No more, I have to say this

[tequilamac]

Those who intentionally disregard history, are doomed to repeat it.

Has anyone ever studied how many presidents were students of history before they declared yet another war?

 

[Lorarose]

then perhaps you are the one who should revisit “mass media”, legal documents which provide irrefutable evidence of a massive coverup and other relevant information.

Legal documents can be accessed at this site.
bishop-accountability.org

 

[Lorarose]

But I notice you claim to live in the USA. We in America must hold to the principle that one is innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law. While this is difficult when one personally knows a crime has been committed, it is also a protection for the innocent.

That is a rule if I were sitting on a jury.
For ex. - we have a family situation where a relative has been missing for some years now. We all know she is dead and we know who killed her.
Her murderer will go on trial in a few months. The police are worried they will not be able to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt - but they have to try.
When it’s all over - we will still know who killed her despite the results from the trial.

So now…what if this guy were a priest? (he isn’t).
Is the Church going to abide by American standards of burden of proof?
And what if he wins the criminal case and loses the civil case?
Which burden of proof will the Church abide by?

There is a balancing act between protecting priests against possible false accusations vs. protecting innocent people from predatory priests.

Most molesters do not stop with one victim or a handful of victims…most of them prey on many victims.
It would seem that the more the accusations pile up against a particular priest, the less he is entitled to benefit of the doubt (especially when the victims do not know each other or know of the accusations leveled by others)

The tough cases would be where a priest has only one or two accusers that only came forward after the scandal hit the media.

Church renewal will only come about the same way it has fo two thousand years. It does not concern what we do, but who we are.

But who we are results in action.
Martin Luther was right about some things…he was right about the abuse of indulgences.Because he brought attention to it, the Church was forced to address it…to take action.
Luther went wrong when he took it upon himself to change doctrine.
We see this happening with some victims advocacy groups today…they are right about the sin of the scandal, but some are now trying to dictate Church teaching and discipline.

If you want to know what will renew the Church it is people like Caesar searhing out God’s vocation for his life, whether it be the priesthood or not. It will take me turning inward to find my own areas of sin and through the sacrament of penance and the graces God gives to strive for the sainthood to which I am called.

For the vicitms of the crimes committed by priest, I can not begin to guess, because I am not there. But we do need to continue to pray that they find that which God has called them to, even through suffering.

Is it possible God is calling them to speak out?

 

[pnewton]

Legal documents can be accessed at this site.
bishop-accountability.org

I did not find this site too impressive. The only “document” on the front page was a 1958 form swearing to secrecy in an ecclesial court case. There are a lot of stories and articles linked, tough. I did enjoy looking up my home diocese to see that our bishop seems to have handled things in a balanced manner.

 

[Lorarose]

I did not find this site too impressive. The only “document” on the front page was a 1958 form swearing to secrecy in an ecclesial court case.

Have you taken the time to explore the site?
There is quite alot there especially if you click on the Boston case.
Records of transfers, scans of letters written to bishops, transcripts of questioning during trial…

 

[pnewton]

Is it possible God is calling them to speak out?

That may well be the case. God uses people on earth to effect justice. I only start to have doubts that following God is the motive when millions of dollars are sought from those who did not commit the crimes directly. That does not sound like God.

 

[Lorarose]

That may well be the case. God uses people on earth to effect justice. I only start to have doubts that following God is the motive when millions of dollars are sought from those who did not commit the crimes directly. That does not sound like God.

some advocates are not victims themselves.
Some victims are acting on the advice (good or bad) of their lawyer.
The initial settlement sought after in a lawsuit is not necessarily the number that is awarded. In that regard the process is a bit like selling a house…aim big but acknowledge you probably won’t get the initial amount named.
Many settlements that are awarded get drastically reduced during the appeals process.
In class action suits the award is divided up not only among all the victims and lawyers - so what seems like alot of money turns out to be not so big afterall.

To give perspective on a local case…
After the scandal broke a local man sued the local parish, bishop, and even Rome for 40 million.
Many people scoffed at his “greediness”. And maybe he was.
But he also hired a lawyer who is a bit of a media hound, routinely shoots way too high for his clients, and probably did not understand the interworkings between dioceses and Rome.
This man has spent years battling depression, substance abuse, and inability to get his feet underneath him. He was following the advice of his lawyer.
After a few months - 3 more men joined the lawsuit (without changing the amount of money)
From someone outside looking in - it could look like these were opportunists.

But here’s the thing…the priest IS guilty…he admitted to the abuse.
The bishop DID transfer him after knowing this priest had already molested children…that fact was established.
And furthermore…those close to this parish know there were FAR MORE boys involved who chose not to go public with their own abuse.
The lawsuit was thrown out due to statute of limitations.

My point is that these situations are more complicated than people care to see. They either want to assume the worst of the victims or assume the worst of the priests - but it is messier than that.

I personally think this lawyer aimed too high and I think it is sad the diocese did not offer funds for counseling or rehab - or some type of recompense for the fact that many lives were deeply damaged.

 

[pnewton]

Larose,

I think I am probably close to your thinking on this. No dout burden of proof should be a lot lower for the purpose of taking prudent action. Let me give you one close analogy I know of.

In law enforcement, when an officer abuses his office, sometimes that abuse may be criminal. As in all crimes, there is often not enough evidence to convict. Still the department where the officer works has another option. If the internal affairs investigator does not believe that there is enough evidence with a confession, he can still require a written statement from the officer, with the threat of loss of job for refusing. There is a warning given, based on Garrity v. New Jersey, that states such a statement may be required, but a confession in this statement can not be used for criminal prosecution. Thus, the cop can be removed from doing further harm, yet his right to avoid self-incriminaation is maintained.

I can see where in a case, especially one so old that it boils down to “he said, she said” evidence, where a diocese may force a priest under an oath, to tell the truth about what he did, yet not allow that statement to be used as self-incrimination in a court of law. Thus, further danger to children can be avoided, even if justice is not served fully. What I do not know is whether this has ever been tested in court.

If such statement can be used in court and must be admitted as evidence, then the Church would have to stop pursuing these matters internally and priest which need to be removed may not even have a proponderance of evidence against them.

So is the there nothing to be done when insufficient evidence exist? Absolutely not. There is still action aimed at preventing child abuse and not just punishing the guilty. One such thing is limiting all one-on-one exposure between the priest (or any adult worker) and a child. We already have such policies in place at our parish. On a diocesan level, policies like this can give the bishop reason to remove a priest from parish service, just for violating such policies, even before abuse takes place.

While it is a shame to see priest hampered in such ways, it is probably an unavoidable consequence of the day in which we live and a far better problem to deal with then the evil of child sexual abuse.

 

[Lorarose]

So is the there nothing to be done when insufficient evidence exist? Absolutely not. There is still action aimed at preventing child abuse and not just punishing the guilty. One such thing is limiting all one-on-one exposure between the priest (or any adult worker) and a child. We already have such policies in place at our parish. On a diocesan level, policies like this can give the bishop reason to remove a priest from parish service, just for violating such policies, even before abuse takes place.

While it is a shame to see priest hampered in such ways, it is probably an unavoidable consequence of the day in which we live and a far better problem to deal with then the evil of child sexual abuse.

This is the type of forward thinking that needs to be done.
We see it in the medical field with male ob/gyns.
I have noticed that these male doctors do not perform procedures on their female patients without a female nurse present.
This doesn’t only protect the patient, but the doctor from false accusations as well.
Male school principals will often follow the same policy…they will only meet with female students with a secretary in the office, or leave the door open (or use glass enclosed offices) so other staff members can act as witnesses.

So…I agree that the Church needs to look at the same types of methods to protect children - and also priests.

I also think that as far as prospective candidates for the priesthood are concerned - or those already in the seminary…the issue needs to be addressed with these young men if they are willing and able to put the needs of the children and the laity ahead of their fellow priest if it comes down to that.
It wasn’t just perverts who hurt these kids…many good priests looked the other way…chose not to believe accusations made…chose not follow their gut instinct when they suspected something was fishy about Father “X’s” behavior with young boys.
Some priests did make the call to the bishop but found that they became the ones receiving the transfer notices.

Young men need to be taught that even though Father “X” may be his mentor -a seemingly nice christian man - and maybe even his best friend…if he needs to be reported then he needs to be reported.
Dioceses should make sure they do not punish good priests who report their suspicions.

It is difficult for any organization to police itself - but if the Church is serious about reform there really needs to be genuine practical changes made.

So…I’m hoping that despite disagreements catholics have concerning the scandal itself, that they could at least agree on these practical steps to help move ahead.