How much transparency is needed in dealing with abuse cases?

[kmaaj]

This whole thing about SNAP being required to fork over 20+ years of communications to a defendant’s attorney has gotten myself into some very nasty exchanges in the newspaper blogs.

My contention is that, once an accusation is made, EVERYTHING needs to be laid out on the table. From both sides.

Any argument that claims that this transparency will be difficult for the victim, my response is that this subject is supposed to be difficult. I also, based on some real world experience, have a die hard conviction that a major part of the healing process happens when the truly abused face and confront their abuser.

From my perspective, SNAP is demanding what it is not willing to give.

 

[JimG]

SNAP has a double standard, one for the Church, a different one for itself.
catholicleague.org/snap-protects-child-molesters/

 

[kimmielittle]

SNAP has a double standard, one for the Church, a different one for itself.
catholicleague.org/snap-protects-child-molesters/

 

[kimmielittle]

This whole thing about SNAP being required to fork over 20+ years of communications to a defendant’s attorney has gotten myself into some very nasty exchanges in the newspaper blogs.

My contention is that, once an accusation is made, EVERYTHING needs to be laid out on the table. From both sides.

Any argument that claims that this transparency will be difficult for the victim, my response is that this subject is supposed to be difficult. I also, based on some real world experience, have a die hard conviction that a major part of the healing process happens when the truly abused face and confront their abuser.

From my perspective, SNAP is demanding what it is not willing to give.

Agreed! :clapping::clapping:

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

SNAP has a double standard, one for the Church, a different one for itself.
catholicleague.org/snap-protects-child-molesters/

Maybe but what SNAP does doesn’t justify what the Church has done.

Also, I have to say, I don’t think the Catholic League does us any favors. The way they disparage the victims, calling all of them “alleged” victims (even when cases have substantial evidence) or worse yet, “professional victims”, as if anyone relishes in the sexual abuse that they underwent. It’s not enough that people have been molested as children, Donahue has to mock them and point fingers at them? How incredibly crass and unfeeling.

 

[JimG]

Maybe but what SNAP does doesn’t justify what the Church has done.

Of course not. If SNAP were really an organization which helped victims of abuse, it would be one thing. If it ever was that, it is no longer. It has turned itself into a simply vicious single-minded anti-Church organization. This interview with author David Pierre in Catholic World Report helps to elucidate that:
catholicworldreport.com/Item/1029/the_truth_about_falsely_accused_priests.aspx

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Of course not. If SNAP were really an organization which helped victims of abuse, it would be one thing. If it ever was that, it is no longer. It has turned itself into a simply vicious single-minded anti-Church organization. This interview with author David Pierre in Catholic World Report helps to elucidate that:
catholicworldreport.com/Item/1029/the_truth_about_falsely_accused_priests.aspx

Thanks for the link.

 

[kmaaj]

Maybe but what SNAP does doesn’t justify what the Church has done.

Granted, but all that one has to do to see how the Church has responded is to note the dates of the actual abuses and watch the trends. The number of credible cases spiked downward towards the end of the last century, and current credible cases are a very rare anomaly.

I like to use a garden analogy: while SNAP and the media are screaming that the Church is not busy enough plucking weeds, the Church has long ago tended to the soil that insures that the old weeds will die out and new weeds have a harder time taking root and sprouting. And if one weed DOES sprout in a local parish, it is OUR job on the local level to pluck it.

weeds = those prone to abuse in the priesthood or seeking to enter into it.
soil = the vetting process of those seeking to enter the priesthood, the seminaries themselves, and the atmosphere of the local parish.

When our pastor talked to us about our young candidates becoming deacons soon to be entering the priesthood, he talked very frankly about the vetting process and the series of questions one discerning his vocation must endure before getting the green light to proceed.

As to the atmosphere of the local parish, I will admit I am a newcomer, but one of the very first things that I observed is how difficult, if not NEAR IMPOSSIBLE, it is for a pedophile to work unnoticed and unhindered in this atmosphere.

The Southern Baptist Convention would do well to imitate the Roman Catholic Church in this regard.

These are aspects of the subject that SNAP and the media refuse to recognize and acknowledge, and that indicates to me that they are not interested in healing. Healing does not promote sensational headlines and big lawsuits.

 

[ringil]

SNAP is not engaged in helping the healing that needs to occur. They’ve taken on their own mission which seeks to demonize the priesthood.

Don’t get me wrong. The Church needs to continue to be held accountable but SNAP isn’t the organization to do it.

 

[essie7777]

SNAP has a double standard, one for the Church, a different one for itself.
catholicleague.org/snap-protects-child-molesters/

I think this is a little misleading, i looked up the debate and issue over the SNAP director and his brother. This short emotive claim in the Catholic League’s article is not representative of the fact.

nytimes.com/2002/05/12/magazine/12PRIEST.html

His confusion lay not in hiding his brother’s child abuse but his homosexual relationship with a parishioner above the age of consent. He was conflicted as he saw this as an abuse of station as a priest but it wasn’t child molestation.

As Catholics are we not bound by a commitment to truth? The original article is misleading by not giving the full picture … something the Catholic League accuses SNAP and other organizations like it, of. That seems hypocritical as well as any accusations against SNAP that are truly reflective of the situation.

Maybe but what SNAP does doesn’t justify what the Church has done.

Also, I have to say, I don’t think the Catholic League does us any favors. The way they disparage the victims, calling all of them “alleged” victims (even when cases have substantial evidence) or worse yet, “professional victims”, as if anyone relishes in the sexual abuse that they underwent. It’s not enough that people have been molested as children, Donahue has to mock them and point fingers at them? How incredibly crass and unfeeling.

Great point.

 

[essie7777]

This whole thing about SNAP being required to fork over 20+ years of communications to a defendant’s attorney has gotten myself into some very nasty exchanges in the newspaper blogs.

My contention is that, once an accusation is made, EVERYTHING needs to be laid out on the table. From both sides.

Any argument that claims that this transparency will be difficult for the victim, my response is that this subject is supposed to be difficult. I also, based on some real world experience, have a die hard conviction that a major part of the healing process happens when the truly abused face and confront their abuser.

Is this issue really as clear cut as the Catholic League makes it out to be – the disagreement in a case of ESTABLISHED abuse transparancy to put the victim on “trial”

The SNAP position is that:

Transparency about criminals helps protect the vulnerable. Transparency about victims hurts the already-hurting.

When victims’ privacy is respected, more victims are able to speak up, protect others, expose predators and start healing. When victims’ privacy is violated, more victims stay silent, more predators walk free and more innocent people are assaulted.

Who benefits when the private e mails of a struggling teenager, who was sexually assaulted for years by her priest, are given to Archbishop Carlson and his lawyers? That’s not “transparency.” That’s a travesty. That’s brutality. That’s betrayal.

Men who beat their spouses, rape adults and assault kids would love to force ‘transparency’ on their helpless victims. They’d love to get records of what their victims told counselors or where they took refused or what they said in support groups. But does anyone really think that’s how our society should function?

Our position isn’t hypocrisy. It’s common sense. It’s the long-standing and well-established practice of rape crisis centers and domestic violence shelters and counselors and cops and everyone who cares about safeguarding the vulnerable from the violent.

Quoted from: blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2012/01/snap_david_clohessy_hypocrisy_subpoena.php

As Catholics are we truly advocating that a victim should be treated in this manner?

I don’t see anyone pushing for this level of “transparency” for rape victims, domestic violence victims or sexual abuse victims if the offender isn’t a priest.

Is the Catholic League and the priests behind this lawsuit simply perpetuating the “abuse” of the victim?

 

[Matrix_Refugee]

SNAP is not engaged in helping the healing that needs to occur. They’ve taken on their own mission which seeks to demonize the priesthood.

Don’t get me wrong. The Church needs to continue to be held accountable but SNAP isn’t the organization to do it.

Oy, indeed: just the way they phrase things has “anti-priest, anti-Catholic mouth-frothers” written all over it.

 

[JimG]

Is this issue really as clear cut as the Catholic League makes it out to be – the disagreement in a case of ESTABLISHED abuse transparancy to put the victim on “trial”

The SNAP position is that:

Quoted from: blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2012/01/snap_david_clohessy_hypocrisy_subpoena.php

As Catholics are we truly advocating that a victim should be treated in this manner?

I don’t see anyone pushing for this level of “transparency” for rape victims, domestic violence victims or sexual abuse victims if the offender isn’t a priest.

Is the Catholic League and the priests behind this lawsuit simply perpetuating the “abuse” of the victim?

No. A judge can certainly review privately (in camera) any subpoenaed evidence to determine whether it has a bearing on a case, and whether it may be made public. This point was made by an abuse victim who rejects SNAP’ position.

I think that the Catholic League does a pretty good job with their special reports. But if you don’t like the Catholic League, you might want to read some other reports about SNAP,
here

as well as from abuse victims who have rejected SNAP.

Here:

And here:

Also read the John Jay Report, see what Psychology Today says about it:

and yes, take a look at the Catholic League analysis of the John Jay Report’s analysis of its own findings. It is critical but not that critical.

Child sexual abuse is a terrible thing. Filing false charges is also a terrible thing. Soliciting potential victims with the prospect of a financial settlement with respect to 30 or 40 year old allegations which can not be proved seems a stretch.

Guilty abusers should go to prison. Innocent people should not. But innocent people have gone to prison for charges of abuse which never happened. Read No Crueler Tyrannies for an account of innocent people convicted of child abuse crimes which never occurred–cases which have nothing to do with clergy.

 

[essie7777]

Thanks JimG – i’ll read through then come back to post.

 

[essie7777]

…

.
I agree with the point you are making here – however i may not have communicated my point so well. Let me try again, i am not disputing the legal process - i am disputing the precedence that this very hard line approach from the Catholic Church is setting for victim rights.

Victims in any setting of abuse: rape, domestic violence, (non-church)child abuse are protected when they go to crisis centers, help centers, shelters and anywhere they speak and communicate with a person positioned as a counselor or advocate. Removing their safe place, through legal intervention (which these two cases do) is inappropriate and sets, in my opinion, an unforgivable precedent where people won’t come forward if they become the “criminal” and they have no confidence in their privacy being protected.

I completely accept the issues you and others have with SNAP. Whilst they are more than valid my comment was in reference to VICTIM rights and we need to consider they thought it was their “safe place” even though it could be argued its not.

The issues with these two cases:

1. The Catholic Church has won and lost a number of cases on the issue without breaking the tenet that we don’t make a victim the “criminal”. Crossing this line contradicts the social teachings of the Catholic Church. The wider dispute with SNAP should not be allowed to erode victim rights.
2. The two lawsuits are the ONLY two times out of ALL abuse cases against the Catholic Church where the Church has tried and managed to successfully force the opening of victim records, conversations, thoughts, feelings in what THEY (the victims) feel is a safe environment. As mentioned above this is not right.
3. The two case are not the same and the information hunt is different
4. The case in Kansas City is a subpoena** not based on a particular case** so is best described as a fishing expedition that violates a victim again. An opinion agreed to by the attorney acting for the archdiocesan in St Louis:see point below.
5. The Catholic Church in St Louis makes a point of refering to the differences of the cases. [
   However in the report being discussed and the comment i made there are no false accusations from 30-40 years ago. there is no attempt to identify solicitation in either of the subpoenas … so i simply feel its not relevant to current content being discussed and this is the mistake that sometimes is seen with over zealous defense of the Church’s position. As Catholics we need to shine a brighter light on our actions and be more thoughtful since we all agree child abuse is wrong…so lets not punish the victim because of our disgust with SNAP.

"…attorneys for the St. Louis archdiocese said Thursday that the subpoena it sent to Barbara Dorris, the group’s (SNAP)

"is intended to be narrow and only applicable to this case and it’s not a fishing expedition," Huger said that while the archdiocese had originally simply copied the Kansas City subpoena, the archdiocese had filed an amended version of the subpoena Thursday.ksdk.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=156428bishop-accountability.org/news2008/09_10/2008_10_02_ArkansasTimes_FormerPriest.htm

"A former St. Louis priest was arrested in Arkansas last week, accused of sexually assaulting a child at local church. Joseph Ross,…hid a dark secret during his time as a priest in the Catholic Churches…In the late 1980s, Ross was arrested and pleaded guilty to misdemeanor of sexual abuse. The Archdiocese sent him for treatment, but he remained in the church for more than a decade, until the Archdiocese kicked him out. Archdiocese officials…said: “Mr. Ross was removed from the ministry in 2002, under the Archdiocese’s policy…we apologize to all those who have been abused by clergy.” Now they’re issuing one more apology to Ross’s latest alleged victim.

Issues with SNAP and other organizations should be attacked in truth and Child sexual abuse is a terrible thing. Filing false charges is also a terrible thing. Soliciting potential victims with the prospect of a financial settlement with respect to 30 or 40 year old allegations which can not be proved seems a stretch.

](http://www.stltoday.com/lifestyles/...cle_763db02e-50f0-57fc-9e1c-db66bcff6d16.html[/URL)

 

[Michael19682]

.

Removing their safe place, through legal intervention (which these two cases do) is inappropriate and sets, in my opinion, an** unforgivable precedent **where people won’t come forward if they become the “criminal” and they have no confidence in their privacy being protected.

By what authority do you call such action unforgivable? Or are you submitting your opinion without basis?

Crossing this line contradicts the social teachings of the Catholic Church.

I have learned that the cross is never a contradiction of Catholic Social teaching. Why do you say it is?

As Catholics we need to shine a brighter light on our actions and be more thoughtful since we all agree child abuse is wrong…so lets not punish the victim because of our disgust with SNAP.

OK> Disgust with SNAP a given, though that’s “our” opinion. What brighter light than that of the truth can we shine on our actions?

You said you are a phd in clinical psychology. Sounds more like you are a lawyer sounding out Catholic opinion!

 

[essie7777]

By what authority do you call such action unforgivable?

Pretty sure i stated this was my opinion.

I have learned that the cross is never a contradiction of Catholic Social teaching. Why do you say it is?

You have confused me here as i don’t mention the cross!!!

Full quote of what i stated:

The Catholic Church has won and lost a number of cases on the issue without breaking the tenet that we don’t make a victim the “criminal”. Crossing this line contradicts the social teachings of the Catholic Church. The wider dispute with SNAP should not be allowed to erode victim rights.

OK> Disgust with SNAP a given, though that’s “our” opinion. What brighter light than that of the truth can we shine on our actions?

I feel the post you quote more than explains my opinion on this issue.

As Catholics we need to abide by the teachings of the Catholic faith – the truth of the two actions has been plainly put forward for you to consider the FACTS behind the two lawsuits and then judge if the Catholic Church’s attack on victim rights is appropriate – i personally don’t think it is. That was my point.

I do notice that you don’t actually comment on this yourself.

You said you are a phd in clinical psychology. Sounds more like you are a lawyer sounding out Catholic opinion!

It is cool – very different from the career i have had (and will continue to have to pay for school!!!)))) for the last 10yrs+, in global investment banking!!! But i enjoy it and am looking forward to the change!

I am going to assume that you are not intentionally attempting to insult me here for having an opinion you have failed to challenge but clearly don’t like with this statement about being a lawyer.

You read about my phd in another thread so hardly think you can easily claim this statement as a true reflection of my postings at all!!! lol.

 

[Matrix_Refugee]

Child sexual abuse is a terrible thing. Filing false charges is also a terrible thing. Soliciting potential victims with the prospect of a financial settlement with respect to 30 or 40 year old allegations which can not be proved seems a stretch.

Guilty abusers should go to prison. Innocent people should not. But innocent people have gone to prison for charges of abuse which never happened. Read No Crueler Tyrannies for an account of innocent people convicted of child abuse crimes which never occurred–cases which have nothing to do with clergy.

Indeed: I know a guy at one of the churches I’ve been to, who overheard some workers on his construction crew (he was the foreman) hatching a plot to make money by filing bogus child abuse claims and pin the blame on a priest they’d known as kids. The foreman called them out on this: “Don’t even joke about this: real people are getting hurt.” I also have a friend of a friend who was falsely accused of molesting a fifteen year old girl he was tutoring: at least the charges were dropped when the girl confessed she was lying, and she was the one who’d come on to him, but even still, the damage was done and he’s had to change careers, since People Talk (it happened in a small town).

 

[essie7777]

Indeed: I know a guy at one of the churches I’ve been to, who overheard some workers on his construction crew (he was the foreman) hatching a plot to make money by filing bogus child abuse claims and pin the blame on a priest they’d known as kids. The foreman called them out on this: “Don’t even joke about this: real people are getting hurt.” I also have a friend of a friend who was falsely accused of molesting a fifteen year old girl he was tutoring: at least the charges were dropped when the girl confessed she was lying, and she was the one who’d come on to him, but even still, the damage was done and he’s had to change careers, since People Talk (it happened in a small town).

Absolutely agree its disgusting how far people will go for money!

 

[JimG]

I absolutely agree that victims ought to be protected. I also believe that the innocent have the right to be protected against false accusations. I don’t think that Catholic bishops and Catholic diocese have in general been unfair to victims. The Catholic League—a lay organization—has taken a more hard line stance and a more zealous stand in defense of the Church, than the bishops and the diocese.

But even the Catholic League has never advocated being soft on abusers or protecting them from prosecution.

My main concern is that in any case in which public frenzy is deliberately cultivated and prosecutorial careers can be advanced, the prospect of large settlements—even any settlement–can entice false claimants to come forward for a piece of the pie.

There was outrageous prosecutorial frenzy in the child abuse cases alleged against workers at a daycare center recounted by Rabinowitz in her book “No Crueller Tyrannies.” Innocent people went to prison for crimes which never occurred.

And I think that innocent priests have gone to prison as well No, I don’t doubt at all that child abuse occurred and happened to many victims, and that it was inexcusable, and that the perpetrators ought to be prosecuted. I accept that data contained in the John Jay Report. I wish the public were more aware of the actual data in that report instead of the hype.

I forgot to post a link to the case of Fr. Gordon Macrae. This was a case that Rabinowitz wrote an article about in the Wall Street Journal. Parts One and Two of that article can be found here:

gordonmacrae.net/priests_story.htm

Child sexual abuse is abhorrent. It’s also abhorrent when the prospect of financial settlement brings forth false claims against the innocent. Even if the innocent are cleared, the stigma can never be removed.