Admittedly, if you tacked an ‘I’m sorry I didn’t change that’ to that excuse, we’d normally accept it as society.  But… Alas.

I have no idea what to say about these guys.  Hubris seems insufficient.

It’s things like this that drove me (screaming) from my very Catholic upbringing. The good deeds of the very noble men I knew, who also happened to be priests, are overshadowed and tainted by these evils.

People have come to think of all priests as deviants.

Why this continues unabated is testament to what people are willing to ignore when they choose religion over logic and common sense and lose their own moral compasses.

And, we will hear nothing from Benedict. Even JPII only sent out a letter to all the faithful essentially telling them to keep the faith…No apology no promise to rectify the situation, nothing.

Benedict is an evil, frightening man.

The Cardinal’s personal excuse sounds a little less lame if you realize that he was not the Cardinal Archbishop at the time, but rather, a subordinate priest charged with investigating the matter and making a report to his bishop.  Brady made a truthful report on the abuse to his superiors in the hierarchy, who then decided to cover up the abuse.  Brady was not a decision-maker, and does not appear to have recommended a cover-up.

Brady could have blown the whistle on the cover-up, but did not have the courage to do so—if he had, he probably would not be wearing that red hat today.  The church does not exactly encourage subordinates to question the decisions of bishops, on this or any other topic.  But, Brady’s sin is cowardice in the face of evil, not active participation in evil himself.

You know, when you’re dealing with child rape, it’s all evil. Anyone who doesn’t take action in the face of that needs to be shot.

rea—I see them as two sides of the same coin. That he did not perpetrate the evil mitigates his decisions now by the smallest of degrees. He’s wearin the red hat now. It’s time to clean house based on what he knows to be continued abuses…

Fair enough, Ginmar…There’s a culpability that falls onto the shoulders of all in the Church who ever let this go on. That’s a long list…Not trying to make excuses so sorry if it appeared as such.

Dan—The thing is, they have. The archdiocese of Boston had to shell out $86M in civil claims against them. There have been others, but that’s the one that sticks in my head.

That’s just it. If that’s already happening (has happened) and still it continues….

The good deeds of the very noble men I knew, who also happened to be priests, are overshadowed and tainted by these evils. People have come to think of all priests as deviants.
TexasKaren
I know, it makes me sad also. Father Boyle is one of the good ones. It’s too bad that the decent priests and followers couldn’t just break off from the Vatician.

http://www.homeboy-industries.org/father-greg.php

You really have to wonder if there’s a point at which civil governments will step in and start throwing criminal charges around.

The precedent has already been set: even hint at a red-hat or mitre being called into a courtroom, and the target of the subpoena will emulate Bernie “The Shuffler” Law and do the midnight flit to Vatican City.

That’s another charming aspect of the culture that Brady discusses.

I’m surprised no accusations of an ‘insidious homosexual conspiracy to destroy the church’ haven’t been trotted out, since a lot of these people don’t see a difference between being a pedophile and being gay.

The Catholic Church needs to stop demonizing homosexuality so that young men don’t feel the need to join the priesthood because they can’t possibly come out to their devout parents. I saw it soooo many times growing up.

To that end, yeah. People are so hopelessly ignorant they DO equate homosexuality and pedophilia…

Sorry for dominating this thread. I’ll step away for awhile now ...

So where’s Mr. C4tholic L3ague, Bill D0n0hue?  Since he’s all things Catholic all the time, and a media whore besides, why is he so silent on issues like this?  Why hasn’t he invented an explanation he’s shopping around the cable networks that proves all the immoral fornication in the Catholic Church is Obama’s fault, or the fault of Liberals in general?

And how come some fundie idiot hasn’t already spouted off some crap about how this proves the RCC is really Satan’s Own Church?

I’m really disappointed…

“Dr Brady claimed that wider society handled child abuse cases differently in the 1970s. ’There was a culture of silence about this, a culture of secrecy, that’s the way society dealt with it.’”

Yes, and the Catholic Church has always been proud about how in step it is with society at large.

You know, that’s a very good point, Mike. Where is the professional wolf-cryer? I guess he does have some scruples. Even the most vile scumbag would have problems trying to say this is all lies, because who’d be lying but the victims?

Pietoro @ 11, the ‘insidious homosexual conspiracy to destroy the church’  line has been trotted out.

Only about 10 percent of the case dealt with “acts of true pedophilia,” Scicluna said, while 60 percent of the cases involved priests who were sexually attracted to male adolescents. Some 30 percent of cases dealt with heterosexual abuse, he said. Vatican defends Pope in abuse row.

My take on it from a day or two ago:

I also detect the makings of a very nasty sidestep here. Benedict has made some horrid statements about homosexuality, saying that it is intrinsically disordered, and that homosexual men can not be allowed to become priests. He is profoundly anti-gay. And in this statement, his delegate is blaming the majority of pedophilia on gay men. It’s a classic scapegoating move. Can the pope be impeached

Where is the professional wolf-cryer? I guess he does have some scruples. Even the most vile scumbag would have problems trying to say this is all lies, because who’d be lying but the victims?

Give him time—vile scumbags like that media whore don’t change so quickly. Donohue’s just absent from his usual upper 6th Ave. stroll because he and his handlers in the hierarchy are trying to put together talking points that will allow him to do precisely that: blame the victims and evil gay conspirators.

Can’t endanger all those juicy American collections, after all. Soon “The Voice of an Inactive Mailing List” (sorry—“The Voice of American Catholicism”) will be back to show us all who the real victims are in this shameful business: good caring men like Brady, Law and Pope Ratzi.

In the meantime, perhaps Dana can fill us in on that aspect of the story.

“The precedent has already been set: even hint at a red-hat or mitre being called into a courtroom, and the target of the subpoena will emulate Bernie “The Shuffler” Law and do the midnight flit to Vatican City…”

Not so easy to flee the country these days, is it?  The terrorist/no fly list might actually come in handy.  I know from experience that its used for every-day criminals, such as fathers who don’t pay child-support.  Really!  My husband was taken aside several times because his name matched that of a man who’d skipped out on child support payments.  Or so the airport security folk told him.

Didn’t Donahue recently downplay the Irish sex scandal?  He claimed that the report was overblown and that “kissing” and “slapping” don’t really count as abuse or something. 

I’m amazed at how unrepentent Cardinal Brady is. This is an institution that claims to be a moral compass for the world.  Yet the excuse here is that he was just doing what everyone else was doing! 

It reminds me in the scene in Deliver Us From Evil where the filmmaker keeps asking the CA bishop about his moral responsibility and the bishop keeps yammering on about his legal responsibility and refused to engage the moral question at all.

Oh wait, here’s Donohue now, with his BS: http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1797

NEW YORK TIMES TARGETS THE POPE AGAIN

March 16, 2010

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the latest attack on the pope by the New York Times:

Once upon a time there was a homosexual priest who was accused of molesting boys in Germany. That was 30 years ago. At the approval of Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger (now the pope), he was sent away for therapy and was later reinstated; years later, under a new archbishop, there was another incident and more therapy.

We know this because the New York Times (which does not like to report on molesting rabbis in 2010), told us about this on Saturday in a front-page article. Today, it ran a front-page article on the same story. Was there any difference? Yes. On Saturday, the Times was only able to identify the priest as bearing the initial “H.” Today, it has real news: his name is Hullermann. And now “H” has been suspended.

Was it wrong to send abusers to therapy? Is it wrong today? The Times does not say. While it is painfully obvious that psychologists and psychiatrists have oversold their competency in treating abusers, it has long been considered to be both scientifically and ethically sound. It still is. Perhaps that view is unwarranted, but it is flatly unfair to cherry pick Catholic decision-makers for indictment when therapy fails.

The Times also wrote today that when the pope was Cardinal Ratzinger under Pope John Paul II, he was “in charge of reviewing sexual abuse cases for the Vatican.” In doing so, the Times leaves the impression that Ratzinger was in charge of overseeing these cases when the scandal developed. Nonsense. The Times reported on January 9, 2002 that he had just been appointed to this role. Thus, he had nothing to do with this issue at the time when most of the abuse took place (mid-60s to mid-80s).

The Times has a vested ideological interest in keeping this story alive. To say it dislikes Pope Benedict XVI intensely is an understatement.

Only about 10 percent of the case dealt with “acts of true pedophilia,” Scicluna said, while 60 percent of the cases involved priests who were sexually attracted to male adolescents. Some 30 percent of cases dealt with heterosexual abuse, he said.

You’ve gotta love the distinctions these scumbags make: “Oh, the paedophilia was only a few bad apples. Most of these poor innocent priests were tempted by 13- and 14-year-olds, and most of those adolesents—might as well be grown men—were gay. Really, this so-called paedophilia scandal is more about gay men trying to sap the Church’s precious bodily fluids.”

Not so easy to flee the country these days, is it?  The terrorist/no fly list might actually come in handy.

You’d think so, but keep in mind that the culture Brady discusses still makes vigorous exceptions for certain types of religious fanatics, even as it vigorously goes after others.

In addition, most of these Catholic Meyer Lanskys carry Vatican passports, and it would seem that the Holy See is less scrupulous about extraditing enablers of paedophiles than Israel was about extraditing tax evaders.

Oh wait, here’s Donohue now, with his BS

Told you, Ginmar: patience is a virtue, and scumbags remain scumbags. The insinuation that the NYT is an instrument of the Elders of Zion is a particularly nice touch. Reading Donohue, it becomes clear why the paper also doesn’t do a yearly expose on the secret ingredients of Passover matzohs.

Did Donohue really try to blame Rabbis for molestation? My mouth is agape.

Change ‘blame Rabbis for’ to ‘accuse Rabbis of’, though I think you catch my drift…

Did Donohue really try to blame Rabbis for molestation? My mouth is agape.

Not quite. He’s blaming the money-grubbin’, Jesus-killing Joooos who control the U.S. media for having a double standard when it comes to the molestation of children by clergymen, persecuting poor Pope Ratzi and his pals. That, you see, is the real problem.

Change ‘blame Rabbis for’ to ‘accuse Rabbis of’, though I think you catch my drift…

I think he’s referring to a 1995 case where two Brooklyn Orthodox rabbis was fondling a teenaged girl on a flight from Australia to L.A.. I remember this because, y’know, the NYT bloody reported on it.

Carovee…..sitting through that was horrifying. I mean….real horror movies should have Catholic Bishops in them.

Gracchus, some of my best friends are whores, and they’re moral, scrupulous, tax-payign members of society who’d be horrified to even think of some of the shit Donahue’s pulled. And…the word horror keeps coming to mind here. I can’t seem to get away from it.

And also, that NY Times story about the rabbis is obviously lies. It’s all a conspiracy. Didn’t you know the NYTimes was run by homosexual liberals who are out to destroy the Catholic Church by…...um…....um…....Something!

“Once upon a time there was a homosexual priest who was accused of molesting boys in Germany. That was 30 years ago.”

Thanks, Bill.  Classic trolling move: concentrate on one case (of apparently hundreds-to-thousands), palm off any blame on touchy-feely liberals who advocate therapy instead of stoning, or The Gay, and then act like that wraps the whole thing up.  Nothing to see here, move along.

One small problem:  What about all the other priests who couldn’t keep their naughty parts under control?  Can you just waive them away too?  Is your interest only in a Bush/Cheney-style deflection of blame to protect Pope Ratzi from any and all responsibility and screw (pun intended) the victims?  How do you reconcile that with the concept of responsibility in your holy book and 2000-years of christianist teaching?...

Didn’t you know the NYTimes was run by homosexual liberals who are out to destroy the Catholic Church by…...um…....um…....Something!

As bad as it is to imagine the sort of hateful moron whose ears would be attuned to Donohue’s dog whistle, the more shameful thing is the existence of MSM outlets between 50th and 68th Sts that regularly confer the credibility of their own brands on this grotesque bigot. Donohue’s continued presence on cable news is proof that, as long as there’s sensationalism to be had (or at least a news hole to be filled), they’ll take a dishonest whore over an honest one any time.

Papa Ratzi’s never resigning!  He worked far too hard to get to get where he is!

Look at Francis <strike>Asshole</strike> Cardinal George.  A nun told him Fr. Daniel McCormack was abusing altar boys, but surely that young, good-looking priest couldn’t be so bad!  So he defied the rules from the Bishops’ Conference b/c he knew better.

He was shocked—shocked I tell you!—that McCormack went on to molest other children!  Who could have expected such a thing!

And he enabled it.

Did he resign as Cardinal?  Of course not.  Did he resign from his then impending Presidency of the US Bishops’ Conference?  Of course not.  He worked far too hard to get to where he is to throw it all away over a few kids, who really are just after money anyway.

Oh yes, he has written parents accusing them of simply wanting to take the RCC for money as he completely fails to understand that sexually abused people are usually traumatized for life and the money is an punishment, inadequate as it is.

Papa Ratzi has buried many more bodies.  He’s never sending Law back to Boston—>Law is being rewarded for “protecting” the brotherhood of priests.  He did exactly what he was told to do.

Get this straight:  The Correctors who want to repeal the V2 reforms believe that the priesthood is far and beyond more important than any lay person.  They are above civil law and should only be subject to their own discipline.  They are to be REVERED.

It makes me sick.  I still know decent men who are or were priests.  I know decent women who are nuns.  But it’s not enough.  It’s just not enough.  The hierarchy is full of evil, evil men whose hearts are filled with hate and contempt. 

I really hope other nations try to prosecute.  It’s the very least they deserve.  If they were any other profession, they would never be shielded so.

I know, it makes me sad also. Father Boyle is one of the good ones. It’s too bad that the decent priests and followers couldn’t just break off from the Vatician.

http://www.homeboy-industries.org/father-greg.php
Comment #9: pitbullgirl65 on 03/16 at 03:04 PM

The problem with that, is that the RCC diocese owns the buildings and the church, unlike say, a baptist or methodist sect where the church community does.  (yes, there are a few exceptions to that.)  And most Catholics seem to be very property conscious - keeping what you’ve earned. Since the RCC is the church of the peasant/immigrant class, that makes sense (and I speak as a recovering catholic.)  And they aren’t starting over again on th einfrastructure is my guess.

What it would take, is a few parishioners, and those “good” priests, saying hey, unless you, Ratzi, want a major problem with us, we get the physical church.  have to wonder why no one has yet done this?

If they were any other organization they’d be under RICO supervision, and their assets would be frozen.

I think that there is something important in the fact that most of the cases weren’t abuse of children but of adolescents. It situates the problem not so much in a completely broken sexual appetite on the part of the priests doing the abuse but in the abuse of power against young people least in a position to defend themselves.

Let me unpack that a little. Acolytes/altar boys/whatever else they call them are past puberty, and are also perfect targets of opportunity for a priest with sexual and sexual power problems. If they’re devout—that is to say raised in the belief that sex is of the devil and same-sex encounters doubly so—they’re first going to be wondering whether their own sinful thoughts are causing them to misinterpret innocent acts by a priest. Then they’ve got to know that if they report anything the first line of defense will be that they entrapped a godly man. Then the hierarchy, if it listens at all, swears them to silence, brining them back into the fold but also making them part of the conspiracy of silence that inevitably results in the abuse of even more adolescents.

Now a lot of people would call that abusiveness on the part of priests and the hierarchy the result of a completely broken sexual appetite, but they’re forgetting that predation followed by loyalty on the part of the victim is pretty much the archetype for sexual love in the non-lite patriarchy. So this isn’t so much an aberration as a logical extreme, abetted by the church’s power and utter amorality.

I forget where I read this but someone commented to the effect (not an exact quote) “Divorce and remarry and you can never take communion again - molest a child and you get to keep saying mass for years.”

There are no words for how utterly evil this all is.  I was raised catholic (left a long time ago) but I just find myself speechless at the utter depravity, amorality, greed for luxury (prada shoes - Mother of god) and love of position this group of withered old men display. 

This pope is doomed. This chruch is doomed. And it’s for the best. This horror can not be allowed to continue.

Voluntarily resigning? I don’t understand why he isn’t getting prosecuted for conspiracy to conceal multiple felonies.

Hold him on some big fat bail as a flight risk.

Professorfate….One can only hope. Popcorn?

Of course he’s not resigning.

If a report like that came to light about a member of, say, a country club, or the board of directors of a big publicly traded corporation, or the Mafia,  that member would have to resign (or whatever they do in the Mafia), because his presence would be an affront to the values of the other people in his organization. 

Well, the RCC’s values include sweeping things under the rug—and the way you can tell is that the best sweepers have the best careers.

Unquestionably, as Brady says, the other priests he associated with were also covering things up as they occurred. Moreover, in doing so, he was quite clearly exercising, and had probably completely internalized, the true values of his organization—as evidenced by, among other things, his notable success in it: Primate of a very Catholic country.

If he hadn’t gone along with the cover-ups, he’d probably be running bingo games out in County Bumfuck today.

Thinking he should resign for this is like thinking the Used Car Salesman of the Year should resign for reselling reclocked POS-mobiles—how do you think he got the title?

The problem isn’t that Cardinal Brady is corrupt. It’s that he’s part of a corrupt institution that rewards that particular type of corruption. If he or the Pope retired, he’d be replaced by someone no better.

(The good news, in my opinion, is that since the priesthood pulls so many dysfunctional people out of the general population [and out of the gene pool], the rest of the Church—the RCC laity, cultural Catholics, et al.—may be the stronger, saner, cooler etc. for it.)

While it is painfully obvious that psychologists and psychiatrists have oversold their competency in treating abusers, it has long been considered to be both scientifically and ethically sound. It still is. Perhaps that view is unwarranted, but it is flatly unfair to cherry pick Catholic decision-makers for indictment when therapy fails.

It’s the shrinks’ (1) fault!!
_____
(1) And we all know what religion most shrinks were raised in.

I think he should resign, and that he is a horrible person, but a part of me does think that perhaps some of the supervisors of these priests really thought they could be cured.

And I really hate the fact that the church is using this to gay-bash.  When I was actually a practicing Catholic, and the scandal first broke, I was livid about it and would talk to anyone (Catholic or no) that would listen to me.  The vast majority of people who sexually victimize children, to the extent they are not solely oriented towards children, are straight.

Funny.  The last I heard was that the recidivism rate for pedophilia was so high and the ability of therapy to touch them so low that it was pointless to try therapy.  Where is Donohue getting his information?

As a non-Catholic, I have to wonder why people continue giving their money to the Church.  I can imagine continuing going to Church and wanting to take part in the rituals and observations you grew up with, but why donate money directly to them?  Why not take the money you would normally tithe and give it to a charity of your choice?  The only thing that is going to make the Church sit up and listen is a sudden loss of income.

This is not in any way to blame the laity for any of this, but it really seems that the only thing that talks to these people is money, and that if entire swathes of believers stopped giving money to the Church until they changed policy that might help things in the long run.

Where is the professional wolf-cryer? I guess he does have some scruples. Even the most vile scumbag would have problems trying to say this is all lies, because who’d be lying but the victims?

He has. Repeatedly. Pharyngula tore into one nearly a year ago. Bill’s excuse? “Hey, it happened in the ‘70s. The ‘70s! Crazy times, and soooo long ago. Hell, most of the ‘so called’ abuse was just about getting the shit kicked out of you by an institution that was housing you in unheated dorms and not giving you enough to eat. There’s nothing sexual about that. Except for the people who fondled kids and ogled them in the shower. But that’s not rape! It’s barely objectionable! OK and the rapists. But some of them were Brothers, not Priests, so no scandal!”

...Cardinal Brady said yesterday that he would not be resigning because he had done nothing wrong. ‘I did act, and act effectively, in that inquiry to produce the grounds for removing Father Smyth from ministry and specifically it was underlined that he was not to hear confessions and that was very important.’

Oh, well, as long as the child rapist can’t hear confessions anymore….

Seriously what more could anyone ask? Why must you persecute the Catholic Church so?

Obviously molesters need therapy. But has the church always been so thoroughly short of priests that it can’t follow the simple rule of keeping molesters—even after they’ve been through therapy—away from the kids? (Oh, and by the way, is there anyone else who thinks that the kind of therapy available in an institution that preaches celibacy is not going to be the most effective in the world? If a priest who molested youths did develop a healthy sense of his own sexuality, his reward would be to be cut loose from the only community he had known during his teenage and adult life, and be sent out into the world with no job and no references.)

Irish Cardinal under cloud of scandal

So far, there’s only a black cloud of scandal. But Catholic tradition has it that when evidence of the Pope’s personal, active participation in a cover-up is revealed, the cloud will turn white.

32:

If they were any other organization they’d be under RICO supervision, and their assets would be frozen.

Yet in actual fact the US bishops have been throwing their weight around as much as ever in their audacious attempt at backdoor outlawing of abortion via Stupak and his cohorts. Which is beyond infuriating. Ecclesia catholica delenda est.

As a non-Catholic, I have to wonder why people continue giving their money to the Church.  I can imagine continuing going to Church and wanting to take part in the rituals and observations you grew up with, but why donate money directly to them?  Why not take the money you would normally tithe and give it to a charity of your choice?  The only thing that is going to make the Church sit up and listen is a sudden loss of income.

Isn’t that exactly what the “catholics come home campaign” crap is all about? They’ve noticed, but nothing has changed, so it must be the prodigal son/daughters’, fault. 

Is there something I miss about the church - hell yeah, great music if one was in the right parish.  Go back?  Hell, no.  Go out and buy some Bach, Mozart or even “the St Louis Jesuits?” Yes.

I think he should resign, and that he is a horrible person, but a part of me does think that perhaps some of the supervisors of these priests really thought they could be cured.

Yes, it would be nice to think that, but it’s obviously untrue.

Ratzinger, as Cardinal and “Defender of the Faith” (his real title) made it very VERY clear to bishops that any accusations of sexual impropriety were to be kept completely silent.  They were NEVER to be reported to the proper civilian authorities under penalty of excommunication.  It was to be dealt with ‘in house’ and in secrecy.

Got that?  Rape someone, and it will be swept under the rug.  Inform someone that the rape occurred and you can be excommunicated.

The Vatican 2 reforms make it clear that the clergy is called to serve the laity.  This sticks in Correctors’ craws: they believe the ordained should be revered by the peasantry, and they’ve been working very hard to undermine all those reforms—never mind why the reforms were instituted in the first place.

At no point did any of these men consider the humanity of the people who were raped.  The brotherhood of priests was, and still is, far more important than any merely baptized person’s life.

And they’re in charge.  I seriously don’t think it’s possible to say “But my parish is okay” anymore.  It funnels up to these men, and these men are evil.  “Not my Nigel” is just not good enough.  For any remote attempt at claiming to be a moral institution, there needs to be not just mass resignations, but mass convictions.  The silence needs to end, and the information should be turned over to the proper civilian authorities.  Crimes were committed.  The fact that the criminals were ordained is utterly irrelevant.

Egnu Cledge, that’s the excuse that people are making for Roman Polanski. Um, since when has child rape been just a crazy thing?  (Not directed at you, obviously, but at the people making that excuse.)  And is it just me or does that vicious fucker sound almost envious about it, too: “Oh, gee, the Seventies. People did crazy things back then.” Yeah, because child rape is just, you know, one of those things just happen.

  One of the scenes in Deliver me from Evil described the rape of a months-old baby. These assholes need to be thrown out into the street. Aside from which, there’s the fact it’s an all-male power structure. Yeah, look how well that’s working out.

Oh, and let’s not forget one more Francis Asshole George’s brilliant ideas:

In order to buff up the Church’s reputation, he’s going to attack Obama over abortion. 

Yeppers, it’s balls to the walls forced-gestationism!  That’ll make the laity forget all about the rapes and make them kowtow to the ordained again.

Health care?  Social justice?  Ending the wars?  Pffft!  Save the fetii!  That’s the real ticket.

This pope is doomed. This chruch is doomed. And it’s for the best. This horror can not be allowed to continue.

Hmm - does anyone know exactly where in the Bible it says “thou shalt not fiddle kiddies”?

OT - why do cardinal’s hats make me crave Chinese food?

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

that’s from Matthew 18:6, KJV

Carovee:

I’m amazed at how unrepentent Cardinal Brady is.

I’m not. I looked through the Murphy Report last fall. Brady’s a piker compared to Msgr. Gerald Sheehy, whom I quote:

It is my opinion that there is a gross over-reaction on the part of many of our Church authorities to this whole ‘paedophile crisis’...I heard the Cardinal on yesterday’s radio specifically saying that, if there is a reasonable suspicion against a priest in this area, he should be turned over to the police for investigation and for whatever may follow from that. This is panic; it is also wrong. It takes no account whatever of the Church’s own canonical procedures in dealing with situations of this kind – procedures which long have been acknowledged and accepted by the civil courts.

It takes no account whatever of the Church’s own canonical procedures in dealing with situations of this kind – procedures which long have been acknowledged and accepted by the civil courts.

Exactly.  Who the hell do these unordained people think they are?  Why do they have the temerity to try to judge us?

The brotherhood of priests above all.

It takes no account whatever of the Church’s own canonical procedures in dealing with situations of this kind – procedures which long have been acknowledged and accepted by the civil courts.

Shariah Law! Shariah Law!

Oh wait. Wrong religion.

If the Pope were to resign, it might be…a good start towards rebuilding the reputation of the Church.  I doubt if anything else would even make a start.

Alternatively, stonewalling on a horror of this magnitude might manage to strip the Church of the last shreds of its aura of moral authority.

Either outcome would probably improve our culture.

And they’re in charge.  I seriously don’t think it’s possible to say “But my parish is okay” anymore….
Comment #46: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes on 03/17 at 08:52 AM

How true, Caren!  Yeah, what follows is an anecdote, deal with that everyone, because I’m thinking that there are a lot of people in this boat. 

In my teenagerhood, I left the birth/school parish, because it was unfriendly to parishoners and hostile to VII reforms.  Went to what I thought was a great progressive parish - teen club and center, younger priests, lots of activities and choirs and retreats and meaningful participation.  Just recently found that the “priest in charge” of the teen club and camping trips is a pedophile who was transferred four times, even though the pastor warned the diocese about what was going on. 

And boy does it explain a lot -  I cringe to this day at the nasty, harsh “WTF do you want” rebuke I got when I went to the priest’s tent in the middle of the night to get help with a sick tentmate.  And the nasty yet scared looks from the two teens who came out of that tent before the priest.

Before finding out, I would have argued to hell and back that it was a “good” parish.  I can even remember how it was covered up when he left - “oh, just a transfer.”

Following the links from some of these articles, I now find that out of the 6 or so parishes in a ten square mile geographic area I grew up in 5/6 have credible accusations of abuse at priests I knew.    The one that doesn’t has been having an affair for years with a married woman.  This is so much more widespread than admitted.

You really have to wonder if there’s a point at which civil governments will step in and start throwing criminal charges around

Unfortunately, in many cases, the statute of limitations for initiating criminal prosecutions has run out on these offenses.  Most states (US) have limits of less than 15 years to prosecute rape/assault type offenses.

As a left-anarchist my constitutional law-fu is a bit on the weak side. What are the civil rights (or other) justifications for the existence statute of limitations? I’m sure somebody figured out a good reason to create those, but from a ‘common sense’ standpoint (which I admit is often neither common, nor sense) it seems always a bit stupid to me that somebody could have done a crime and get off scott free only because they did not get prosecuted in time.

Statute of limitations for obstruction of justice is only 5 years, though that starts from the last act.  If you could argue that they are continuing active obstruction, you might be able to move forward.

As bad as the rapes are, the men who enabled the rapists to continue to victimize others are worse in my opinion.  They’ve aided and abetted in acts of rape.

And boy does it explain a lot - I cringe to this day at the nasty, harsh “WTF do you want” rebuke I got when I went to the priest’s tent in the middle of the night to get help with a sick tentmate.  And the nasty yet scared looks from the two teens who came out of that tent before the priest.

That is one chilling story.

Most states (US) have limits of less than 15 years to prosecute rape/assault type offenses.

Which is another reason that scumbag Donohue takes great pains to emphasise that the cases now coming to light happened “a long time ago.”

The word now seems to be that the Irish Primate will resign on Thursday whether or not Ratzi formally requests it. Then, the day after Brady falls on his sword, Pope Palpatine will then issue his letter on the Irish situation, no doubt implying that the resignation should settle things once and for all. I’m usually disgusted by that style of CYA “leadership” from American bigcorp MBAs, but this takes it to a whole new level.

The more I hear of this story, the sicker I feel. It’s no wonder that our usual right-wing Catholic trolls aren’t showing up to try to defend what’s being exposed as a vile, rotten organisation.

What are the civil rights (or other) justifications for the existence statute of limitations?

The justification basically comes down to the common law principle (grounded in ancient Roman law) that a person who commits a petty crime and isn’t caught shouldn’t live in fear of the state for the rest of his life. To a degree, it’s a recognition that an illegal but desperate or stupid act (i.e. the kind of crimes committed when one is young) shouldn’t ruin someone’s life years after it happens. It also puts pressure on the police and prosecutors to prioritise their investigations and complete them in a timely factor, when evidence and witness recollection is still fresh.

The more heinous the crime, the longer the period—in some juridictions, some crimes (e.g. homicide) don’t have any statute of limitations.

A 15 year statute of limitations for rape may (barely) make sense in the view of a generally misogynistic society, but of course that doesn’t take into account the special circumstances of child rape, where the victim may not be aware of what happened to him, may not understand that a crime was committed, or what legal recourse he has. As bad as it’s been for women to gain recognition throughout legal history, it’s been worse for children.

Statute of limitations for obstruction of justice is only 5 years, though that starts from the last act.  If you could argue that they are continuing active obstruction, you might be able to move forward.

This is a separate issue, but I believe that the argument you describe is exactly what scares Bernie The Shuffler and the other corrupt old men in the Church hierarchy—men who’ve been in positions of authority for a long, long time. And despite the claims of sleazy apologists like Donohue, here in the real world molestation by priests didn’t come to an abrupt and final end in the early 1980s.

As bad as the rapes are, the men who enabled the rapists to continue to victimize others are worse in my opinion.  They’ve aided and abetted in acts of rape.

Agreed. As someone said above, this was and is a criminal conspiracy—not only an informal agreement to obstruct justice at every turn, but an institutional policy to do so. If you’ve ever asked yourself “what kind of self-described decent and moral person would cover up a child rape?,” I give you the Roman Catholic Church hierarchy. Anyone who’s been around long enough and seen enough to make it to the post of bishop or higher is suspect in my view.

What are the civil rights (or other) justifications for the existence statute of limitations?

California has had some changes to the law regarding the statute of limitations re: sexual abuse of a child:

Civil Lawsuits for Sexual Abuse

After the Catholic Church abuse scandals, California also enacted a law that allows for lawsuits against people whom were aware of the unlawful sexual conduct by their “employee, volunteer, representative, or agent”, and failed to take “reasonable steps” to prevent it.  Upon his discovery of this person or entity, a plaintiff has one year to sue.

California Statute of Limitations on Sexual Abuse

This is a separate issue, but I believe that the argument you describe is exactly what scares Bernie The Shuffler and the other corrupt old men in the Church hierarchy—men who’ve been in positions of authority for a long, long time.

The U.S. attorney in Los Angeles has launched a federal grand jury investigation into Cardinal Roger M. Mahony in connection with his response to the molestation of children by priests in the Los Angeles Archdiocese, according to two law enforcement sources familiar with the case.

The probe, in which U.S. Atty. Thomas P. O’Brien is personally involved, is aimed at determining whether Mahony, and possibly other church leaders, committed fraud by failing to adequately deal with priests accused of sexually abusing children, said the sources, who requested anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly about the investigation.

Cardinal Mahoney under Federal Fraud Probe

The last time I tried to comment on the actions of this woman-hating child-molesting institution I was very clumsy and didn’t get my idea across. I basically said that we should ignore the institution—what I should have written is that we need to shun it and stop giving it presence with its name. Stop giving it anything—publicity, support, money, anybody in the pews. Stop calling it a church—I now always use the aforementioned phrase—“woman-hating, child-molesting institution.” Keep that image uppermost in people’s minds. We need to choke it off from any positive connection to certain ideas like church, brotherhood, community, etc. Make it clear that it serves no one but itself.

Someone upthread asked if this entity was short on clergy—yes, yes, they are! This can be made into a tipping point into its oblivion. Help discourage any young people you know who are considering entering seminary—talk about the scandals and the wretched way that the clergy have treated the laity they supposedly serve. Encourage anyone who feels they have a “calling”, a “vocation”, to serve humanity in another capacity.

Yes, we should keep track of what’s going on, and work on our friends who are members to funnel their money elsewhere. As a former member, I am aware of how precarious the finances really are, and I want to help create another tipping point that will shut down as many of the parishes as can possibly be shut down. I want to make their council of bishops in the USA as impotent a body as possible—no money, no people, equals no backup.

Throwing politicians like Stupak out of office would certainly send a message to his council of little buddies.

I go to an atheist brunch once a month, and we’ve been discussing charity drives lately. One of the participants—not a member of the woman-hating, child-molesting institution—when told about a certain charity someone was suggesting, Second Harvest Food Bank of Orange County, refused to give money or participate, declaring that she does not give to entities involved with that institution. There are plenty of other food banks to which anyone can donate.

Lastly, when friends who are members state, “But it’s my faith!” correct them. The institution in the end, has nothing to do with the faith of an individual and everything to do with using their dogma for manipulation and thought control.

Help discourage any young people you know who are considering entering seminary—talk about the scandals and the wretched way that the clergy have treated the laity they supposedly serve.

Also, discuss how the archaic Church policy of allowing only celibate, unmarried males into positions of authority essentially created a haven for paedophiles and bitter life-long closet cases.

Phylosopher:

And boy does it explain a lot - I cringe to this day at the nasty, harsh “WTF do you want” rebuke I got when I went to the priest’s tent in the middle of the night to get help with a sick tentmate.  And the nasty yet scared looks from the two teens who came out of that tent before the priest.

Oh, God. Just….oh God.

Gracchus, the ones that they’ll punish first will be elderly nuns or organizations that genuinely help the poor.  Not arguing against it, but they won’t touch the rich men.

Phylo…..!

Lastly, when friends who are members state, “But it’s my faith!” correct them. The institution in the end, has nothing to do with the faith of an individual and everything to do with using their dogma for manipulation and thought control.

Sorry, but you don’t get to tell people that.  The institution of the Church is necessarily bound up to Catholicism; you can be a Christian without needing it, but you can’t be a Catholic.  Either Catholics have to leave the church and become “mere” Christians, or they have to stay and engage with the horrendous flaws in that institution.

Caren,

I had no idea there was a policy of threatening excommunication for reporting it to the authorities.  That is horrific, and does reflect a great deal of culpability (as opposed to someone stupidly thinking that pedophiles could be easily “cured” and should be “forgiven”).

Gracchus,

I think the extension of the sol was overturned in part in CA.  Which is really sad. 

I also did know a young man who decided not to go to the seminary after the scandal broke.  A priest he respected greatly was among the accused offenders.  And actually, not my nigel with regard to the parish I grew up in—but it doesn’t matter.  I’m no longer willing to publicly (or spiritually) affiliate myself with a religion whose leadership is so consistently rotten on such a crucial issue.  Now I’m working on family members.  At some point, regardless of your faith, if you choose to affiliate yourself with an organization that engages in such gross abuses, even if your priests don’t (as far as you know) engage in such abuses, you are supporting the organization.

Pope Ratzi threatened his bishops with excommunication? Isn’t that flat out violating the mandatory report laws? Not to mention obstructing justice? I can’t imagine that they didn’t threaten parishioners with such things, either.

In the Army, one of the things preventing prosecution are regs against insubordination. If you make a false accusation against a superior office in the military that can be a crime in and of itself. Perfect. And the victim can get prosecuted not only for that but for doing things like drinking, etc., etc, because sometimes the offender can get offered immunity to go after the victim’s ‘crimes.’

  So, um…..hey! One bright spot here! Sort of. Oy.

Of course all this stuff is a violation of the mandatory reporting laws.  But you’re not going to find a lot of DAs who want to go after the church. (Talk about a malicious group infiltrating the government…)

The other reason for statute of limitations is that evidence gets lost, witnesses die, move or forget. If the police came up with a couple witnesses saying I beat someone up in a bar in the West Village back in 1994, how would I even begin proving them wrong? (Yes, abuse cases are completely different, because the identity of the perp is not in question, nor that of most of the other actors, but that’s why special laws have been passed to modify the SoL.)

It just gets worse and worse the more you dig. The lies are bad enough, but the indifference…. Isn’t the allure of religion supposed to have something to do with compassion? Or the promise of it?

Comment #67: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  03/17  at  06:03 PM
The institution of the Church is necessarily bound up to Catholicism; you can be a Christian without needing it, but you can’t be a Catholic.  Either Catholics have to leave the church and become “mere” Christians, or they have to stay and engage with the horrendous flaws in that institution.

I think this is no longer the case—that is, at one point this was accurate but now it is not. The vast majority of Catholics I’ve met in my life have had doctrines which mark them as Protestants—e.g., they actively protest the policies of the Catholic church, and some do it consciously. (Some are passionately for Christian ideals which happen to fly in the face of Catholic practice, but are unaware that the Vatican maintains said practice.) The See has far less direct control over Catholics than it once did and, as such, many of its “Catholics” are not “Catholic.”

But the Vatican is more like a business than a church when it comes to this phenomenon. So long as a church meets whatever social or financial obligations it has to Rome and it stays out of the news, it can espouse a clearly anti-Catholic (perhaps, or perhaps not, pro-Christian) sentiment it chooses.

As a result, a Catholic who despises what the Pope is doing could find or found a Catholic church reflecting said belief. Does it make “institutional” sense? Nope. But group affiliation is 99% what people make up in their heads, and once the head of a group mires itself in doctrinal hypocrisy, what comprises that group is up for grabs by all of its nominal members.

Comment #70: paul  on  03/17  at  07:16 PM
The other reason for statute of limitations is that evidence gets lost, witnesses die, move or forget. If the police came up with a couple witnesses saying I beat someone up in a bar in the West Village back in 1994, how would I even begin proving them wrong?

The rationale for SoL has been eroded in the modern day. The main reason was because witness testimony became less reliable as time passed. Well, we now know that witness testimony is some of the most unreliable evidence you can possibly have, so the idea that we should forbid court action in a case where the worst evidence is worse than normal is an absurdity. An accurate and unambiguous videotape of a suspect committing a robbery in 1979 is far better evidence than a guy claiming he saw someone who looked like the suspect doing the same yesterday.

Comment #71: ginmar  on  03/17  at  10:41 PM
The lies are bad enough, but the indifference….

It’s not indifference. It’s contempt and malice.

It’s malice because the Church actually hates people that defend the victims. It’s contempt because the only logical conclusion is that the Church thinks that the priests had the right to rape children. You can get mad at people who violate your rights—this is what the Vatican is doing here.

Again—the Church isn’t trying to “heal” priests burdened by lust; it protects the rapists because the rapists are people and their victims are not.

If the church was just a local business and a bunch of rich white guys in that business closed ranks around one of their own who committed rape—demonized the victim, flew the offender out of town and so on—we’d conclude that the group was objectively pro-rape. But wait, you may say—what if the group claims it was trying to “fix” the offender? We’d call bullshit on that. We’d note that they attacked the victims with all the contept they could muster and went out of their way to avoid calling the victim a wrongdoer, even in private. We’d look on in amazement and horror and outrage if the businessmen made sure to get more of their number opportunities to rape and guaranteed them the same protection.

So it is here. If the Vatican could let its priests rape and get away with it, it would. The raping isn’t a bug, it’s a feature.

Isn’t that flat out violating the mandatory report laws? Not to mention obstructing justice? I can’t imagine that they didn’t threaten parishioners with such things, either.

Again, you have to understand that the red beanie crowd is better than everyone else.  They have been ordained, which is a sacrament, and regardless of the fact that V2 makes it perfectly clear that they are called to SERVE, JP2 B16 and his ilk want a return to the old days and undermine it at every opportunity.

They believe that they should handle anything regarding priests with canonical procedure.  The laity need not involve themselves with their betters.

Honest to God, these rapists truly believe they are above the law, and they are mightily offended that civilians have the temerity to question them.

Then need to go to jail.  It’s long past time for a big wake up call.

About the adolescents - it is also important to remember that a lot of these kids may very well have been “consenting” (scare quotes deliberate) or even actively pursuing the contact.

People on both sides of the issue tend to conjure up images of elderly priests pouncing on 8 year-olds. And horrifyingly, it seems that a lot of those images may be perfectly valid.

But, especially pre-internet, pre-Will & Grace, pre-Stonewall, horny, innocent post-pubescent gay or questioning kids would naturally be drawn to authority figures, to solicitous men - and it’s so true as to almost be a stereotype that gay kids are more drawn to religion that straight ones. The combination sets up a horrendous opportunity to deeply violate young men just starting to find their sexuality.

Part of the coverup is no doubt explained by the fact that a lot of these victims enjoyed or sought out the sex, while being weirded out or creeped out by the circumstances. The shame is bad enough when you can honestly say you did nothing to bring it on or keep it going. It is infinitely worse when you participated in it.

For all the same reasons (and many more) that we recognize sexual harassment of adults on adults in the workplace, we need to be willing to see at least some of these cases in that light - it absolutely does not matter if a 16 year old wants to have sex with Father Hottie. It is still abuse, even if it is not strictly rape. Nobody in a position of authority should ever violate a young person that way.

Lymis,

that’s why we have statutory rape laws.  These men were in positions of authority and power.  They were not victims of a seduction.

And I call utter bullshit on the concept that most victims enjoyed the thrill.  It’s not like any schoolgirl or boy doesn’t understand that priests are supposed to be celibate.  There’s just way too much shame and guilt heaped on this particular act.

Too many families were sworn to silence.  Too many victims were children of “good” families, i.e., ones who could be counted on to believe the priest over the child and/or be willing to “protect” the good name of the institution over publicizing and prosecuting the crimes against their children.

Again, these assholes believe that they should only be subject to canonical procedure, not civil laws.  That active practice is why Bernard Law is living in luxury at the Vatican.  They knew and they covered it up to protect the rapists, b/c as priests they were considered more important than children.

It’s fucked up and there’s no excusing it.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ own report documents 12,000 reported cases of sexual assault from 1950 to 2002 and notes that “the largest group of alleged victims (50.9%) was between the ages of 11 and 14, 27.3% were 15-17, 16% were 8-10 and nearly 6% were under age 7.”

In other words, 73% were children under 14.  The excuse that most cases were adolescent kids coming onto the priests, and enjoying it is (surprise, surprise) a flat-out lie.

Um…where are all the usual defenders of the faith?  Those who come in and accuse us of just being haters?  Of Amanda simply being a bitch who hates Catholics and that’s why Edwards had to fire her?

Where are they?

Where’s Dana?

I’m just stunned, b/c even Donohue has come up with his apologetics, but this thread still hasn’t been trolled by whiners.

@#77

As a person of faith, not Catholic, the reason no one has shown up to defend thie C’s dysfunction is because it is absolutely indefensible.  I’m a Christian who is sickened by the depravity of the Vatican and is dumbfounded at their malicious whitewash of this issue.  The law contains no ambiguity on this issue so for the C to contend its priests/cardinals/bishops should be spared the rod of legal prosecution is arrogant beyond measure.  At this point your anger should be directed at multiple jurisdictions of prosecuters who refuse to indict because of the See’s supposed internal mechanism and political influence.

At this point your anger should be directed at multiple jurisdictions of prosecuters who refuse to indict because of the See’s supposed internal mechanism and political influence.

I’ve been wondering whether there is any way that some of the senior men who abused, or participated in cover-ups, could be arrested if they step outside the Vatican.

I’ve been wondering whether there is any way that some of the senior men who abused, or participated in cover-ups, could be arrested if they step outside the Vatican.

Pretty much this is why Bernard Law stays in his luxurious palace there.  He *can’t* return to Boston, even for a visit, b/c he’d be nabbed.

I’m just trying to wrap my mind around this all. Being important means you get to do stuff not available to the common folks, I guess. And raping kids is only for special people! But what about humility and…..service and…...?

There’s a scene in Deliver Us From Evil where one of the molesters is talking about molesting a boy and for a second there’s a glimmer where he nearly gets it. Then he goes back to dispassionately describing what he did in emotionless terms. The kid was almost a human being there. Almost. Then the light fades and he’s just a thing to the priest again.

  Even the rape of children wasn’t enough to bring down this church of rich men. What does it take?

Caren,

And I call utter bullshit on the concept that most victims enjoyed the thrill.

With all due respect, I don’t think Lymis was victim-blaming.

I would never presume to guess how many victims this is true for, but some do derive physical pleasure from the sexual contact. This does not in any way mitigate the evil of those acts, or the devastating effects they have on the psyches of the victims. Quite the contrary: It can aggravate those effects, compounding the feelings of violation with guilt and shame.

I have heard this from victims of molestation themselves, by the way.

You are correct in that statutory rape laws are designed to protect young people by forbidding adults to take advantage of their inexperience and even, in some cases, their willingness. Being sexually turned on by this violation of trust, or even seeking it out, does not mean the youngster is not a victim and that the adult is not an abuser.

Nobody, Lymis—sorry if I came off harsh there.

You see, Francis <strike>Cardinal</strike> Asshole George has been known to defend his pedophile priest friends with that excuse: poor priesty was just seduced by the teenager!  It’s just so HARD to be celibate with nubile teens throwing themselves at you!  What’s a poor priest supposed to do?

Avoid temptation?  Not sin?  Respect the fact that he’s in a position of power and authority, and therefore is the one in charge?

Of course not!  You take advantage of it and then hush it all up for the good of the Church.

It’s not a novel excuse for the RCC hierarchy.  When they admit anything at all, they quickly move to victim-blaming and abusers-as-victims bullshit.

Yes, sometimes rape victims receive sexual pleasure, and that just adds to the guilt and fucked-upped-ness of the trauma.  It makes it easier for victim-blamers to blame the victims and for the poor victims to believe they are somehow culpable.

It does nothing at all to minimize the guilt of the perpatrator.

Sorry for the misdirected hostility.

Plus, it’s just a lie.  The majority of victims are *not* teenagers.
(See link @76)

The pope issued an ‘apology.’ To the child-molesting priests he said, “You have damaged the reputation of the Church and…...”

Hm, what else did they damage?  What do ya think his concern should have been, maybe?

ginmar: I agree that that’s an accurate paraphrase of the letter, but I’m not finding that quote in this document. 

The closest I can find is: “Together with the immense harm done to victims, great damage has been done to the Church and to the public perception of the priesthood and religious life.”

But that does mention the victims first, and comes after several paragraphs of concern for the victims.

The disgusting thing is that all this faux-concern comes after section (4), in which the pope blames the crisis on modernity, secularization, and Vatican II.  What’s more, the whole letter sounds an awful lot like this South Park clip (and this one).  As ginmar suggests, the church seems more concerned with the fact that the scandal was made public, than with the fact that the sexual assaults occurred in the first place.

BABH…the victims should come first, last, middle, and everything. Period, end of subject, that’s all. Have you seen Deliver Us From Evil?  My God. The victims—-and their families, and their friends——describe an ordeal that they needed a priest’s help in escaping. Instead, what happened? Who cares about the abusers? Their Church? Their needs? When the victims are made whole again, then we’ll see. Oh, wait….

    It’s like….“Oh, well, they’re damaged goods now, who cares?”...even when it was the Church that did the damage. Even though the very concept of damage is false! To hint at this, to suggest it, is to overturn the Church itself. People have value no matter what! But to the Church——do they weigh them, perhaps, on a scale? How much does a hymen go for these days?

(And there are some people that abide by this, and use it to their own ends. Better than fighting it, I guess.)