates to incidents of abuse many years earlier.” Nevertheless, the policy says, if someone comes to you and says, “I want to report a predator priest but I also want to do so confidentially so that I’m not traumatized and humiliated in public or among my own family members” then Irish Church authorities would be supposed to say, “I’m sorry, but our reporting policy does not admit of exceptions, and I can receive your information only under the terms of our reporting policy, so I cannot promise you confidentiality.”
Can you imagine someone in the office of the Congregation for Clergy having concerns of a moral and canonical nature about how such a policy might be implemented?
I can!
In fact, the Advisory Committee itself can recognize why people would have concerns about this exceptionless policy. Otherwise it wouldn’t have gone out of its way to respond in advance and at length to the concerns victims were sure to have.
HAS LAURIE GOODSTEIN EVEN READ THIS POLICY? DID SHE DO THE TEN SECONDS OF GOOGLING IT TOOK ME TO FIND IT? IF SO, WHY DIDN’T SHE SHARE THE REPORT’S CONCERNS ABOUT THE FEELINGS OF VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ABUSE WITH HER AUDIENCE? THESE ARE QUESTIONS HER BOSSES AS THE NEW YORK TIMES SHOULD ASK HER.
Now, back to the nuncio’s letter:
Since the policies on sexual abuse in the English speaking world exhibit many o[f] the same characteristics and procedures, the Congregation is involved in a global study of them. At the appropriate time, with the collaboration of the interested Episcopal Conferences and in dialogue with them, the Congregation will not be remiss in establishing some concrete directives with regard to these Policies.
So . . . the Congregation for Clergy is hardly coming off as sinister here. To try to find an effective way to deal with these situations, it’s doing a study of how these things are handled in the English-speaking world. It plans to involve the relevant bishops’ conferences in the discussion, so they will have their say. And when this is all done it will issue concrete directives.
This is not the language of coverup. It’s the language of, “We want to find an effective solution to this problem, and we want to work with you to make that happen.”
For these reasons and because the above mentioned text is not an official document of the Episcopal Conference but merely a study document, I am directed to inform the individual Bishops of Ireland of the preoccupations of the Congregation in this regard, underlining that in the sad case of accusations of sexual abuse by clerics, the procedures established by the Code of Canon Law must be meticulously followed under pain of invalidity of the acts involved if the priest so punished were to make hierarchical recourse against his Bishop.
Asking you to kindly let me know of the safe receipt of this letter and with the assurance of my cordial regard, I am
Yours sincerely in Christ,
+Luciano Storero
Apostolic Nuncio
And so the final part of the letter gently reminds the individual Irish bishop that the Advisory Committee’s proposal is just that—a proposal, a study document, not something that has been passed and approved and that the bishop is obliged to follow. Further, it’s a problematic document and if the bishop acts on some of its provisions it could lead to a miscarriage of justice that might blow up in his face on appeal. But the Congregation for Clergy is working on a solution for how to handle this kind of horrible situation. Please don’t implement the flawed document; give us the time to work with the relevant bishops’ conferences to find the needed solution.
That’s the takehome message of this letter.
Contrast that to Laurie Goodstein’s opening paragraph:
A newly disclosed document reveals that Vatican officials instructed the bishops of Ireland in 1997 that they must not adopt a policy of reporting priests suspected of child abuse to the police or civil authorities.
This is highly misleading. The document was of an advisory nature that expressed cautions and concerns. It did not “instruct” the bishops that they “must not adopt a policy of reporting priests suspected of child abuse to the police or civil authorities.” It advised the bishops that there were serious moral and canonical reservations about the specific reporting policy that had been proposed to them.
And it expressed those concerns with good reason!
If I were a priest or a victim, or someone who just knew a priest or a victim, or just a bystander (which is what I am), I’d have concerns about that policy.
Now, please bear in mind that I am not saying that the Congregation for Clergy’s concerns were all well founded. The letter is so brief and is expressed in such general terms that we don’t know what their specific concerns were, either regarding the reporting policy or other aspects of the proposal. They allude in addition to multiple concerns of a canonical nature (apparently concerning the Code of Canon Law’s penal provisions).
Whether they were correct in all their concerns I don’t know. I do know that they were headed at this time by Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, who has a particular history on this subject. And I also know that the letter does not come off as the sinister, “under no circumstances tell the authorities” document the press is representing it as.
Of course, that won’t stop the New York Times and other media outlets, and lawyers, from trying to milk this for all it’s worth.
What do you think?
Comments
Post a Comment
When will rank and file Catholics stand up and demand justice for the
victims of clergy abuse, and that the Vatican come clean about its part in
the cover up?
I just don’t understand.
Why do Catholics not withdraw their financial support until the Vatican
agrees to come clean on all of this?
Thank God the New York Times isn’t intimidated by the Roman Catholic
Church and continues to report the news bravely and honestly.
As a former Catholic,
I want to apologize to all the victims out there: men, women and children,
who have been victims of predatory and dishonest clergy.
I apologize to you for what these people did to you, and
for the church that covered up their actions and enabled them to go
on being abusers.
I am so sorry.
I hope and pray that conscientious Catholics will rise to demand
justice and compassion for the victims of clergy abuse.
Anne, did you read Jimmy’s very detailed and well-researched piece, or did you just cut and paste this canned response? If the latter, that’s disinegnuous. If you read his piece, I’d be interested in how you respond to each of his points.
Anne Rice: Do you have anything new or relevant to say? Anything about the subject of this post, for instance?
I do not find Jimmy’s points persuasive.
I think the letter clearly reflects the intent
of the person writing it to stop the bishops
from reporting clergy abuse to the authorities.
The New York Times story struck me as solid reporting,
as usual with the New York Times.
I do not understand why rank and file Catholics
do not speak up to demand that the Vatican come clean
on this scandal.
Anne, if I may, I’d like to ask a question. Do you think that a person might reasonably have a concern about a policy that allowed victims of priestly sexual abuse to report the priest only on the condition that the victim is willing to have this deeply wounding event exposed to other family members, the police, the media, friends, co-workers, etc., and that the victim be willing to relive the horrible events on the witness stand and endure cross examination, so that the victim can’t report the priest to Church authorities if they aren’t willing to agree to these terms?
Personally, I think it’s very reasonable to have concerns about a policy like that.
What is your opinion?
Dear Anne…we rank and file Catholics do not demand anything because there is nothing to demand. We can easily see through articles such as this one in the NYT. It is another attempt to create a smoking gun that simply is not there. God bless you.
For everyone’s edification, last time Jimmy posted on this general subject, Anne Rice flooded the combox with more than 60 comments in half a day. As Diogenes points out, that’s “an average of 5 comments an hour, or one every 12 minutes. Don’t try this at home; remember, she is a professional writer.”
Anne,
I am all for honesty, openness and responsibility in dealing with the grave situation of sexual abuse…but how does a misleading article in the NYTimes help the victims of such abuse?
All institutions…the Church, law enforcement, schools and media outlets have a role to play, and they must do so with integrity.
THe NY Times should be praised where it has brought clarity and truth…but it must also be exposed where it has been irresponsible. In the last year it has shown many examples of bad judgement…this is yet another example.
God bless you!
Perhaps, Anne Rice, the reason is that there is no secret Vatican cover-up. (You forgot your hypen, by the way.) The idea of a secret Vatican cover-up is all a fabricated grandiose tempest in a teapot created by folks like Ms. Goodstein, et. al at the New York Times. I wish the New York TImes simply reported the news rather than created it. I also wish people would examine things thoroughly before they jump to the conclusion that what the New York Times writes is the gospel truth. The sad thing is that the vast majority of Ms. Goodstein’s reports have been thoroughly debunked, as this report shall be, and yet she continues to write this rubbish.
I am glad that the Holy Catholic Church is not intimidated by the New York Times. Why should it be? The Holy Catholic Church will be still be around when the New York Times is nothing but a distant memory.
In spite of my very discouraging experience with Roman Catholicism
in the last 12 years, I retain a great deal of love and respect for rank and file
Catholics.
If any of you know of any article in a Catholic periodical anywhere
ever urging rank and file Catholics to stand up for a thorough investigation of
the clergy abuse crisis, would you please let me know about it
at
anneobrienrice@gmail.com.
I would be grateful.
I continue to believe in the goodness and honesty and integrity of
the Faithful, the people of the pews.
I hope and pray that they will begin to speak up for the victims of clergy
abuse in a public way.
Anne Rice (if it is indeed you), I find it shocking that a celebrated author such as yourself has zero reading comprehension. I would have much more respect for you and your abilities if you could provide a point-by-point refutation of this article instead of spouting baseless claims that have been shown as false multiple times.
So, Anne, you’re NOT going to answer Jimmy’s question, is that right?
Jimmy, thank you for providing the truth behind the spin that the NY TImes often presumes to present as “news”.
Anne, the type of “investigation” that you keep calling for is the kind that would publicly expose every victim to public scrutiny, whether they want it or not. It would destroy the career of every priest accused, whether they are guilty or not. As far as I can tell, you are not seeking justice for anyone, just more celebrity spin and attention for yourself.
I think that people on both sides of the aisle can agree on something: there was definitely a lack from people in the Church about reporting sexual abuses by priests towards minors.
Now, what we have to know is: who are the culprits? Were there personnal innitiatives from priests not to report? Did non courageous bishops cover the evidences? Was it coming from a Congregation? From the top? A mix of those maybe. I don’t know, but it was the same in Quebec, USA, Ireland, Belgium (you know them all)...
That said, we should all pray to get the truth, not apparently bad reporting in the media like this New York Times article and not either excessive denying from some (and I’m not pointing at anyone) conservatives.
BTW, folks, this *is* Anne Rice, the author. There is no need to question her identity, though I appreciate the concern that people *not* misuse her name. I’m sure we all appreciate people looking out for our good names.
A sincere faithful friend sent the NYT article to me, and this was my knee jerk response:
“Well, # 1 I am sure the Church was not perfect in dealing with this. I am sure the idea of this atrocity was very shocking and disconcerting to many Church officials, and they were at a loss as to the best way to deal. I would be at a loss myself if it happened in my family, other than the first obvious instinct to castrate the offender!
So I am not surprised that the Church may not have reported to the police right away, though I don’t know. I have no reason to trust this particular article, I have no knowledge of its source. If, for example, it was an article by George Weigel, who I read frequently and trust, it would hold a lot more water with me.
To me, we have to be very careful what we read and spread, because sometimes it is the most talented NOT the most honest writer who attracts our attention, and CREATES the news.
IMHO”
As a sincere person, she listened, and happened to see my point.
That’s what sincere people do. They listen to each other. They are willing to answer direct questions, honoring the dignity of the other. Anne.
What exactly is a “rank and file” Catholic? Anne you need to open your mind and think. You need to question and seek truth. You are obviously hurting very deeply to feel such narrow minded venom towards what was a very clear and helpful article. I will pray for you.
Thanks Jimmy for your inciteful comments on the disgraceful behavior of the NYT. You clearly and consisely refute their continual attacks and lies concerning sex abuse. If they would spent one tenth of the time focusing on the clear, current and present sex abuse dangers in the public school system they would win a Pulitzer Prize.
Distorting an advisory letter to fit one’s own perverse preconceptions is not a service to the truth. Exhorting catholics like they were children to withhold money to punish for a perceived ( not in any way confirmed) crime is equally wrong.
It is also wrong to expect the church to report crimes that the victims themselves would not reveal publicly. Recent research also points out that the abuse was known to some authority already in 50% of the cases, who did nothing. Churches are made up of fallible human beings who are usally formed and conform to the society in which they live - if you blame the church, then the blame ( including you) belongs to us all.
Anne Rice,
Why are you so ignorant?! Are you so blind as to see that these crimes, which touch and befoul the Holy Mother Church, affects our entire culture?! Are you so wrapped up in your Netherworld of ME or I that you cannot see the filth that has infected every corner of human life—from the music blaring through the stereo speakers to the paintings we view in dishonorable museums and tawdry galleries?! If you are unable to answer these questions, don’t strain yourself; the lack of a response will be a sufficient answer enough. I mean in no way to excuse, nor condone, the verifiable accusations of those horrible men in saintly clothing whom are found guilty of their various crimes, whatever they maybe; but the over-reaching, and complete smearing of such a wonderful faith is not to be tolerated and shall never be, at least by me personally. I shall die, whenever that might be, praising the Church for having given me, and innumberable children whom roam this planet with various disabilities, a home: a place of comfort and warmth: and an institution that gave us the specialized care that was/is needed given our distinct plights when no one else could.
So with this said, I ask: what have YOU done for your neighbor(s) recently? Have you outstretched your hand, physically, and aided a child or person with a mental/physical disorder? Have you, actually, cared-for a child who, as a result of hospital negligence, was made physically and mentally disabled; who’re unable to utter a single word let alone care for themselves in anyway? No. No, I don’t believe you did or have ever came close; because if you did, you wouldn’t be doing what you’re. And it wouldn’t be because you felt a sense of injustice or anger; but because when you would look into these children(s)/young-adults’ eyes, you would find yourself lost within their brimming souls. It is for these people, and myself, MY brothers and sisters in an endless struggle and pain, that I write these words which I am. It’s for the unbearably silent who look upon this world in locked wheelchairs and stiffened bodies wonder why these “normal” people are messing up such a wonderful place with their naivete and stupidity. It’s precisely people like you (ANNE RICE) that befoul this splendid place called Earth with your disgust and displeasure. You’re one of many whom populate this planet that speak about civility, demand equality, and praise progress; but these are merely platitudes, words that were hollowed-out before they were even uttered. And this is evidenced by what you’re doing on here. How dare you speak in the tone, and with the intent, you do; there is NOTHING that gives you that right, except a false sense of superiority and overblown hubris. I end this message with a final statement; it shall be in a relatively short time that you will be humbled and this time you will not be able to shake it off. Take care and God bless. ~Mike W.
Anne, you obviously have a hatred for the Catholic Church and Pope Benedict XVI.
.
What is your plan for this so called “justice” you seek on behalf of those abused? What will this look like to you? What happened to the the abused Catholics is atrocious, but we know that the evil one is at work - attack the very ministerial priests who are ordained to consecrate the bread and wine into the “Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity” of our Lord, Jesus Christ. No priests - no Eucharist. So your stance is to “throw the baby out with the bathwater?”
.
What you are accusing the Church of is based on anti-Catholics creating “smoking guns”. It would be like someone saying that Anne Rice really was not Christian, she just wanted to make money off the Christian faith and the Gospel of Jesus. And she reverted to Catholicism because then she could attract those “Catholic crazies” to buy her books and make lots of money. And she “left” the Catholic faith because she is now going to write a novel on the abuse in the Catholic Church, cause there is now money in that”. Please research the facts and media, and not take the “DaVinci Code” approach to all this.
.
I pray that you open your soul to the Grace of God. That all of your studies on Jesus (based on your Jesus books, I am guessing you did some research) will allow you to see the one true Church that Jesus Christ gave us. And I pray that you, once again, will have a yearning for the Eucharist - the Bread of Life.
.
Peace
God bless you, Jimmy Akin. Continue the good fight for Jesus, Mary, and the Church.
To Anne Rice: I respect your journey and struggle with the Catholic church & I respect your position regarding those of us in the pews. There is some validity to the accusations that you didn’t address the specific points here but that’s not really the point is it. the other posts besides yours clearly are from apologists who, likek the Vatican during the abuse, prefers to protect the institution at the expense of the people—the people by the way who are supposed to be “the church.” Clearly these are the Catholics who grasp at anything to excuse what happened. The analysis of this letter done in this article is insulting—to the victims and to the readers. You may still want to be treated like an ignorant lamb, Mr. Akin, but read this letter in the context of all else we know. The Church cared more for covering it up than justice and charity. That is the shame we must all address and remedy literally in Christ’s name. May peace be with all of you.
“The New York Times story struck me as solid reporting…”
Could I interest you in the purchase of some swamp land in the Mojave Desert, that I’m forced to sell at well-below market value, due to a tax problem?
“...as usual with the New York Times.”
In what alternate reality does the New York Times EVER accurately report a story about the Catholic Church? Of course, the NYT does reinforce some people’s bigotry.
Ms. Rice, I happen to be one of those rank-and-file Catholics you have been talking about, and I do not share your opinion of this disappointing, irresponsible and willfully ignorant NYT article. The fact that you have failed to address even one of Jimmy’s points gives the impression that you are quite biased against the Church and that your mind was made up on this letter - and on the role of the Holy See - regardless of any evidence.
You said you did not find Jimmy’s points persuasive. Do elaborate, please.
Job well done ( as usual) Jimmy. God Bless you for getting us the “Real” News!! And Yes, I will continue to pray for Laurie Goodstein,Anne Rice, and others like them. After all, aren’t we supposed to love everyone as ourselves? But that is a tough one sometime!! Keep up the good work Jimmy.We love ya!! Greg T.
How thoughtful of Anne Rice to apologize to the victims of abuse by members of the Catholic clergy. I trust she expresses similar remorse to victims of abuse by authors, teachers, non-Catholic clergy, etc.. And I hope she expresses significant support for the overwhelming majority of priests who have been unfairly tainted, some through false accusations and others who suffer guilt by association at the hands of people who would try to drive a wedge between “rank-and-file” Catholics and the Church they call home. Thanks to all the faithful Catholics that continue to support the Church, especially in times such as these.
That such atrocities happened in the Church is horrific. However, I would like to extend an analogy here: There are numerous teachers in the public school system who have abused children and been transferred between schools and districts in lieu of being reported. But people still send their children to school, rather than rejecting the entire educational system. There are many physicians who have abused patients and been transferred between hospitals or found work in other cities or states in lieu of being reported. But people still see doctors for their healthcare. My point is that the actions of the individual perpetrators are, for the most part, representative of the individual perpetrators, rather than the institution. Nowhere in Catholic teaching does it say (or has it ever said) that abuse is okay or to be tolerated. This isn’t part of the ethos of the education system or the medical establishment, either—and society, in general, knows this. So while the actions of some priests are gravely immoral and heinous, this does not in any way detract from the beauty of the teaching of the Catholic Church. It does cause scandal, and confusion, and a whole host of other things. I don’t know the details of every case of reported abuse by a priest/religious—I suspect some of them were handled very poorly and some were handled very effectively. But this would be consistent with society in general. And it doesn’t make the teachings of the Church any less true or less relevant. Instead, it should remind us that we are all broken, in need of a saviour, dependent on grace, and must be even more fervant in our efforts to truly treat others with dignity and respect as we are ALL created in the image and likeness of God.
Jeeze, I’m not even Catholic and I feel like I should apologize to the NYT folks/“Anne Rice” for the sex abuse. Why should EVERY SINGLE CATHOLIC apologize? Should those who were abused apologize?
Faux-Anne Rice seems more like some anti-Catholic strawman. I hope she has enough room in her crappy vampire writing novel heart to feel sadness for all the other poor kids who were molested by their parents, teachers, babysitters, caregivers, extended family members, random creepers, etc. If she doesn’t—that’s okay; just goes to show how people so often twist genuine empathy into some neo-political beast.
I don’t know about anyone else’s experience, but I grew up being part of an organization that had strict standards for protecting its youth members and reporting abuse. These sort of things are nothing new. However, these policies, if applied too strictly and interpreted too literally can be problamatic, and it still doesn’t stop abuse from happening, it just makes it more difficult and less frequent. That same organization has a “one strike” and your out policy, and it considers any allegation sufficient. Thus there are cases where a person was proven innocent and yet barred from the organization for life with a secret file kept on them permanently labeling them as unfit for working with youth. We really don’t want the church doing that same sort of thing.
But we do want the church to figure out how to implement common sense policies to protect its children and young people, and at the same time to protect the adults and priests. Incidentally policies to safeguard against abuse tend to also work well to safeguard against false accusations.
As to how to deal with past cases, that is difficult question. Obviously many of these cases are true, that is proven by various sources. Other cases it is impossible to know if it is all true or not for lack of witnesses or evidence of any sort. It is reasonable to suspect that somewhere there have been false or inflated accusations made at least in some case, but it is impossible to know.
It is also clear that the bishops need to do a better job of holding themselves and each other accountable. Much has been done regarding priests who abused. Little has been done about bishops who messed up either from ignorance, or stupidity, or neglect, or even malice. True, many of them are now retired or dead, yet some clear signal needed to be sent that cover-ups are not to be tolerated, and that even honest mistakes will have some sort of consequences.
By the way, who is this Anne Rice and why does everyone act like they know here or she is a household name? I certainly don’t know her, or presume to know anything about her or her motives or feelings. I also don’t have any idea who she is, other than it appears she writes for a living. Just because she may be semi-famous does not mean she deserves to be made into a special target, or treated any different. If she has nothing worth discussing to add, simply ignor her. If she has something worth discussing to say, make a reasoned and logical reply, save the ad homimens and guessing about motives and feelings. It may seem a strange fixation, but maybe it is her way of working out writers block? I don’t know.
Anne Rice,
Quit being a hypocrite! You viper!
Before you dare to accuse the Church of
covering up evil done by her priests,
you must convert to Jesus Christ.
You have fallen away from Him by
your disgusting pornographic works
and you will go to Hell if you do not
repent. I say this for your health
and salvation. After you convert,
then come correct Catholics about
the Church’s supposed “cover up”.
REPENT! REPENT! REPENT! REPENT!
Most Catholics are sheep—follow, follow and follow. Don’t think for yourself. This is what happens when religion is totally corrupt.
In reading the various letters and analysis by Mr. Akin I am struck how cold and callus the “police” are portrayed. “Putting people through the wringer” and other terrible things that can happen as a result of mandatory reporting. My guess is if a local priest was reported versus a visiting teacher of a molestation as an example, the police would be a lot more sensitive to the local priest than the teacher. What happened to innocent until proven guilty.
It’s sad how people have to chase down a 14 year old document in order to continue to force the story that “abuse is rampant in the Church” (when clearly it isn’t).. and the worst part is children today are suffering in the public school system and that largely unnoticed because the story doesn’t sell. A couple months ago the US General Accountability Office released a report of pedophiles easily making their way in and out of the public school system with the whole bit of cover-ups and transfers and it has barely raised an eyebrow to the public at large.
I see the problem more with the coverups than with Anne Rice or the NYT. When I am suspicious of someone committing a crime, I call the police who have the authority and the expertise to conduct a professional criminal investigation. Too many outrageous and disgusting events have taken place and it is no longer all right to coverup or to close your eyes to suspicious criminal activity. For example, there is the report in the news of Roman Catholic priest Father John Fiala of San Antonio Texas who was negotiating a $5000 murder contract on a teenager who he had been raping at gunpoint. For a priest to rape an altar boy at gunpoint is bad enough, but to try to set up a killing and brutal murder of the same teenager????
@Stanley: Do YOU have anything to contribute to the subject of Jimmy’s post? For example, since you mention cover-ups, are you aware of any evidence of a cover-up in the San Antonio case you mention? Or do you mention the two of them in the same breath for no particular reason, as if to smear the bishop with a cover-up where there was none?
Thank you so much Jimmy, I hadn’t considered so many of the things you so clearly outlined. I wish much more people would pray for discernment and offer their assistance in getting to the truth as much as you do.
By promoting and defending authentic Catholic teaching, especially the difficult but liberating subject of personal chastity, our society will be safer in particular for every children and every woman.
The truth is clouded by reporting such as this and chastity in general has been under vicious attack. Those who criticize the Church for child molestation are among them but the issues should not be confused, and yet they really sound confused as you can see in Anne Rice’s sorrowful example. A lot of people don’t realize they are fighting against the wrong enemy. God bless you Anne… It’s a spiritual battle and I pray you soon realize who it is you’re serving right now, which is not the needy as you might indulge yourself into thinking.
I wish to give hope to those who read this: please be cautious with how you react in outrage at all this suffering, God loves you and He wishes you to remain in His Mystical Body, the living Church, that is still the pillar and bullwark of the Truth (1 Timothy 3:15) that will teach us with authority given by God because He will remain with us and never leave us (Matthew 28:20), not even through these disgraceful scandals.
Here’s a link to “Would You Believe”, on the subject of this letter, which aired on TV in Ireland on January 17th 2011, entitled “Unspeakable Crimes”. http://www.rte.ie/tv/wouldyoubelieve/av_index.html
From the 1997 letter: In Particular, the situation of ‘mandatory reporting’ gives rise to serious reservations of both a moral and a canonical nature’
Translation: It is wrong (immoral) to report accusations of sexual violence on children by clergy to the civil authorities.
It can’t have any other meaning.
I of course read the AP report and the fuzzy copy of the letter. I thought that it required a deeper investigation
before coming to a conclusion about what the letter actually said. Facts: Canon Law is in place to deal with the clergy and other matters of the Church. The issue of where Canon Law ends and Civil Law begins is an issue that has been fought over since Thomas Becket and HenryII of England. (Becket was murdered by several of the King’s knights/barons). Thus the situation arises again. One thing the Caticism did address, that no one talking about Pedophile Priest is 800lb gorilla in the room. All of this stems from allowing homosexuals into the priesthood. The real root of the abuse of children is that often homosexuals, in order to hide their cross, entered the priesthood. Also, pedophiles are rarely the stranger on the street. These poor tortured souls order their lives to be around children. (This statement came from a former new orleans police detective working in the child abuse section of the D.A.‘s office). Everyone, the faithful inparticular, should read “Goodbye Good Men”. This book chronicles the infiltration of militant homosexuals in the seminaries, and how straight men who would have been wonderful priest, are shown the door, because they will not capitulate to the advances made toward them. Furhter, as these same homosexuals have gained status and power (some are bishops) they promote their own, thus leaving the good priest out. WE must be willing to face reality: the church is being chastised for its failure to follow its own laws, and allowing homosexuals to become priests.
Anne Rice apparently was Catholic and left the Church for reasons other than the spiritual truth it teaches. There is only one reason to belong to the Church which is that it offers the fullness of truth as given by it’s founder,Jesus Christ. Likewise, there could only be one reason to leave it. That would be if it were found that the fullness of truth was lacking, after all. Anne Rice apparently left the Church for reasons that were less than I have described. That was a mistake of the greatest magnitude. She should rejoin the Church, embrace the spiritual truths it teaches, and make any comments as a true Catholic.
What would Jesus do in the face of sexual violence on children? Would he study ‘canonical norms’?
Jesus actually established ‘some concrete directives’ with regard to the harming of children - I don’t have the full quote but it does mention ‘millstones’ and ‘deepest ocean’ if memory serves me right!
Thanks to “The Big Fella”, I just gained a broader understanding of the problem. If I can save you 42 minutes of watching the whole thing, here’s the most relevant information:
The Irish are concerned that these abuses weren’t an Irish problem, but a widespread problem in several nations for the same reasons. Therefore, the “Vatican/Rome” needs to accept to be criticized and corrected. That is the basic message of this program. However, they also say that the “cover-up” (they don’t explicitly use that word), if it existed and when it existed in particular situations, was situated in a very specific culture. At the heart of the matter, however, was nothing sinister. There was no “secret” and no “code”. It’s not that they were “anti-child”, although ultimately from the documents we see that the victims were not their primary concern, but what to do with those priests, for that is what was in their jurisdiction. At the heart of the matter, then, was the understandable issue of bishops handling the accusations from the perspective of the bishop-priest relationship, since a priest is a man who left everything behind and relies entirely on the Church, particularly his bishop. Cardinal Óscar Rodríguez Maradiaga is quoted to have said: “For me it would be a tragedy to reduce the role of a pastor to that of a cop. We are totally different, and I’d be prepared to go to jail rather than harm one of my priests. I say this with great clarity.”
Cardinal Ratzinger may have been guilty of sharing in this attitude, but he was said to be the first person in the Vatican who started to realize the severity of the cases and pushed forward the investigations. Eventually it was he who did the most to “tip the balance towards victims” particularly after he was ellected to the papacy, which also leads one to assume that the College of Cardinals approved of his general house-clearing approach to matters such as these.
So, and moving on from that TV program, in my judgment, the focus on the victim and the reasoned approach of Benedict XVI is what we need to praise, while lamenting that sufficient measures weren’t undertaken earlier.
Another commonly neglected fact is what John Paul II thought of the matter: during the communist regime in Poland, he experienced all too much the false accusations of priest molestation to remove them and harm them quite unjustly. This formed the basis for the situation to have lasted this long to unravel.
Let us keep embracing the papacy of Benedict XVI at this time of great renewal, particularly enriching our lives with the “theology of the body” of John Paul II which will ultimately rescue our society at large from much greater abuses such as the ones we discuss here (that took place by wolves among sheep).
Chastity is sanity. They should teach you that in psychology degrees as well, and empirical research should care to look at the big picture. I assure you this is being accomplished but we need more to get involved as so many today are dumbfounded by the actual possibility of a healthy, fulfilled and chaste life. Namely, it puts the whole idea of a celibate vocation into question which makes people distrust the authority of the Church in all matters. This is very serious and the solution is already available: let us make use of our reason, hard work, and the fountain of graces, the sacraments. Therefore, be very careful when they talk to you about the solution being the change of “systems” and “structures”, because the fundamental change is in our walk with Christ. As the cultural upheaval and theological “innovation” is settling down a bit, we can return to that fundamental change and we can also see that Benedict XVI leads the way. We should listen to what he says and has written a lot more, so that we may make of our lives “places of beauty”, as he so poignantly put it last May in Portugal.
I am curious: When articles like Mr. Akin’s are written, is a copy provided to the people who wrote the erroneous article - in this case, the New York Times - so that they can have an opportunity to correct their errors?
AndrewSB49: Yes it can have another meaning and you have a whole article above about it, which apparently you didn’t read.
The real meaning for “mandatory reporting” - the issue at stake here - is that you are reported immediately to the authorities, without a proper prior understanding of the facts. Look at the “mandatory” here, not at the “reporting”. And read what other people have expounded here on the matter. After you do that, you can’t honestly say it can’t be interpreted as having any other meaning. You may debate it, but it’s still there for what it is.
About your quote, it is often mentioned and it is this:
«Whoever causes one of these little ones 5 who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.» (Matthew 18:6)
Incidentally, just a few verses below He also says (Matthew 18:12-14):
«What is your opinion? If a man has a hundred sheep and one of them goes astray, will he not leave the ninety-nine in the hills and go in search of the stray? And if he finds it, amen, I say to you, he rejoices more over it than over the ninety-nine that did not stray. In just the same way, it is not the will of your heavenly Father that one of these little ones be lost.»
I do believe an interpretation of Matthew 18:8 lead Origenes to cut off his penis. The Church finds such understanding of Holy Scripture heretical and has deemed capital punishment a disproportionate measure to avoid more evil… I don’t know what to make of your vague statements, but these are things I do know to be taught by the Church through which God speaks - and you’re a part of that, which you seem to be forgetting.
To Anne Rice (the “former Catholic”): why don’t you just “go home.” Or otherwise, cleanse yourself and come back to the real home.
Odd article. What does Canon Law have to due with criminal violations? If there is somebody claiming to be a victim, send him to the police or the prosecutor and let them handle it. If the bishop tries to prevent a police report, then let the prosecutor charge the bishop with a criminal violation. Meanwhile, follow all the rules and procedures of Canon Law as far as defrocking the priest or removing him from his parish.
All of this over the fact that the Congregation for the Clergy had reservations over immediate mandatory reporting without internal investigation.
Sorry, if a company suspects that an employee is stealing (had it happen at a company I worked for), they don’t always immediately contact the police. They instead gather some evidence to take to the police. In our case it was a hidden camera resulting in video footage of the crime. But there could have also been eyewitness accounts. Internal procedures to make sure the accusation is valid and should be taken to the police.
However, if mandatory reporting without investigation were in place, there would be no recourse for a false accusation…it MUST be reported, and therein lies the problem. It’s not a matter of covering up for the guilty, or protecting the Church, but of protecting an innocent person from having their reputation destroyed. Say a priest is falsely accused of molestation…once charged, even if ultimately found innocent, his reputation is destroyed.
Where some people are going wrong in their analysis of this document is simple: they interpret opposition to immediate mandatory reporting of any accusation as a mandatory “don’t report any”, which does not logically follow. It’s a black-or-white outlook, where if it’s not black (must report all) it must be white (must not report any), while the truth is that it should be gray (report credible accusations). Immediate mandatory reporting leaves no opportunity to determine credibility of the accusation.
Who appointed the Congregation for the Clergy as gatekeepers for the criminal justice system? That’s like someone complaining that her purse was snatched at the grocery store and the store manager claiming the right to investigate the matter. He would simply tell her to call the police. It’s none of his business unless he is complicit in the crime.
Robert Ward: No, it’s more like someone going to the store manager and saying that they were robbed, or molested, by a store employee. Better, like someone going to school administrators and accusing a teacher of a crime against a student. Yes, the victim should go to the police, but the manager or administrator cannot do nothing without potentially becoming complicit. OTOH, there should not be a blanket policy that the police must be called any time there is any suspicion of any kind against anyone.
@Robert Ward:
What a lonely world you imagine! I would hope the store manager would be concerned for his patron. Perhaps there is something he can do to reduce the likelihood of a purse snatching. I agree, the victim should call the police and report the crime. Depending on the circumstances, the manager should encourage. The circumstances you ask? Suppose this is a lady for comes in once a week and makes the same claim. Suppose the lady used it as a ruse to cover shoplifting. The world is never cut and dried. We all fall short. That said, I believe we are called to be our sister’s keeper, helping to keep each other safe. That cannot be achieved by standing on the outside and saying it’s none of our business.
I suggest you live in a very safe country where the police are reliable. Most countries have police riven with corruption as the only way to make a living given the paltry salaries they are paid. The Church is worldwide and was so long before local police became reliable in some locales. Canon Law has helped fill that gap. One can argue that Canon Law encourages the growth of countries of law as opposed to men.
It might be helpful to notice that Anne Rice is not responding to the article or any comments, Anne Rice is simply spamming with preconceived ideas.
If a diocese adopted a policy of automatic reporting to the police upon every accusation AND suspension of the priest implicated, simply like that, with no nuance at all, it would be very simple for the Evil one to close down the Church. All he would have to do is get a few dozen willing accomplices who go through a directory, get the names of all the priests of a diocese, and call the bishop’s office.
Sex abuse was OVERWHELMINGLY done by homosexual men on adolescent and teenage boys. This is a homosexual problem, by in large, and folks like Anne Rice do not want to admit that. The problem has also been solved, folks, as the Catholic Church is now a safer place for children than even our own homes, and we have the statistics to back that claim up. So, sorry Annie, you’re wrong on this, because you refuse to acknowledge the truth.
Jimmy, thanks for the article. I needed your perspective on this. While the real perpetrators are at fault, the Church has been scandalously stained by the actions of those who did not act to stop the abuse. Many assert that the Church is the largest pedophile support network in the world. What can we say to those people? In the history of the Church, in the last millenium, the Church’s problems have been less a problem of orthodoxy than of becoming entangled in power struggles with the state. The abuses of papal power in the 14th and 15th centuries left us wide open to the rise of nationalism and the protestant exodus. The Church needs to become more humble at its center. The pope, I believe, has mastered this, and is now modeling this behavior to the hierarchy. This humility does not protect us (for we must be persecuted as Christ was), but is the authentic aspect of the Christian.
The concern I see is not that bishops did not care for the victims, but that they cared MORE for the abusers. This letter is clearly a warning to follow the norms, but the conflict is that pro-Church people assume the norms are correct and anti-Church people assume that they are not. This “follow the norms” letter is really a non-issue, but to stand in the way of the pedophile witch-hunt in any slight way is considered “damning.” I think those who contributed to the problems need to come clean and bravely admit the wrong doing and take the consequences. To give all for the sake of the Church.
A small aside on Anne Rice. Before I re-verted to Catholicism, I did enjoy the vampire books, and when she returned to the church, so had I. I was overjoyed at her new books. She writes that she has a son who is gay. I believe this may be the fundamental split. She is a very passionate and compassionate person. I think, on behalf of her son, this is large part of the problem. Concerning pedophiles, it is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the church. Truth is truth, people are fallen. We hold these treasures in earthen vessels. However flawed, people are redeemable, our culture says that one bad apple spoils the bunch. I am personally saddened by Mrs Rice’s rejection of the truth along with the rejection of its badly flawed representatives.
A.M.D.G.
Great work (as always), Mr. Akin. You have a firm grasp of history, facts and logic that utterly confounds the mainstream media. The New York Times could learn a thing or two from you if it was ever interested in the truth rather than non-stop Catholic Church bashing.
Anne Rice,
Abuse of children is always heinous and should be reported. It is clear from Jimmy Akins analysis that this was the intent of the document in question. Does anyone care that a higher percentage of teachers abuses children than clerics? Does anyone care that the abuse is in other faiths as well? Not that these facts make the abuse right, but Anne, you have once again let the devil (in the form of the media) lead you from your faith. Your faith was weak. The Church has withstood assault from many through time (2000 yrs) and yet it has endured. Little Anne Rice is not going to make a difference. I read your conversion experience in your own words, Anne, and I was not convinced your faith was strong. Also, I read (in your words) that you had a reading problem, but “overcame” it. Reading novels is much easier than reading and comprehending language in official and legal documents, so maybe Jimmy Akins article was a bit tough for you.
What everyone seems to overlook is the fact that parents of the young persons harmed are and always have been perfectly free to report to the police anything at all, at any time that they wish.
These instructions apply only to members of the Church hierarchy.
Parents can and always have been able to act independently and on their own authority on these matters - whether to file police complaints, file civil suits, or take whatever action they deem fit in such a situations.
Because of this, it makes perfect sense to me that members of the hierarchy should have a set of written procedures in place setting forth the proper method and the conditions under which the police are to become involved.
ANNE
I want you to know that I was over joyed to see that you had come back home to the Church when I read your books, Out of Egypt and The Road to Cana. I could relate to you story of straying from home and your return. I was grieved to learn, however, that you had again lapsed. I understand all of your critical objections to a great deal of behavior in the Church Anne, I do. But stay. It is like Peter said, “Where else shall we go?” Anne, as ugly as it can be, and often is, there is still only one Church. There is an unadulterated doctrine here, and no where else. There is a line that Hell can not cross. “the gates of hell will not prevail.” I see what you see, but I trust that where it is most critical there is the strength of Christ’s promise that will not fail. Stand with me. Stand with us. Don’t let me fail. I will help you. You books were beautiful and wonderful. I couldn’t believe that you could write like that without a tremendous research. And I couldn’t imagine a tremendous amount of research not making your faith strong enough to endure the chaff that grows up with the wheat. The Church, the bride of Christ, will be as pure and holy as you suggest she should be, as Christ promised. But we will have to endure the abuses and scandels as best we can till then. Dont give up Anne. We still have the Eucarist. We can still find good priests. Don’t let your work be a guide to help others find the way and loose it again yourself.
Michael
Sorry, but this does not wash. The Pope has supreme authority under Canon 331, and he is not bound by any restraints in exercising that authority. Thus, the statements about “unconstitutional” legislation are not applicable to the Vatican.
We must also consider that, in ordinary circumstances, a bishop is supreme within his own diocese, and is almost never reversed by the Vatican for anything. So what do we have here? A veiled, subtle, but absolutely discernible warning that if a bishop concludes that a priest incardinated to him is a pedophile, and decides to report that pedophile to the legal authorities, he, the bishop, may suffer the embarrassment of being reversed in his canonical decision. In an organization where a bishop is almost never reversed, the Vatican is staking out its authority on that point! Wow.
Now, if a bishop decides to reshuffle the pedophile, and palm him off on an unsuspecting parish, as Bernard Law in Boston did numerous times, that will NOT subject him to reversal at all! In fact, as the Law case demonstrates, the bishop will be given sanctuary in the Vatican so that the civil authorities will not be able to prosecute the bishop for his role in the cover up.
Robert Ward: The alleged victim is ALWAYS free to go the police, who are ALWAYS free to investigate the matter. The question is, if the alleged victim INSTEAD goes to a senior clergyman with jurisdiction, such as a bishop, with an accusation against one of his subordinates, should that senior clergyman ALWAYS and IMMEDIATELY go to the police? I am an attorney, a husband, a father, and a Catholic, and I say—emphatically, “NO.” There are a multitude of reasons not to, not the least of which is the fact that people make things up, and for petty reasons. Before I became Catholic, I witnessed a youth’s parents make false sexual allegations against a youth worker to the senior pastor of a Methodist church. Turns out they were angry about an extremely trivial matter involving the youth worker and chose to make up the story about him. The whole matter was resolved with a private meeting between the senior pastor and all involved. Do I think the police should have been immediately notified? NO. The letter made subject of this supposed expose takes an even less committal position than mine, and the crowd yells for crucifixion. The crowd is wrong.
John: You’re simply making stuff up or parroting something you’ve heard. I’ll choose to assume the latter. But your entire premise that a bishop rarely gets superceded is wrong. See this example from the last few days, where ALL of the bishops in Japan were overruled: http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=8844
The Vatican’s dicasteries overrule bishops all the time. One example I can think of is on liturgical matters. Ordinary Catholics always have a right to go directly to the Holy See about anything, and curial letters are often issued by the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Sacraments, among other dicasteries.
Again, why would rules governing conidtions under which members of the clergy are to file such reports represent a kind of obstruction of justice?
The police may be and frequently have been notified by parents, teachers, school counselors, child psychologists, other relatives, and these rules don’t apply to any of them.
The members of the clergy are much like officers of a bank or other financial institution. Everything they do is governed by rules and conditions. Every i must be dotted; every t crossed.
Even in the event that he hears second-hand about a bomb threat, or intelligence that a robbery is planned, it would make sense that an officer of the bank should have to follow certain corporate procedures - procedures that woouldn’t pertain to ordinary bank customers or to other witnesses.
My next-door neighbor works at a local bank. I hear her through my open kitchen window conducting a telephone conversation, during which she alludes to a planned robbery at the branch where she works. I immediately phone the branch manager - an officer of the bank - and recount the conversation I overheard to him.
He informs me that there are certain procedures he must follow before he reports what I overheard to the police.
I am outraged that the manager didn’t immediately pick up the phone and report the whole matter to the sergeant on duty.
Why? A bank officer has to follow certain procedures. I could be the one to call the police - I have no procedures.
Question: Why would procedures represent an obstruction of justice?
Answer: They do not. Unless you don’t think carefully enough.
Actually, Anne, rank-and-file Catholics ARE demanding an end to the coverups, and ARE withholding money. Parishes are now BEGGING for cash when they didn’t used to. And they don’t seem to get that people in the pews need to be told - in no uncertain terms - that there money WILL NOT be used to defend pedophiles for people to start giving again.
Cardinal Law was REWARDED for what he did, and that’s RECENT. And he’s STILL the Archpriest at St. Mary Major. That was a slap in the face of every Catholic layperson, and sent a CLEAR message that the Vatican cares more about protecting their own than doing the right thing.
Thanks for correcting a misleading headline.
As a previous poster noted, where’s the same level of outrage when child abuse happens in the public sphere?
Elisa asks: “where’s the same level of outrage when child abuse happens in the public sphere?”
Enemies of the Church don’t relish and enjoy their sense of outrage over those instances of child abuse that happen within the public sphere.
On the other hand, it is outrage that is relished and enjoyed that manifests as loud and endless in comparison to the outrage over misdeeds in less-hated quarters, which tends to be quieter and more easily forgotten.
ANNE,
The Church is still Mother Church. Do you disown your mother because you have siblings that behave like jerks? Or disown your mother if, God forbid, your father is a jerk? If he is abusive? I would hope not. And worst of all, do you disown your mother because she is being abused by your siblings and your father? Do you abandon her? She needs you. How gross is it to abandon your mother because she is abused and can’t give you what you want. Or can’t give me what I want. She can still give you what you need. And that you can’t get anywhere else. I can share similar stories of dissatisfaction but I always fight myself to know that in the worst case I can still get the body and blood of Christ ONLY in a Catholic Church even if the Priest is the worst of the worst. That Priest can end up in the lowest ring of Dante’s inferno but the body and blood that he consecrates is still my hope of salvation. And is still the means Christ provides for us, even through that evil priest. Come back home Anne. Please come back home.
yours in Christ and in the Church,
Michael
Thanks Jimmy - there was a whole programme on this very thing on Monday night on the Irish TV channel and we’ve been in a bit of a tizy since. I’v posted your piece up on my fb page - Blessings - Rene
This is how the BBC is reporting the story:
“Vatican officials told Irish not to report child abuse
The letter is signed by the late Archbishop Luciano Storero, Pope John Paul II’s envoy to Ireland
A Vatican department advised Ireland’s Catholic bishops in 1997 not to report priests suspected of child abuse to the police, a newly revealed letter shows.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12222612
Why is so much attention given to Ann Rice in these comments?? It’s obvious she does not respond to ANY of Jimmy’s points and may not have even read the article. This is what happens to ideologues who pass over arguments and cannot be engaged in meaningful dialogue.
@ Anne Rice,
Because as a Brazilian 22 year old Roman Catholic, I should not apologize ever for another person’s karma. ARE YOU TELLING US THAT INNOCENT PALESTINIAN MUSLIM CHILDREN SHOULD APOLOGIZE FOR WHAT HAMAS OR AL-QAEDA DO?
Please Ms. Rice, give me a break, you are telling us that all Catholics support and are okay with pedophilia by going to church?
This is kind of scary, because this is how more or less the Holocaust started in Europe, through lies and false stereotypes….
It is sad that you as a writer should still be tempted to believe in illogical facts and statements
CAN I SUGGEST YOU READ “THE NEW ANTI-CATHOLICISM” by Philip Jenkins?
It will suit you well
Needless to say, I will pray from on for your soul more constantly and that you also APOLOGIZE for crating Catholic hate through your statements.
@Joao Oliveira: I DID read the whole article. More importantly I read the 1997 edict/letter. There cannot be any equivocation in the face of sexual violence by clergy - just as there cannot be any equivocation in the face of a drowning person. Do you, Joao Oliveira, consult swimming manuals in face of a drowning person? Perhaps you interpret the drowning person as someone waving at you!
@Marion (Mael Muire) & Elise The issue is the cover-up of sexual violence by clergy on children by clerical superiors. From Ireland’s Ryan Report VOLUME IV Chapter 6 - Paragraph 6.20:
Cases of sexual abuse were managed with a view to minimising the risk of public disclosure and consequent damage to the institution and the Congregation. This policy resulted in the protection of the perpetrator.
When lay people were discovered to have sexually abused, they were generally reported to the Gardai. When a member of a Congregation was found to be abusing, it was dealt with internally and was not reported to the Gardaí.
The damage to the children affected and the danger to others were disregarded. The difference in treatment of lay and religious abusers points to an awareness on the part of Congregational authorities of the seriousness of the offence, yet there was a reluctance to confront religious who offended in this way. The desire to protect the reputation of the Congregation and institution was paramount. Congregations asserted that knowledge of sexual abuse was not available in society at the time and that it was seen as a moral failing on the part of the Brother or priest.
This assertion, however, ignores the fact that sexual abuse of children was a criminal offence.
Jimmy,
I think your analogy to the U.S. Constitution was prescient to the way a lot of these comments have played out. The Constitution frustrates both the Right and the Left at different times. The Right gets frustrated with the rights that the Constitution seems to give to alleged criminals while the Left tends to see it as a document that is out-of-date and impedes their liberal agenda. My point is that that any document that is designed to uphold the rights of people on both sides of the aisle is bound to frustrate everyone to some extent. The problem is not the document. The “problem” is that the document forces us to be thoughtful and thorough in our “rush to judgment”. :-)
I dispute those who would claim that Ireland, Canada, the USA, Belgium etc. do not have a reliable judiciary or police force. Unless, they mean that complaints to the police are ignored at the request of the bishop. We know that has happened. I’m against vigilante justice if you are claiming that is necessary.
Quoted from the article BBC article Mike Ryan provided the link to
“The January 1997 letter signed by the late Archbishop Luciano Storero, Pope John Paul II’s chief representative to Ireland, was written a year after an advisory committee of Irish bishops drew up a new policy that included ‘mandatory reporting’ of suspected abusers to the police.
“In the text, the bishops were told that the Congregation of the Clergy had studied their new policy and wished to ‘emphasise the need for this document to conform to canonical norms presently in force’.
“The situation of ‘mandatory reporting’ gives rise to serious reservations of both a moral and a canonical nature,” the archbishop wrote.
Okay.
Now let’s make this “mandatory reporting” within a bank.
Same exact wording, except changed to make it be about a scenario at a bank:
A January 1997 letter signed by BankInfinity Executive Vice-President for Bank Operations, Lucy Smith, was written a year after an advisory committee of bank officers drew up a new policy that included “mandatory reporting” of suspected collusion by employees in bank robberies to the police.
In the text, the officers were told that the Bank Operations Department had studied their new policy and wished to “emphasise the need for this document to conform to procedures presently in force”.
“The situation of ‘mandatory reporting’ gives rise to serious reservations about the reputation of our employees,” the Vice-President wrote.
I have no problem with the bank having policies and procedures for its officers to follow when reporting suspected malfeasance by employees . . . OTHER THAN MANDATORY REPORTING in all cases.
I also have no problem with the Church having policies and procedures for its officers - the clergy - to follow when reporting suspected malfeasance by employees OTHER THAN MANDATORY REPORTING in all cases.
This is not rocket science, folks. Procedures for officers of the Church to follow other than Mandatory Reporting in All Cases can be normal, reasonable, and fair.
Again, victims, parents, guardians, school authorities, counselors, physicians are not bound by any of these internal Church procedures, and can and do report independently and freely.
Conspiring to rob a bank is a criminal offense, too, but every bank officer who hears that some employee or other is suspected of being involved in a recent bank heist is necessarily obligated to immediately pick up the phone and notify the police. (“mandatory reporting”)
There can and should be internal procedures regarding such matters.
It would be stupid if there weren’t. I wouldn’t do business with a bank that didn’t have internal procedures regarding such matters, but in which bank officers just automatically picked up the phone and reported every whispered suspicion that happened to come their way to the cops.
Good article Jimmy, thanks for taking the time to write it. I read a remark from a Fr. Lombardi and have to say that I totally agree with him. He stated:
“In the course of a recent television programme in Ireland, mention was made of a letter written in 1997 by Archbishop Luciano Storero, then apostolic nuncio to Ireland, to members of the country’s episcopal conference. That letter has been given biased treatment by some media outlets, who have presented it as proof of an instruction, from the Vatican, to cover up cases of sexual abuse of minors.
The letter – written on the basis of indications received from the Congregation for the Clergy – concerns a document produced by an advisory committee of the Irish bishops, highlighting certain problematic aspects therein and indicating the need for a deeper examination which also takes account of similar situations in other countries, and which had to be conducted through dialogue and collaboration with the episcopal conferences of the countries concerned.
In the first place, it must be noted that the letter does not in any way suggest that national laws must not be followed.
Furthermore, the letter rightly emphasises the importance of always respecting canonical legislation, precisely in order to ensure that guilty parties do not have justified grounds for an appeal and thus producing a result contrary to the one desired.
Finally, it must be stated that the letter was written prior to the norms of 2001 which unified responsibility in this field under the jurisdiction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a move which has certainly led to clearer guidelines and more effective procedures.
Many people will be very forward about their bigotry against the Catholic Church. They will tell all their friends they are somehow stupid for believing in God at all. The media will tell you that the Catholic Church has a serious problem with abuse of kids. Here are some facts they don’t share. Your kids are in TEN TIMES the danger of being abused in a public school than a Catholic School. They are in over THREE TIMES the danger in a Protestant school than a Catholic School. They don’t talk about these statistics because it makes their sensational ranting and hate against Catholics all the more irrelevant and blatant.
Here are a couple other facts to remind you some of the reason why your parents may have thought it was such a great idea to raise you as a Catholic. The Catholic Church is responsible for inventing the hospital and the university. Both were INVENTED by the Catholic Church for humanity. The Catholic Church is also the biggest private charity in the USA and the world. The Catholic Church educates, feeds, clothes, shelters, counsels, and heals (spiritually and in Catholic Hospitals and missions) millions of people throughout the world every day.
The Catholic Church is also the ORIGINAL religion of Christianity.
Back to the abuse scandal - the Catholic Church has a rate of accusation against Catholic Priests for wrongdoing of far less than one percent. This includes all the false accusations made by people who are just looking to embezzle. Yes, there are and have been some problems - but you need to remember that every organisation with people will have frailty and errors and even evil from time to time. Even Jesus experienced this with Peter denying Him three times and Judas betraying Him.”
I thought that it would be good to share his remarks to others.
Something else that people may be interested in: Abuse Study article (PDF):
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2139563/Sexual_Abuse_in_Social_Context__Catholic_Clergy_and_Other_Profes.pdf
Orémus pro invicem
No doubt we’re on a one way street. All Christian is viciously attached. May God have mercy on their souls. Here’s an article from today from Dr. Bill Donohue Catholic League on the matter:
WHO WANTS MANDATORY REPORTING?
A 1997 letter by the Apostolic Nuncio in Ireland to the Irish bishops has surfaced wherein the bishops were advised not to contravene canon law when dealing with cases of alleged sexual abuse of minors. Many critics have focused on the sentence which reads, “In particular, the situation of ‘mandatory reporting’ gives rise to serious reservations of both a moral and a canonical nature.”
Catholic League president Bill Donohue spoke to the controversy today:
“Jeffrey Lena, the attorney who represents the Vatican on these matters, pointedly said that the letter “nowhere instructed Irish Bishops to disregard civil law reporting requirements.” Instead, the letter was aimed at cautioning the Irish bishops not to proceed in a manner that compromised disciplining miscreant priests on procedural grounds.
These issues, along with others, are competently addressed by John Allen in an article that debunks the myth that this letter is a “smoking gun”; steeple-chasing lawyer Jeffrey Anderson and others would like to believe it is.
Last month, several media outlets ran a story on how a rabbinical court in Brooklyn ordered its 10,000 members not to report crimes to the police. Not among those reporting on it was the New York Times. Moreover, this same newspaper has consistently opposed a law in New York State mandating that crimes involving the sexual abuse of minors be reported to the police if the law applies equally to public, as well as private, institutions; it only backs mandatory reporting for private institutions.
The reason there is no mandatory reporting about these crimes in New York State is because the New York Civil Liberties Union and Family Planning Advocates (the lobbying arm of Planned Parenthood) have successfully killed such legislation.
So who wants mandatory reporting for everyone? The Catholic bishops want it—it’s the liberal media and liberal activist groups who don’t.”
Jon, the heavily biased Catholic League study you cite reports numbers up to 1.8% of priests have been accused of child sexual abuse. Yet, according to you, Fr. Lombardi is claiming “the Catholic Church has a rate of accusation against Catholic Priests for wrongdoing of far less than one percent.” Sadly, both Fr. Lombardi’s number and the Catholic League report come across as biased, self-serving examples of cherry picking and apples and oranges comparisons.
SEPARATING THE SOVEREIGN CATHOLIC CHURCH FROM ITS SOVEREIGNTY as the NYT and detractors like ANNE RICE try to do will not prevail.
The claimants’ plaint that the settlement was not to their liking proves that the settlement and the venue, canon law, to settlement has always been and is there. “Cover up” cannot exist as canon law exists and canon law is admission and regulation of abuse for all victims.
The existence of canon law to inquire for just cause into the victims of clerical abuse allegations against the sovereignty of the Catholic Church prevents there being an existing “cover up” as charged and a charge of “cover up” because they are inimical to each other.
The plaintiff’s charge of “cover up” stems from their dislike for the sovereignty of the Catholic Church, and their required submission to the sovereign authority of the Catholic Church as necessary for settlement of their claims.
The Catholic Church moving abusers around did not and does not abrogate canon law or the victim’s rights. Some said it took too long and was unsatisfactory, but it was there.
The sovereignty of the Catholic Church is worldwide and reaches all victims.
Need more convincing, Jan? Heavily biased? Interesting. Cherry picking? Self-serving? Who? Perhaps defending the Catholic Church? You still don’t see the one-way street? The reality is that a handful of liberals and anti-Catholics have hijacked the Country and spew lies and deceit. Apples=Catholics and Oranges=anti-Catholics - pretty linked I would say. Read this. Have you seen this reported in any other media, anytime?:
“TEACHERS SEXUALLY ABUSING THOUSANDS OF STUDENTS
“April 15, 2010
ASSOCIATED PRESS GETS WISE ADVICE
Catholic League president Bill Donohue offers the Associated Press (AP) some words of advice:
What a fabulous story the AP has today on 30 Catholic priests accused of abuse who were transferred or moved abroad. AP put some money into this investigative report: it spans 21 countries in six continents. Now consider the following:
•In October 2007, AP released a report on sexual misconduct committed by public school teachers and found 2,570 cases over a five year period. In fact, it’s much worse than this. As AP disclosed, “Most of the abuse never gets reported.” [My emphasis].
•Why does most of the abuse go unreported? “School administrators make behind-the-scenes deals to avoid lawsuits and other trouble. And in state capitals and Congress, lawmakers shy from tough state punishments or any cohesive national policy for fear of disparaging a vital profession.”
•What happens to molesting teachers? “Too often, problem teachers are allowed to leave quietly. That can mean future abuse for another student and another school district.” Indeed, it happens so often it is called “passing the trash” or the “mobile molester.”
•Moreover, “deals and lack of information-sharing allow abusive teachers to jump state lines, even when one school does put a stop to the abuse.”
Advice to AP: Do a story on the “mobile molesters,” using the report on priests as a model, i.e., don’t just write an article—name the names of the teachers, principals and school superintendents. Also, track down molesting teachers in Maine where it is illegal to make public the cases of abusing teachers. Go back to California and Hawaii where AP was stonewalled in 2007 from getting hard information on molesting teachers, and this time do your own investigating. For more advice, call my office.”
Jon, I also note that the Catholic League study you cited is dated February 2004, which is before the release of the 2004 John Jay study which found that “3% to 6% of priests” had accusations of abuse against them.
Isn’t it amazing that Akin can diligently present and clarify information in the public record and people refuse to acknowledge the facts? Yet, when some bigoted media hack flings about unsubstantiated claims with little concern for the damage being caused, those same sheep gobble up every word and insist on perpetuating the lies.
Some people are simply content with what they imagine to be true, for they are utterly ignorant. They admit no evidence that contradicts their beloved gospel of the NYTimes.
Whatever happened to using reason in order to distill fact from fiction?
I admit that I am not as familiar as I should be with these matters but have a few questions. First, the Congregation noted that after a period of study they were going to release a series of concrete directives on this issue. How long after this letter went out were these directives issued? Second, while I am in agreement not every accusation need be reported to the police (at least theoretically), what is the process that is followed internally by the Church when accusations arise? One can take a parallel example given above: when an accusation of this sort occurs at a school, what is the general process for investigation? Third, arguing that there should be some sort of internal investigation before one reports an accusation to the police seems to raise the possibilty of a serious conflict of interest. When an accusation is made of a priest regarding molestation, it would not seem that the Church as such is in a position to engage in an investigation. If not them, who, if not the police?
Mr. Akin’s analysis is excellent. He is correct on all counts. Yet I believe Ms. Rice also has a good point, although she doesn’t express it well and seems to succumb to hysteria.
There are two outstanding aspects of this whole sexual-abuse scandal. 1) in many cases the abuse in fact was covered up and even encouraged by the way it was handled. 2) the abuse was more widespread and common than almost any Catholic would have dreamed possible. Both of these facts need to be explained. The explanation the Church has given for the first is quite weak: that bishops didn’t yet realize the seriousness of the offense. Oh, come on! A moron would have seen how serious it is. The bishops simply ignored that to make things easier for themselves and their priests.
Some sort of “investigation” (other than by the Vatican and bishops themselves) seems highly desirable, but who would do it? As the Times example shows, many self-appointed candidates are highly prejudiced against the Church. But we have not be any means gotten to the bottom of this.
Who the heck is Anne Rice? :-)
Thank you Jimmy! A truly insightful and informative piece. Best served up without the rice :-)
Milites Domini, the Catholic League can say look at the left hand, but what is said of the left hand also applies to the right. All the questions and issues the AP and Catholic League raised about teachers also apply to priests. Bill Donohue asked, “Why does most of the abuse go unreported?” It’s a good question. How do you square the John Jay study’s report that “3% to 6% of priests” had allegations of abuse against them with poster Jon’s report that Fr. Lombardi is claiming “the Catholic Church has a rate of accusation against Catholic Priests for wrongdoing of far less than one percent”?
Todd wrote: ” . . . arguing that there should be some sort of internal investigation before one reports an accusation to the police seems to raise the possibilty of a serious conflict of interest.”
Quite the reverse. It is in the interest of any organization as well as in the interest of justice to proceed carefully and thoroughly in response to any and all accusations of criminal wrongdoing brought against its officials.
Having a procedure to follow other than “MANDATORY REPORTING” is NOT THE SAME AS not reporting at all.
If the procedure is no good, then it should be fixed. But having the procedure in place and following it does not automatically obstruct justice.
Meanwhile, reporting these instances without following procedures - Church procedures or procedures of any kind - may be done by victims, by their parents, by their guardians, by teachers, counselors, physicians, by coaches, neighbors, relatives who hear of such complaints. . . . by anybody.
Just not by Church officals. They may report, but Church officials need to follow established Church procedures in reporting.
Where I work, I’ve decided, I’m going to pick up the phone and call the police wherever I see evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
Like, for example, the other day, several laptop computers went missing over the weekend. They had been locked away in a secure area when they were stolen, and one of my co-workers said she was sure one of our security personnel was responsible.
Jimbo Hutchins was on duty in the building over the whole weekend, and the only one who worked a solo shift. It had to have been him.
I’m looking up the phone number for the police department right now. Let’s see Pol- - Police Suspected Crime . . . here it is: 555-3452.
I’ve got to go; I’m on the phone reporting criminal wrongdoing.
Todd, it is correct to say that with any requirement for an internal investigation before reporting to civil authorities that there is the possibility of a serious conflict of interest. Indeed, there is the possibility of serious sin. This exists no matter what the procedure might be. But there is also the possibility of avoiding problems, and some procedures might be better or worse than others in this regard.
The clergy in Ireland DID report allegations of sexual violence to the Gardai (Irish Police) when it concerned non-clergy. Meaning of course that clergy involved in sexual violence against children were above the law - or outside the law - or that the law didn’t apply to them. Or perhaps these abusing clergy were employees/citizens of the Vatican ... which opens up a new can of worms!
These comments are getting silly. Someone reports they have been the victim of a sex crime and names the perpetrator. This is supposed to be similar to something is missing from the office and you have no idea if it is really been stolen?
I used to work at a private, independent school. Grades Nursery through 12. We had a new teacher, his first year with us, from West Africa. Mr. Sylvester also worked did after-school care for extra money. One day one of his little after-school care kids ran up to show Mr. Sylvester something in her coloring book. Mr. Sylvester crouched down on one knee and slipped a hand around the little girl’s shoulder and drew her close so that he could examine the book side-by-side with her.
Next day, Mr. Sylvester was called into the Head’s office and given a talking to. You never, never, never put a hand on a student, or on any child while on school property.
Ever.
It could be misinterpreted.
By a another staff member, by a parent, by the child.
I’m sure these kinds of episodes, or others like them, have been reported to the Head, as was one other very serious incident of real criminal wrongdoing toward a student by a custodian at that school.
It was the Head of School’s wish to know whether a member of his faculty or staff had put his hand on the shoulder of a student in the hallway, which should be dealt with in one way, or whether they had done something that could never be excused as a well-intentioned misunderstanding.
In California, the legal standard is “reasonable suspicion”, when “it is objectively reasonable for a person to entertain such a suspicion, when based upon the facts that could cause a reasonable person in a like position, drawing when appropriate on his or her training and experience, to suspect child abuse.” Obviously, a committee which incorporates multiple people in different positions with varying experiences and training might respond differently—for better or for worse. Likewise, “the facts” obtained with an investigation might be different than without.
Great stuff! Thanks for this.
Bishops in America, Canada, Ireland, United Kingdom, Australia, Belgium, New Zealand, Germany, Austria moved clergy involved in sexual violence against children from parish to parish, diocese to diocese, country to country even continent to continent. That is the one inescapable fact. Those involved in this criminal facilitation and cover-up should be brought before the courts of law and asked to give account of themselves. Anything less is to conspire and or approve of the criminality.
I don’t know what the law in Ireland requires, but the mandatory reporting law in California exempts a priest who acquires knowledge or a reasonable suspicion of child abuse or neglect during a penitential communication defined as “a communication, intended to be in confidence, including, but not limited to, a sacramental confession, made to a clergy member who, in the course of the discipline or practice of his or her church, denomination, or organization, is authorized or accustomed to hear those communications, and under the discipline, tenets, customs, or
practices of his or her church, denomination, or organization, has a
duty to keep those communications secret.” This exemption does not modify or limit a clergy member’s duty to report known or suspected child abuse or neglect when the clergy member is acting in some other capacity
that would otherwise make the clergy member a mandated reporter.
No, I’m not trying to imitate Anne Rice’s posting style.
Dear Anne,
To answer your question:
‘Catholic Periodical urging rank and file to stand up for a thorough investigation’
I resent this insinuation. There was no need to ‘urge’ us, both we and the Clergy were outraged and a thorough investigation HAS been COMPLETED.
http://www.nccbuscc.org/nrb/
http://www.nccbuscc.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/
The only question about Catholic Periodicals would be; did they report on the abuse. The answer is yes, they did.
As for speaking up; Pope Benedict met with some of the victims and APOLOGIZED. Not only have we spoken up for them, we also pray for them.
To work with youth in my Archdiocese, we have to submit to the same investigation that government workers under go for ‘Top Secret’ clearance. The only difference is that we do not have the ‘right’ review or correct anything in the report. So now we give up some of our ‘rights to privacy’ to insure the protect our children in the future.
Where there is no forgiveness, there can be no appeasement.
There is nothing we can ever do that will satisfy one who has harden his heart.
“Bishops . . . moved clergy involved in sexual violence against children from parish to parish, diocese to diocese, country to country . . . That is the one inescapable fact. Those involved in this criminal facilitation and cover-up should be brought before the courts of law and asked to give account of themselves. Anything less is to conspire and or approve of the criminality.”
No argument. Anyone involved in perpetrating or willfully covering up the rape of children should be brought before the law.
And that would include a lot of mothers of minor children - mothers who have remarried or have live-in boyfriends.
Their children are often raped by their stepfathers or mothers’ live-in boyfriends. Repeatedly and over many years.
The mothers know. And they’re afraid or ashamed, and they hush it up.
I agree that they should be brought up on charges, too. Everyone who has stood by and allowed a child to be harmed should be brought before the law.
Every one.
Jimmy:
I went to the Wikipedia link about Cardinal Hoyos.
I noted the discussion about the French bishop who went to jail. In the letter praising him, Hoyos notes that the French bishops’ conference said there were other ways to get the appropriate information to the police. The bishop had heard about the incident in the context of confession.
There must have been in that case than became public.
There is now a new entry in the Wiki about Hoyos - about the Ireland situation. The article mistakenly says that the Cardinal objected to mandatory reporting of a credible suspicion of abuse. The letter said nothing about credible suspicion and neither did the proposed new rules.
Oh.
ANOTHER so-called “smoking gun” for the NYT, this time a letter from the papal ambassador to Ireland, regarding proposed Irish policies on priestly sexual abuse, which implicates the “Vatican” in a “cover-up”?
Meanwhile, American Attorney Jeffrey Anderson, the “Scourge of America’s paedophile priests sets up shop in UK”.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/scourge-of-americas-paedophile-priests-sets-up-shop-in-uk-2184339.html
Of course, any relationship between these two recent news stories is strictly coincidental…....
John, there can often be a need to “urge” people to report (which is part of “stand up for a thorough investigation”), if one is seeking full reporting, as many people are hesitant to come forward for a wide variety of reasons, and many likely do not report, and in that sense, whatever investigation has supposedly “been completed” is incomplete.
Hey, isn’t rice high carb, anyway???
(Sorry. Had to be done!)
As a committed and practicing Irish catholic and not a victim of clerical abuse it would appear that Cardinal Hoyos did his best to thwart the Irish bishops on reporting clerical child sexual abuse to the police. Cardinal O’ Connell, a very conservative Vatican man, who was heavily criticised in the Murphy report argued strongly against the Vatican’s approach. The Vatican’s handiwork i.e. obedience to the Holy See and disregard for the victims is plain to be seen.
Isn’t rice high carb, anyway?
In 2009 we had two devastating reports on physical and sexual violence perpetuated on children by clergy and these crimes covered up clergy superiors. The abuses covered child slavery, physical and mental torture, starvation, medical experiments and physical brutality.
In one of the report 800 individual abusers (mostly members of Religious Orders) were identified. Not ONE prosecution has followed. In the Murphy Report it was found that archbishops and bishops facilitated abusing clergy and covered their crimes up yet no bishop or archbishop or cardinal has been brought to book.
Andrea, communion wafers and rice are mostly carbohydrate.
“The abuses covered child slavery, physical and mental torture, starvation, medical experiments and physical brutality . . . . Not ONE prosecution has followed.”
I say it’s time to hunt down and bring to justice all persons who have harmed or abused any child and those who covered up for such actions - including Catholic clergy and religious, as well as parents, stepparents, parents’ partners or lovers, other relatives, neighbors, gang members, public school teachers, clergy members of other faiths, scout leaders, etc.
ALL OF THEM.
I WANT THEM ALL PUNISHED.
RIGHT NOW.
Hi Paul,
Anne did not mention that we ‘“urge” people to report’, she asked that ‘Catholics stand up for a thorough investigation’.
J
For those of you denying there was a cover up, I quote the the very people to whom this 1997 letter was written- the Irish Archbishops. From December 9, 2009, in response to the damning Murphy Report;
“We, as bishops, apologise to all those who were abused by priests as children, their families and to all people who feel rightly outraged and let down by the failure of moral leadership and accountability that emerges from the Report.
We are deeply shocked by the scale and depravity of abuse as described in the Report. We are shamed by the extent to which child sexual abuse was covered up in the Archdiocese of Dublin and recognise that this indicates a culture that was widespread in the Church. The avoidance of scandal, the preservation of the reputations of individuals and of the Church, took precedence over the safety and welfare of children. This should never have happened and must never be allowed to happen again. We humbly ask for forgiveness.”
They admit that child sexual abuse was covered up. They admit that church reputation was more important that children’s safety. They admit this approach was widespread in the church.
How can anyone deny what happened? The bishops very words confirm what people are saying this 1997 letter means.
John, criminal investigations often include urging people to come forward and report. Therefore, when we ask for a thorough investigation, we often expect that the investigation may include urging people to come forward and report. Got it?
The Irish SAVI Report was carried out by the Dublin Rape Crisis and The Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland 2002.
From the SAVI Report 3.2 per cent of sexual abuse is carried out by religious or clergy. The same Savi Report found that 2.5 per cent of abuse was by fathers. It means that religious or clergy(ie, diocesan priests, priests in religious congregations, and brothers) as a social cohort are more than 1.25 times more likely to abuse than biological fathers.
Statistically speaking little Johnny and Marion (Mael Muire) is safer with his/her dad than with any religious person or any person of authority.
Combining religious ministers and religious teachers, they constituted the largest single category of authority figures as abusers of boys; 5.8 percent of all boys sexually abused were abused by clergy or religious. A smaller proportion (1.4 percent) of girls were abused by clergy or religious.
‘Prevalence of Sexual Violence Child Sexual Abuse (defined as sexual abuse of children and adolescents under age 17 years).
Girls: One in five women (20.4 per cent) reported experiencing contact sexual abuse in childhood with a further one in ten (10.0 per cent) reporting non-contact sexual abuse.
Boys: One in six men (16.2 per cent) reported experiencing contact sexual abuse in childhood with a further one in fourteen (7.4 per cent) reporting non-contact sexual abuse.
Source: McGee, H. Garavan, R., De Barra, M. Byrne, J and Conroy, R. (2002).The SAVI Report - Sexual Abuse and Violence in Ireland. Dublin: Liffey Press in Association with the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre.
AndrewSB49, your interpretation that “religious or clergy… as a social cohort are more than 1.25 times more likely to abuse than biological fathers” might be true if alleged offenses by biological fathers were as likely to be reported as alleged offenses by religious or clergy, and if the criteria for what’s reported were the same. But people do not have the same respect and attitudes toward religious and clergy as they do toward their biological fathers, and therefore the likelihood of reporting an offense is probably different, even if both groups offended at the same rate. The same problem exists with reporting by boys versus reporting by girls. They are different groups, and their rates of reporting can be quite different, even if both groups were actually abused at the same rate. You mustn’t forget that the statistics are based only on what is reported. They do not include what is not reported and they do not account for differences in likelihood of reporting. The rate of offending and the rate of reporting those offenses are not the same. Your claim that “Statistically speaking little Johnny and Marion (Mael Muire) is safer with his/her dad than with any religious person or any person of authority” has an additional problem as well. Statistically speaking, statistics for a group do not apply to a particular named person but only describe the probability for a person chosen at random from the group.
Paul, we get it! Maybe not in the past but certainly since the scandal broke, our Bishops and priests have repeatedly asked that people come forward. (they have done so on the broadcast news and the pulpit) Here, you can report to the archdiocese, and outside representive of the archdiocese, the police, your parents, the news media, a teacher, a lawyer… the list goes on and on.
If a priest is accused, his name is now made public so others can come forward.
As for: ‘whatever investigation has supposedly “been completed” is incomplete.’ Using this definition, ALL investigations are useless because they can never be completed. So, what good will endless investigations accomplish? You investigate as fully as possible and deal with the facts you now have. Which much to their credit, our Bishops have.
John, no, you apparently still don’t get it. Just because an investigation is incomplete does not mean it is “useless”. Even clues can be useful. Clues and incomplete investigations help us move forward, even though sometimes they can also send you in the wrong direction. If “our Bishops and priests have repeatedly asked that people come forward”, that doesn’t mean it was sufficient or successful. That someone “can” report does not mean they will or have or even that they feel comfortable doing so. It is not true that “if a priest is accused, his name is now made public.” Even if the law or church rules mandate reporting, that does not mean reporting happens. Too often what’s supposed to happen doesn’t happen. It wasn’t supposed to happen that priests abused children was it.
I think most people not of the faith beleive the Vatican is involved b/c the institution is top-down in nature and the pattern of abuse and how it was dealt with has proved to be the same all around the world, from the Americas to Europe, to Africa these priest were dealt with in the same manner. The NYT pecies is solid journalism, while this peice is obviously defensive and rancorous.
“The reporting of clergy sexual abuse allegations is about as good as Bernie Madoff’s reporting to the SEC,” says John Manly, a principal at Manly & Stewart in Newport Beach who represents dozens of plaintiffs in child sexual abuse cases. “Failure to report clergy abuse has become a pattern and practice, and apparently there are no consequences. Some bishops are trying, but they are up against institutional arrogance and resentment that sexual abuse claims are overblown. You can see it in how some of the bishops act.” Says Manly, “The archdiocese’s view is that it has no obligation to report abuse if the allegations are made by an adult. I think that’s a misreading of the statute. If I were the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, I would be very worried for my exposure.” Andrea Leavitt, a San Diego sole practitioner, has represented plaintiffs in dozens of sexual abuse cases. “Even if the canonical court is competent, there is an inherent conflict of interest because the Church has liability,” she says. “They may call it a criminal proceeding, but it’s really an obstruction of justice.” According to Patrick J. Wall, a canonical lawyer and former priest who works at Manly & Stewart as a consultant, “I would describe canonical trials as a true conflict-of-laws issue,” he says. “Sometimes we’re opposed from three different sides: defense lawyers who represent the accused in criminal proceedings, civil proceedings, and canonical proceedings. Defense lawyers fear that more civil discovery could increase their clients’ criminal exposure.”
http://www.callawyer.com/story.cfm?eid=912372&evid=1
M. Akin,
Thank you for presenting the actual text of the Vatican document. It has ever been the practice of the Church to demand ipsissima verba - the actual words. Who said what when, under what circumstances, to whom. This was the practice of the Inquisition, unlike most secular juridical proceedings. From this practice arose most of the protections in our own laws.
Anent the continuing controversy about Cardinal Law - a controversy regularly stirred up by the NYTimes owned Boston Globe - Wikipedia tells us “In December 2002, Cardinal Law left Boston. It is often alleged that he left just hours before state troopers arrived with subpoenas seeking his grand jury testimony; however, he had previously given evidence before two grand juries and been fully investigated by the state attorney general and the 5 district attorneys in the counties in which the Archdiocese operates. When the state attorney general issued his report entitled Child Sexual Abuse in the Archdiocese of Boston (July 23, 2003) he severely criticised Law but he did not allege that Law had tried to evade investigation and he did state that Law had not broken any laws”.
Jimmy. Thanks for posting the letter. Your interpretation of it is the same kind of rationlizations that the church has continuing been guilty of in order to protect the institution over protecting the victims.
Keep up the campaign against gay marriage and abortion - a smoke screen for the abuses that continue to happen at the hands of clerics in the church. Those who minimize and rationalize the damage done are also responsible for the heinous crime of child sexual abuse that has been and still is being perpetrated by Roman Catholic priests.
The best thing for the church to do to regain credibility is to take full responsibility for the crimes committed and the attempts to cover up these crimes.
All the charitable and kind reasons people on this post are claiming were the reasons for concern about mandatory reporting of crimes are not credible.
In fact, victims have been intimidated, abused, invalidated, and put through unneccessary trauma by the church when they have had the courage to report. Contact a survivor group and see how well they were treated by the Church.
Gabriel, you spoke of the importance of the “actual words”, but the actual words cited as the source to the Wikipedia article say something a bit different than “[the state attorney general] did not allege that Law had tried to evade investigation and he did state that Law had not broken any law.” Instead it shows that the attorney general actually spoke of “the Archdiocese’s refusal to produce certain categories of important documents [...] and the fact that important witnesses either had refused to submit to voluntary interviews or had placed unacceptable conditions on voluntary interviews” and said that “The evidence gathered during the course of the Attorney General’s sixteen-month investigation does not provide a basis for bringing criminal charges against the Archdiocese or its senior managers.” Refusing to produce evidence is not the same as did not try to evade investigation, and failure to gather the evidence needed to bring criminal charges for offenses that had not exceeded the statute of limitations is not the same thing as “Law had not broken any law”. The document notes “the Archdiocese’s response over the last 18 months remains inadequate” and “They chose to protect the image and reputation of their institution rather than the safety and well being of the children entrusted to their care. They acted with a misguided devotion to secrecy”. It goes on to state, “Cardinal Bernard Law bears ultimate responsibility for the tragic treatment of children that occurred during his tenure.”
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/reports/ReillyExecSum.pdf
Folks,
It seems to me that one of the virtues is “prudence.”
And, I recall a certain admonition from Jesus: “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.”
It seems that one possible application of Jesus’ admonition could read this way: “It is imprudent to spend a long time carefully stating the truth in a rational and winsome way for the purpose of presenting it to someone who has no interest in hearing it. All your effort will be in vain; he is all too likely to willfully misunderstand it or ignore it, and then heap irrational responses, slander, or verbal abuse on you.”
It is merciful and generous to spend time, as some of you have done, replying to Anne Rice and other with similar mindsets.
But perhaps that kind of mercy and generosity, beyond a certain point, becomes imprudence? Beyond a certain point, is it merely the careful polishing of a pearl doomed to be trampled in the mud?
It appears that the NY Times has changed the title of that piece to ‘Vatican Warned Bishops on Abuse Policy’ rather than ‘not to report child abuse’.
Anne, I get that you have lost all respect for the Magisterium for various reasons, but you need not sacrifice your integrity. Please approach these issues with honesty and charity. You owe it not to the clergy, not even the pope, but ultimately you owe it to God, and in crucial ways, to yourself, too. Take off the blinders, please. Yes, many in the hierarchy have failed, spectacularly and sinfully so, but not all. If the problems anger you (as they should), be part of the solution. You cannot repair the house by shooting holes through it, particularly when your blinders keep you from seeing where the rot is and *where it isn’t*. You’re a gifted writer, please use that gift to build up, not to tear down.
Marion (Mael Muire),
Your sentiments are spot on:
“ALL OF THEM.
I WANT THEM ALL PUNISHED.
RIGHT NOW.”
Which makes the point for prudence in any zero tolerance policiy. My impression from the clarifications about the nuncio’s warnings are that:
1) falsely accused innocents should have recourse to justice, while
2) the truly guilty should not have recourse to procedural technicalities that might let them off when we want them to be punished instead.
In this case, the pearl is Anne Rice - and the swine - well those who have minimized, rationalized and denied and covered up the serious and heinous crime of child sexual abuse.
R.C. - your arrogance is appalling.
I was raped by Father Denges many times when I was five years old. Without the New York Times and responsible coverage, The Catholic Church would not have changed. Just leaving behind more victims, many of whom have not gone public.
If the Vatican cared about justice for the victims, all names of pedophile priests, bishops, cardinals would be released, and the victims would be compensated for damages.
The last time I wrote to this newspaper about Father Denges raping me when I was five years old, someone sent me an email telling me that I should not wish for Father Denges to go to hell. I’m sick of the Catholic Agenda. Father Denges belongs in hell.
I see a wonderful psychiatrist, Harvard medical school, who treated a woman who was being raped by a Cardinal. This psychiatrist intervened, called the Cardinal, and told him to leave this woman alone.
I can’t print the name of this Cardinal for fear of being sued.
The Vatican needs to release the names of all pedophile priests, bishops and cardinals.
Johanna J. Smith
The Catholic Church must consider the seal of the Sacrament of Penance with “mandatory reporting” to civil authorities. The Catholic Church is the Body of Christ with Jesus as the Head, a real corporate body, a real metaphysical body. The Catholic Church must be ever cautious about every person.
“We know that in everything God works for good for those who love him.” The constant witness of the saints confirms this truth: St. Catherine of Siena said to “those who are scandalized and rebel against what happens to them”: “Everything comes from love, all is ordained for the salvation of man, God does nothing without this goal in mind.” St. Thomas More, shortly before his martyrdom, consoled his daughter: “Nothing can come but that that God wills. And I make me very sure that whatsoever that be, seem it never so bad in sight, it shall indeed be the best.” Dame Julian of Norwich: “Here I was taught by the grace of God that I should steadfastly keep me in the faith… and that at the same time I should take my stand on and earnestly believe in what our Lord shewed in this time - that ‘all manner [of] thing shall be well.’”
Standard fare from the trolling mob.
Rat, I sincerely don’t think you know what “truth” is, or you would be able to present yourself differently in a public forum.
Anne Rice,
As I insulted you on this article, so I must apologize to you on here as well as privately.
I apologize for calling you a viper.
Thank you. Delicate subjects like this one, need a careful investigation. There is a global campaign against the Church as a whole. Abusers and those who cover them are accountable to face rightful tribunals, but at the same time, we must be prevented from the purpose of certain individuals and groups with an evident hate for the Church that try to look for anything in order to destroy it. The letter is evident a legal procedure. I read it already and I do not find a suggestion to avoid justice.
Alberio - give your head a shake. As soon as anyone tries to hold the church responsible for it’s many acts of abuse, some people cry “persecution”. The Church is not the victim here - the victims are the countless children who were abused by priests, cardinals, bishops, and all those who participate in the cover-up.
” St. Peter Damian’s work includes accounts of pederasty. Whatever the merits of this particular letter to the Irish bishops, the fact is that the Church has never seriously confronted the problem.”
I disagree. Ever hear of the Gregorian Reform? Lateran II? These dealth exclusively with St. Peter Damian’s complaints - simony, and clerical incontinence.
Ever hear of the first century Didache? “You will not commit adultery.” You will not sodomize young boys. You will not have unlawful sex.”
The Church, unlike the Roman Empire, and ancient Greece, has recognized, acknowledged, and confronted sexual sins committed by both clergy and lay people, throughout her entire 2,000 year history.
That some Bishops in the last half of the 20th century didn’t do their JOB is hardly a “proof” that the Church has NEVER SERIOUSLY confronted the problem. 2,000 years of canons and ecclesiastical legislation disagree.
Sexual molestation of children was never a civil crime, even in America, until very recently. It has ALWAYS been a crime canonically in the Church.
Ann Rice does not like analysis or details She is interested in saying that the Church is always wrong. The Church is not encouraging sexual immorality or perversions. Because of that people like Rice criticise the Church for not adopting modern thoughts on sex. They believe that if there is permissiveness, there will not be such sexa buse. Is it not meaningless and funny ?
Anyone who by any meaning (words and/or works) break the 10 commandmens is a criminal. Accoding to The Bible, anyone who report a crime is holy (Jesus). In conclution; Anyone who have taught in history, and present time teach agaist the 10 commandments, and against the teachings of Jesus by any meaning (eords and/or works), is teaching by anti-christ, not by God and Jesus.
Amen.
@Sandra, agree: ‘victims are the countless children who were abused by priests, cardinals, bishops, and all those who participate in the cover-up.’ However, we need to look for legal frames to protect also innocents (individuals or groups) from being falsely accused. Will you deny cases of priests falsely accused? Paying to children to make false accusations is also a child abuse, or not? then it’s also injustice, or not? Making every priest an abuse suspicious just because the ‘crimes of the Church’, is it right? Go beyond sites like protegeatushijos.org & c who is behind (José Luis de Jesús, said the reincarnation of Christ http://articles.cnn.com/2007-02-16/us/miami.preacher_1_cult-leader-followers-tattoo?_s=PM:US).
Sadly, the Storero letter is pretty close to a “smoking gun”, so consistent with Vatican and bishop behaviour. The verbal contortions of Lombardi and Lema do not convince.
Julie Mackey
Cardinal Sean Brady- Primate of All Ireland - administered oaths of secrecy to children who were subject to appalling sexual violence by Reverend Father Brendan Smyth (a priest who raped children on two continents). Brady’s ‘investigation’ into the obscenities that his clerical colleague, the Reverend Father Brendan Smyth, committed on the most innocent of all - children - enabled the Reverend Father Brendan Smyth to continue his use of sexual violence on children for a further EIGHTEEN YEARS!
Brady is still in position as head honcho of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland.
Media distorsions today are hardly surprising.
The NY Times is garbage, always bending the truth to make money, that is now a well known fact.
Hitchens is not much better either ;)
Bravo Jimmy! Distortion and half-truths are the last refuge of a dying and shrinking liberal media desperate for any publicity.
TWO THINGS HERE TO KEEP IN MIND,
Clearly: the New York Times distorts pretty much what ever it reports. You can’t reasonably deny this.
Clearly: The sexual abuse crimes in the Church are more ugly then they are in any other context. And they beg more justice, by a long shot, then what they are getting. You can’t reasonably deny this.
Even Mr. foul mouth there has a sense for the this matter of degree in his hatred. Anne Rice has a perception and expectation of the Church that is seriously wounded by these crimes and she doesn’t see justice. Very reasonable. I can understand that.
Here is the clincher though. dispite all of this injustice in the Church, that is the world in the Church, not the Church in the world. Do you really think that justice is going to be served by the CIVIL law any better? Here and there you might win a modest bit of satisfaction but it is like Mr. Dirty mouth said, there are going to be some people burning in hell for some pretty serious sins. And I can’t imagine more justice coming down on anyone as much as justice would come down on a priest who rapes a 5 year old for two reasons. first, the crime against the 5 year old. second, BECAUSE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS THE ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, APOSTOLIC BRIDE OF CHRIST AND HE WILL HAVE HER HOLINESS UPHOLDED WHEN IT IS ALL FINISHED.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0120/1224287942328.html
I think this article gives some more back-up to what Jimmy wrote.
Sandra Currie and Annie Rice have given enough proof that they’re basically anti-Catholic propagandists, I think. Anne has been challenged and corrected many times and essentially just regurgitates her mantra, like the notorious propagandist Joseph Goebbels would have recommended:
““The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over” Joseph Goebbels
Johanna J Smith,
I am very sorry for what you have suffered. The Church needs to work hard to assure that this does not happen.
But whether anybod goes to hell is not up to us. God calls us to the very challenging task of forgiving as he as forgiving us. This is an important step in true healing.
Peace in Christ,
CKH
carolynhyppolite.blogspot.com
Thanks for a great article, Jimmy.
To people like Anne Rice and NYT reporter Laurie Goodstein, I would say, yes, lay Catholics absolutely should stand up to injustice and abuse. That being said, there’s a difference between justice and a witch hunt.
Pope Benedict XVI has said a numerous occasions that it is good for the Church for the truth to come to light, even when the truth is unpleasant. Real evil was committed. Yet, just because evil was done does not make it justice to falsely accuse the Catholic Church based on bad information. It does no good service to the victims of sexual abuse. And furthermore, it distracts from the widespread issue of child sexual abuse that pervades our entire culture, not just the Catholic Church. Our beloved Church should be held accountable and do penance for crimes ACTUALLY committed. And Pope Benedict has been a heroic leader in this regard. No organization has done more than the Catholic Church to address this tragedy. But the media is so focused on this witch hunt that the crime of sex abuse goes on, elsewhere, unnoticed.
I’m all for newspapers exposing the truth, even if it’s embarrassing for the Church. But I do insist that it’s actually the truth. Just because strong emotions are involved doesn’t make every bad accusation true.
The church is still only partially taking responsibility. And that, reluctantly and only after public pressure and exposes. The latest statement by the pope was pretty lame.
An apology is not making amends.
I’ll say it again. Until full responsibility is taking by the Church, especially for the cover-ups, the abuse will continue.
To say that the Church has done more about the problem than any other organization is a blatant lie.
Most perpetrators don’t have a powerful organization to protect them when they commit this crime. And the actions taken against victims if they are unwise enough to report to the church rather than civil authorities are another form of abuse to which the church is responsible.
Civil authorities don’t always handle sex abuse charges in the best way possible. But there record still exceeds the actions of the church.
Yes, there are false claims of abuse. But they are fairly easy to spot by those qualified to do so. And the least qualified are members of the clergy.
All of those who are rambling against the Church need a better sense of objectivity… the point of the article was absolutely correct—the press has and continues to manipulate these documents to invent all sorts of accusations against the Vatican et al. In reality, the churchmen who handled these situations so badly and the accused clergymen are, for the most part, dead or long out of the priesthood. In the past, society covered up the sins of professional men, including the crimes of policemen, doctors, coaches, teachers, and clergy. Furthermore, by its very nature, child abuse is “covered up” by the predator and often by the family involved to avoid the shame associated with such crimes. In the past, no one wanted to undermine society by exposing such wrongdoing and evil—the basic tragedy is that church leaders did not wake up themselves and start this fight to purify the church of offenders before it came to the attention of the press and the attorneys. It is nonetheless true that most bishops in the US have acted swiftly against clergy so accused for the last 25 years, since the exposure of the problem in the infamous case in the Diocese of Lafayette in Louisiana. Prior to that, the issue wasn’t even discussed in our liberalized seminaries!
My Church, right or wrong, right?
Just ask a survivor of clerical abuse how your defenses, rationalization, and saying that the media and critics are picking on the Church, and see how all that further abuse makes them feel.
How interesting that the NYT headline, which once read: “Vatican Warned Bishops Not To Report Child Abuse”, now has been changed to: “Vatican Letter Warned Bishops on Abuse Policy”
Why the more “tame” and rational (as opposed to slanted and sensational) headline change?
Further, did they recall all those print editions that went out with the original headline, and re-print new editions with the new headline?
Doubtful, which makes their feeble attempt to return to objectivity just that - a feeble attempt.
No, Sandra. Not “my church, right or wrong,” but “Christ’s Church,” no matter how unworthily led by some of her sinful servants. If the Pope himself were to sin, he should be held to account, as St. Paul held St. Peter to account at Antioch. But let’s be sure we accuse rightly and justly.
All your rationalization would have some merit if there wasn’t tons of evidence of cover-ups, stalling, neglect, transfers,and theats, These actions resulted in so many instances of abuse that would not have happened if Church officials had acted responsibly. If we have to wait for God to judge these criminals, perhaps we should do the same with murderers and thieves.
Let’s here the same indignation about the lies, distortions, fear mongering and hate spewed out of Fox News. Or does it speak for any of you?
Anne Rice says: Why do Catholics not withdraw their financial support until the Vatican agrees to come clean on all of this?
If Anne Rice understood basic finances in the Catholic Chruch she would know that very little if any of the money collected every Sunday ever ends up in the Vatican. The majority of the regular Sunday collection stay within the Parish with a certain percentage going to the Diocese. The only money that goes to the Vatican that is collected in the pews is the annual Peter’s Pense Collection near the Solemnity of both Saint Peter and Saint Paul.
If “sound reporting” included cherry-picking quotes and misrepresentation, then I think that Anne Rice, renowned author or not, should stick to fiction.
New York Times…Trustworthy?
“We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years.
It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years.
But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government.
The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”
David Rockefeller, Bilderberg meeting, Baden-Baden, Germany 1991
Sandra, why don’t you just come out and say it: no action the Church takes will be far enough for you. No matter what is done, no matter how many times the Pope apologizes, no matter how clean and how strict they become, it will never be enough for you. You will continue to hammer away with the accusation that it’s not enough.
It’s not worth trying to convince someone like you that improvements have been made, priests have been removed/“defrocked”/“laicized”, and in many cases years after civil prosecution would have been allowed (i.e., the statute of limitations had lapsed.)
The only “enough” for you and those who think like you is to see the Church completely destroyed. I hate to break it to you (I don’t, really) but that isn’t going to happen.
@ “All your rationalization would have some merit if there wasn’t tons of evidence of cover-ups, stalling, neglect, transfers,and theats,....”
The article to which we are here responding is very specifically about the attempt, by the NYT specifically, to indict the Vatican in “cover-up.” In fact, there is NO evidence the Vatican has engaged in “covering up, stalling, neglect, transfers, threats,”, etc.
The mere fact the NYT has changed their own headline, from “Vatican Warned Bishops Not To Report Child Abuse”, to the far more objective: “Vatican Letter Warned Bishops on Abuse Policy” - should be enough to show that even THEY realize their original attempt to indict the Vatican has no merit.
Unlike what another poster wrote (that the Catholic Church is a “top down” institution), the fact is, the Catholic Church is the most decentralized institution in the world. It operates under the “principle of subsidiarity” - which means in this case that decisions for handling these cases rested with the Bishop of the diocese - NOT with the Vatican. IT was the BISHOPS who failed in their duties and obligations, and this was all made clear in 2001, starting with the Boston Globe. NO ONE denies that many Bishops failed in their responsibilities, and failed miserably.
Apparently, that wasn’t enough. Since April of 2010, there has been a whole new effort, by the MSM, to try to find the “smoking gun” that “proves” the Vatican was involved in these Bishops’ failures. So far, there is NO credible evidence of this, and the NYT’s latest attempt has also failed.
Your repeated attempts to accuse those of us who agree with Jimmy - THAT THIS 1997 LETTER DOES NOT SHOW THE VATICAN COMPLICIT IN ANY COVER UP - are somehow denying wrongdoing by many of our Bishops, is illogical. NO ONE is denying that many of our Bishops’ actions were unconscionable - whether we watch Fox News or not (personally, I never watch it, so I won’t be pigeon-holed by you in that regard, either).
I repeat. NO ONE is denying wrongdoing by both Priests, and their Bishops. Agreeing with Jimmy that this 1997 letter is not a “smoking gun” is in no way a denial of wrongdoing by some priests, and their Bishops.
I have read the exact word for word opening accusation from Anne Rice at other places. She exhibits no interaction with the article, and I doubt she even read it.
She clearly has no answer to the issue of accusers wanting to remain annymous. There have been cases, I know specifically of one in Indiana, where the Catholic Church did report an accusation to the police, but since the accuser wished to remain anonymous and the Church would not reveal the information on the accuser the police did nothing.
Another question that is ignored is, what if the suspicion of abuse is revealed in confession?
TheresaEE, “The mere fact the NYT has changed their own headline” is insufficient to show me what you claim. The mere “fact” (which to me is an allegation, because as of January 18, I saw the current headline only) doesn’t show me why they changed it. Without being privy, I can only guess, and when I guess, I’ll choose charitably. It could be that many people prefer shorter, simpler headlines. Perhaps, if they changed it, they changed it for that reason. I can’t even say who exactly changed it. Again, we can only guess, and I don’t choose to assign evil intentions to any party. I don’t know anyone else’s intentions.
John Pack, what confession are you talking about? If you tell the priest that someone has molested you, you aren’t confessing that you did anything wrong. If you confess that you molested someone, and you confess it while hiding in one of those old-fashioned anonymous confessionals, the priest probably doesn’t have enough details to make a reliable police report.
Steven a ways above began to get at the issue.
The decisions of bishops and their subordinants are not a way to make themselves “gate-keepers on the criminal justice system”. This document is only addressed to bishops. There is nothing that says “you should encorage lay people to not report criminal actions by priests to the police”.
There are legitimate issues with police at times not have been willing to believe and act on accusations against priests. There have also been cases where police gave priests a “leave town or be arrested” ultimatum, and then when they left town nothing more was done.
There have apparently been cases in the US and Canada where bishops pro-actively intervened to discorage police investigations, or where prosecutors failed to act, possibly out of deference to the Catholic Church. Most of these instances pre-date 1980, and clearly 1990. I am unaware of any that post-date this letter.
A big problem with much of the rhetoric about the sexual abuse crisis, is that the fact that prosecutors let many priests plea way below charges is generally ignored, and the fact that in one case a Catholic school teacher in Baltimore who abused minors had been highered from the Public Schools based on false letters of recomendation. There was also a case about false letters of recomendation between public schools in Illinois that occured after 2002, when supposedly people came to see the wrong in such things.
There is also the issue that the New York Times supports a lifting of the statute of limitation that would make private schools open to law suits from long ago but exempt public schools.
Probably the biggest lie though is the false rhetoric about any debates on statute of limitations having a criminal aspect. The US Supreme Court, with all the Catholic members then on the court dissenting, in 2003 ruled that a lifting of a criminal statue of limitations was unconstitutional. All the Catholics on the court held to a ruling that would have allowed California to continue its already started process of sending guilty priests to jail. They were joined by one protestant, the chief justice, William Rehnquist. They were opposed by all the other Protestants and Jews on the court, who were largely beholden to trial-lawyers and by allowing ifting of the civil but not criminal statue of limitations created a system where these lawyers could force testimony without 5th admendment limits and recklessly pursue suits against the dead, which often lead to the Catholic Church agreeing to out of court settlement because the cost of going to court, especially under such uneven situations where only one side could even bring the main witness, making it a he-said, the other he can not say, case, would at best lead to a phyrric victory.
While I agree generally with Mr. Aken’s analysis (indeed, in reading the 1997 letter I found myself using the analogy of chain of custody in order to keep evidence from being tainted), I nevertheless sense an ongoing culture of equivocation by the Church in matters of institutional abuse of children, whether by clergy or lay employees of the Church. As for the question of reporting to begin with, as a matter of historical record, if I understand this correctly, were it not for the investigative reporting done by the Boston Globe, the enormity of this scandal, at least in the United States, may have continued unhindered for who knows how long. Certainly the Church was not in any rush to reveal such matters to the public. What may have once been a full-blown circling of the wagons now appears to be a much more subtle use of prevarications dressed up as clarifications. Yep, I remain a bit skeptical about all this.
@Veronica: “The mere “fact” (which to me is an allegation, because as of January 18, I saw the current headline only)...”
It’s always nice to have our own “truth” isn’t it? If you didn’t see it, then it wasn’t “really” there, right?
Shame on Jimmy for fibbing when he wrote: “That’s the sensationalistic headline of this story in the New York Times.” It never really said: “Vatican Warned Bishops Not To Report Child Abuse”, and they never really changed it, because Veronica didn’t see it.
Still, that headline that wasn’t there brings up 5,900 Google hits, from Time, NPR, Huffington Post, AP, Irish Times, USA Today, Yahoo. It IS “curious” that for the NYT, that headline is strangely absent, nor can you get a cached version. You CAN, however, find it if you have an NYTimes Twitter account: http://twitoaster.com/country-us/nytimes/vatican-warned-bishops-not-to-report-child-abuse/
“This tweet received 132 twitter mentions (6 replies and 126 retweets) from 130 distinct twitter users. In addition to nytimes followers, it has been read by 32,576 second-level followers (retweeters followers).”
@Veronica: “I don’t choose to assign evil intentions to any party….”
Claiming the NYT is attempting to implicate the Pope and the Vatican in a “cover up” is not assigning “evil intentions.” It’s an objective judgment, based on their own writings. It is NOT a subjective statement of “intent.” Since April, when the headline from Laurie Goodstein read: “Vatican Declined to Defrock U.S. Priest Who Abused Boys,” we’ve been privy to their erroneous, one-sided, and just-plain-poor journalism. (That priest was the infamous Fr. Murphy, and we now know the Vatican did no such thing).
Better writers than I have debunked the consistent “errors” of the NYT in their coverage of the Vatican, and anyone who truly refuses to “assign evil intentions” will refuse to assign evil intentions this Pope, and the “Vatican.”
Yet, we wouldn’t be posting on this site if “evil intentions” weren’t constantly being “assigned” to the “Vatican” - NOT objective judgments based on facts, but subjective, emotional, and irrational assignations of guilt.
We are all entitled to our own opinions - we are NOT entitled to our own “facts.”
AndrewSB49’s method of calculation is flawed. To begin with the claim that biological fathers create less of the sexual abuse of minors than pirests and other religious figures does not tell us anything about how likely either are to abuse. Why?
Because many abusers have multiple victims. On the other hand, some victims have multiple abusers. I am assuming the figures represent the percentage of victims who were abused by people in each group. The other possibility, a counting of each act of abuse would be based on the assumption that each person who reports reports all incidents of being abused.
By the very use of terms, a biological father has less potential victims. A serially abusing biological father will only have so many children. If they abuse nephews, neighbor boys, boys in the scout troop they head, boys in a school class they teach, boys they meet at the YMCA or whoever else, it will not count for the “abuse by father” category.
On the other hand, a through investigation of accusations against priests will find some abusing boys they met at the YMCA, their own nephews, minors who were never in their jurisdiction and so on. If they are clergy they are counted in this category without regard to how they developed a connection to their victim.
The other thing this leads to is that a high percentage of the accusations are wrongly called “child sexual abuse”. It is an abuse of the term to call a 17-year-old victim a child.
Matthew - the Church will destroy itself without my help if it stays on the same path.
There are things the Church could do to satisfy me on this specific issue.
1. Admit to the cover-ups, transfers, abuse and intimidations of victims. Those who haven’t killed themselves are still living with the trauma. They will never totally recover. So saying we’re sorry now let’s move on is so inadequate.
2. Make financial reparations, without fighting with high priced lawyers against the claims of victims. Once the abuse has been established, that should be sufficient to make reparations.
3. Instead of parishioners paying for the crimes, that the Church find ways to keep the donations of innocent parishioners for good works and the Church use some of it’s accumulated riches to pay for the crimes.
4. Insure that every victim have access to intensive and approriate therapy so that they can lead somewhat normal lives.
Again, I urge you all to contact survivors groups and listen to the stories of the victims. If you are still able to defend the Church’s half hearted apologies and other inadequate responses, then you are a lot more hard hearted than I.
@John Pack Lambert. The Irish SAVI Report was carried out by the Dublin Rape Crisis and The Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland 2002
We just don’t know the number of victims - whether this is due to fear by the victim or because of suicide by the victim we just don’t know.
A previously unpublished chapter of the Murphy Report on clerical abuse in the Dublin archdiocese reveals Rome UPHELD AN APPEAL against a priest who admitted using children once every two weeks for 8 years for “sexual gratification”. Chapter 19 describes [] paedophile priest Tony Walsh as the most notorious child sexual abuser to have come to the attention of the Commission. The Murphy Commission was aware of 40 of his victims but say Walsh is likely to have abused hundreds more.
“The road to hell is paved with the skulls of erring priests, with bishops as their sign posts.” – St. John Chrysostom
Another anecdotal story tells of a Cardinal talking to Napoleon, saying “Your majesty, we, the Catholic clergy, have done our best to destroy the church for the last 1,800 years. We have not succeeded, and neither will you.”
The Church will not be destroyed by this, but it will be cleansed.
On to your points.
1. Already done at local levels to some degree. The thing that you seem to want, though, is admission that it was systemic, and dictated by the Vatican. That has not and will not be done, since it’s not the case.
2. There are multiple problems with this. A) How does one set a dollar value on this? B) How does one determine legitimate cases vs. spurious claims made with the intent to extract money? C) Any false claims that are dismissed would be latched on to as examples of how the Church is still denying justice to victims. D) This would be reported as the Vatican paying “hush money” to the victims to make it go away.
3. Impossible. The numbers don’t work. If the Church could sell the “accumulated riches” it still wouldn’t have enough money. In addition, those accumulated riches don’t belong to the Vatican, they belong to everyone. So by selling art or buildings the Church would still be taking from parishioners. (I’ve heard similar arguments about the Church’s riches being sold to feed the hungry.)
4. How? First of all, the costs of therapy would have to be covered by your point 2. Second, how many of the victims would trust a Vatican-paid therapist? Or would the victim (and his family) get to choose the therapist, in which case the Church could be paying for a therapist who doesn’t uphold the Church’s moral teachings. (Go ahead…rip on the Church about losing moral authority. You know you want to.)
What is being ignored by many seeking “more” from the Church is what has been done in the past 10 years to fix things. Instead the focus is stuck on how things were handled 30-40 years ago (horribly handled). The Church can’t change what was done, but has changed how things are handled now.
The priest who celebrated my wedding Mass was accused of impropriety with a young lady, and it was considered a credible accusation. The alleged event took place 30+ years ago, but he was still put on administrative leave, relieved of his pastoral duties, however one wants to term it. Per the reports, when the accusation was leveled in Jan 09 it was immediately reported to civil authorities and he was immediately removed. Mind you, the accusation involved a girl who was under 18 (which wasn’t illegal under civil law at that time) in the late 70s. 30 years after the fact, and since the accusation was deemed credible he was removed. Even though the civil authorities can do nothing, he is still (to this day) restricted in what he can do. I think internal Church investigations are nearing completion, and decisions about his future will be made soon.
I don’t know if he is guilty or innocent, it’s not my place to make that determination. If guilty, I don’t defend his actions. If innocent, he’s been through Hell for 2 years and his reputation forever destroyed. For something that was legal (but immoral) 30 years ago…if it happened. (Before you accuse me of ignoring the plight of the girl, I remind you that the priest is innocent until proven guilty. He deserves justice just as much as she does.)
I use this as an example of two things: A) the Church IS doing something, and B) justice unavailable under secular law due to time is available in the Church. And that justice doesn’t just apply to the accuser, but to the accused as well.
Here’s a link to one story about my former pastor: http://bit.ly/gW0rxj
Note that the Archdiocese immediately reported it to civil authorities and, on determination that the accusation was credible (made internally), removed the priest in question. Note, too, that, like you, some find their actions to be “inadequate”. But what should have been done differently? Immediate conviction of the priest, with reparations made to the victim, without investigation? Should the Archbishop have accepted culpability when he wasn’t even there at the time? What, exactly, would have been “enough” in this still open case?
Where you see the Church’s response to these atrocities as “inadequate” and “half-hearted”, I see action being taken. Careful review, full investigation, doesn’t happen quickly, but steps are being taken to both protect others and make sure justice is served. What happened in the past can’t be changed, but the Church has worked hard to change how things are handled now.
Matthew - if you look at all the investigations of the church on this issue and still believe that the response has been adequate, then there is nothing more to say. And if the church is forced at some point to be transparent about all the documentation, (and it will only become transparent if forced), then the true depth and breadth of this perversion will come to light.
Unfortunately the church has questions to answer over its attitude to clerical child sexual abuse, two being:
1) When Cardinal Law resigned in Boston what signal was sent by giving him a nice job in Rome?
2) When two auxiliary bishops in the Dublin diocese resigned because they were at monthly meetings where child abuse was discussed and they felt they did not do enough to protect the abused children Pope Benedict refused to accept their resignations and had them reinstated, Why?
Sandra Currie, it is obvious at this point that there is nothing that will resonably satisfy your lust for extreme measures. You are making arguments from emotions. Yes it is truly terrible to hear and consider how horrible it is to be taken advantage off in a most vicious and frightening manner. Please don’t pass judgment on us that we don’t fully understand what such victims have been through. I’ve read horrible stories of much worse, especially outside of the Church abuse where the sex trade industry literally tortures children to the point of mutilation as a from of sexual excitement. Police investigate things on videocassettes of child pornography that make them vomit and seek therapy. So please don’t act all high and mighty as if you alone are privvy to information that others are not that gives you some sort of priveledged place form which to speak from. Those of us who are aware of the kind of truly disturbing things that happen in this world also know that if you’re the sort willing to contrast and weigh what has happened in the Church compared to what freely goes on outside of it, that people like you are oblivious to, begin to realize how distorted people like you behave who do not have a grasp of all the facts.
Finally, again, you are making an argument from emotions, not rationale. ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING needs to be examined from a level headed perspective with reason. You go on and on about how the victims react to Church statements and people calling for a reasoned approach. Saying that they are not satisfied with such responses. This makes no argument in your favor. IN anything is precisely goes to show exactly WHY the victims’ and your feelings and emotional baggage should only be given prudent consideration and not be allowed full reign to do whatever you all like in your emotional states. This sounds very harsh, I know, but it is a fact that people who are victimized and left in a state of emotional sorrow or rage will often act irrationally. This goes for either case. A victim (in any case) who is enraged will seek out justice in an extreme way. Some attempt murder against the perpretrator at an extreme state, but most other times they are not in a state of mind to think about how best to approach the situation and get justice delivered fairly to the right people. In some instances, people, like you are doing now, lash out at an entire institution form which the abuser/criminal stems from. THis is entirely unreasonable and in your emotional state are lashing out at innocent people as well, not caring who gets hurt in your desperate search for justice and ammendments. You cease to see the gravity of your actions believing that what has happened to you gives you the full right to behave however you want, everyone else be damned. Similarily, the emotional state can be such that it goes to the opposite end of the spectrum, that the victim is left in a state so frightened and alone, that they fail to take any action at all and this negatively affects their actions and relationships with people for the remainder of their lives and no justice is served.
This is precisely why law enforcement will not spak to a hysterical victim until they’ve been calmed down adn can begin to think straight and even then they must act prudently with information provided to them by the victim. In cases where the act was carried out during the victim’s childhood years ago, investigation becomes extraordinarily difficult and the longer the case has been left unchecked, the longer it will take to get anything going again. It is true that in this time some criminals might get away or be handled with kids gloves until clear evidence can put them behind bars and thus some restitution can be made to victims by the organization if they are found to have been purposely negligent. Until then your arguments from emotion are not a reason to act irrationally, to be hasty, and esepcially not to overly burden innocent people because of your lust for revenge/justice. The Church is involved in many areas of life and to helping people. If it’s money you want to be taken and thrown at the feet of victims because you somehow consider this to be adequate (It never will be), this will certainly nto come at the cost of taking away from victims of aids, persecution, starvation and famine, health care, orphanages, etc. etc. The money has to come form somewhere after all! Is this what you want? Surely it isn’t. Why don’t you calm down and stop and think and try and get to know the situation better rather than make one sided judgments from your emotional perch.
What has happened to the victims of sexual abuse is not some trivial matter, but that does not give victims groups a right to call for irrational retribution nor miraculously quick answers and solutions. They ought to be persistent in their judgment but also force themselves to understand the difficulties involved in having this accomplished. Just because something terrible has been done to you does not also give you the right to go out and abuse others in other ways. Call out corruption where you clearly see it. Keep knocking on the door and the judge will eventually dispense justice. God is always on the side of those for whom justice is not done and always remember that the best remedy is to allow ones life experiences to bring them closer to God and being able also to forgive the most henious of crimes against you as well as yourself. This is not to say you must let the criminals go scott free becuase you forgive them. Follow through for justice to happen in this world, but do so for the sake of the criminal that in his punishment he will come to repent and realize his actions and to prevent further tragedies, and then in your heart forgive the sinner for what he has done to you so that you can live freely without having such bad memories always weighing you down. This is more valuable than any money that can be dispensed to you. We can live for eternity and must not lose sight of that fact. By then the things and problems of this world will seem like a bad dream that dissipates once we truly awaken.
brencel -
Can’t say anything with certainty here, but the Church does not bahave liek a political organization nor a corporation when such things occur. IN those cases the guilty or those who failed to adequately do their job are let go publicly and the case is ended as far as relationships with teh public or victims are concerned. They are cut off so as to avoid trouble. The Church on the other hand follows its mission and belief in the fact that people can change and overcome their failures. IN the latter case of the bishops who wnated to resign, the Pope isn’t going to let them off the hook that easily. Resignations may be seen as some sort of public appeasement but in reality do very little to help the situation. Instead these two bishops who recognize their failings honestly are probably best suited to return to their posts with this experience and seek to do a better job. Resigning accomplished nothing. Forcing them to redeem themselves is probably a better course of action. It’s probably similar for Cardinal Law, as his faults probably make him better suited to create safeguards against future situations. You might sort of think of it in the same way of the police using ex criminals to help solve cases. Again, this is not something I know for sure. But just an idea. THe CHurch however has a history of not discarding people simply because they fail. St. Paul persecuted the Church and Christ made him into one of the greatest apostles. This pattern is seen many times through Biblical and Church history. Food for thought…
Don’t know where to begin wih you, Johnno,
First of all, saying I’m being emotional is a classic sexist response for men to discount what women say. So drop it, it’s a cheap shot.
When clergy were transfered, they continued to offend. So much for the argument that the Church was doing it out of a belief that the sinner had repented. Again, look at the documents that have been uncovered - they show a clear trail of cover-ups and protection of the Church’s reputation at the expense of the victims.
And saying that victim groups are asking for unreasonable reparations - there is no reparation in the world that will give back to those people what has been taken for them. I find your minimalizing of the crime of child sexual abuse ignorang and appalling.
Sandra,
Apparently you have some insight as to the allegedly as-yet hidden damning documentation. Why don’t you just release it and be done with it? Otherwise you’re just assuming that there must be some proof of centrally directed systemic coverup. The lack of proof doesn’t matter, you’ve decided that the Vatican is guilty, so proof must exist and just be hidden by the evil molester-enablers in Rome, right? It’s the same old song and dance. “Smoking Gun!” “But it doesn’t say that, it says…” “Well, there’s more proof out there, they’re just hiding it”. You’ve already convicted the Vatican in your own mind, judge and jury all in one.
Oh, and you are appealing to emotion. It’s not a sexist thing to say, it’s just a logical fallacy. When you said the following “Again, I urge you all to contact survivors groups and listen to the stories of the victims. If you are still able to defend the Church’s half hearted apologies and other inadequate responses, then you are a lot more hard hearted than I.”, you are appealing to emotion. Justice must be reasoned, tempered with mercy, not striven for out of anger or hatred. I don’t need to talk to a victim to know that crimes were committed. I don’t need to talk to a victim to be upset with what was done. I don’t need to talk to a victim to want things fixed. All talking to a victim is mean to do is stir up emotion. I’m sorry for what happened to them, but it’s also not my place to question them, make determinations based on their testimonial, reopen their wounds, and judge what happened. That’s up to those charged with investigating such cases.
“When clergy were transfered, they continued to offend.” Yeah, it happens frequently with any type of criminal activity. My wife worked with paroled felons, and before that worked with battered and abused children. Trust me when I say I’ve heard horror stories about what was done to kids, frequently by their own parents. (I didn’t need to talk to those victims, either, to be sickened by what I heard). I’m also well aware of repeat offenders.
I’ve looked at the documents. I’ve seen nothing that shows the Vatican ordered anything like what you claim. I’ve seen instances of multiple bishops doing the same (wrong) thing, and I’ve seen them admit it and accept responsibility for their actions. I’ve seen documents like this one labeled a “smoking gun” only to read it and find that it doesn’t say what SNAP and others have said.
Those of us who disagree with you aren’t minimizing the crimes. I want the guilty punished, and the innocent exonerated. I want justice done, tempered with mercy. And I refuse to paint all priests and bishops with the wrong actions of some, even while wanting the guilty priests and bishops removed.
One final question for you: Would you rather have 100 guilty men go free in order to avoid wrongly convicting an innocent man, or have 100 innocent men wrongly convicted in order to make sure you get every last criminal? If the former, then you have to accept that no system is perfect, and that investigations not only take time but they require some level of discretion. If the latter, well, then I’ve wasted a bunch of time typing this out.
brencel,
1) I’m not happy with how the situation with Cd. Law was handled. However, I’m not privy to all of the information that the Pope has, so I can’t second-guess him. I think it does cause scandal, which should be addressed.
2) Beats me, I’m not a mind reader so I can’t say why the Pope did what he did. I can make some guesses, though. Mercy after seeing true contrition, perhaps? An understanding of the all-too-human desire to not rock the boat? If they recognized that their inaction enabled molesters, and were willing to resign, then they actually did an examination of conscience, saw their own faults, and faced them. (Not being well informed about this particular example, I’m basing these guesses strictly on what you wrote in your post.)
Johno, the police may use ex-criminals, but for the Church to do the same with Cardinal Law some thought should have been given to the victims and perhaps he could have been stripped off/resigned his red cap,at least, to show some repentance. I also think if he was being used for this purpose we would have heard.
Personally I believe it had more to do with clericalism; a prince of the Church had to have his status maintained and could not be seen to be demoted.
Mathew, I believe the case of the bishops has similarities to the Cardinal’s, how many bishops have resigned/been demoted due to cover-ups? Very few.
Matthew - your sarcasm, and deliberate misinterpretation of what I’ve said is fairly boring, so if you care you’ll do your own research, particularly the present pope’s actions and inactions when he had the vatican position of being in charge of this issue. The reports, and documentation is easily available to all those who want to face the truth. I’m outta here.
Oh dear! So much outrage for what you say is bad reporting. No outrage at all at the priests who perpetrated this evil and the bishops who covered it up. Sorry, I’m with Anne Rice on this one, Jimmy. You parsing of this letter reminds me of how the defense in the Rodney King trial slowed down and speeded up the the video of the beating in order to distort the clear fact that police were beating an unarmed man on the ground. Goodstein’s reporting was solid, though you may disagree with it.
If the Catholic Church wishes to clear its name, it must do the following. The Church can never, ever again be a part of any inquiry into the behavior of its clergy or religious. All investigatory panels, for any Church wrongdoing, should be run and staffed by lay Catholics and even non-Catholics, none of whom are in the employ of the Church. All panels must be selected without any input from Church leaders. Any ordained man or consecrated religious must be barred from participating or even viewing investigatory proceedings. Indeed, all investigations must be relocated from Rome. Every Vatican document submitted to the lay panels AND every last page of documentation produced by lay panels MUST be made available online in PDF, Wikileaks style, on a domain and servers absolutely free of Church influence (e.g. never on *.va). The Church must never know anything of the proceedings until the data is released to the public on independent servers. The Church must, however, comply with any requests for information from lay panels.
Without complete lay control and absolute exclusion of the Church from its own internal audit, the abuse crisis will not heal.
@ brencel: “2) When two auxiliary bishops in the Dublin diocese resigned because they were at monthly meetings where child abuse was discussed and they felt they did not do enough to protect the abused children Pope Benedict refused to accept their resignations and had them reinstated, Why?”
The reasons you give for the resignations of these 2 bishops is highly unlikely. It’s more likely they resigned under pressure - more like hysteria - than for any other reason.
The fact that the Pope accepted the resignations of two other bishops, but not these two, should lead any rational person to conclude there may have been sound reasons for the Pope’s decision, rather than to simply conclude the Pope, by this refusal, indicates a defective “attitude to clerical child sexual abuse…”
While the Murphy Report denounced several Bishops, including Bishops O’Mahony, Kavanagh and Murray, Bishop Field was not one of them. Bishop Walsh was not even named in the Murphy Report.
By the time Bishop Field assumed a senior role in the Dublin diocesan The Dublin Diocese was already getting its child-protection policy well underway by the time Bishop Field assumed a senior role there in 1997. You can read that policy, begun in 1995, here:
http://www.catholicbishops.ie/images/docs/csaframework.pdf
The Murphy Report concluded that those cases brought to the attention of the archdiocese from around 1996 or 1997 on were adequately dealth with. Thus, Bishop Field was not found to have done anything wrong, nor was he denounced.
Bishop Walsh was neither criticized nor denounced in the Murphy Report. While he served for a much longer time than Field, and for many of the early years of his service he may have “not done enough”, there is no denying that in the later years of his service he was widely praised in the Ferns Report, while he was Bishop in the Ferns diocese. He effected changes there that were praised as ensuring that children in that diocese would be protected - something no other bishop up to that point had done.
Thus, it is far more likely that neither Fields nor Walsh wanted to resign, and it is clear the Pope had valid reasons for his refusal of their resignations, while accepting others.
Bishops aren’t CEO’s, or institutional “employees.” They are Fathers. And, Fathers don’t abandon their children during a crisis, particularly when their children have been hurt and need them. They stay, then make things right.
So, the fact that the Pope refused the resignations of these two Bishops in no way, shape or form, indicates a defective “attitude” towards protecting children from clerical abuse. Rather, it indicates that these two Fathers, while not perfect, and in need of much learning, will not abandon their children when they are needed the most.
SOOO sorry! The above post was for Matthew A. S., not brencel.
Scratch the above post! The original post WAS for brencel, not Matthew A. S.! It’s late, and my eyes are tired…..
NewsBusters| Hit-and-Run: Media Slams Vatican With Bogus ‘Smoking Gun’ Story
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/dave-pierre/2011/01/21/hit-and-run-media-slams-vatican-bogus-smoking-gun-story
Mollie at “Get Religion” , as usual, has a good piece on the so-called “smoking gun” and how the NYT not only changed the headline to a much more objective one, but they even edited some of the body of the article, including the lede paragraph. She provides a link to the original article (which was posted intact on some web site which I don’t believe is very friendly to the Catholic Church).
One can then compare the origian NYT article with sensationalisic headline, and the new one, with more objective headline.
For example, in the body of the original article, Goldstein wrote: “It said that for both “moral and canonical” reasons, the bishops must handle all accusations through internal church channels. Bishops who disobeyed, the letter said, may face repercussions when their abuse cases were heard in Rome.”
That is patently false. Of the new versions “edits”, Mollie says this: “The new version also removes that confusing language about abuse cases being handled exclusively in church courts and explains that the “moral and canonical” concerns deal with the mandatory reporting.”
What is very curious is how, rather than post those in-body edits as corrections, the NYT simply rewrote them, making no mention of the changes made!
I agree with Mollie that the new version is much better than the old, but what happened to transparency in editorial changes?
Here is the link to Mollie’s article:
http://www.getreligion.org/2011/01/a-vatican-smoking-gun/
To sell Church property to pay a handful of people and their lawyers astronomical amounts of money is absurd. It is punishing the parishioners, and we did not abuse any children. I have never myself been touched by any priest or heard of anyone being touched. This would punish me and I would vote it down. Even after WW2, when my grandmother was kidnapped from a Polish street at gunpoint in 1941 and deported to Austria to be a slave worker and her father was gassed at Auschwitz for having some undeclared food in his house, the compensation my grandmother received for this abuse amounted to several thousand Euro and she was forbidden by law from making any further claims. To suggest that the Church should sell off its property and so punish the millions of Catholics because a small number of priests abused young boys is crazy, especially in the time where child sexuality is all but enforced in the modern culture.
Has anyone else made the mental connection between another flare-up in the sex abuse scandal and the case of Kermit Gosnell? To wit:
“The grand jury investigation determined that health and licensing officials had received repeated reports about Gosnell’s practices for two decades, but taken no action—even after learning that women died during routine abortions—the district attorney’s statement said.”(quoted from CNN.com)
So,according to the district attorney, the people charged with overseeing the operations of people like Kermit Gosnell apparently had a pretty good idea about the horrors being perpetrated at his facility, but no action was taken.
The pro-abortion apologists have quickly come out saying “this is not about abortion.” Yes, nothing to see here, just an isolated incident…
Anne Rice, et.al., have you issued a public statement demanding that every state employee in Philadelphia who was responsible for doing something about Mr. Gosnell’s facility but turned a blind eye be brought up on charges? Will disgust over this horror inspire you to “quit” the pro-choice movement?
Please don’t forget that today, Jan. 22 2011 is a day of penance.
There is an attitude within parts of the hierarchy to sweep problems under the rug.The artcile correctly points out that the letter warns that proper legal procedures must be followed and the seal of confesson must always be obeyed.
Two Vatican cardinals ought to be fired for their attitude in regard to the sex scandals: Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos and Angelo Sodano were of little or no help and actually muddied the waters.
AS for Ms Rice. I met her once in the Palsm and have always enjoyed her books. I wish her well and trust that she will find the peace she has written about in many of her books.
@ TheresaEE
You have absolutely no idea of the scale or the magnitude of the abuses by clergy in Ireland - abuses that went unhindered from 1922 to 1996. The number of victims is over 30,000 children. Gross human rights violations include sexual violence, physical brutality, starvation, slavery, culpable homicide - in one incident 35 children were killed; no member of he clergy was brought to book for that. Indeed the bishop of the diocese welcomed - yeah he WELCOMED - the deaths of these 35 children stating that it saved their souls from becoming spoiled by the world. And to save money on those children’s deaths they squeezed nine of their corpses into one coffin - indeed only 8 coffins were used to carry the corpses of the 35 children. All that in just ONE incident of culpable homicide by the clergy in Ireland during the 20th. century.
@Andrew: “You have absolutely no idea of the scale or the magnitude of the abuses by clergy in Ireland - abuses that went unhindered from 1922 to 1996.”
And, your evidence for this is….what? That someone asked why 2 bishops’ resignations were not accepted by Rome, and I gave some facts about those 2 bishops that might indicate why? That these 2 bishops may have been part of the solution to the problem, rather than a part of the problem?
Or is it that I don’t believe the 1997 letter is a “smoking gun” that shows “the Vatican demanding that no pedophile cases be turned over to police” as Patrick Roberts at IrishCentral portrays it?
Sex abuse scandals line John Paul’s road to sainthood
By Joseph Picard | January 20, 2011 1:18 PM EST
The leadership of the Roman Catholic Church is embroiled, once again, in a sexual abuse scandal or, more properly speaking, another aspect of the same sexual abuse scandal that has haunted the Church for over 20 years.
(Photo of Pope John Paul II blesses Father Marcial Maciel, founder of the Legionaries of Christ, during a special audience in Paul VI hall at the Vatican November 30, 2004. The Legionaries of Christ, a conservative Roman Catholic order that once had absolute and high-level Vatican support, has been disgraced by revelations its charismatic Mexican founder, Maciel, led a double life that included abusing young boys and fathering children. )
It has come to light, in the ongoing investigations and litigations of sexual abuses by Irish clergy, that the Irish bishops took part in a cover-up of the abusers specifically because of instructions from the Vatican contained in a 1997 letter, made public this week.
The Pope in 1997 was the widely popular and beloved John Paul II, who is currently being fast-tracked by the current pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI, for sainthood.
Some Catholics are calling for a halt to that process, at least until all the information is made public about what role John Paul II played, not only in the letter to the Irish clergy, but in other cover-ups of predatory priests around the world.
“It is clear to an objective bystander that John Paul II was the leader of the Vatican’s cover-up of sexual abuse by clergy,” said Anne Barrett Doyle, co-director of BishopAccountability.org. “The facts that have come to light should absolutely delay the current effort to canonize him.”
Facing a growing scandal over sexual abuse by Irish priests, the leaders of the Irish Catholic Church in 1996 put together a protocol for handling the crisis, which included instructions to bishops to cooperate with law enforcement regarding suspected predator priests.
But in 1997, the Irish bishops received a letter from the Congregation for the Clergy - in other words, the Roman Curia which is, together with the Pope, the governing body of the Catholic Church.
The letter, stamped “Strictly confidential,” remained so until an Irish bishop handed a copy to a reporter earlier this week.
The letter referred to the Irish bishops’ document and said it contains “procedures and dispositions which appear contrary to canonical discipline and which, if applied, could invalidate the acts of the same Bishops who are attempting to put a stop to these problems.”
Advocacy groups for victims of sexual abuse by clergy immediately called the letter a “smoking gun,” revealing that Vatican denials over the years that it never instructed bishops to cover up were false.
Church officials and supporters at once responded that the letter was in no way telling Irish bishops not to cooperate with civil authorities.
Jeffrey Lena, the Vatican’s U.S. lawyer, said the letter had been “deeply misunderstood” by the media. Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi said the Holy See sent the letter because it wanted to make certain that pedophile priests would not escape punishment by the Church due to a technicality of a bishop or priest breaking the confidentiality of the confessional.
But victims groups pointed out that the vast majority of sexual abuse cases did not involve the confessional. Other priests, bishops and civilian authorities almost always learned of sexual abuse incidents outside the confessional from the victims or the victims’ parents. Irish bishops have also told civilian authorities that the letter from the Vatican caused them to stop cooperating with civil investigations.
“When you are familiar, as I am, with how the Vatican words things, there is no doubt what the letter meant. It basically says, ‘Don’t turn these priests in,’” said Thomas Doyle, a Roman Catholic priest and no relation to Anne Barrett Doyle.
Doyle has been a priest for 40 years and for the last 27 years has been working on the sexual abuse and cover-up issues. He warned high-ranking Church officials in 1985 of the enormity of the problem and the consequences of not addressing it. He was ignored.
“When the sexual abuse scandal started coming to the surface in 1985 in a case in Louisiana, the Vatican was alerted,” Doyle said. “I know because I saw the letters. The Vatican did nothing.”
Doyle said the pattern was repeated for the next decade and beyond.
“The Pope received notices from bishops and others of the situation, of the abuses and the cover-ups, and he did not respond. He did not even acknowledge the letters,” Doyle said.
Doyle said that Pope John Paul II stopped the Vatican investigation into the actions of Marcial Maciel, the Mexican priest who founded the Legion of Christ and has been proven to be a bigamist and a dope fiend, as well as a pederast who sexually abused over 100 young seminarians.
Barrett Doyle from BishopAccountability.org said it has also been shown that John Paul II covered up for Hans Groer, the notorious Cardinal of Vienna who eventually was removed from his post for numerous cases of pedophilia.
In 2010, the current Cardinal of Vienna, Christoph Schoenborn, told an Austrian television station that Pope Benedict XVI, in 1995, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger and an advisor to Pope John Paul, wanted a full investigation of Groer. But Curia officials persuaded John Paul II that the case was exaggerated and an inquiry would only cause bad publicity.
Schoenborn said Ratzinger told him that “the other side won,” regarding a probe of Groer.
In 1998, Groer was removed from his position, as his egregious behavior became an embarrassment for the Church.
Schoenborn, in 2010, accused the former Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, of blocking the church investigation into Groer’s activities. Pope Benedict XVI then publicly chastised Schoenborn for publicly criticizing a church official.
“John Paul knew precisely what was going on and did not address it,” Thomas Doyle said. “When the matter came up publicly, he blamed secularism, he blamed the media, he blamed the priests. But he never blamed the bishops or the Vatican. And now they want to make him a saint.”
Thomas Doyle has paid a price for being a whistleblower within the Church.
“I’m ostracized. My career in the Catholic Church is long dead. But I would rather do what’s right,’ he said.
Bill Donahue, president of the New York City-based Catholic League, and a well-known defender of the Church, admitted that the sexual abuse scandal is “a blot on John Paul II’s tenure.”
“The scandal did not start on his watch,” Donahue said, citing a study that said most of the sexual abuse by clergy incidents occurred between 1965 and 1985.
“The Church was a moral failure during those years,” Donahue said. “And there is no question that Pope Benedict has done a better job in dealing with the crisis than John Paul.”
But while describing John Paul’s actions regarding the scandal as “not his proudest moment,” Donahue did not think John Paul II’s bad marks on that issue “sufficient to block his course to sainthood.”
“His achievements far outweigh his failures,” Donahue said. “And the momentum is there to make him a saint.”
When asked if he would vote for John Paul II’s canonization, Donahue begged off, saying he was only a layman.
“I will leave it to the Vatican to make that decision,” he said.
Barrett Doyle, on the other hand, was willing to weigh in. Noting that, for sainthood, the Church requires that at least two miracles be attributed to the candidate, she said:
“The second miracle for John Paul II’s canonization should be the purification of the Church, and to accomplish that miracle they would have to voluntarily disclose all they know about sexual abuse by the clergy, all the documents, all the names of the abusers and all the bishops and other involved in covering up. That would truly be a miracle and it would clearly show that John Paul II was the leading architect of the cover up,” Barrett Doyle said.
The times has had an animus toward the Church for years. I no longer read it.
I’m no longer apologizing for Catholicism. For those who hate the Church—which despite Her flaws, is a force for overwhelming good in a world full of evil—read the Natl Catholic Reporter. It seems set up just for you.
I would also like to say that I am so sick of people bringing up only the “rank and file” Catholics as embodying the Church. We are ALL the Church, priests and the hated hierarchy included. As we all know, the overwhelming majority of them were not abusers. They are human beings. My uncle was a member of that hierarchy and relatively conservative. he also blessed literally thousands of people with his ministry to alcoholics, among whom he numbered himself. He was a feminist before most other men were (he died 20 years ago). He also saved my life as a member of a troubled family. Our ministry is to love another, fight evil as appropriate and avoid the easy demonization that takes the focus off our own sins.
More than a few glaring contradictions here.
“But victims groups pointed out that the vast majority of sexual abuse cases did not involve the confessional….Irish bishops have also told civilian authorities that the letter from the Vatican caused them to stop cooperating with civil investigations.”
If the statement from the 1997 letter was referring to the confessional seal, and if the vast majority of cases did not involve the confessional, then the Bishops would have had NO reason to “stop cooperating with civil investigations.” If they stopped cooperating, then it had nothing to do with that letter.
Who are these bishops who “stopped cooperating”? What are their names? Why are we told just “Irish Bishops.” And if they “stopped cooperating” because of the letter’s warning about not breaking the seal of confession, then why does footnote #5 of page 22 of their own 1996 policy state:
“5. The recommended reporting policy does not apply to the relationship between penitent and confessor; the seal of confession is, of course, inviolable. (Cf. the Code of Canon Law, c. 983.)
http://www.catholicbishops.ie/images/docs/csaframework.pdf
Was this a revision placed in their 1996 policy because of the 1997 letter, and if most sexual abuse cases did not take place in the confessional, then why did these “Irish Bishops” violate their own policy?
Here are a couple of other facts which make the above article nonsensical:
1. As of Feb. 2010, “Irish law has no mandatory reporting of complaints of child sexual abuse.” http://studiesirishreview.wordpress.com/2010/02/04/murphy-report-bishop-walsh-explains/
Since the Vatican letter was written in 1997, when Irish law had no mandatory reporting, then HOW is the 1997 letter an instruction to “Irish bishops [to take] part in a cover-up of the abusers specifically because of instructions from the Vatican contained in a 1997 letter” as the above article claims?
The fact is, in 1995-1996, the Irish Bishops themselves were proposing to make reporting of sexual abuse to the authorities mandatory for THEMSELVES. It was NOT “Irish civil law” that made reporting mandatory. The Vatican letter dated 1997 cautioned them to make sure their policies did not violate canon law (or pedophiles could get off on a technicality, just like they get off all the time in civil law on technicalities).
This is one reason footnote #6 on page 23 of their policy, says: “6. The protocol of a diocese or religious congregation should reflect obligations under both civil and canon law.”
The Irish Bishops adopted their policy, (the link to which I provided above), and the Murphy Report concluded that after 1996, their reporting of these cases was adequate. So, either the Bishops IGNORED the 1997 letter from the Vatican, OR, they took into consideration the concerns expressed in the 1997 letter, and the letter isn’t the “smoking gun” some would like to portray it as.
You can’t have it both ways.
TheresaEE
What part of this don’t you get?
“When you are familiar, as I am, with how the Vatican words things, there is no doubt what the letter meant. It basically says, ‘Don’t turn these priests in,’” said Thomas Doyle, a Roman Catholic priest
There are no so blind as those who will not see. Courage - face the truth and do something positive about it.
@ TheresaEE
Ratzinger has offered no endorsement of three official Irish investigations that found the church leadership to blame for the scale and longevity of abuse heaped on Irish children throughout the 20th century - Ferns Report, Ryan Report, Murphy Report.
The Vatican refused to cooperate with those 2001-09 probes into the Dublin Archdiocese, the rural Ferns diocese and Ireland’s defunct network of Institutions for the Irish children - many from broken homes - some of the children were born out of wedlock and that was stated to be a crime by the Catholic Church so the children were locked up for the totality of their childhood.
These investigations, directed by senior Irish judges and lawyers, ruled that Catholic leaders protected the church’s reputation from scandal at the expense of children—and began passing their first abuse reports to police in 1996 only after victims began to sue the church.
Rights campaigners in Ireland and abroad forecast that more victims in more nations will keep coming forward and opening new fronts of criticism, because the pope’s promotion of secretive canon laws remains at the heart of an unsolved problem.
We know this policy of secrecy was worldwide. The more that victims speak out, the more the scandals will spread.
WE ARE NOT GOING TO GO AWAY
While a cardinal at the Vatican, Ratzinger, wrote a 2001 letter instructing bishops worldwide to report all cases of abuse to his office and keep church investigations secret under threat of excommunication.
The Vatican insists the secrecy rules serve only to protect the integrity of the church’s investigations, and should not be taken to mean the church should not tell police of their members’ crimes.
Bear in mind that the Vatican’s top-torpedo man in Ireland is Cardinal Sean Brady and he forced children - who had been raped by a clerical colleague - to take oaths of secrecy to enable his clerical colleague to continue his rapacious reign against children for 18 more years.
Victims’ advocates in Ireland and the United States said the pope again failed to make it clear whether the church considers the secular law a higher priority than canon law when seeking to stop a pedophile priest.
Ratzinger faulted the Irish bishops for failing “sometimes grievously” to apply the church’s own laws requiring child-abusing priests to be removed from the priesthood. But he didn’t rebuke them for failing to report abuse to police.
Ratzinger also repeated an excuse for the bishops’ inaction that has been rejected by the Irish investigations _ that they didn’t understand the scale or criminality of child abuse until recent years.
But the Irish investigators forced the church to hand over its copious files on abuse cases dating back to the 1950s - over 60,000 individual documents.
They unearthed a paper trail confirming the Irish bishops’ successful acquisition of group liability insurance in the 1980s, a decade before the deluge of lawsuits. And they found cases where Catholic officials in the 1960s reported school employees to police for abusing children, showing they understood even then it was a crime.
@Sandra: “What part of this don’t you get?”
Oh, I get it. I’m supposed to blindly believe every word that comes out of Thomas Doyle’s mouth, and use my emotions, rather than my rational intellect to think. I’m not supposed to think for myself, or read both sides of the issue and come to my own conclusions.
Sorry. Doesn’t work for me. I’m a woman, but apparently, a “sexist” woman, because I believe that one should use one’s rational intellect, not one’s emotions, to “think.”
Now, I could repeat the questions I posed above, to which you haven’t responded, but why bother? Your mind is made up: The Pope, the Vatican, the entire Catholic Church is guilty of a conspiracy to “cover up.”
I disagree. and I arrived at my conclusions by rational inquiry, not hysterical emotion.
@Andrew.
And all of this you wrote above is your “evidence” I asked you for to support your claim that I “have absolutely no idea of the scale or the magnitude of the abuses by clergy in Ireland - abuses that went unhindered from 1922 to 1996.”??
What a mess! We see here the consequences of interpreting Vatican II using the hermeneutics of discontinuity (the Spirit of Vatican II). One aspect of this interpretation has been the belief that what the Catholic Church teaches about homosexuality is obsolete and needs to change. Another aspect has been to allow homosexuals (contrary to Church discipline and common sense) to become priests using the pretext of inclusiveness. Thus, many homosexual priests saw nothing wrong with having sex with adolescents. This lack of fidelity to what the Church has always taught, to the vow of celibacy, and to Church discipline has brought one of the greatest scandals the Catholic Church has ever experienced. How many souls have been and will be lost as a consequence of this scandal! May God help Pope Benedict XVI in his attempt to clean Christ’s Church from the filth that invaded it after Vatican II. May God have mercy on all of those who are responsible for this scandal.
No TheresaEE - just blindly believe everything the RC Church says.
And Rene, if you think that child sexual abuse started with Vatican II and that homosexuality is the problem, you’re just plain ignorant.
Wait until you blind followers of the church die - are you in for a surprise!
I don’t have any trouble believing that the 1997 (or whenever) letter to the Irish bishops from the Vatican diplomat assigned to Ireland had the effect of discouraging the Irish bishops from reporting abuse to the police. ThereseEE is being pedantic in citing official bureaucratic documents as proof that the Irish bishops would have reported abuses. A letter from a nuncio would override all such documents in their minds. My bottom line is this: although the diplomat did not tell the Irish bishops not to report abuses, the language of his letter was such that it strongly discouraged them from doing so.
@Bob: “ThereseEE is being pedantic in citing official bureaucratic documents as proof that the Irish bishops would have reported abuses. A letter from a nuncio would override all such documents in their minds. My bottom line is this: although the diplomat did not tell the Irish bishops not to report abuses, the language of his letter was such that it strongly discouraged them from doing so.”
So, in other words, despite the 1996 Framework, which required the Bishops to report abuse cases to the police (even though Irish law had no mandatory reporting of such crimes), the 1997 letter from the Papal Nuncio would have discouraged the Bishops from doing so.
While Bob accuses me of being “pedantic in citing official bureaucratic documents as proof that the Irish Bishops would have reported abuse,” Bob is being disengenuous in ignoring my use of the Murphy Reports conclusions for the period after 1996 (when, non-coincidentally, the Bishops adopted the 1996 Framework).
Of the abuse cases examined by the Murphy Report, their conclusion was that about half were adequately dealt with - specifically, those cases brought to the attention of the archdiocese from around 1996 on.
So, while it’s fun to speculate on what affect the 1997 letter (the one that never said civil authorities should NOT be contacted) might have had on the Bishops, the fact remains that AFTER 1996, as the Murphy Report concludes, they did a much better job of handling abuse cases than they did prior to the adoption of the 1996 Framework.
A pretty amazing feat to accomplish if they were ” strongly discouraged them from” reporting abuse cases.
@TheresaEE
The scale of MY evidence is contained in the Ryan Report | http://www.childabusecommission.com/rpt/index.php |
Here’s a snippet for you:
The damage [of CLERGY SEXUAL TERRORISM] to the children affected and the danger to others were disregarded. The difference in treatment of lay and religious abusers points to an awareness on the part of Congregational authorities of the seriousness of [CLERGY SEXUAL TERRORISM], yet there was a reluctance to confront religious who offended in this way. The desire to protect the reputation of the Congregation and institution was paramount. Congregations asserted that knowledge of sexual abuse was not available in society at the time and that it was seen as a moral failing on the part of the Brother or priest. This assertion, however, ignores the fact that [CLERGY SEXUAL TERRORISM] of children was a criminal offence - STILL is a criminal.
The recidivist nature of sexual abuse was known to religious authorities.
The documents revealed that [CLERGY SEXUAL TERRORISTS] were often long-term offenders who repeatedly abused children wherever they were working. Contrary to the Congregations’ claims that the recidivist nature of sexual offending was not understood, it is clear from the documented cases that they were aware of the propensity for [CLERGY SEXUAL TERRORISTS] to re-abuse. The risk, however, was seen by the Congregations in terms of the potential for scandal and bad publicity should the abuse be disclosed.
The danger to children was not taken into account.
When confronted with evidence of [CLERGY SEXUAL TERRORISM], the response of the religious authorities was to transfer the offender to another location where, in many instances, he was free to abuse again.
Permitting an offender to obtain dispensation from vows often enabled him to continue working [AND RAPING CHILDREN] as a lay teacher.
Men who were discovered to be [CLERGY SEXUAL TERRORISTS] were allowed to take dispensation rather than incur the opprobrium of dismissal from the Order. There was evidence that such men took up teaching positions sometimes within days of receiving dispensations because of serious allegations or admissions of sexual abuse.
The safety of children in general was not a consideration.
Sexual abuse was known to religious authorities to be a persistent problem in male religious organisations throughout the relevant period.
Nevertheless, each instance of sexual abuse was treated in isolation and in secrecy by the authorities and there was no attempt to address the underlying systemic nature of the problem. There were no protocols or guidelines put in place that would have protected children from predatory behaviour.
The management did not listen to or believe children when they complained of the activities of some of the men who had responsibility for their care. Indeed children who reported that they had been raped by a clergyman were brutally punished.
At best, the abusers were moved, but nothing was done about the harm done to the child. At worst, the child was blamed and seen as corrupted by the sexual activity, and was punished severely.
It is clear to those who have the courage to face the situation that the church only started taking action when pressure from the media, civil authorities, and some clergy and parishioners who went public that some actions to deal with the issue began to happen. He does not give me any confidence that the church is rigorously protecting the lives of the children it claims to minister.
I spent much of my career working with survivors, so I am passionate about this issue. Those who want to dismiss me say I’m emotional, like that’s a bad thing. Being passionate about trying to help protect children is not a bad thing.
Instead od dismissing the reports on this issue, why not do some further research, and demand that the church release all the records they have (if they haven’t been shredded). There is more to be revealed, and those who believe they are above the law are still holding on to them.
Interesting that the Irish priests knew exactly what the letter meant, but bloggers here are still saying it meant something else. What is wrong with this picture.
Therese: you’re splitting hairs. The 1996 guidelines adopted by the Irish bishops is what the nuncio was commenting on in his 1997 letter. The Murphy report may say that the bishops handled abuse cases better after 1996, but that is purely relative: before 1996 their conduct was atrocious. I have no trouble believing the nuncio’s comments discouraged the bishops from reporting abuses to the police. I greatly doubt the bishops became as intrepid after 1996 as before 1996 they were craven.
Therese, do you know how Vatican diplomatic communications work? No one is better at “diplomatic” indirection than the Italians, and in this the Vatican is the ne plus ultra, a master at communicating indirectly what it means. If I were an Irish bishop reading that leader, I would see immediately: “report to the police at your peril.” There clearly was a faction in the Vatican that wanted no communication at all with the police about these matters, until no other option was available.
There are two sides to this debate.
One side does not believe that Jesus Christ the eternal judge will reward goodness and punish evil. This side has judged the Catholic Church, Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI guilty. They demand that the Catholic Church submit its authority to them absolutely, removing Jesus Christ as head of the Catholic Church and replacing Jesus with themselves. This side demands that the Catholic Church surrender all authority to secular entities as though the secular could effect a more perfect Justice than God.
The other side believes that no matter how badly any situation is handled, Justice will be done by God, W HO is Justice HIMSELF and the only way to handle the other side is to stand one’s ground on the ROCK of Peter. This side will prevail, because the gates of hell will not prevail against it.
All this seemingly passionate call for Justice for the sexually abused victims of clergy diverts attention away from the fifty three million sovereign persons who are begotten and murdered in the womb, since our society declared death in the womb to be a civil right. Satisfying one’s lust is small matter compared with defying God’s will in bringing forth another person.
Mary de Voe: this phrase from your post shows how weak your case is:
“this seemingly passionate call for Justice for the sexually abused victims of clergy.” The abuse of these victims, then, does not justify a passionate call for justice?
What difference whether the call comes from unbelieving secularists or from Catholics? If it won’t come from the latter, then from the former is better than nothing. The secularists may disdain the Catholic Church and faith, but in this case they are right. If not for them the abuse probably would still be going on.
What you miss is that the bishops’ dereliction in the sexual abuse cases undercuts their defense of the unborn, by undermining their own credibility.
The Church gets to judge crimes committed by Catholics? Does this include murder, rape, robbery etc? Or is it just the crime of child rape?
I’ve seen reports that the sexual abuse of children living in orphanages in the Peoples’ Republic of China approaches a rate of nearly 100%. I’m wondering why so few people express their outrage about that, too.
In addition, I find that the former behavior of U.S. and Irish bishops parallels precisely the lamentable hush-it-up, cover-their-own behavior of many private families in which these sorts of horrors occur.
As the close friend of a woman who turned her own husband in for this sort of thing, I learned that many, many wives and girlfriends of sexual predators of their own little children, do become aware of the abuse, but are afraid, or ashamed, or for other reasons refuse to report the abuse to the authorities. In fact, in recent years, laws have been passed in some jurisdictions, charging the mothers with the crime of being complicit, if it is learned that she knew the abuse was happening, but she refused to protect her own child. Yet, it happened all the time, and still happens.
This is unimaginable to me, but apparently people go into some sort of denial mode, and it is very typical in situations where there is sexual abuse of children by adults living in close-knit settings of trust and interdependence.
Evidently, the bishops have gotten the message, and have begun to turn things around. In many U.S. dioceses, no new cases have been reported.
Meanwhile the Chinese orphans continue to suffer, and no improvements are made. What about that situation?
From The United Nations Refugee Agency Bulletin from November 15, 2007
“SEOUL – Three North Korean children found wandering in northeastern China with no one to look after them have been granted refugee status in the United States, and overseas rights groups say there could be thousands more.
“’The situation of North Korean orphans in China has been deteriorating, and it has become obvious that we need to extend a helping hand to these children,’ Adrian Hong, executive director of the non-governmental human rights group Liberty in North Korea (LiNK), which brought the two children and one teenager to the United States in October 2007.
“’any U.S.-based human rights groups are taking keen interest in North Korean orphans in China, and this has become a major priority for these organizations,’ Hong told RFA’s Korean service.
“These ‘second-wave’ orphans are mostly the children of North Korean women who were forced to marry Chinese men. Some believe the arrival of these North Korean children in the United States may establish a precedent for the adoption of North Korean orphans by American families, an outcome favored by rights groups such as Helping Hands Korea.
“’Fourteen North Korean orphans have just arrived at one of the shelters that we run in northeast China,’ the group’s founder, Tim Peters, said. The situation of North Korean children has changed in recent years, Peters said.
“’Previously, most of the North Korean orphans were the children of defectors who had fled North Korea, and who had lost their parents. What we are seeing now is different from that first wave of orphans. These ‘second-wave’ orphans are mostly the children of North Korean women who were forced to marry Chinese men,’” Peters said.
“Their mothers are defectors and generally have not acquired legal status in China. If they are apprehended by the Chinese authorities and forcibly repatriated to North Korea, in many cases their children are left behind,” Peters said. . .
“As many as 300,000 North Koreans are believed to live in hiding in China, where they frequently suffer abuse and exploitation. . . .
“Under a U.N. refugee convention, China is obliged to not force defectors back to North Korea, where they face punishment, torture, and humiliation, according to human rights observers. The punishment for defecting is three years in a labor camp and can lead to torture and execution, both for the defectors and their families.
“Thousands of North Korean women who fled famine in their homeland in recent years are believed to have been sold as ‘brides’ to Chinese men, who often put them to backbreaking labor and subject them to constant fear, physical assault, and sexual abuse.”
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,RFA,,USA,4742f3e51a,0.html
Thousands of children living in China and North Korea are not only undergoing sexual abuse, but are dying. Right now! Today!
Even where improvements have been made, it seems that there are those who are interested in ensuring that, at all costs, the U.S. public should remain stuck aboard an infinitely looping bucking bronco ride called “All Catholic Clergy Sexually Abuse Children . . . Yesterday, Today, and Forever”.
This is a ride never goes anywhere, never responds to the necessary changes the Church has made in recent years, and it never ends.
Anything to distract from the issue of clerical sexual abuse.
I support human rights organizations who are attempting to put pressure on the Chinese government to address this and many other human rights abuses in China.
How about you?
“Anything to distract from the issue of clerical sexual abuse.”
I support ongoing efforts to put and keep the necessary improvements that have been put in place to prevent further outrages against children. I resist efforts to distract me from seeing that they stay put. Once I see the necessary improvements put in place by all . . . or nearly all dioceses, then you’re right! I believe in moveon.org - move on to people and situations that need my attention in the here and now.
If you want to sit and rehash on past problems that have since been corrected, while meanwhile tens of thousands children in other parts of the world are dying of neglect, right now . . . today . . as we speak. . . then by all means, be my guest.
But most people will feel the children at risk now, today, in Communist China deserve their concern and their outrage.
Wouldn’t you agree?
“I support human rights organizations who are attempting to put pressure on the Chinese government to address this and many other human rights abuses in China.
How about you?”
Absolutely. And I would like to see more Americans do so, too. As long as the clerical abuse situation remains as improved as it can be now, today, let’s clear some of our bandwidth and address our outrage to the plight of these Chinese orphans.
Sandra, don’t you care about the Asian victims of sexual abuse?
Or are you just about chasing down victims that have been abused by Catholics?
Aren’t all victims worth helping?
Does your “compassion” hide itself when the victims differ?
There will always be people who get stuck in the past. It’s important to be aware of past misdeeds, and make sure they don’t happen again.
But once these have been corrected, . . . Lord! So many little ones elsewhere, here, now, today, deserve our concern.
Let us be vigilant that past misdeeds aren’t allowed to reoccur, but let us not become so obsessed that we find ourselves looking past the needs of little ones living elsewhere whose lives are being destroyed at this very moment.
That would be, if anything, even more reprehensible.
The people who were abused are “stuck in the past” for the rest of their lives and reparations have not been made and justice has not been served.
Liseaux
Did you need read my post. What are you doing about them?
Well put, Marion and liseux.
Those who want to keep the focus on the Bishop’s failures in the past can do so only by:
1. Ignoring the reforms the Church has put into place, which, while still not perfect, have resulted in virtually no new abuse cases the past few years.
2. Refusing the admit that, while the Church has put reforms into place, children are STILL being horribly abused in secular instutions, by relatives, poliice, firefighters, doctors, coaches, and people from ALL walks of life.
They assume the civil authorities are the perfect “experts” in handling sexual abuse cases, ignoring the fact that it has only been in the last couple of decades that laws against child sexual abuse have been placed on the books. In the US, it became mandatory to report sexual abuse only in the mid ninties.
Prior to that, abuse survivors, whether in the Church or outside the Church, suffered for coming forward. No one wanted to deal with it, so those abused were abused all over again by their families, neighbors, friends, teachers, police, etc. Called liars, told to shut up, even threatened with civil action for “slandering the good name” of their abuser.
MILLIONS of adults abused as children have found they had NO recourse in civil courts because of the statute of limitations, prosecutors being reluctant to build a case where almost no physical evidence exists, judges giving light sentences (some, shorter that a few months), and perps getting off on technicalities.
A recent study of mandatory reporting, by the government in Ireland, found that MOST government and social workers admitted they would be reluctant to “turn in” a co-worker. That’s not something unique to Catholic Bishops - it’s human nature. Wives, girlfriends, sisters, friends, no one wants to turn in someone they love, and are close to.
In short, families, schools, secular institutions, and civil authorities have been just as bad, if not worse, then the Church authorities. The Church is moving forward, but unless we start to see more changes in our civil laws, and better enforcement of those laws, perps will still get off with a wrist slap. Bishops can turn in abusive priests, but unless and until our civil laws get some real teeth, perps will still walk!!!
Anyone who mentions these facts to those obsessed with how the Church failed in the past, is accused of trying to take the “focus off the Church.”
Which does lead any rational person to ask: “Do they care about preventing the sexual abuse of ALL children, and punishing ALL the perps, or do they care only about those abused in the Church?”
Marion,
I belong to a large group of families who homeschool their children. Many of these families have adoped Chinese orphans - and it is clear that some of those poor babies have been badly abused prior to their adoptions. The families, of course, don’t know for sure what happened to them. They know only that terrible things did happen.
Thus, I am not surprised when you say that the abuse rate approaches 100%.
Between the high abortion and infanticide rates in China, and the emotional, physical and sexual abuse of those who survive, God help us all if we turn our backs on them.
@ Bob G
You have made my case. I call for every sexual abuser of children and immature persons whose civil rights and sexual consent are held in trust for them by God, their parents and the state to be imprisoned for the rest of their lives. Yes, and capital one murderers must be put to death. If a criminal is truly repentant of his sins he will expire with (good) grief over his sin. That the secularists and the state have not moved to enact legislation for life imprisonment for the crime of sexual abuse of children does not move anybody to go forward in the protection of children. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DOES NOT IMPRISON MEN FOR SINS. THE STATE IMPRISONS MEN FOR CRIMES. Although a sin is a crime when it is committed against another person, the state must act, not beleaguer the church. …to do what??? The state must imprison the offender for the rest of his life, to satisfy for the life injured by his crime. One poster once said that if the sex offender were to lose his member, crimes against children would be zero overnight. I concur. But the sex offender of children believes that he is doing them the greatest good, that his crime against them is the biggest gift he could give them. One of every four children are raped. That most go unpunished equally, sounds to me like the good ole boy network. In the Old Testament rapist were required to support their victims for the rest of their lives. Let’s get this legislation on the books post haste. The details can be worked out later.
@ Bob G
…and for the murder of fifty three million innocent sovereign persons begotten in the womb displays the spineless ignorance of the secular state. If the Supreme Court did not know and they admitted that they did not know of the sovereign personhood in the begotten child, endowed by OUR CCREATOR as “self-evident truths” they ought to have removed (recused )themselves from the case or given the newest person the benefit of the doubt. Roe v. Wade is a monstrous miscarriage of Justice. Justice is predicated on intent. Therapeutic abortion intends to save the life of the mother and the child. Procured abortion on demand intends to kill the child. The stench of Roe v. Wade is brimstone and fire. I have accused the state of not intending to punish the rapists of children. Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote in her book that she wanted every fourteen year old girl to be “FREE” to legally practice prostitution, AND SHE WAS RAISED TO THE SUPREME COURT. Dirty old men with syphilis can now rape fourteen year old minor girls, legally. Do you really believe in this millieu some child rapist is going to get life in prison? You bettcha there is a HELL.
@Bob: “Therese: you’re splitting hairs. The 1996 guidelines adopted by the Irish bishops is what the nuncio was commenting on in his 1997 letter.”
Yes, I am quite aware of that.
@Bob: “The Murphy report may say…..”
The Murphy Report DOES say….
@Bob: “The Murphy report may say that the bishops handled abuse cases better after 1996, but that is purely relative: before 1996 their conduct was atrocious.”
I think we can both agree that before 1996, the Bishops’ handling of these cases was atrocious. It seems to me, though, that you are unwilling to admit that AFTER 1996, a change took place that is duly noted in the Murphy Report.
The Murphy Report covered the period from 1974 through 2004. From 1974 until about 1996, the Bishops were not reporting accused priests. From 1996 until 2004, the Bishops were not only reporting accused priests, but were handling the cases in a much different, and improved fashion.
Now, I can see where you might think “… the nuncio’s comments discouraged the bishops from reporting abuses to the police.” What I cannot understand is how the Murphy Report could conclude the Bishops WERE reporting abuse cases after 1996, if, as you say, they were not.
I think we can both agree that if the Bishops interpreted the 1997 letter as you claim, then they would have continued to “cover up” abuse cases after receiving the letter. Why, then, does the Murphy Report not reflect this? Why did it not conclude that from 1974 through 2004, the Bishops mishandled ALL abuse cases? What accounts for the change that occurred around 1996 in the Bishops’ handling of abuse cases?
You make no attempt to answer this question. Rather, your replies border on the obtuse in that you either have not read the Murphy Report, or you don’t consider its conclusions valid, and therefore, don’t acknowledge that a REAL and significant change took place around 1996, in how the Bishops handled abuse cases.
@Bob: “If I were an Irish bishop reading that leader, I would see immediately: “report to the police at your peril.” There clearly was a faction in the Vatican that wanted no communication at all with the police about these matters, until no other option was available.”
I agree absolutely that there were those in the Vatican who did not see reporting to secular authorities a tenable option. Cardinal Ratzinger was not in that camp, but he was not responsible for this letter. That being said, if I were an Irish Bishop, I still would not see in that letter what you see. I would see a concern that in setting up any policy which insists upon mandatory reporting, care MUST be taken to ensure that canon law is respected – otherwise, guilty priests may not get punished canonically, the inviolate seal of confession may be endangered, AND, those victims who insist upon absolute confidentiality may be discouraged from coming forward.
As I have said, we can debate til the cows come home how we “think” the Bishops may have interpreted that letter. But I believe the evidence I have already listed is in favor of my interpretation. I have posted the footnotes from the 1996 Framework, which shows the concerns of the 1997 letter were addressed in the Framework document. I have shown the Murphy Report’s conclusion, which shows strongly that the Bishops DID REPORT ABUSE CASES TO THE POLICE after 1996-97.
You, OTOH, have shown no evidence that they interpreted the 1997 letter the way you interpret it. All you have done is make an assertion, with no evidence to back it up. You need to explain HOW the Bishops, while interpreting the 1997 letter as “report to the police at your peril”, nonetheless, REPORTED ABUSE CASES TO THE POLICE – and provide some evidence to back up your assertion.
TheresaEE.
Guess you didn’t read the Ryan report, nor my earlier post where a quoted an Irish priest who said they knew exactly what the letter meant - don’t report to the civil authorities.
How dare you assume that I or anyone else speaking out about clerical abuse don’t care about the abuse of all children. I’d put my record up against yours in that area, TheresaEE!
It should be noted by all the Vatican apologists that the 1996 Framework document has STILL not being accepted by Ratzinger and his co-conspirators.
Let’s look at matters since 1996/1997 - in fact let’s just look at the year 2008:
In February 2008, the Irish Government referred two allegations of Child Sex Abuse to the National Board for Child Protection, an independent supervisory body established by the Irish bishops. When the chief executive of that body made contact with the diocese on the matter, he was met with lack of cooperation. Meetings held with Bishop John Magee and representatives of the diocese in March failed to elicit his full cooperation with the National Board for Child Protection’s investigation.
It transpired that he had failed to implement self-regulatory procedures agreed by the bishops of Ireland in 1996.
Magee received sterling support from cardinal Sean Brady - the man who forced secret oaths on children who had been raped by a clergy colleague. Seems to me that the Church, instead of safeguarding children is continuing its age-old tradition of BLACKGUARDING children.
I find it ironic that a mother of a homosexual, Anne Rice would be so upset at clergy abuse when most of it was homosexual in nature.
Sandra Currie,
If you are not spending as much time or MORE calling to attention and working against the Asian orphans who suffer abuse, you are simply another anti-Catholic bigot.
Do you spend as much time on the U.N. websites or any Asian newspaper blogs crusading for the Asian children who have been abused?
I think not.
You were on the Bishop Olmstead blog as well, as an Anne Rice echo. It was all about Catholic teaching on abortion and how a Catholic hospital should be run under Catholic guidelines.
You have little credibility as an advocate for children who’ve been abused. You simply seem to be occupied with biting at the heels of all things Catholc.
Certainly, you have a life, don’t you?
The police are far more of a red herring in all this than most people think. They are not equipped to do much and they get crank calls and reports constantly on this kind of stuff. They do not like to get involved because they prefer to deal with a known quantity which this stuff seldom is. The average policeman is far more comfortable confronting a bank robber with a 45 than with someone accused of some level of sex abuse of some 13 year old boy.
Yes, I suppose there is a “Special Victims Unit” in some locations but the theatrical drama is far different from the actual reality.
The Sovereign Catholic Church through the sacraments creates and recreates virgins among men. A person is baptized and through the Sacrament of Baptism becomes a virgin. A penitent goes into the confessional box through the sacrament of Reconciliation, a prostitute, and comes out a virgin. A communicant comes up to receive the Body of Christ through the sacrament of Holy Eucharist, an ordinary man, and becomes Divine with Jesus Christ, a virgin. A man prostrates himself before almighty God and is ordained a minister of the sacraments and the Word of God through the sacrament of Holy Orders and becomes an alter Christi, another Christ. Man is born into Christ in Baptism, married into Christ in Holy Matrimony and buried in Christ through Extreme Unction the sacrament of the sick.
Jesus Christ said: “Go and sin no more”
When the Apostles asked Christ if they should rain down fire upon a town because the town did not welcome them, Christ said “NO”. They shook the dust of their feet off against the town and left. Jesus knew that His absence was punishment enough. “If you knew WHO was asking you for a drink of water, you would have given Him some water”, Jesus said to the Samaritan woman at the well.
It is the Catholic Church’s mission to return man to original innocence and virginity through the sacraments.
It is the state’s mission and duty to protect that innocence and virginity, endowed by OUR CRESATOR, recreated by the Catholic Church and defended by the state.
There is indeed, the temporal punishment due to sin even though, now a virgin, the penitent must accept the temporal punishment due to sin which includes turning HIMSELF into state authority for crimes, all crimes he may have committed, to be worthily received back into the church after self excommunicating himself through mortal sin.
The Catholic Church does not imprison men for sin. The state imprisons men for crime. All child molesters must be imprisoned for the rest of their lives after they have turned state’s evidence and turned themselves into state authority for punishment.
The “smoking gun” of the New York Times is aimed at their ignorance.
“OUR CREATOR” FROM THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE which documents the sovereign person. The Constitution documents the sovereign person’s civil rights endowed by OUR CREATOR. Sovereign personhood is endowed by OUR CREATOR to the newly begotten sovereign person. All sovereignty, personhood and civl rights are held in trust by God, the parents and the state in that order.IN GOD WE TRUST
You women made good points about sexual abuse of children in China, etc., and even here in the US. I have little doubt the problem is far more common and intractable than most people think.
But I’m not ready to “move on.” The US bishops have so far surrendered $3+ billion of our money and the toll is mounting. Ireland and Europe have yet to cough up. I agree that many of the revelations are motivated by anti-Catholic sentiment. Yet most of the basic facts are clear. YOU move on. I want to know why we lost those sums—who were the perps and what is their retribution. And I’d like to know money I’m throwing in the basket isn’t still going down a rathole.
Theresa, your points against my last post are contrived. You’re trying to put words in my mouth. I did not say that after 1996 no sexual abuse matters were reported to the Irish police. I said, or implied, that some may have been reported but, because of the nuncio’s letter, a lot probably still weren’t. A later poster confirmed what I said. The Murphy Report said that at about 1996 the Bishops’ record improved. That’s far from saying all abuse cases from then on were reported, as you’re trying to have it.
“All you have done is make an assertion, with no evidence to back it up.” You’re looking in the mirror.
Theresa: another question you may want to deal with is that the nuncio’s 1997 letter gave as a reason not to report abuse to the police, that innocent priests might be accused and railroaded. In other words, slow all this down so the accused priests can be protected. About ten years later that became the official line in the U.S. as well.
In the U.S. that latter-day “care for the priest” was a dramatic reversal. The bishops’ first reaction to the scandals was to throw the priests to the wolves, after they had thrown the abused children. The bishops were trying to save themselves. Even Fr. Richard John Neuhaus saw through that, and objected. The nuncio’s letter could have been encouraging that in Ireland ten years earlier. The letter expresses no concern for the abused victims, only for accused priests. A circling of the wagons.
I believe (on no more evidence that you have) that the Irish bishops would have been highly receptive to the nuncio’s message: save the institution. But that letter put them between the devil and the deep blue sea: report and pay, or slow down or stop the reports and hope to skate. My guess is that the split the difference, although I have no more real evidence than you do.
@Bob: “Theresa, your points against my last post are contrived. You’re trying to put words in my mouth. I did not say that after 1996 no sexual abuse matters were reported to the Irish police. I said, or implied, that some may have been reported but, because of the nuncio’s letter, a lot probably still weren’t.”
I apologize if you believe I am trying to put words in your mouth. That is not my intent. Your statements were interpreted by me in a collective, not a distributive sense. That is, I interpreted them to mean that, OVERALL, since the Bishops interpreted the 1997 letter as meaning “don’t report”, as a whole, or as a group, they did not. And, you have just borne this out by your statement that “some may have reported” but “a lot probably” didn’t.
Let me be clear about one thing. When posters reply to me, I assume they have read all of my posts, so they are familiar with the context of my posts. I try to stay on point, and not go all over the place like buckshot shot out of a canon. Since I began my posting by explaining why the resignations of two Dublin Bishops were not accepted by Rome, my CONTEXT is Dublin, and the Dublin Archdiocese. If I have not made that clear in my subsequent posts, then I apologize. I have assumed too much by not continuing to stress that I am talking about the Dublin Archdiocese.
That being said, perhaps you can understand why, in light of the Murphy report, I do not understand your assertion that “a lot” of Bishops [in the Dublin Archdiocese] did not report to police after the 1997 letter. In fact, despite Rome’s not giving recognition to the 1996 Framework, Cardinal Connell told the Commission that he made the guidelines the policy of his Archdiocese - and both the Murphy Report and the media acknowledge that the Dublin Archdiocese DID FOLLOW THE FRAMEWORK in reporting abuse cases to police after the policy was adopted.
That being said, I find it interesting how often people accuse others of doing what they themselves are doing. I have repeatedly said the Murphy Report said that after 1996, the Archdiocese’s reporting was “adequate.” I twice used that term. I have never asserted, or even implied, this means 100% compliance.
You are doing the very thing you accuse me of doing: @Bob: “The Murphy Report said that at about 1996 the Bishops’ record improved. That’s far from saying all abuse cases from then on were reported, as you’re trying to have it.
It is, therefore, you, who are “putting words in my mouth.”
Now, you have claimed my comments are “contrived,” they are “splitting hairs”, I am being “pedantic”, yada yada. Your comments are duly noted, and I will end this discussion with you because you have not supported, with any evidence, you assertions.
Liseux and Marion,
I’m retired, after working for thirty years with survivors of child sexual abuse. I know work with human rights organizations that work on issues globally. Presently, my focus is a cooperative in Calcutta that is helping women and children who have been forced into the sex trade.
It is the women’s movement that brought the whole issue of child sexual abuse to the public’s attention. By pressuring legislators, educating police, the medical profession and law enforcement and the courts how to respond to reports.
So Michael, all of these constituencies are better equipped to respond to child sexual abuse than the RC hierarchy.
AND MARION AND LISEUX, What are you doing to prevent child sexual abuse and help the victims who are living with the results of this crime?
And to that ignorant person who made the remark about Anne Rice and her homosexual son, just exactly what are you implying.
Child sexual abuse is about access. And because of the structure of the church, and it’s beliefs about women, priests have more access to little boys than to little girls, although they have been abused to when the opportunity presented itself.
Heterosexual men are the prevalent abuses of both boys and girls. So implying that it’s a homosexual problem does not bear out with evidence and comes from ignorance.
Theresa, good—disappear. If I have not supported my comments with evidence, neither have you. At least in what I was discussing there is no real direct evidence one way or another. I was commenting on the holes and gaps, whereas you were saying things that are false. To wit:
“you are unwilling to admit that AFTER 1996, a change took place that is duly noted in the Murphy Report.” Bull. I have no doubt that after 1996 “a change took place.” What I don’t know and neither do you is that all abuse cases thereafter were duly reported to police. The Murphy report didn’t say all abuse cases thereafter were reported.
“What I cannot understand is how the Murphy Report could conclude the Bishops WERE reporting abuse cases after 1996, if, as you say, they were not.” Another distortion. I don’t know that the Murphy report said Bishops were reporting abuse cases after 1996, let alone ALL abuse cases. I did not say they were not; I said it’s very possible the Bishops were not reporting ALL abuse cases. All the Murphy report said, apparently, is that “a change” occurred after 1996. It nowhere says the change was as sweeping and complete as you imply.
“if the Bishops interpreted the 1997 letter as you claim, then they would have continued to ‘cover up’ abuse cases after receiving the letter. Why, then, does the Murphy Report not reflect this?” The Murphy report does not deal with that question as far as I can tell. It only asserts that “a change” occurred after 1996. What kind of change or how deep it does not say. N’est pas?
I “don’t acknowledge that a REAL and significant change took place around 1996, in how the Bishops handled abuse cases.” I don’t deny that a change occurred. How “REAL and significant” the change was is something you have not established. That is one of the questions at issue.
“I have shown the Murphy Report’s conclusion, which shows strongly that the Bishops DID REPORT ABUSE CASES TO THE POLICE after 1996-97.” You have NOT shown that the Murply report “shows strongly” that the Bishops “did report cases to the police after 1996-1997.” All I can get from your posts is that the Murphy Report said a change occurred after 1996. What kind of change is nowhere suggested. Maybe the Bishops reported some abuse cases after 1996; I don’t know. But the extent of the change after 1996 is what is in question. I strongly suspect the nuncio’s letter gave, the Irish bishops pause.
Nice try.
Sandra Currie,
I am involved part-time in educating minors in recognizing and preventing all types of abuse, including sexual. My group’s efforts have resulted in stopping and prosecuting familial sexual abuse in our area.
Also, I am involved in educating youth on pro-life activism, chastity, and their Catholic faith. The young are so important.
Finally, I am a full-time mother of several vibrant youngsters that I am raising to be the next generation of pro-life leaders. They are precious children of God, and know that will God all things are possible.
Looking at the time you spend at this site, I do not see how it is possible that you can be seriously into helping or deterring any other groups. That’s just an observation.
@Bob: “Theresa, good—disappear.”
Just as you read into the 1997 letter things which it does not state, so you read into my words what is not there.
I did not say I was going to “disappear” - nor did my words imply that. As usual, you rush to rash judgment. I said I was “ending the discussion” with you.
But since you continued to put words into my mouth, and interpret my words your own way, (even AFTER I have pointed out that your interpretation of my own words is erroneous), I will point out one very important and indisputable fact.
We will all be judged on every word that comes out of our mouth. IN addition, as we judge, so also will we be judged.
In charity, I will remind you of these words of Christ which the Gospels record. Your judgment of the Bishops, the Vatican, the Church, by the little soundbytes you get from the mainstream media, shows that you are willing to judge rashly, without attempting to take an objective look at what those Bishops actually intended.
“Circling the wagons”; “Save the institution”; “protect the priests”; “throw them to the wolves”; All of these - little soundbytes, and far from objective judgment.
Even the Murphy Report’s conclusions are based on an INTERPRETATION of actions and words, NOT on actual intent.
One example: A direct quote from the Murphy Report: “According to Monsignor Stenson, Rome had reservations about its policy of reporting to the civil authorities. The basis of the reservation was that the making of a report put the reputation and good name of a priest at risk.”
IOW, the soundbyte “protect the priests at all costs”. Notice that Msgr. Stenson was not actually quoted. If one takes the time to see what Msgr. Stenson actually believes, his own words to a reporter for the irish Catholic gives an entirely different perspective:
“He was asked about the culture of protecting clergy, but says that he was surprised by this, that the notion of protecting clergy never crossed his mind - ‘I was concerned about dealing with accused priests. Protecting them was never a priority in my mind whereas their possible rehabilitation was, a consideration dependant on what the psychiatric experts’ diagnosis and opinion were’. He believes there was a difference between what the Commission thought the diocese was doing (ie. Protecting their own) and what in fact the diocese was attempting.”
So, just as the Murphy Report INTERPRETED Msgr. Stenson in a way that doesn’t resemble the actual truth, so your soundbytes judge rashly and inaccurately.
I believe that God will judge RIGHTLY the hearts and intentions of the Bishops - and so must we ALL attempt to judge RIGHTLY. Swallowing soundbytes from the MSM isn’t judging rightly. And, God help those who judge His Bishops, and His Church, rashly and without objectivity.
Now, I WILL disappear, because it’s clear I’m wasting my time with someone who wants to swallow little soundbytes, rather than do the research necessary to try to achieve a balanced, just, and fair conclusion.
Anyone interested in what else Msgr. Stenson had to say can read it here:
http://www.irishcatholic.ie/site/content/putting-record-straight-interview-alex-stenson
“ ‘Circling the wagons’; ‘Save the institution’; ‘protect the priests’; ‘throw them to the wolves’; All of these - little soundbytes, and far from objective judgment.”
Soundbytes? I call them metaphors that get right at the truth.
Theresa, you’re contradicting yourself again. You want me to accept the Murphy Report as prima facie evidence the hierarchy in 1996 totally reformed on its reporting to police, yet now you divulge that the Murphy Report seriously distorted what Msgr. Stenger claims he said. Which is it? Is the Murphy Report Gospel truth or mere “soundbyte”? If the latter, why do you dismiss my skepticism that the Irish hierarchy totally reformed in 1996 as you claim?
Theresa, you believe the Church institution is now clean (and in Ireland clean since 1996) so we can forget the past and go on. I doubt half of the truth has come out, and if we don’t get it out some equally serious scandal may be coming down the road. The hierarchy acted abominably until it thought it had no other choice, and meanwhile has been surrendering $ billions of our money and will surrender billions more, without even an apology. Something is deeply wrong with how the hierarchy operates, but that’s a subject for another day. Meanwhile, Theresa, sweet dreams in your dream world.
Liseux - and the time you spend here?
Incidently, I raised five children, but I didn’t brainwash them.
Sandra, my bit of time is well spent here.
I’m glad you were open to life with your five children. Are you implying that I’m brainwashing my children?
Liseux,
And what about the time you spend here?
Incidentally, I successfully raised five children, but I didn’t brainwsh them.
Breaking news - another priest arrested for abusing 43 children.
Another commenter asked: “AND MARION AND LISEUX, What are you doing to prevent child sexual abuse and help the victims who are living with the results of this crime?”
You’d be bored to tears if I made this conversation about me. The briefest and most general answer possible, since you asked, would be that I’ve devoted most of my time that was not devoted to my family or to my job to work on behalf of various pro-life causes, specifically to women in crisis pregnancies, and also to end-of-life issues for the frail elderly. So, that’s it, in a nutshell. Nothing to write home about. I’m not Gandhi, Mother Theresa, or Dorothy Day, and never will be.
I’m glad to be a part of the Universal Church, and that I can count on my brothers and sisters in Christ to do this important work on behalf of children and young people who have been harmed by adult sexual predators, whether those operating as members of Catholic clergy, clergy of other faiths, public school teachers or staff, neighbors, relatives, or acquaintances.
I support the victims, no matter who their abusers are or were, and I support the efforts of those who work directly with these victims to help them to heal.
I have yet to see success in the attempts to view the sexual abuse of children by predators functioning as members of the Catholic clergy as qualitatively or quantitatively of a different character to those perpetrated by clergy members of other faiths, by public school teachers, by parents, by other authority figures. They would all have to be utterly devastating to the young person so victimized.
Which would be worse? To have all ten toenails ripped out one by one? Or ripped out all at once?
Which was worse? Pearl Harbor? or 9/11?
Which was worse? The Black Plague? or the global AIDS pandemic?
To me all are off-the-charts, mind-blowingly horrific. As the cousin of several children who were raped by their own father, I can’t get past the hideousness of any of these situations.
The idea that, “oh, well, the suffering of a 13-year-old little girl who has been regularly raped by her father since she was 9, and whose mother tells her it is all her own fault when ‘it’ happens, cannot be compared to the suffering of a youngster who was raped by a Catholic priest” is a bit of stretch, at least . . . for me. At least, when you think about the experiences from the two childrens’ points-of-view.
Either is off-the-charts horrific.
Anyway, I support all efforts to stop predation against children from any quarter, to keep it stopped, and to assist victims in any way possible. And, again, I don’t think one population of victims is somehow “more worthy” or “more deserving” of my outrage.
All victims are worthy and deserving of my concern and my help.
Marion,
Please advise as to what form your support takes.
Another commenter wrote: “Marion, please advise as to what form your support takes.”
I thought I already did . . . above.
I don’t want to bore everyone to tears by making this conversation about me personally. Can’t think of anything more tiresome.
Who is very much missing in this assault on the Sovereign Catholic Church IS THE DUTY OF THE VICTIM AND THE VICTIM’S community to engage their civil rights and God’s Justice and pursue Justice in all avenues by giving witness to the truth and testimony as to what happened. If no one lifted a finger, the victim is still within his rights to speak about what was done to him, and to speak until the world comes to an end.
Separation of church and state is more than the atheist destroying everyone’s freedom of religion. Separation of church and state is for the church and for the state to be the most correct church and the most correct state. It is the duty of the Sovereign Catholic Church to preserve its mandate and mission to be who it must be perfectly, as instituted by Jesus Christ. It is the duty of the state to meet its duty to be who it is constituted to be perfectly, by the people who constitute it.
Careful reading of the Catechism of the Catholic Church will reveal the very real understanding of why the church does what she does, in particular in this instance of clerical abuse of children. Settlement requiring the victim to remain silent would prevent the victim from the sin of detraction. There is no sin worth going to hell for, nor is there a sin worth offending Jesus.
Here in the news today is another case of a pediatrician who abused and abused and this is the judge’s decision on the culpability of the Medical Society of Delaware to reprimand and remove the pediatrician from access to children. Replace the Medical Society of Delaware with the Sovereign Catholic Church. The victim reports the crime to civil authorities and to church authorities. Still, the Catholic Church does not have the DUTY to pursue the crime in civil law through civil authority: DOVER — The Medical Society of Delaware has won a ruling in a lawsuit brought by people who say they are victims of alleged pedophile pediatrician Earl Bradley. Judge Joseph Slights III ruled late last week that the medical society did not have a duty to Bradley’s alleged victims to report his alleged misconduct to authorities.
The church does not pursue the punishment of sin in the civil realm. The state punishes the crime in the civil realm. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
14 YEARS LATER: IRELAND 2011 - Eight cases concerning a pedophile priest in County Cork accused of raping young girls have been sent back to authorities there after originally being rejected. All of the files relate to abuse allegations alleged to have been carried out by Father B, a cleric who assaulted and raped girls in North Cork. The diocese of Cloyne and its former bishop John Magee are already under separate investigations for harboring pedophile priests. Magee was Secretary to three popes and was a leading figure in the Irish church until the pedophile investigations began. Opponents claim he used his clout to block investigations. In recent years prosecutors rejected the new case files separately, despite the fact that they all have marked similarities. Last autumn 2010, the latest two files were returned and as a result, the victims mounted a public campaign questioning why their criminal cases had been denied a trial. Some of the women whose files were returned have received compensation from the diocese and written apologies. Another file also alleging abuse by Father B is currently under review at the office of the prosecutor.
And, at risk of repeating repeating myself: The Vatican still has no accepted the 1997 Framework document.
Settlement requiring the victim to remain silent would prevent the victim from the sin of detraction. There is no sin worth going to hell for, nor is there a sin worth offending Jesus.
Settlement requiring the victim to remain silent is standard operating procedure in legal cases here in the U.S., not just for abuse cases, but for breach of contract, injury or suffering due to negligence, etc. If I were injured when an icicle fell from the roof onto my head at my neighbor’s house, and we settled out of court, the agreement their attorney would have a “future silence about this matter” clause into our agreement that I would have to sign. Whay? Because they all always have this clause, and he would have had to ask his secretary to remove it especially just this once!
The sin of detraction in such cases is a question. If some local maniac is attacking children in the woods, stabbing them with a knife, and leaving them within an inch of dead, and we only just manage to nurse them back to health, and this happened to my child, and my child was able to positively identify the attacker, you better believe if I found out that maniac had not been gotten off the streets, but was still out there possibly harming other children, I would feel it was my SOLEMN AND BINDING CHRISTIAN DUTY to plaster my local community with that man’s name, photo, description, last-known occupation, last-known residence, with a warning to other parents to protect their children from being in his presence, and that children should RUN away from him.
In the interest of protecting children. Because sexual assault of a child by an adult predator is every bit as death-dealing to him or to her as if that adult had stabbed them through the heart.
We have to get past this notion that adult sexual predators of children and younger teens, who may happen to be in positions of authority or even reverence, are anything but what they are . . . vicious monsters. Predators. They may be Catholic priests, Protestant ministers, Jewish rabbis, or Muslim imams. They may be private school administrators, public school teachers, or coaches, physicians, or psychologists. No matter. On the inside they all look the same - Like big horrible zombie ghouls with blood dripping down their lips and chins - that’s what adults who prey on children look like. You should scream bloody terror if you see one of them. Everyone should.
Whether they can be redeemed / rehabilitated, I don’t know. The older (medieval) Church discipline was that such person, having once offended, if he repented, would be admitted to an order of monks to do the hardest, filthiest, humblest labor of the convent, such as the tender of the domestic animals and cleaner of latrines TO DO PENANCE FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE. HE WAS THE ONE who took the vow of silence.
He was NOT given a two-month or six-month program of “rehabilitation” and shipped off to another parish with a clean slate. No, no, no!
These guys must never be around children or young people ever again.
Detraction? If we are precluded from speaking out about terrorist / predators destroying children’s lives, and who continue to have supervised access to children, then it would be better for the state to literally tie a millstone around these guys’ necks and throw them into the sea at the first offense.
Detraction? No. Justice! and Charity!
Detraction! Hmph! Detraction is to speak about another’s fault WITHOUT GRAVE AND SERIOUS REASON.
The protection of children IS THE GRAVEST AND MOST SERIOUS REASON THERE CAN BE!!!
If it were my kid, I would say to the diocese “you can keep your d*mned money! And if you protect this creep with silence, your skulls will pave the floors of Hell!” And I would hire a sky-writer airplane, and a pilot, and go and write in the sky every morning (like the “Surrender, Dorothy!” message the Wicked Witch wrote in the sky)
“Father Jim Smith of Oshkosh Catholic diocese harmed my child and he’ll harm yours! Keep him away!”
Big letters. Every single day. And to pay for it, I would hold fund-raisers, and solicit the money from family, friends, neighbors, my fellow parishoners, and everyone I could contact.
Anything to protect children.
And those bishops who fail to protect children behave exactly like so many so-called “mothers” who know their live-in boyfriends or husbands are preying on their own children, and who protect and defend the adult predator instead of their own little ones!
Wh*res! Even mother dogs and mother cats protect and defend their litters! But these wh*re mothers and wh*re bishops rather than defending innocent children, defend and protect adult predators.
May God blast false mothers! And may He blast false bishops!
From our knowledge that there have always been a tiny minority of laymen who prey sexually on their own children, and an even tinier minority of false mothers who shield them, lead us to feel that *all* mothers and fathers are guilty, that the institution of the family is corrupt, that parents cannot be trusted, and that no child is safe around his or her own father?
If we conclude that, then we are idiots.
When you see a beautiful young girl on 10 or 12 years, out strolling in the park with her father and her mother, do you automatically think, “It wouldn’t surprise me if that father were committing outrages on that child secretly, and that mother knows and does nothing about it?”
A monstrous supposition! The vast majority of parents are normal human beings, and would rather die by inches than to see harm come to their children in this way.
Yet, today, a child is in more danger of being outraged by an adult family member at home, than by a member of the clergy . . . any clergy!
Yet, when we see Catholic priests in clerical collars with a child, how many persons think to themselves, “here we go!”
Our views have been distorted, I believe. And deliberately distorted.
To all, please read The Courage to Be Catholic: Crisis, Reform And the Future of the Church by George Weigel. It is an eye-opening account as to how this whole scandal started and how the church can recover.
I’m no scientist, but as the cousin of the wife of a man who raped his own sons, daughters, nieces, and nephews, not once, but multiple times, and from the follow-up stories I’ve seen and heard . . .
. . . these individuals are neither “gay” nor “straight”; they are pansexual, and would happily engage in relations with a Honda Civic hatchback if the mood struck them. They don’t care whom or what they hurt, damage, or destroy. They are sociopaths. No conscience, no remorse, no capacity to regard the dignity of others; neither compassion nor mercy toward others.
And they cannot change. The abuser in my family said it best, “a leopard can’t change its spots.”
These guys get into positions of authority and trust to gain access to children. They do so by hooking up with women with children - boys, or girls, doesn’t make much difference to some of them, although some prefer girls. Or they’ll join the clergy, and get access in that way.
Often the mothers or the senior administrators within the clergy, when they discover what these animals are doing, will respond appropriately: they will immediately report them to the authorities, and see to it that they are remove them from positions of authority and access - permanently. My former boss turned her own husband in. Good for her!
But sometimes they do not.
MARION,
you are exactly right. sociopaths are exactly what they are. the chruch use to call them moral idiots. meaning exactly what you said. No conscience at all. they are not satisfied with some super stimulous like a high or a fight or risk. any kind of stimulant to feel something is the motive.
A good book on the subject. The Sociopath Next Door.
The idea that the Catholic Church is really and truly in the forefront, or has the market for harboring these kinds of sociopaths all locked up . . . ?
Hah! You buy that? Yes, and a friend of mine will get you a great deal on a mortgage so you can buy this little bridge I just happen to have for sale . . .
This from a book review in the latest issue of New Oxford Review, a strongly orthodox journal:
“ [No crisis within Catholicism] has been more damaging to the Church in general, and to her efforts at evangelizatin in particular, than the incomprehensibly systemic problem of the sexual abuse of minors by members of the clergy. What makes [this crisis] particularly evil is the extent to which it was tolerated (and therefore) abetted by various fellow priests, bishops, cardinals, and even some Church administrators at the highest levels of the Vatican’s political establishment. How some otherwise very bright men could think that such a systematic and ongoing program of abuse and corruption of the young people of the Church…could be kept a secret indefinitely defies reason….Catholicism as a religion lost most of its credibility in the eyes of the world.…Holy Mother Church has effectively destroyed her integrity—some might say for good.” And so forth.
Another commenter quotes from an article: “What makes [this crisis] particularly evil is the extent to which it was tolerated (and therefore) abetted by various fellow priests, bishops, cardinals, and even some Church administrators at the highest levels of the Vatican’s political establishment.”
I agree. And the Weigel book Pam refers to (11:58 AM today) is all about why that is so.
I haven’t read the book; but by studying the synopses and the reviews by both professional critics and readers one can glean quite a bit of what Weigel is driving at.
I think he is right. Weigel doesn’t put it quite in this way, but it seems just as when these child sexual predators who live with or are married to women with children, are found out most mothers react in the normal and righteous way - to protect their children. But a certain minority of the mothers - vicious and cowardly women - shield the predators instead of doing the right thing.
And it seems that a certain minority of Catholic bishops, priests, and staff, when they came up against instances of sexual predators infiltrating the ranks of the Catholic clergy, reacted in a manner resembling that of vicious and cowardly women, rather than that of men of God.
Thank God, most did not. But too many did.
Even one is too many.
P.S. I don’t believe “the Vatican” is or ever was significantly involved
in any of this.
I see the attempt to link the Vatican to these outrages as nothing more than an attempt to gather public support for U.S. and Irish trial lawyers getting a portal to Vatican assets.
Imagine Attorney Jackie Childs from “Seinfeld” “The Vatican? The Vatican! Ancient monuments, priceless art objects, Saint Peter’s - I’ve been wanting a piece of THAT for YEARS!”
Sounds to me as if people who think like Jackie Childs have their noses to the grindstone already, with their buddies at the New York Times helping them to pave the way.
Utterly disgusting.
Hello folks - do your homework. The cover up evidence shows that the Vatican was involved. Instead of wishful thinking, operate from the facts. This shouldn’t emulate Fox News. Some of the posts sound like someone going to confession, minimizes their sins, and blames the New York Times.
Mael Muir: you’re wrong. The Vatican was deeply involved, as the very quote you cited indicated: “Church administrators at the highest levels (sic) of the Vatican.”
For example, there was the Cardinal from Vienna who everyone in Austria knew had been molesting and corrupting minors since his young priesthood, yet he steadily rose in the Church and became a major figure at the Vatican. Cardinal Soldano protected him and John Paul II liked him very much. Cardinal Ratzinger smelled a rat and tried to act but most of the Vatican closed ranks. When the truth hit the news-stands that perp was finally —— what? punished? Of course not. He was quietly retired to a monastery where he lives at ease. On and on.
Mael Muir: you’re wrong. The Vatican was deeply involved, as the very quote you cited indicated: “Church administrators at the highest levels (sic) of the Vatican.”
That wasn’t my own quote, Bob, that was yours. And I was refuting what you quoted.
I’ll admit that There’s plenty of gossip and innuendo *attempting* to link these bad actors to the “highest levels of the Vatican.”
But I haven’t seen anything suggesting significant involvement by anyone but certain local bishops, with the Vatican attempting to scramble to respond to the situation *after the fact.*
Anyway, you’ll believe what you want to believe, Bob. I know that.
I have to go to work today and tomorrow, and can’t be doing this at work.
Mael Muire signing off.
“you’ll believe what you want to believe”
What a laugh, Mael. You must be looking in the mirror. The evidence of direct Vatican involvement at the highest levels is everywhere, but you don’t want to see it. Fortunately, more responsible writers in the Catholic publishing world do see it, very clearly.
Sweet slumbers as you join Theresa in your common dream world. “Hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil.”
Maybe my Mum should see this link. She seems quite happy to disobey the Church because of the sexual abuse scandals, but wouldn’t allow me to disobey my agnostic father or school teachers no matter how badly they behaved. That angers me, it really does.
The only thing that doesn’t make sense is that many people like this, at least according to the law of our state of California, *are* and would be mandated reporters…. so what you are asserting is that they were advising people to break the law, if they have contact with children and are mandated reporters…
An it isn’t up to a parish to decide,that is what LAW enforcement does…
I’m not saying that it is sinister, but Jimmy, come on. Sure—maybe there is bad reporting hostile to the Church.
But who is going to look into the allegations? An overworked priest or the police?
And to assert that the folks in Rome were concerned about canon law? What would Jesus do?
What anyone has done to the least of these, they’ve done to me.
And Jimmy, why do you think that reporting this to law enforcement necessitates “They don’t want to be hauled into court and put on the witness stand and forced to relive horrible things that were done to them under cross examination. They don’t want to come to the attention of the media and have their private sexual trauma exposed for the whole world to see” ? Is it better to continued to be abused?
I’m sorry, my background is in this law, and this is just a distortion of what happens to a victim, especially a CHILD. Part of exposing it is to have the victim understand that it is *not their fault*. Part of the victimization is keeping it secret.
You should really understand what happens when someone—especially a minor child—reports an instance of sexual abuse. This: “only on the condition that the victim is willing to have this deeply wounding event exposed to other family members, the police, the media, friends, co-workers, etc., and that the victim be willing to relive the horrible events on the witness stand and endure cross examination, so that the victim can’t report the priest to Church authorities if they aren’t willing to agree to these terms?”
that is just as much a distortion as anything the NY times has printed erroneously. Please, let’s make sure there isn’t a beam in our reporting before we run around claiming “biased media” splinter…
In reply to the law enforcement officer who claims all will be well if we only report the crime to the civil authorities. and with grand jury, the molester got two years probation which already, who in hell cares if he kept it, the victim had a nervous breakdown, after being blamed for the crime. I adopted the phrase to explain myself: “If you weren’t born you could not be raped. If you weren’t born you could not be murdered” JUSTICE. After being aborted, the scandalized souls of the aborted children rest in the arms of God. The abortionists look like the devil, their master.
“mandated reporters” The Catholic Church is sovereign and not subject to any authority here on earth or in heaven except Jesus Christ
Who is head of the sovereign Catholic Church. If Jesus Christ, Pope Benedict XVI who is the Vicar of Christ said to report the cases it would still need to be on a case by case process. Go to Rome and follow Rome’s instruction. This is all the letter to the Irish Bishops says and it is correct in saying so, everything else is from the devil.
Woah, Mary De Voe, I think there is some kind of logical disconnect in what you are saying.
Of course it should be on a case by case basis, but please. Many of these abused children were *orphans* entrusted to be cared for by the church. How can their parents then report the crime to the authorities?
This is ridiculous. Hiding behind logic to protect a priest is not Catholic. Saying, “Look at how logical this is—look at how consistent our laws are” that is laughable in the face of adults systematically abusing children.
Did Christ hide to protect himself from false accusations? Priests need to stand up and be more Christ-like. I think I would rather suffer injustice as an adult Catholic Priest, then be complicit, even logically so.
And all of these examples with Banks and Public schools; where is the Eucharist in a bank, or public school ? Please, Catholics need to be better.
This is all too much like “I WAS JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS.”
The Hannibal Lecter of the CLERGY SEXUAL TERRORIST World - Father Oliver O’Grady - has appeared in court in Dublin, Ireland charged with the possession of thousands of child abuse images on a laptop computer and other hard drives and a USB drive. He is accused of possessing thousands of child abuse images. At least one of the abuse images are of a 2-year old child.
This is the guy that Cardinal O’Mahony (Northern California) moved around his diocese allowing him access to vulnerable children. At least one of his victims was only a babe-in-arms. Father O’Grady raped, molested and abused many children in California from 1973 onwards. He wrote a letter of confession to parents in 1976. That letter was handed to his bishop who did nothing - NOTHING - to help victims or prevent any O’Grady from committing anymore acts of sexual violence.
A HARD LESSON IN SOVEREIGNTY
Recently, the Sovereign State of Delaware imposed its sovereignty on the Sovereign Catholic Church in the matter of criminal clerical sex abuse of minor children. Delaware changed the statute of limitations and the venue, ex post facto, which violates the Fifth Amendment to our Constitution. Trying the case in bankruptcy court instead of criminal court for a crime, does not require that the burden of proof be met or that evidence beyond a reasonable doubt be met, even that a crime was committed. Delaware has assumed that the non-profit Catholic Church, its tax free donations, gifts and bequests and all tax free property, held in trust for all future generations no longer exists as a sovereignty. The Last Wills and Testaments of the many bequests are being violated. “Comingled” money was invented AFTER the bequests and donations to extract more money out of taxpayers and settlements. More ex post facto violations. The head of the Catholic Church, Jesus Christ was not subpoenaed. The state knew where Jesus was.
The good faith offering of insurance settlements offered as indemnity was rejected in bad faith by the victims. The sovereignty of the state might have been used to instruct the victims to accept the good faith settlement in good faith. Yet, the lawsuit went forward imposing the sovereignty of the state over the sovereignty of the Catholic Church.
Please pay close attention. Recently in the Sovereign State of Maryland, a registered sex offender, registered in both the Sovereign States of Maryland and Delaware, kidnapped, raped, murdered and burned the body of his victim, an 11 year old innocent virgin. (Now, the state is saying that the death penalty, inflicted on the victim, is an unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment for the murderer, it might hurt him. Equal Justice for all?) Both sovereign states knew of his sex abuse. The abuser was set free to abuse and murder another time. This was a blatant disregard for innocent citizens and negligence on the part of both states.
IF the states have VICTIMS’ COMPENSATIONS BOARDS, the victims’ families may get $100 (from both states). Will the sovereign state change the statute of limitations? Well, on murder, there is no statute of limitations. Will the state change its venue? Will the state be sued for $3,000,001.00?
Oh, I hope so. I hope so.
Reply to post by Laura 1/28/1:15
Laura: The issue is the letter from the Vatican calling for all cases of abuse to be, and must be parsed through the Vatican on a case by case process. The New York Times “smoking gun”. The cases of abuse must be tried at the Vatican before going public on a case by case basis. Bringing the very real issue of other cases and orphans or cardinals and abusers going to hell to fore is OK. But, getting back to the real issue of the ‘LETTER’, the cases must be tried on a case by case basis by the Vatican. Our culture of death and pornography and sexual abuse, try abortion, 53 million sovereign persons begotten through the will of God and scandalized by being murdered. There was a real millstone (2) in my basement which I offered to Cardinal Mahoney. I was saving them for him. Not an iota of the law will pass away.
Reply to Laura 1/28 12:04 “Mandated reporters” would have to choose between obedience to the supremacy of the Church or obedience to the supremcy of the state in these matters, very much like St. Thomas More had to do. Substitute “sovereignty” for supremacy. Believing that the sovereign Catholic Church is innocent because, the sexual abusers have actually self excommunicated themselves when they consented in their minds to commit a mortal sin. The abusers no longer belonged to the Catholic Church but to the devil himself, even before the act. Well, I see nobody here calling on the devil to stand trial or be blamed for the evil he rained down on humanity.The devil has the best “cover-up”. Nobody believes he exists, so blame the Catholic Church.
Hey, this is just for nonsense. Holy men and women know and understand their bodies and offer all to God. Henry VIII divorced Catherine of Aragon because he blamed her for not having given him an heir. Henry used this excuse of an heir to abuse and molest any female he chose. The human male seed requires many days to mature. With Henry’s appetite for turkey drumsticks and sirloin and women, he did not abstain long enough to produce the sperm in number and maturity to produce an heir. I believe he was OK with that. Henry did not really want an heir. Henry wanted an excuse for indulging of his seven capital sins.
We do not know if the church did not counsel the victims of any abuse or crime to report to the civil authorities. Child abuse belongs to state and civil authorities. The church’s mission is to proclaim the Gospel and administer sacraments. We do not know. Most priests live their lives for others. I can see from their generosity that counseling victims to apply for safety of the law would ease their burden. Most priests, in the sacrament of Reconciliation and under the seal of confession would send the victim to the state authorities for help and protection. We do not know, especially if the victim could not articulate his abuse. There is no order to not send VICTIMS to state police.
Mary de Voe is an obvious flake. Don’t bother to challenge her, it’s a waste of time.
Her recurrent theme is that only Jesus (and maybe the Pope) rules the Catholic Church, so only they can judge deviant priests. Hogwash. A cleric who commits a civil crime is liable to civil justice. The Church may want to judge the alleged miscreant’s ecclesiastical status and punishment, but cannot withhold the culprit from civil judicial processes, and if the law says such a priest, or even an alleged such priest, must be reported, then the Church must report him, pronto. As most of the intelligent Catholic press is very aware, violations of both canon and civil (not to mention natural) law were replicated endlessly right up into the highest levels of the Vatican. That’s why this horrible abuse continued for decades and in almost every Church location, and nothing was ever done about the matter—until the wicked secularists started blowing whistles.
Even The Wanderer would disown Mary de Voe.
There is so much disinformation out there about the relationship about what the Vatican does, says, implies, practices, that it is almost pathetic.
And even in this case people confuse canon law, civil law, practices advised by the Irish bishops, the Irish civil law.
The Vatican does not usually get any information on a case of any priest involved in sexual abuse for years after the fact, until after the issue is well run out on a local level. The issue becomes questions of canonical trial for laization, or if and when laization should proceed.
The Vatican has historically been too far removed from the scene to be a factor in all this. With better communication and instant e-mail this could change, but I think national synods should handle much of this. The issue of if and when to go to the police can be given some common-sense guidelines without all the innuendo and BS given in things like this New York Times yellow journalism
Another part of this innuendo is that none of this discussion about about reporting abuse to the police was from any state law or edict. It was entirely a Church matter.
The state is not involved at this point. This is just dragging out a story and misrepresenting it to seem like the Vatican is trying to negate a state law that does not exists in the first place.
Topics like this make people some nuts. They want to see things that are not there.
“And all of these examples with Banks and Public schools; where is the Eucharist in a bank, or public school ? Please, Catholics need to be better.”
Children victimized by predators functioning as step-fathers, or as Mom’s live-in boyfriend, or as members of the clergy, or as public school teachers do not give a rat’s *ss under what guise the vicious monster who attacked them was functioning, nor does it matter to them whether their Mom let it go on and on, or whether some bishop let it go on and on.
Instead of going on about past abuses, I’m concerned about the present day suffering of orphans in institutions run by the People’s Republic of China, particularly children of political dissidents and imprisoned would-be defectors. Thousands of such children - today - now - as we speak, are being starved, beaten, raped, hideously neglected, and when they become weak and fall ill due to their mistreatment, they are put to death.
Children. Today. Right Now. January, 2011.
In China.
OH! BUT BECAUSE THE EUCHARIST ISN’T PRESENT TO THESE SUFFERING CHINESE CHILDREN, THAT MAKES THEIR ABUSE NOT WORTHY OF OUR NOTICE OR ATTENTION!
THAT’S “A DISTRACTION!!!”
If your criterion is that the brutal mistreatment of children and young people at the hands of someone OTHER THAN PREDATORS FUNCTIONING AS CATHOLIC PRIESTS is barely worth a passing glance, then I would have to conclude that your problem isn’t with harm to children; your problem is with the Church.
I would admire anyone who had the c*jones to at least admit that.
Then we could actually get somewhere and really move forward to assist children in crisis.
Why are mainstream media outlets like the New York Times continually dredging up stories of problems within the Church from the 1970s and 1980s . . . while virtually ignoring the plight of children living today in Chinese institutions?
TODAY!
Why? I’d really like to know!
What would Christ say about all your arguments, your attempt to prove who is right and who is wrong, who is more worthy than the other in this benighted world? I believe in and am faithful to the Church, despite everything. I also think He would sigh.
Ann, that is the best comment I have read so far on this discussion.
Gee, Ann and Mark, it must be delightful to be perched ever-so high up in the lofty clouds, from whence you may gaze down upon us ordinary mortals who continue to struggle and scramble to cope with the silence surrounding persons those who harm children as well as with attacks on Christ’s Church both from within - by those who have been false and perfidious to Christ - as well as from without.
Enjoy yourselves up there! And if you need oxygen bottles for places where the air is thin, I think you can order them through Amazon.com.
Later!
@ BOB G. “Mary de Voe is an obvious flake. Don’t bother to challenge her, it’s a waste of time.” ad hominem. Again Bob G you make my case:
” A cleric who commits a civil crime is liable to civil justice.” Only, when the “cleric” consents to commit a mortal sin, he automatically excommunicates himself. When he commits the act he commits another sin but he is already excommunicated, cut off from the church. The Catholic Church forgives sins. The state imprisons criminals.(The Wanderer printed it. You must have seen) When taken in adultery, the two were stoned, in the bible. Taken in adultery means that the two literally had to be pulled apart, no lack of credible witnesses, no unfounded suspicions, assumptions, hearsay and where was the man? Jesus followed the Rule of Law and did not stone Magdalene because there was no man. Like it or not, even the state needs credible witnesses. I believe that some of the posters are victims but I do not believe that there are any witnesses here to any crime of abuse. And if there were, their obligation is to go to civil authorities. HOW MANY ACTS OF ABUSE DO YOU THINK POPE BENEDICT XVI WITNESSED?
Gosh, I can’t say anything right! Seriously, it seems the church doesn’t do anything right either.
I come from a parish that is being sued for more money than I can imaging because a priest who had visited, mind you, not committed any crimes against children but stayed with us for a while. This is supposed to make my parish liable. Of an unproven crime because the whole venue, statute of limitations was changed 40 years after the fact, ex post facto. The crime is now being tried in bankruptcy court, no place for a crime. So, nothing has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the burden of proof has not been met and many people are angered over the facr that many of the criminals are DEAD. GO FIGURE. justice
Posted by Mark on Sunday, Jan 30, 2011 3:44 AM (EST):Gosh, I can’t say anything right! Seriously, it seems the church doesn’t do anything right either.
@Mark: Who do you think you are bearing false witness against the Church, The New York Times?
I would agree with Laura, above, that victims, in fact, feel a greater healing by confronting their abusers.
My mother abused me. I do not have and do not want children, but if I did, and if I found one were abused by anyone, priest or otherwise, my first stop would be the police, not the bishop.
@Michael Jeter: “my first stop would be the police, not the bishop”. Your first stop is the correct stop. At least you won’t spend your life beating up the Catholic Church for not being the police.
@Mary De Voe, are you accusing me of accusing the Church un-justly? Because honestly, I don’t know what to think about the whole controversy. In fact, I wish I hadn’t said anything now.
Jimmy, thank you for your well written and well researched article. It’s all too easy to get caught up in an emotional swell and react without thinking. Your article reminds me that we have a duty to not simply accept the “news” on face value, but to dig a little on our own - to use multiple sources of information to help shape our understanding. Sadly, most people in this 24/7 news environment don’t. Peace! http://rudyvillarreal.wordpress.com/
@Mark: You have stated that there is in fact a problem of clerical abuse of children as reported in THE NEW OXFORD REVIEW, Michael Rose’ book:GOODBYE GOOD MEN, THE NATIONAL CATHOLIC REGISTER, THE WANDERER and the credible victims. WHO is at fault? Is it the American Psychiatric Association who under pressure from The North American Man Boy Love Association caved to diagnose homosexuality, once defined as arrested developmenrt now,as normal. As I have written many times, when a man consents to commit a mortal sin, he separates himself from the church, so that when he commits the act, he does not belong to the church. The Wanderer, clarified my letter by writing the rules of the Catholic Church for formal excommunication. Mortal sin informally excommunicates the individual sinner. When the crimes of sexaul abuse were committed, the abuser was not of the Catholic Church. As I have posted: How many acts of abuse has Pope Benedict XVI actually witnessed to be held accountable? The state trying the Catholic Church in my diocese has broken the Rule of Law required for Justice.
1) A judicial fact is established on the testimony of TWO witnesses.
2) In criminal court, guilt must be established beyond a reasonable doubt.
3) The burden of proof must be met by the State.
4) The sexual abuse of minor children is a CRIME, and therefore, must be tried in criminal court.
5) Bankruptcy court is civil court.
6) Only a PREPONDERANCE of credible evidence is required in civil court.
7) Guilt does not have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
8) The burden of proof need not be met.
9) Are there any eyewitnesses to the crime who do not have a vested interest in the verdict?
10) The statute of limitations was changed without two-thirds of the states changing the Fifth Amendment of our Constitution in changing the Rule of Law after the fact, ex post facto.
11) The venue was changed from criminal court to civil bankruptcy court without a request from the accused, or the necessary two-thirds of the states changing the Fifth Amendment to our Constitution, in changing the Rule of Law after the fact, ex post facto.
12) The Catholic Church is being court-ordered to submit its sovereignty to the sovereignty of the state, a sovereignty the Catholic Church has submitted voluntarily in registering as a NON-PROFIT TRUST organization.
13) The sovereignty of the state is being violated by the secular court, in the violation of its codes.
14) The sovereign Catholic Church is being court-ordered to accept the secular court’s ruling, which violates the church’s sovereignty and the state’s sovereignty.
15) The secular court’s order will not recognize the sovereignty of the Catholic Church.
16) The secular court’s order will not recognize the sovereignty of the state.
17) The Catholic Church has incorporated as a NON-PROFIT TRUST organization according to the codes of the sovereign state.
18) The tax-free gifts, donations and legal bequeaths are being counted as “profit” of a NON-PROFIT TRUST organization by the secular court in violations of the states codes.
19) The LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT of many benefactors to the NON-PROFIT TRUST organization are being disassembled, by the secular court, in violation of state codes.
20) The labeling of donations, gifts and bequests as “comingled” by the bankruptcy court, as the NON-PROFIT TRUST organization of the sovereign Catholic Church, was carrying out the Last Will and Testament, according to the decedent’s wishes, is a violation, by the secular court, of sovereign state codes.
21) In respect to gifts, donations, bequests, comingled monies of the trust, pensions of employees’ and other, the Legislature of the sovereign state must assert its Rule of Law over the actions of the secular court, that has so egregiously violated the state codes.
Jesus Christ with the woman “TAKEN” in adultery kept THE RULE OF LAW. WHERE was the man? Jesus Christ is the Son of Justice.
Jimmy, thanks for doing such a great job defending the Catholic Church. As a new convert and an abuse survivor, I appreciate your pointing out that victims have rights, and I’m thankful for a Church that is thinking of the victims also. I’m a recent convert but never did I get the impression that the Vatican was hiding monsters before or after my conversion. Only people who are simple minded and/or hate the Catholic Church dream up such things and hope they’re true. They see what they want to see. Some people are so fed up with child abuse that they get bitter and want to attack the problem with a bulldozer, which harms victims in the process. There’s an excellent example of this very subject but concerning a well respected teacher named Tonya Craft. All it takes is one accusation and you can lose everything and little children can be convinced something horrific happened to them that never did. Thankfully her trial revealed a very flawed system and she got her life back, but at a terrible cost and with wounds to carry for the rest of her life with her child carrying scars from it. To the angry opponents of the Vatican I can only say I am grateful the Vatican is not only working on the problem but doing so very delicately. After all, it is a very delicate problem.
Marion,
I am sorry if I offended you. I do not think I live among the lofty clouds. I grew up in a gritty Irish Catholic world, filled with alcoholics and mental illness. My two brothers were schizophrenic and one committed suicide years ago. He was brutalized by the world. None of the good Catholics in our neighborhood cared about him. No one helped him. My life has also been hard. But in these discussions of the hierarchy, I also think of my uncle, a priest who would be stereotaped as evil by many progressives today, as he wss conservative. Yet he was a good man with a hard past, who helped hundreds, if not thousands of fellow alcoholics.
I believe that each person, including myself and including you, has the capacity for evil as well as good. I’ve seen this up close and personal in my own life, from childhood on. And I believe this of myself. Nevertheless, my faith in Christ, Whom I believe is embodied in the Church, has always sustained me. When I go to Mass with other ordinary people in an crummy northern New England town, I am renewed again. I know this may not be the case for you, but any anger I have—the failings of myself and the Church—truthfully, it just falls away.
You accuse me of somehow not being “up in the clouds,” yet you say you know “those who have been false and perfidious to Christ.” I don’t. We have sex offenders who go to Mass with us, the lowest of the low. I see them cry. I don’t think I can judge even them. I also distrust judgment of the Church, particularly in the context of a dying and decadent culture which increasingly hates the Church, which demonizes it and attempts to diminish Her on every front. No matter what you and others say (and I hear it almost every day), I am unafraid of your anger. I defend Her, I stand up for Her and I believe I would die for Her and Christ. He left Her to us and I trust Pope Benedict to shepherd Her through this wintry time.
@Mary De Voe, you must be getting me confused with Mark Duch as I did not quote the sources you mentioned, so I think it’s you that has broken the 8th commandment, my friend.
Honestly, sometimes I don’t know what to think. Having said that, I do feel up-lifted by reading some of the comments here, such as the last one Ann posted.
@Mark; Friends are persons who will go to hell for one another. I am going to the sacrament of Reconciliation and am asking for clarification and verification of how you consider my violation of the 8th commandment. Even an inch raised up from HELL is an accomplishment.If you do not read the Wanderer, The National Catholic Register, The New Oxford Review or Michael Rose, try The Declaration of Independence, our founding document. It has all been said, it needs only to be lived out by us.
Cardinal Sean Brady is an Irish Catholic who, as a 36 yer old priest in the early 1970s, was given the task of ‘investigating’ a clergy colleague, the Very Reverend Father Brendan Smyth, over allegations of gross sexual violence committed on children.
At the time of his ‘investigation’ bishops in Ireland, the United States of America and in the Vatican knew of the Very Reverend Father Brendan Smyth’s rapacious activities in Ireland and the U.S. yet never shared this information with Brady.
Brady’s ‘investigation’ was so thorough, and the silence from complicit bishops and archbishops was so deafening that the Very Reverend Father Brendan Smyth was allowed to continue his depredations on innocent children for another 18 years.
@AndrewSB49 Had the bishops in Irealnd, the United States and the Vatican been eye witness to any crime committed by the Very Reverend Brendan Smyth, to which they could testify under oath in a court of law without being subject to charges of perjury, hearsay, and false witness? A private investigator with a camera might have provided such evidence, maybe. The word “allegations” very neatly descibes the situation. This is the Rule of Law: that a man is innocent until PROVEN guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt. Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt would require two witnesses to the act of the crime to testify in a court of law. Otherwise, civilizations becomes mob mentality and miscarriage of Justice. The testimony of credible victims does not verify a crime unless there are TWO witnesses to the same act.
Mary de Voe - I know what the problem is - we just need to get sexual predators to do their dirty deed in front of two witnesses.
If the requirements you state were necessary to get convictions of child rapists, there would never have been any convictions.
@Sandra Currie: These requirements ARE necessary to get convictions of any crime in a court of law. Do you know of any advertisement of criminal activity beforehand? I do not. I thank God for His Justice.
Mary,
The problem with fundamentalist believers is that you just keep making stuff up to fit your beliefs.
Almost all sexual abuse convictions have been carried out without witnesses.
Mary,
Almost all sexual abuse convictions have been carried out without the requirement of two witnesses. It is absurd to think that a)there have never been sexual abuse convictions, and b)there were two witnesses of the crime.
But then most beliefs of fundamentalist christians are absurd.
@Sandra Currie: I ask permission to repost. According to the Rule of Law, two (2) witnesses are required to establish a judicial fact to get convictions in a court of law. A criminal turning state’s evidence may be one witness. The victim may be another witness. State’s evidence usually but not necessarily brings forth leniency because it is a sign of repentance. A story: Police broke into a man’s apartment and found a dead body in the closet. The judge said that because the police had not had a warrant, the evidence was inadmissible. A person is a person with civil rights even when dead and the person’s civil rights had been violated by 1) being kidnapped. 2) being murdered. 3)being unlawfully imprisoned in the closet. The victim’s civil rights, held in trust by the state were vindicted by the search. The person’s civil rights were the warrant needed by the authorities to claim her sovereign personhood and to treat her with respect. Had it been only jewelry, the evidence would not have been admissible. I post this to exhibit how Justice exagerated in one instance may be shriveled in another.
Mary de Voe
What world do you live in?
The person whose rights were violated was the man who rented the apartment, not the murder victim’s. Jeez!
To DJR: a book reviewer in The New Oxford Review (very orthodox) says the crimes and cover-ups extended into “the highest levels” of Vatican administration. It is known to all, except the self-deluded, that a high-ranking Vatican cardinal beloved by John Paul II had been a serial abuser since his earliest priesthood, and was known to be such throughout Austria. But you will keep your head safely in the sand.
In Islam, the testimony of a Christian counts only as one/half that of a Muslim. Therefore, Christians have already lost before going into court. The court is stacked against them. The state holds all civil rights in trust for all persons, but Justice cannot be done by stacking the courts or changing the Rule of Law. Calling me a fundamentalist or absurd only exhibits one’s ignorance, and cannot change the Rule of Law. I suppose that if we as a nation were a Just people, sexual abuse of children could not happen. but this is my opinion
@BobG: Did the man who owned the apartment have a civil right greater than the victim to deny the victim’s civil rights and hide her dead body? Let me answer for you: “NO”. Again, Justice is predicated on intent. In fact, the conspiracy theory that the highest levels of the Vatican were complicit in any crime has never been proved in a court of law and cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt unless the Pope himself turned state’s evidence and confessed to the intent to commit crime which would happen only after the Pope consented to commit sin, at which point the Pope would have informally, automatically self-excommunicated himself, making the Sovereign Catholic Church innocent in any lawsuit. The state does not punish matters of conscience, not in Justice, anyway. This is why I keep using the term “a court of law”.
@Mary
WHy are you so obsessed with THE LAW stuff that you turn a blind eye to all the other things?
Liseux
Dismissing my views by name calling just reinforces what a truly ignorant person you are.
And Red Beard
Your copy and paste remark that “you can’t murder even if you really really want to”. This should read “you can’t murder unless you really really want to”. Your venerable church has been responsible, either directly or indirectly, to murder all through out it’s bloody history. So repeating and repeating something doesn’t make it true.
And Mary de Voe
What??????
@dude: What other things? Is it not to the courts that a victim turns for Justice?
@Sandra Currie. It is about the soul. The human being is composed of body and soul. “OUR CREATOR” creates a soul with sovereign personhood for the newly begotten individual of a rational nature (Thomas Aquinas’ definition of a human being)and endowes the human being with unalienable rights. It is from the Declaration of Independence, our founding principles. Any one who rejects these principles rejects his citizenship. The Rule of Law comes from our Constitution which is predicated on the Declaration. Anyone who rejects the Ten Commandments rejects the Catholic Church. A crime committed by a person who has rejected the Law of God cannot be attributed to the Catholic Church because they have left the church to commit sin. Ergo your statement is false.“Your venerable church has been responsible, either directly or indirectly, to murder all through out it’s bloody history. So repeating and repeating something doesn’t make it true.”
Also, In the Old Testament, a rapist was to support his victim his whole life. An abuser must be put in jail for his whole life. Capital one murderers must undergo capital punishment.
“That makes Roman Catholics, by an overwhelming margin, the largest “denomination” of any religion on the planet. No other Christian “denomination” comes anywhere close to comparing”.
Amen, Mary De Voe
Mark, listen to Christ, His gentle voice which is never stilled.
Mary De Voe: you rock!
@Ann “Do whatever He tells you” (St. John 2:5)
The Diocese of Wilmington, in the state of Delaware has been sued in bankruptcy court for abusive priests by the victims. St. Elizabeth’s Parish has been penalized for $3,000,001.00 to be paid by the parishioners who were not even alive when the 40 and 50 year old crimes were committed. Because the Rule of Law was changed ex post fact, the statute of limitations and the venue as well as pursuing the non-profit sovereign Catholic church under the rules for “for profit” corporations, there is no end in sight of the damage and miscarriage of Justice being wrought. Several parishes and schools will close.
In Delaware there is a cap on awards for child abuse in public school at $300,000.00.
Taxes are levied for the common good. Indemnity is paid by insurance. Crime is not an integral part of the community. The precedent set by the lawsuit against the Diocese of Wilmington will not go away very soon, if at all. Levying taxes to award victims on the state level is illegal. Levying taxes to pay awards to victims of abuse on the state level against the parishioners who have already been penalized $3,000,001.00 by the abrogation of the Rule of Law is taxation without representation, double taxation and unconstitutional.
People complain that the church didn’t do enough about these kinds of crimes. However, they don’t care about the victims- they only want to see someone paying a big chunk of money out. I give an example: recently there was a Serbian family in California that had their two children removed for having pictures of his children naked. Six months later the agency admitted that the pictures were innocent photos and the judge essentially admitted he never looked at the photos and therefor, never had reasonable cause to remove the children. That a blatant admission the he and the agency conspired to commit kidnapping. Or I could just cite the case the Supreme court will hear March 1st the witness tampering case of Camreta v Greene where Camreta in violation of the 4th and 14th amendments seized a 9YO and held her until he coerced the falsity he wanted to hear. Where are these people when those children needed protection from the state? The nuncio was standing up as part of the truth’s pillar and foundation to ensure that decisions are based in truth and not mere opinions.
It seems that everyone has let off steam at one of the two original protagonists, Jimmy and Anne, and that there is a longer history behind their disagreement.
My impression is that Anne tends to jump in at every opportubity to vent her anger at the Catholic Church which she left. Jimmy loves the Church which he joined by choice and defends it against all attacks.
The Church is not perfect, we are all sinners, but most of us are sincerely trying to follow Jesus Christ. We all make mistakes but God will judge us. We have no right to condemn or judge anyone escept ourselves. That includes the pope abd bishops.
BillK
http://theroadrisibg.blogspot.com
To: Anne. If the Church had not accepted candidates who were homo-sexual in the past 60 years - how many child abuse (boys) lawsuits would have been filed. Include in your estimate the number of gay priests who were not pedophiles and had other partner relationships. You know the number.
I miss you in our Church. I was so proud when you told us why you returned. Be careful of pride.
Otto
It’s with tears that I write this. To read about how the Vatican intimidated bishops under the guise of “Not following Canon Law Procedures” correctly, and thus being potentially embarrassed, not only makes me agitated but sick to my spiritual stomach! I’ve joined the ranks of the millions, who have left the Church, because I will not allow my children and grandchildren to be spiritually deadened like most of the Laity, by this spiritually defunct organization. In my own personal family, a brother was sodomized, another brother molested (by the same priest), and nephew was propositioned by a priest, who was an intimate friend of the family’s for over 30 years. When I read articles like the above, it is in total disgust for the entire organization, and it extends to the Laity, who refuse to see the magnitude of the problem and not demand that the entire organization be overhauled.
When war refugee Maria Hrela found to her horror that her only son was being savagely abused in Artane Industrial School (Dublin in Ireland) she went right to the top with her complaint - to Pope Pius XII himself. And soon afterwards a Bishop arrived at the notorious north Dublin Child Detention Centre to check on how Bruno Hrela was being treated.
The highly-unusual Vatican probe into conditions endured by Bruno at the harsh Industrial School over 50 years ago, figured in the inquiry into Institutional Abuse set-up by the Irish Government [The Ryan Report].
Bruno, who is now in his 60’s was fully prepared to testify at the Inquiry about the horrific physical and sexual abuse meted out to him and other children at Artane during the 1950s. Bruno told how his Mum managed to spark of a high-level Vatican inquiry into his harsh treatment at the hands of the notoriously sadistic Irish Christian Brothers who owned and managed Artane Industrial School.
Tragically after the Papal ‘Inquiry’ Bruno’s treatment worsened and he was savagely and unmercifully beaten by the Christian Brothers because of his Mum’s attempt to expose the savage treatment of children in Artane Industrial School. Bruno’s family came from Croatia and they fled, with many other refugees, to Italy. Bruno’s Dad had been killed during a bombardment of their hometown, Karlovacs, during the Second World War. Bruno’s Mum took him and his two sisters to live in poverty in Rome. She was a devout Catholic and, despite their dire poverty, attended daily Mass in St. Peter’s in Rome. It was there that she met a Croatian priest linked to the Vatican and it was arranged for the family to go to Ireland. Bruno recalled: ” ...it was thought that we would be better off in a good Catholic country like Ireland ...”
Bruno’s Mum rented a flat in Dublin. His sisters were accommodated in convents. But she tried to hold onto Bruno and he was sent to a Christian Brothers day school. On his first day he witnessed a group punishment when the entire class, including Bruno, were beaten because someone made a noise and didn’t own-up to it.
Bruno was traumatised by this incident as nobody had ever laid a hand on him before. He could not understand how someone could beat him and other children for no reason. And Bruno had travelled through war-torn Europe, he saw Nazi-occupied Paris and the Partisan guerrillas opposing them, but nobody had used violence against him until he ended up in holy, Catholic Ireland.
Bruno reminisced: “I could not believe the cruelty and brutality I was witnessing. The Brother had a leather strap and a cane. The experience struck total fear into me. And I didn’t have a word of English.”
But, unfortunately, much worse was to follow.
Bruno’s Mum worked as a milliner (hat-maker) and earned a pittance of 2 pounds 10 shillings a week in Grafton Street and walked to and from work to save money on bus fares. But she could not afford to feed Bruno and he was brought to Artane Industrial School. He recalls the trauma of being brought there by a social worker. He described his first look of Artane as ‘bleak’. To his great dismay, he recognised one of the Brothers at Artane as the man who had savagely beaten him and an entire classroom of children on his first day in a schoolroom in Dublin. It was not a good omen.
Bruno, who is a now a mechanical engineer and a father of six living in London, says that during an approximate two-year stay in Artane, he was savagely beaten, terrorised, physically injured and also sexually assaulted.
“It was a system of deliberate cruelty. It was like a Nazi concentration camp.” he says.
SUMMARY: Vatican was aware of child abuse in Ireland in the 1950s and did damn all to protect the victims ....
Great! I was already having a bad day and the last two comments have just made things worse for me.
To Miss. Anne Rice
Judging from your comments, I am not sure if you read Mr. Akin’s article, considering that he already answered your question. You say,
“If any of you know of any article in a Catholic periodical anywhere
ever urging rank and file Catholics to stand up for a thorough investigation of
the clergy abuse crisis, would you please let me know about it
at
anneobrienrice@gmail.com.
I would be grateful.”
Here is a section from Mr. Akin’s article that should suffice to answer your question:
“2.2.1 In ALL INSTANCES where it is known or suspected that a child has been, or is being, sexually abused by a priest or religious the matter should be reported to the civil authorities. Where the suspicion or knowledge results from the complaint of an adult of abuse during his or her childhood, this should also be reported to the civil authorities.
2.2.2 The report should be made without delay to the senior ranking POLICE OFFICER for the area in which the abuse is alleged to have occurred. Where the suspected victim is a child, or where a complaint by an adult gives rise to child protection questions, the designated person within the appropriate health board/health and social services board should also be informed. A child protection question arises, in the case of a complaint by an adult, where an accused priest or religious holds or has held a position which has afforded him or her unsupervised access to children.”
This is the recommended reporting POLICY in Ireland at the time of the letter. I am not sure what more you need. The lay and religious are to report offences immediately. The only precaution (in the letter from the Apostolic Nuncio to the Bishops of Ireland) is that the rights of the innocent and the good name of those who do not want the world to know about their abusive past be respected.
Also, here is a letter from Pope Benedict XVI addressing the issue: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20100319_church-ireland_en.html
The Catholic Church established by Christ loves Her children. I am greatly saddened to hear that you were hurt by the Church for the 12 years you spent with Her, but she is not the enemy here. The best way to fight the evil you justly abhor is to receive the Sacred Sacraments and to be “made perfect as your father in Heaven is perfect.” The only way to achieve this is by submitting to the Church the Father has given us, which will one day be without spot or wrinkle. Please come back to the the Church, who cares for little more than the salvation of your soul.
@Timothy Trosclair:
Any organisation should care for a LOT MORE than ‘saving souls’ especially when it comes to the protection of the bodies and minds of children. The Catholic Church likes to cover itself in the cloak of religion and respectability - but it is just a cloak. Take away that insidious cloak and a criminal conspiracy to cover-up crimes of sexual violence by its own members is revealed. || A meticuously maintained secret archive on abuse allegations against clerics in the Diocese of Cloyne is sure to be a major part of the (!! soon to be published !!) report into the diocese of Cloyne. The archive apparently contains stunning data on abuse allegations dating over several years, related correspondence, clerical responses and the diocesan handling of the individual complaints. ....... And it seems the Gardai (Irish Law Enforcement officers) were completely unaware of the significant data in the file.
Gardai have been investigating 10 separate abuse complaints against four clerics—with the criminal probes now including material from the secret Cloyne archive. However, the Cloyne archive does not contain any documentation indicating that the Vatican was ever aware of the alarming clerical abuse issues in the diocese. In other words, any correspondence between Cloyne and the Vatican has not been kept with this secret archive. - - - Judge Murphy is chairwoman of the Dublin Archdiocese Commission of Investigation, which had been further charged with examining the Cloyne controversy is expected to report that the Cloyne Diocese “effectively left children in danger.”
Six girls who alleged abuse by a named cleric in the 1970s and 1980s, at least one would likely have been spared abuse had the diocese acted properly as soon as the first complaints were received.
The diocese failed to volunteer information to gardai or alert detectives to the fact that previous abuse allegations had been levelled against a named cleric. The diocese blatantly failed to ensure that one cleric, following the receipt of the first abuse allegation, was removed from all contact with children. Three other women have since come forward with allegations against two other clerics. The cleric at the centre of six abuse claims was assigned to at least two different parishes in Cloyne—with one of the transfers apparently occurring after the receipt of an abuse complaint. A SOURCE REVEALS : “What is most astonishing is the level of detail the diocese kept in this (secret) archive. The records kept are very comprehensive and I know they have shocked a lot of the church child protection officials themselves now looking into this matter,” The Diocese of Cloyne are giving a “no comment” on all this ... as is usual!
Andrew, you say, “Any organisation should care for a LOT MORE than ‘saving souls’ especially when it comes to the protection of the bodies and minds of children.” Due to the Church’s hylomorphic principal, the Church does not separate the soul from the body. This is why we have the Sacraments. To take care of the soul is to take care of the body and vice versa.
Even if what you say about the Cloyne Diocese is true (which has not been supported with sufficient evidence), it does not follow that the Church at large is merely covering “itself in the cloak of religion and respectability.”
Also, you quote a source (which you do not reference) as saying “What is most astonishing is the level of detail the diocese kept in this (secret) archive. The records kept are very comprehensive and I know they have shocked a lot of the church child protection officials themselves now looking into this matter.” For the sake of argument, we will assume someone said this. But what does it prove? It proves that this is an anomaly within the Church, since even “a lot of the Church child protection officials themselves” are shocked.
I hope you give the Catholic Church a chance. It does not seem fitting that one should judge the Church bad because there are bad people in the Church. This seems equivalent to saying we should shut down the hospitals, because they contain nothing but sick people (the Church and the hospital are there to heal the sick). As I told Ms. Rice, if we want to stop these evils from happening, then we must join the Church and try our best to be good Catholics. We cannot do this without the help of God and his conduits of grace.
Let go back to November 19, 2005 in the Diocese of Cloyne: Monsignor Denis O’Callaghan wrote to the then Garda (Police) Superintendent in north Cork, Barry McPolin, informing him that a complaint had been received against a priest in the diocese. The letter named the victim but not the alleged abuser. It did state that he was a priest of the diocese. A Garda investigation began under Supt McPolin, who was routinely transferred to another Garda division a few months later. The investigation continued under Supt Pat McCarthy. The first noted that the complaint against Fr B was received by Bishop John Magee in early 1995 when a woman and her father alleged that Fr B had sexually abused her. In Summary: Bishop Magee and the Cloyne Diocese sat on this abuse complaint for 10 years.
Re: Shocked Church child protection officials: Thank you for confirming the findings of the Ryan Report that the physical and sexual abuse of children by clergy and Religious Orders, particularly in the Institutions, was so pervasive as not to be regarded as something to be shocked by - these abuses were ongoing and part of the system of child care that was managed by agents of the Catholic Church.
- - - - - - -
CHILD ABUSE BY CLERGY - What Did Rome Know?
Latin terms were used in internal documents to describe sexual assaults by members of the Rosminian congregation on boys at industrial schools at Ferryhouse, Co Tipperary and Upton, Co Cork, the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse was told. Father Joe O’Reilly, provincial of the congregation in Ireland, told the commission’s investigation committee that correspondence found at the Rosminian headquarters in Rome were frequently in Italian, as the superior general was usually of that nationality.
He recalled that letters to Rome from past provincials in Ireland had said relevant members were “indiscreet with boys” and had “sinned against the sixth commandment (thou shalt not commit adultery)”
“I think Latin was used a good bit in correspondence,” he said. A letter to Rome from Ireland in 1956 said one member had been “indiscreet cum pueres (with boys) and is in periculum (danger)”. Senior Counsel for the committee, Mr Noel McMahon, referred to a letter from 1948 where a member was described as “in admiratio” (enamoured) of boys.
Such details were characteristic of correspondence from Ireland, but not of replies from Rome, which were “vague, and mightn’t enter into a discussion with the provincial about the nature of the problem,” Father O’Reilly said. Details were only a a feature of correspondence “going out” he said. He had seen nothing from records to indicate the Department of Education was made aware of any of these cases. These “were dealt with internally through religious order rules.” He was aware that in the 1930s and 40s sexual involvement of boys with boys at Upton was addressed in correspondence with the Department.
In December, 1963, two Rosminians had been removed from Ferryhouse for sexually abusing boys. In such cases “few would have known the position, not in detail.” The school manager may have discussed it with one or two senior colleagues and the provincial would have been informed. “Others would be left wondering” and “were unlikely to be told the truth.” In some cases such offenders were transferred to places where they had access to children, he said. He thought the relevant superior would have been made aware of the problem. He had seen a record of written instructions given to one such abuser, as to what he was allowed do.
In the early 60s a member who had been “indiscreet with boys” was removed from Upton to Ferryhouse, and another to the kitchen at the congregation’s secondary school in Omeath, Co Louth. Father O’Reilly agreed with committee chairman Mr Justice Se?n Ryan that sex abuse was regarded as a problem with the individual’s vocation and that two things did not feature, - the victims, or the public good where criminal behaviour was concerned. Father O’Reilly also agreed with the judge that the abuse was likely to have been more widespread than records or recollections indicated, and that the use of Latin and terms of circumlocution indicated “a way of thinking.”
Father O’Reilly said concerns were for the abuser, the community, whether it (abuse) would get out, be a cause of scandal and affect the congregation’s reputation. The fact of members’ removal also indicated that there was concern for the boys, he said. He said that the 1956 letter concerning a member being in periculum (danger) where boys were concerned involved a man who “feared contact with boys” as a threat to his moral life. He was seeking dispensation, but there had never been an abuse complaint against him. He agreed that avoidance of prosecution was an issue, and recalled a Rosminian priest being transferred (illegally) to Ireland from England following 15 years of abusive activity there. The priest was in danger there of imminent prosecution by the police. In Ireland, he lived with his sister and spent his latter days in an enclosed monastery.
Let’s move forward to 1979 - to the visit of Pope John Paul II to Ireland. An historic occasion by all accounts, yet in that Institution (Ferryhouse) mentioned so much in correspondence between Rome and Ireland a boy was raped by a member of the Rosminians.
Are we sure the abuse is over? Why should I believe the church has any ability to police itself, when it has shown a complete inability to do so for decades? Why should I think the abusers are all caught?
Facebook Logmion Pilon
website www.Logmion.org
utube www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Fk2IhaIXxM
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEtlIHqiyeA
search google Logmion
Has The Rock been negligent, breached its duty of care or committed crimes against god? then tell us your truthful stories of abuse and neglect and your views.
At C.1:Q.96, Nostradamus foretells of an iconoclastic prophet, using refined language to continually educate, who is raised in the Last Days.
Wow, this article certainly stirred up the defenders of the hierarchy to respond. This sexual abuse scandal has been going on for many years and is continuing to happen. I think that many who defend the actions of the Vatican and the bishops believe that the Church is above civil laws. The bishops and other defenders of the actions of many of the hierarchy were not just sins but crimes of obstructing justice in many countries. I pray that the Holy Spirit will enlighten all Catholics that the present ruling structure of the Church needs to be changed.
Ok.First off excuse me for grammar mistakes and probably a misspelled word or four. But I have to say after reading things and the stance of the Vatican it does come across as a cover-up. Look up Crimen Sollicitationis please. Sure they say it did not mean that except when you read the punishment for the victim(or even the abuser)to say anything publicly and suffer excommunication…think about that for a bit. Then you have the known undeniable fact priests having been accused of abuse being quietly transferred to other places with no warnings or anything, and most likely or has been found recently, abusing again. Ohh and this document was from 1962.And all investigations were to be kept top secret for up to 10 years after, yes after, the victim reached adulthood. So in other words do not report or give such files to the police or anyone outside of the church nor to alert anyone…we’ll just transfer then quietly to another parish and give him a stern talking to and pray…err hope he doesn’t abuse again. Sorry couldn’t resist. Now when you factor in these things and its very very easy to google and find a lot of priests that have abused kids and either were transferred or abused multiple times. And sorry to people who say it says to report any abuse etc to the authorities..come on. How can you possibly believe that? I cannot recall one case were there was a accusation and they investigated and then making sure it was a legitimate accusation then alerted the police. Funny. its always been the other way around where the church was told did nothing and the victims or their family went to the police.
Oh I forgot to mention it but if anyone would like i have a link to the actual letter but not sure if you’re allowed to post links here as this is my first time here. Oops i see a pasted link so I shall. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/Ireland-Catholic-Abuse.pdf?ref=europe and here is a link for the 1962 document http://www.multiline.com.au/~johnm/ethics/crimineextracts.htm
Oh sorry for 3 posts in a row but I have just 1 more thing to say about this. People saying there is no cover-up, it’s all fake or overblown. Please google Patrick Joseph McCabe. A priest from Ireland(ironic eh?)sent a problem priest who had abused children in Ireland(what a coincidence in the same country right?) This is a copy/paste not my words: “In a recent Associated Press article, the cleric in the report was referred to as only the “unidentified priest.” The name is redacted in the report written by Judge Yvonne Murphy - it’s known as the Murphy Report - but its details are identical to McCabe’s known history. This case encapsulates everything that was wrong with the archdiocesan handling of child sexual abuse cases,” the report concludes.The report said the Archdiocese of Dublin sent the priest to the United States in 1982 amid complaints of abuse from young boys and concerns about his sexual impulses, for which he was given drug therapies including Depo-Provera. He was first sent to New Mexico, to a program for sexual abusers, and diagnosed as a pedophile, the report said. Then, a year later, the archbishop of Dublin persuaded now-deceased Bishop Mark Hurley of Santa Rosa to allow the priest to run St. Bernard Catholic Parish in Eureka. Hurley removed him in 1985 after “stories of inappropriate conduct began to emerge,” the report said.” Phew lots of reading sorry for that. I suggest looking up the Murphy report too but my point is this: Do you really think this is a isolated experience and still believe this letter is innocent? I think not.
It seems we shall never hear the last of this terrible scandal that the Church has gotten herself into.
All the same, I would like to think that some of those naughty priests were defrocked right away and that we didn’t hear about it because the media loves a scandal.
All the same, what makes the Church officials look the other way? And we does the same thing happen in the Protestant Church?
Last night I asked the Lord for a sign that the Catholic Church is the true Church and got several in reply. (Judas, for instance.) Plus I really do believe that to turn one’s back on the Church is like turning your back on one’s parents because of something terrible they did.
plavix sales annual revenue plavix and pain buy plavix online discovery of plavix can you drink alcohol with plavix
Mind-boggling posting! We are now starting out in social networking & attempting to learn how to best use SMO for our business.
Keep up the good work!
There’s the old adage: “Don’t believe everything you read in the newspapers.” The fact is reporters are often handicapped by their own preconcious bias when covering a story, despite their sincerity to report all the facts and reveal the truth to the public. As a result, reporters often leap before they look and consequently distort the facts by overlooking what is actually true. Mr. Akin’s article clearly demonstrates what I mean. Most people, including Catholics, have an understanding of the sex abuse scandal that’s been shaped by the secular media which doesn’t present the full picture of the story, but rather paints a false one.
Hi Alex. You must have missed that bit where the bishops, archbishops, cardinals and ex-popes facilitated abuses, covered up abuses and sheltered abusers. It was in the bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and ex-popes correspondence! Maybe you should stop reading the secular media and just stick to reading the correspondence!
AndrewSB49: read the article above in its entirety and read the correspondence again. Your commment makes no sense in light of those as well as your own advice. AndrewSB49: read the article above in its entirety and read the correspondence again. Your commment makes no sense in light of your own advAndrewSB49: read the article above in its entirety and read the correspondence again. Your commment makes no sense in light of those as well as your own advice. AndrewSB49: read the article above in its entirety and read the correspondence again. Your commment makes no sense in light of your own advice.
Hi Jeff
At risk of repeating repeating myself - read the headline of the article: “Vatican Warned Bishops Not To Report Child Abuse” and the article fails miserably to debunk the story. Canon law holds no more value - probably even less - than the rules of a golf club. A person (whether bishop or plumber) has no need to consult the manual on bishop(ing) or plumbing when confronted with suspected or actual child abuse - nor do they need to listen to trade rules from higher-ups in the trade on what to do. It’s simple empathy - you provide help for the child and consult the authorities. Simples.
Andrew, the Vatican never enjoined the bishops to conceal sexual abuse from the legal civil authorities, but rather advised them how to properly handle reported cases using discretion and respecting the confidentiality of the victims. A bishop couldn’t notify the authorities without the approval and cooperation of the victims and their parents and an initial internal investigation of a priest. Canon law did not forbid the bishops from investigating reported cases and notifying the police, but rather served to facilitate a proper handling of the cases.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.