Catholic Bishop Protects Pedophile Priests From Discovery

[florida]

Forgive your enemies and love catholics

[Kerv]

Originally Posted by BillyTheMountain

Pope Put Off Punishing Abusive Priest http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/10/wo...pe/10pope.html

This article is exactly the kind of journalistic "hit job" I was referring to. This story was analyzed in The Wall Street Journal (of all places!) Somehow the article never gets around to sharing these facts: By the time the "defrocking" request was forwarded to the Vatican, the abusing priest's Bishop had already removed the abusing priest from any priestly ministry and he was forbidden to have any contact with children. The defrocking process is designed to always move slowly and deliberately. This is so that mistakes are not made and an innocent man is ejected from his clerical state. The time-line dates back to the reformation when charges were sometimes brought against priests for political reasons. Purposely taking some time allows a better chance for all the facts to surface. In the case in question, this should not have been a problem because, as mentioned above, the priest had already been removed from his duties (this critical fact somehow seems to be missing in the the Times article). Later, the abuser volunteered at a parish. Note: He was not assigned to the parish by the Bishop. The volunteer work was done in violation of the Bishop's order. Yet the headline's article is: "Pope Put off Punishing Abusive Priest". A more accurate headline would have been, "Pope took longer than usual in deciding the fate of a abusing priest who had already been removed from any priestly ministry". Yet it seems to be on this thin thread that you say the Pope was involved in covering things up. The Times' article is a great example of how innuendo combined with omitting certain facts creates the impression of guilt. The one real problem that was identified in the Times article (the Bishop did not heed a letter of warning about the volunteer work, but only took action after he personally saw the priest fulfilling the volunteer role) had nothing to do with the Pope.

Originally Posted by BillyTheMountain

Did someone reliable tell you the "dirty secret" of both public and private schools is how they let abusers go from school to school leaving a wake of victims?

Yes

Originally Posted by BillyTheMountain

Did someone reliable tell you the school principal shuts his eyes and lets the criminal reestablish himself in another community.

Yes

Originally Posted by BillyTheMountain

Did someone reliable lead you to believe the Bishops get a greater amount of guilt than the principal, but not by much?

No one led me to believe that. It is my own opinion.

Originally Posted by BillyTheMountain

School personnel are required to report suspicions of child abuse. Anyone who has suspicions and does not report is conspiring to keep those suspicions of abuse from the authorities, and can be charged.

Billy, that might be what the law says now. As I mentioned, my friend's father is in his 80s. He was talking about his observations in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s - which he shared with me a couple of years ago when we had a conversation about the abuse problem in the Catholic church. While I have not personally researched what the law was 60 years ago, I don't believe it was as specific as it is now. Looking back at the silence of both the schools and the church, we can rightly wonder, "what the hell were they thinking"? In another well known case, a Fr. Murphy was the head of a school for deaf boys in the 1950s and 1960s. He was quite the abuser. The facts were brought to the local DA (I think in the 1970s) and the DA didn't do anything with it. Another case of shameful inaction that illustrates indifference and incompetence. It is frightening, but it seems to sum up the general attitude of the era in the Catholic Church, in the schools and in law enforcement. But, rest assured, I'll be sure to pass along to my friend's father that he was especially guilty.

[BillyTheMountain]

Originally Posted by Kerv

In another well known case, a Fr. Murphy was the head of a school for deaf boys in the 1950s and 1960s. He was quite the abuser. The facts were brought to the local DA (I think in the 1970s) and the DA didn't do anything with it. Another case of shameful inaction that illustrates indifference and incompetence. It is frightening, but it seems to sum up the general attitude of the era in the Catholic Church, in the schools and in law enforcement. But, rest assured, I'll be sure to pass along to my friend's father that he was especially guilty.

Child sexual abuse is still epidemic, and there is no end to the shameful inaction that illustrates indifference and incompetence you speak of.

I'd think twice before saying anything like that to a man in his 80s, maybe I'm an agist

Billy

[Kerv]

Originally Posted by BillyTheMountain

Child sexual abuse is still epidemic, and there is no end to the shameful inaction that illustrates indifference and incompetence you speak of.

As that statement applies to the Catholic Church, I think you are incorrect. The church has adopted a number of reforms. Abusing clergy have been booted from the ranks and do-nothing Bishops have been removed. In the Diocese where the abuse was worst, no-nonsense Bishops have been appointed to make sure this does not happen again (for instance, Cardinal Sean O'Malley in Boston - an incredible guy who restored much needed sanity to that Diocese). Largely ignored in the media is that current allegations have almost stopped. Many people labor under the misguided belief that the abuse is still "epidemic" because new allegations are still being made about very old crimes and legal actions that were started a few years ago are still grinding through the system with the surrounding publicity. The best practices today cannot, unfortunately, change the past. There is no question that many bad things happened in the past, but new "historical" allegations do not mean that the wide-spread problems currently exist. As it relates to on-going abuse crimes, the epidemic is largely over.

[Kerv]

Originally Posted by BillyTheMountain

Kerv,

You seem to be suggesting that if for years an members of an
organization conspire to allow predators to prey on underage kids and
cause life long damage, the victims should not receive remedies if it
ends the charitable work of that organization

.
Not exactly. My main concern is the Statute of Limitations, which is there for a very good reason (I will spare you the repetition of these reasons in that they are listed in earlier posts). Given the vileness of the crimes, it is understandable that people are very angry and want to see the Statute of Limitations extended or repealed. But anger is an emotion - and laws (like the Statute of Limitations) are made without emotion and without considering the ugliness of any given case. So, my primary contention is that repeal of the Statute is a very bad legal idea. I mentioned the social work of the church because it shows that the bad legal idea also has very bad implications for society at large. We seem to forget that monetary damages don't come out of the shareholders' pockets (as with corporations) or that in this case, damages don't affect executive bonuses. None of the clergy are getting rich. Rather, much of the cash flow of the church is directed at doing good in society. This, by itself, shouldn't insulate the church from paying for its misdeeds (indeed, they have paid quite a bit for the more recent abuse crimes). But it should make us all pause to consider the negative societal effect of following through with what is already a bad legal idea.

Originally Posted by BillyTheMountain

Kerv,
But individual victims deserve compensation.

No arguement here, as long as the charges have been brought within a time frame that truly allows justice to be done properly

Originally Posted by BillyTheMountain

The extended statute of limitations recognizes that it typically takes
many years before victims are ready to come forward. The measure also
recognizes the Catholic Church’s history of intimidating victims and
burying abuses in church files, creating a shroud of secrecy that
extended in many cases until victims were in their 30s or older, well
beyond existing time limits for prosecutions or civil lawsuits.

Whoa there, Billy! "the Catholic Church's history of intimidating victims"? While the MO of any abuser (Priest, school teacher, scout leader, etc) is to intimidate the victim, I don't think the facts support the allegation that Church officials had a pattern of intimidating victims. Many Bishops certainly ignored complaints, shuffled abusers to other parishes and buried cases in church files, but that is not "intimidation". I don't believe the "intimidation" allegation is true and, if I am correct in that belief, it cannot be used as justification to extend or repeal the Statute of Limitations. With regard to "burying abuses in church files" and the "shroud of secrecy" , how does that prevent someone from stepping forward and bringing the complaint to the civil authorities? It doesn't - and therefore does not illustrate a legitimate reason to extend or repeal the Statute of Limitations.

Originally Posted by BillyTheMountain

The Catholic Church trying to obtain forgiveness without doing its
penance. They wish to avoid paying for their sins. It was not just the
pedophile priests, there was a widespread pattern of concealing their
misdeeds.

...Um, this may have escaped your notice, but there have been tens of millions of dollars (actually, nation wide, I think it is in the hundreds of millions of dollars) paid as damages and settlements by the Catholic church for these very real crimes. Most Diocese have stepped up to compensate the legitimate claims while also establishing channels to minister to the victims. Far from avoiding "paying for their sins", many diocese have paid to the point of bankruptcy. One or two have even been forced into bankruptcy (which certainly compounds the abusers' crimes - which were already vile enough on their own). As a practical matter, their is not a lot of "juice" left to squeeze.

Originally Posted by BillyTheMountain

Their victims deserve justice, and the ways in which the Catholic
Church is blocking justice is disdainful.

After paying multi-millions of dollars to settle for these terrible crimes, asking that certain cases be handled according current, long-standing and settled law is hardly "blocking justice", nor is it disdainful.

[BillyTheMountain]

Quiz: What northern European nation's Catholic bishops are being investigated for protecting pedophiles?

Why did the Vatican protest THIS investigation into Catholic priest pedophile protection?

[DSchmitt]

cause they're all f'in scumbags, all of em


scum.


scum scum scum.

[BillyTheMountain]

Originally Posted by BillyTheMountain

Quiz: What northern European nation's Catholic bishops are being investigated for protecting pedophiles?

Why did the Vatican protest THIS investigation into Catholic priest pedophile protection?

from Wiki:
In June 2010, Belgian police raided the Belgian Catholic Church headquarters in Brussels, seizing the Church's records relating to child abuse. The authorities are investigating accusations that Belgian clerics sexually abused children. Hundreds of such claims had been raised since April 2010, when the Bishop of Bruges, Roger Vangheluwe, admitted to molesting a boy and resigned.[38] The Vatican was reported as being 'indignant' over the raids, claiming they had led to the "violation of confidentiality of precisely those victims for whom the raids were carried out".[39]

[BillyTheMountain]

Front page of today's NY Times: The pope is implicated in the pedophile protection racket.

[BillyTheMountain]

anything new from the pedophile protection racket (Catholic Church)?

[maestro8]

Originally Posted by BillyTheMountain

anything new from the pedophile protection racket (Catholic Church)?

Dunno, but I got a new badminton racket.

[BillyTheMountain]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/us...subpoenas.html

The Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, known as SNAP, and its allies say the legal action the Church is taking to SILENCE them is part of a campaign by the church to cripple an organization that has been the most visible defender of victims, and a relentless adversary, for more than two decades. “If there is one group that the higher-ups, the bishops, would like to see silenced,” said Marci A. Hamilton, a law professor at Yeshiva University and an advocate for victims of clergy sex crimes, “it definitely would be SNAP. And that’s what they’re going after. They’re trying to find a way to silence SNAP.”

Lawyers for the church and priests say they cannot comment because of a judge’s order. But William Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, a church advocacy group in New York, said targeting the network was justified because “SNAP is a menace to the Catholic Church.”

Mr. Donohue said leading bishops he knew had resolved to fight back more aggressively against the group: “The bishops have come together collectively. I can’t give you the names, but there’s a growing consensus on the part of the bishops that they had better toughen up and go out and buy some good lawyers to get tough. We don’t need altar boys.”

[BillyTheMountain]

How far from the path the Catholic Church leaders have strayed.

[maestro8]

Originally Posted by BillyTheMountain

How far from the path the Catholic Church leaders have strayed.

Billy, do you own stock in the Catholic Church?

Why are you so concerned for their cause?

I just see this as another case of "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"

[BillyTheMountain]

Originally Posted by maestro8

Billy, do you own stock in the Catholic Church?

anyone with a conscience would have divested long ago.

they protect pedophiles and attack those who defend victims of pedophile priests.

meanwhile, they fight equality and fairness for women and LGBTat every step.

an enemy of equality and fairness is an enemy of America!

Catholic Church Out Of USA!