Pope named in sex abuse lawsuit

[Olympia]

Illini:

      Just what is a "coverup" anyway? Is it simply staying quiet? If so, every one of us who declined to report any crime to police is guilty. . . . . . .

. . . . Not exactly. Not only has the priest-penitent privilege already been mentioned, but there are also the attorney-client and doctor/psychotherapist-patient privilege. Even if there were not a privilege, where there is no special duty (such as a social worker), an ordinary person should not have to make a judgment call as to whether some conduct is both truthfully told to him and constitutes “abuse” and report it to police or else risk criminal sanctions.

This kind of attitude is what most of us would call "sweeping it under the rug. If you knew your neighbor’s child was being severely beaten or neglected, would you just keep quiet? Also, teachers and school administrators are bound by law to report cases of abuse to the authorities. And yes, sometimes ordinary persons are called to be whistleblowers at great cost to their own lives. Most people applaud their courage.

Having said all this, our bishops were foolish to let this go on at all, let alone for 30+ years. -Illini

Especially since you also mentioned that there was no church document which stopped a bishop from reporting it to the police.

 

[MaryAgnes]

Adonis33:

There is not evidence - at all - that the Pope had any knowlege of these abuses. Why are you so quick to accuse him of wrong doing?

A hearing, trial or deposition are not accusations of wrong doing–they are merely a means of discovering the truth.

 

[Adonis33]

MaryAgnes:

A hearing, trial or deposition are not accusations of wrong doing–they are merely a means of discovering the truth.

You only recieve depositions from individuals that were either involved or has a supision of being involved. Pope Benedict XVI, as for as I can tell, is not even suspected of any involvement, or cover up.

 

[MaryAgnes]

netmil(name removed by moderator):

Ooooo! Perhaps you are wrong. Slander is an ugly thing.

Please understand how the law works. I can bring a lawsuit against you for the words you have just used against the Vatican. That doesn’t mean I am going to win. It doesn’t even mean that it will see a judge. It just means that someone is smart enough to know that it will cost a Diocese or the Vatican more money to fight it than to win it. They will settle and look guilty. Lawyers are smart, and at this point, it’s a Catch 22 for the Pope.
Some hotshot young lawyer wants to make a name for himself will step over the line and pull the Pope into his suit.
Geez, that doesn’t make the man automatically guilty.
Are you in America? Here, a person is innocent until PROVEN guilty.

#1 Slander would involve my saying something erroneous about a specific person. I did not. I rendered only my thoughts–how do you know I am not being prophetic? I am no more being slanderous than you are when you say “Some hotshot young lawyer wants to make a name for himself will step over the line and pull the Pope into his suit.”

#2 If Texas has not yet seceeded from the union, I am in America. However, I never said anyone was guilty–only that society had the right and obligation to discover the truth. If you think that makes the Pope guilty, that is your concern.

 

[MaryAgnes]

Adonis33:

You only recieve depositions from individuals that were either involved or has a supision of being involved. Pope Benedict XVI, as for as I can tell, is not even suspected of any involvement, or cover up.

What about the letters he allegedly wrote about the matter? Truth or fiction?

 

[dumspirospero]

Very true…as we all know, it isn’t whether or not their is any proof or evidence…it is the severity of the charge…It happens all the time with the liberals in this country making outlandish and fallacious accusations…They don’t ever need an ounce of evidence…Just look at Memogate.

tcay584:

Sounds to me like this is a bit of a publicity stunt for a few reasons.

1. Any attorney worth their salt would know that the Pope, as a head of state, is immune to this.
2. Ergo, they can accuse all they want, rant and slander all they want, and never actually have to back up their accusations because it will never go to court.
3. They can get great news coverage, lots of publicity, and more cases for their law firm as the guys who pursued “justice” all the way to the Vatican.

Ahhhh attorneys…from ambulance chasers to Popemobile chasers.
(All good and decent attorneys categorically excluded)

 

[Adonis33]

#1 Slander would involve my saying something erroneous about a specific person. I did not. I rendered only my thoughts–how do you know I am not being prophetic? I am no more being slanderous than you are when you say “Some hotshot young lawyer wants to make a name for himself will step over the line and pull the Pope into his suit.”

#2 If Texas has not yet seceeded from the union, I am in America. However, I never said anyone was guilty–only that society had the right and obligation to discover the truth. If you think that makes the Pope guilty, that is your concern.

You can’t make accusations without proof. You are basically saying that he had something to do with the cover up. How?

I have no idea what you meant about Texas.

 

[mhansen]

Adonis33:

You can’t make accusations without proof. You are basically saying that he had something to do with the cover up. How?

I have no idea what you meant about Texas.

What is this? The Selective Reading Club?

Nobody is making accusations about anybody. Read the posts again. They’re full of “if, perhaps, and allegedly.” That’s not accusing. That’s inquiring. We’re just looking for the record to be set straight and for those responsible to take responsibility.

Mike

 

[Adonis33]

mhansen:

My problem is not with the Pope himself as an individual, so much as it is with anyone who would condone acts of abuse against kids by remaining silent and allowing it to continue.** If it seems that I “have a problem with Pope Benedict”, perhaps it’s because he fits this description**.

That seems to be a pretty emphlamatory (spelling) comment. What description could you possibly be reffering to. What proof do you have that he “allowed abuse to continue”.

Remember - you are talking about our Pontiff, you better have some pretty concrete evidence to back up the above statement.

 

[mhansen]

Adonis33:

That seems to be a pretty emphlamatory (spelling) comment. What description could you possibly be reffering to. What proof do you have that he “allowed abuse to continue”.

Remember - you are talking about our Pontiff, you better have some pretty concrete evidence to back up the above statement.

Personally, I’m referring to his own study of sex abuse within the Church, the letters sent to bishops reminding them of the severe penalities should they choose to contact outside authorities, and also the well-known allegations made against the founder of the Legion of Christ, which were hand delivered to him while he was still a Cardinal.

And again, I used the word “perhaps.” You made it bold yourself. I’m not declaring anyone guilty of anything. Let’s get that straight right now. So calm down, read the posts again, do a little research, and you’ll see what I’m referring to. Thank you.

 

[Adonis33]

mhansen:

Personally, I’m referring to his own study of alleged sex abuse within the Church, the letters sent to bishops reminding them of the severe penalities should they choose to contact outside authorities, and also the well-known allegations made against the founder of the Legion of Christ, which were hand delivered to him while he was still a Cardinal.

And again, I used the word “perhaps.” You made it bold yourself. I’m not declaring anyone guilty of anything. Let’s get that straight right now. So calm down, read the posts again, do a little research, and you’ll see what I’m referring to. Thank you.

Actually I read the post again - I see where I may have been mistaken concerning your referrence. I apologize for any misunderstanding.

However I feel that some people on this thread are to quick to, as another poster said earlier in this thread “throw the Pope under the bus”.

Also - The fact that the Pope is head of state makes him immune, regardless of when the “incident happenned”. Remember - the whole Whitwater scandal with Pres. Clinton. It happnned while he was gov. yet nothing could be done while he was a standing President. (Anybody - please feel free to correnct me on any details).

 

[lcalise]

mhansen:

Nobody is “obligated” to report criminal acts, this is true. However, you would expect a higher standard from the Church that claims itself to be the “deposit of Faith” and the final word on moral teaching. Maybe we’re expecting too much of the Bride of Christ? Personally, I don’t think so. We’re talking criminal acts here and the potential cover-up of said criminal acts. Nobody is above the law…not you, not me, not the bishops, not the pope.

Sacrament of Reconciliation-- you could kill someone and be granted absolution without having to go to the authorities. The Church relies on the moral conscience of individuals to correct their wrongs with the secular world. I mean, if the Church was beholden to the secular world, where would we be?

And come on- saying that the Pope is a conspirator because he sent a letter all over saying they needed “secrecy” (which could be read as discretion)? Please, the lawyer is just jumping on the anti-Catholic, DaVinci Code bandwagon to get attention and a larger settlement. If the boys really were molested, then the priest is accountable. But seriously, people don’t give this kind of hoopla to Protestant ministries’ problems with pedophiles (which, by the way, are in a larger percentage than in the Church).

 

[mhansen]

Adonis33:

Actually I read the post again - I see where I may have been mistaken concerning your referrence. I apologize for any misunderstanding.

However I feel that some people on this thread are to quick to, as another poster said earlier in this thread “throw the Pope under the bus”.

Also - The fact that the Pope is head of state makes him immune, regardless of when the “incident happenned”. Remember - the whole Whitwater scandal with Pres. Clinton. It happnned while he was gov. yet nothing could be done while he was a standing President. (Anybody - please feel free to correnct me on any details).

No apologies necessary. It’s really impossible to offend me anymore.

I understand that as Catholics we have an obligation to the Pope, so it’s natural for many of us to defend him til’ the end, so to speak. However, it is my obligation as a human being to protect this world’s youth. Not just our youth, really, but all of mankind.

Thank you for the reminder on Clinton’s Whitewater scandal and his resultant immunity because he was President. I wasn’t quite sure how that worked, to be honest.

The Pope’s immunity, however, is not my concern at this time. I would like the Pope, as a moral and ethical leader, to be straightforward about any information he may or may not have concerning alleged sexual abuse perpetrators. That’s the whole gist of my argument: that as someone that acts as the guardian of the Faith and ultimate judge on moral and ethical issues, he should act as such, and let everyone know the facts, regardless of how painful it is. Otherwise, the entire integrity of the Church as a moral leader is at stake. It really is. When I “mess up”, I confess it, ask for forgiveness from the parties offended, and try not to do it again. I don’t sweep it under the rug and hope it’s going to go away with some time. That’s only asking for more trouble, especially when we’re dealing with repeat sexual offenders INSIDE the Church.

If I have offended anyone, I apologize myself. Thank you all for your insight and comments.

Mike

 

[mhansen]

lcalise:

Sacrament of Reconciliation-- you could kill someone and be granted absolution without having to go to the authorities. The Church relies on the moral conscience of individuals to correct their wrongs with the secular world. I mean, if the Church was beholden to the secular world, where would we be?

And come on- saying that the Pope is a conspirator because he sent a letter all over saying they needed “secrecy” (which could be read as discretion)? Please, the lawyer is just jumping on the anti-Catholic, DaVinci Code bandwagon to get attention and a larger settlement. If the boys really were molested, then the priest is accountable. But seriously, people don’t give this kind of hoopla to Protestant ministries’ problems with pedophiles (which, by the way, are in a larger percentage than in the Church).

It’s never good to defend one wrong by giving an example of another wrong. Those types of arguments really don’t hold water. Sure, the attorneys are out to get more money for their clients (and themselves). That’s their job. It’s part of the Church’s (including the Pope’s) job to be a moral and ethical leader for the world. Refusing to disclose information related to this scandal, or allowing it to continue (if the allegations are true) aren’t examples of good moral leadership, in my opinion.

One thing though: What the heck does The DaVinci Code have to do with the sex abuse scandal? You sure got me on that one.

Alright, I’m outta here. Gotta get to bed sometime…

Mike

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Oh good grief. Homosexual priests had sex with underage young men. No one is denying that.

I have yet to see anyone provide proof that the Holy Father tried to cover up the pervert priests. None. Allegations are not fact. I can allege many things about you. It doesn’t make them true. But what it does do is plant the seed of doubt about you in the minds of others.

Detraction. It’s an insidious sin. :nope:

 

[maggiec]

CatholicChef:

You are correct mhansen. I was sexually abused as a child, so I have an idea how these kids feel and my heart does go out to them. I just hate to think our new pope had a hand in any of the cover ups Hopefully it’s not true!

I am so sorry that this happened to you, I will pray for your healing.
My son was also abused. He has tried several times to kill himself, he is again undergoing electrical shock treatments after his latest attempt. His marriage fell apart (as did mine) shortly after the abuse. The consequences never stop, dysfunctional family life and the death of his oldest son from drug overdose are amoung the ongoing results of betrayal by one who was there to help. His life will never be whole again. Our family was torn apart.
I don’t condone lawsuits but people who believe lawsuits are for profit really and truly don’t understand. We are now 26 years later and what has happened, happened. We can not change it. We can’t help the victims by trying to blame our bishops and our Holy Father. We don’t know what happened in the particular situation (referred to in the lawsuit). We only know what the press and select individuals who are trying to profit from this horrible crime want us to know. We do know what SOME lawyers involvement is for, not for the victim and families, but to line their own pockets.
We need to understand that abuse has occured in other churches, schools, businesses and on and on. That fact doesn’t excuse the abusers but it does lead to the realization that because the Church is Christ’s Church some are trying to undermine it, tear it apart.
Many years after the “incident” we are trying to heal.
Our faith and our teachings guide us to forgiveness. It has been a long hard road to travel and we are not yet at the end.
I guess the real question for abused and abusers alike should be W.W.J.D.?

maggiec

 

[pnewton]

–only that society had the right and obligation to discover the truth.

Society only has an obligation in to investigate criminal matters. For the pope (or a local bishop) to be involved criminally would mean that he would have to have personal knowledge of a specific case.

An idividual has a right civilly to obtain damages from one who damaged him. I was unaware of any case yet like this that listed "truth’ as the damages sought. All the cases I heard about lists dollar amounts (with lots of zeros).

 

[AsStAnselmPrays]

This is an outrage! A clearly blatant attempt by someone to get as much money as possible from the Catholic Church! This lawsuit must be stopped.

 

[Brucealeg]

<< Here we go again, throwing out accusations of “rage and hatred” because you don’t like what we have to say. It happens every time here. Is this tactic the norm on this forum?>>

No one is throwing anything, we are observing. Your posts are written in such a way that you sound angry and irrational. You sound like no price is too great to pay for retribution. A billion Catholics did not commit these crimes. I was abused as a child and seeing innocent people suffer will not make me feel any peace. If anything, it’s this type of take no prisoner attitude that is making it hard for me to heal. If everyone is a suspect, then all hope is lost. If all hope is lost, then what does any of this matter?

If you can not look past the money, then you are not seeking justice. A diocese paying though the nose is not the same as admitting guilt.

<< Well, I guess we’ve found ourselves in a Catch-22 then, because I don’t believe doing nothing is going to undo the past either. I guess we’re caught between a rock and a hard place.>>

No one is asking you to do nothing, they are asking you to do something constructive. Sticking it to the whole Church is not “doing something”, it’s doing the wrong thing.

<< The Pope should at least be deposed. Only the Truth will set this church free! >>

On what grounds and on whose authority? There are world leaders who have something to be really guilty about and no one is able to call them out. You have fiction against this Pope and you want him to come to a US Secular court? Insanity.

<< What happens when a protestant minister molests a child? Where are the lawyers going after the Southern Baptist Convention, or whatever other church? >>

How about the school system for that matter? There are huge amount of sex abuse reports in the NYC school system and not a cent has been paid to victims that I’ve read about.

<< What about the letters he allegedly wrote about the matter? Truth or fiction? >>

Link one, so I can decide. Thanks.

<< I understand that as Catholics we have an obligation to the Pope, so it’s natural for many of us to defend him til’ the end, so to speak. However, it is my obligation as a human being to protect this world’s youth. Not just our youth, really, but all of mankind >>

For me it’s not a matter of defending, but being a realist. Pope Benedict did not become Pope by being a silent accomplice to these crimes. I am just trying to be a realist on this. I would be glad to reconsider, but it would need more then an accusation.

<< the Pope, as a moral and ethical leader, to be straightforward about any information >>

I would imagine within reason, since there are a billion + Catholics. It’s a big deal to personally engage in any given matter. I would imagine if he had something to contribute to these cases, he would.

<< Oh good grief. Homosexual priests had sex with underage young men. No one is denying that. >>

Funny thing to me is that you can’t say that about men that are not Priests and get away with it. You would be called a gay basher. I just find that interesting.

<< An individual has a right civilly to obtain damages from one who damaged him. I was unaware of any case yet like this that listed "truth’ as the damages sought. All the cases I heard about lists dollar amounts (with lots of zeros). >>

In most of these cases monies are being paid because the Church is trying to make amends. I would imagine they could have fought it MUCH harder if they choose. Bishop O’malley (spelling?) immediately stepped into Boston and did everything possible to set things right. There are plenty of Bishops trying to heal this grievous sin.

 

[otm]

MaryAgnes:

A hearing, trial or deposition are not accusations of wrong doing–they are merely a means of discovering the truth.

If you think that trials are merely a means of discovering the truth, you have lead a very sheltered life.

In order to depose someone, the attorney has to make some showing that there is reason to believe that the individual has information germane to the case.

More than one attorney for abuse victims has hinted at, or outright said, that the coverup, if such there has been, has gone to the highest levels of the Church.

Not one has given a shred of credible evidence to back up that claim. It makes wonderful fodder for the news, creates a window of opportunity for the plaintiff’s attorney to paint the Church as a massive conspiracy to subvert truth, and only proves one thing: an attorney speaking to the press prior to the case being tried by a court is attempting to try the case in the court of public opinion, and his job is to shape that public opinion.