Vatican Praises film "Spotlight"

[Padres1969]

That kind of accusation is why molesters of truth and decency in the entertainment, media and plaintiff’s attorney industries still cash in on the weakness and depravity of disordered people who had no right to, and who remain proscribed from, membership in the Roman Catholic clergy.

Average pew sitters like me pay for it all–billions of dollars, so far, because we know that in this life there is no alternative to and no fault in the Catholic Church Herself. So we just wince and continue to defend Her when we read accusations such as yours.

I’m sorry that the average Catholic pew sitter still has to wince when the accusations come up, but fact is those accusations keep coming up because the issues has not been totally dealt with. And even when it was “dealt with” internally, it often was not enough. The fact that accused child molesters are still allowed to continue on in the clergy after quiet payoffs should give all Catholics reason to be upset, but not at those revealing such oversights, but at those that are continuing to allow such oversights.

Note that I am not saying you know better. I give you the benefit of the doubt because many good people believe what the above-named industries tell them, while ignoring or never hearing about the exact same abuse in secular entities–schools, business offices, etc.–and in every other Faith.

Oh I’m well aware that secular entities have their own issues with abuse, and a few even have some form of institutional cover up like the RCC did. But again, that doesn’t negate the fact the RCC has had, and to an extent still has, this issue. Or negate the fact the RCC is one of the largest single entities on earth to have this issue. And the fact the RCC holds a place of moral responsibility that no secular entity has, is why the issue is so focused on regarding the RCC.

Can you identify those secular entities and Christian Faiths which have proscribed people the Catholic Church humanely terms disordered? Your Episcopalian Faith most certainly has done just the opposite, and secular entities would be sued if they even considered doing so. Consequently, in America, except for the Catholic Church, the horrible results of human weakness and depravity continues largely unimpeded. But my Faith, not yours, continues to get the bad press. Why? That’s easy–the Catholic Church remains the only institution in the world which Satan has not and can not conquer.

You’ll have to clarify what you mean by by your first sentence in this paragraph. My own faith doesn’t “proscribe” anything for people you were term “disordered”, by which I presume you meant homosexual as they’re not viewed as “disordered” by my faith. Now if you’re referring to people who are child molesters (homosexual or hetrosexual) as “disordered” that’s a different issue as my faith does have a proscribed courses of action to take with such people. And those courses were established much earlier than they were for the RCC. Now why does the RCC still get more press on the issue than say TEC or other Protestant faiths… several reasons. Chief among them, again the size of the Church. The RCC is much bigger than any other faith group (or secular institution), so it had a higher number of abusers and victims.

BTW, have you named and reported to the Vatican the names of the priests (and their bishop-protectors) who “are still often retained as part of the clergy”, even after you know that they’ve been caught in the act? If it is still often happening, can you cite sources?

I haven’t reported them personally to the Vatican, I wouldn’t have the first clue how you go about doing that. The cases received substantial amounts of media coverage though and they’re listed in all the databases available of abusers maintained by third parties that are readily available online. And the diocese settled all the cases so the church hierarchy is aware of the cases and “handling” them internally. Thus far they’ve chosen to do nothing however with regard to the laicization of the priests. Which in one case where the priest had no less than 17 victims over 40 years (both young male and female), and was particularly disturbing since the church continued to assign him to work with children even after the first accusations were made public and he remains a priest even after the cases were settled by the church.

 

[Lion_IRC]

On Australia’s national broadcaster last week, prominent journalist Josh Zepps said on live television that the Catholic Church is, quote;
“an institution which systematically protects child rapists”

Note.
That’s a fact claim - not stated merely as an ‘opinion’ and it’s not in the past tense.…used to protect, or historically protected, or was suspected of having protected.

Well when child molesters are still often retained as part of the clergy, even after they’ve been caught in the act…

I speak from personal experience in this matter. The 2 priests caught in cases of misconduct at my childhood parish with children (the third raped an adult), are all still members of the clergy. Both of them settled their cases…

You don’t “settle” a case of child rape!

Nobody has the right to negotiate “settlements” on behalf of children - not even parents!

You are either guilty or innocent. And your court case is a matter of public record which nobody can “cover up”.

You can’t cover up evidence unless you have evidence. And if you have evidence which the police do not, then you are the one doing the cover-up.

Just like KSU, I’m calling you out on your unsubstantiated allegation. You’ve made this claim in the present tense. Now stop making such gossip claims on Internet discussion boards and go to your local police station instead - today.

Please report back to us all once you have done this so we can all be assured that people with evidence have acted as they should.

 

[Padres1969]

You don’t “settle” a case of child rape!

Nobody has the right to negotiate “settlements” on behalf of children - not even parents!

You are either guilty or innocent. And your court case is a matter of public record which nobody can “cover up”.

You can’t cover up evidence unless you have evidence. And if you have evidence which the police do not, then you are the one doing the cover-up.

JB]ust like KSU, I’m calling you out on your unsubstantiated allegation. You’ve made this claim in the present tense. Now stop making such gossip claims on Internet discussion boards and go to your local police station instead - today.

Please report back to us all once you have done this so we can all be assured that people with evidence have acted as they should.
What do you mean you don’t settle cases of child rape. Have you not been paying attention the last two decades? The church settled thousands of such cases.

With regard to the cases at my childhood parish, the victims and those with evidence already went to the police, already brought several lawsuits, and as a result of the suits out of court settlements were arranged in most of the cases. And as part of their disposition they results of those settlements were not made public. And they weren’t disposed of by someone other than the victims in these cases, the victims themselves brought the suits. And in all cases after the statute of limitations had run as I understand it which is why no criminal charges were able to be brought and why there is limited public record for you to view.

You may not like to hear it, but this isn’t a “gossip claim”. Abuse occurred, suits were brought against the abusers and the diocese and quietly settled by the abusers, and the abusers remain in the clergy. That’s not gossip, that’s fact. Burying your head in the sand doesn’t make the abuser go away or any less true.

 

[Lion_IRC]

KSU quite rightly asks…*have you named and reported to the Vatican the names of the priests (and their bishop-protectors) who “are still often retained as part of the clergy”, even after you know that they’ve been caught in the act? *

And you say…oh, I wouldn’t know how to do that.

Funny how you manage to report these things here at CAF (without names, dates, times, places.)

 

[Padres1969]

KSU quite rightly asks…*have you named and reported to the Vatican the names of the priests (and their bishop-protectors) who “are still often retained as part of the clergy”, even after you know that they’ve been caught in the act? *

And you say…oh, I wouldn’t know how to do that.

Funny how you manage to report these things here at CAF (without names, dates, times, places.)

Funny how you haven’t explained how to report such things either? Do you have the Vatican’s phone number or do I send a tweet to @Pontifex to get the ball rolling?

And honestly I admit I don’t know if someone has reported this farther up the chain than the diocesan level possibly to the Vatican. I would suspect so given the press coverage this received locally when the allegations came to light, the involvement of the survivors networks, and of course the victims and families themselves. Someone has to have passed those concerns up unless they were prevented from doing so by the out of court settlements. But if it’ll assuage your concerns, I’ll gladly pass my own general concerns up the ladder as well so the Vatican could investigate further if they weren’t made aware of the issues. Others more closely involved would have to provide the specifics however.

In all seriousness, who do you pass those concerns up to?

 

[Lion_IRC]

cdf@cfaith.va

 

[Lion_IRC]

Please note that official church policy in most Western World (developed world) dioceses is that allegations of child sex abuse should always, in every case, be reported to the police - not to anyone else instead of the police.

Rape, child abuse, conspiracy to commit a crime, perverting the course of justice, being an accessory after the fact, tempering with evidence, impeding a police investigation, concealing evidence…

These are all secular crimes. And if you have evidence of such (as opposed to gossip/hearsay/anonymous rumours) then you need to call the police NOT your local parish.

 

[Lion_IRC]

…And honestly I admit I don’t know if someone has reported this farther up the chain than the diocesan level possibly to the Vatican.

…But if it’ll assuage your concerns, I’ll gladly pass my own general concerns up the ladder…

Firstly, you don’t withhold evidence just because you aren’t sure whether it’s already been reported by someone else.

Secondly, you aren’t ‘assuaging’ my concerns by reporting evidence to authorities. You are assuaging the concerns of victims and potential victims. Don’t do it for me. Do it because it is a moral/legal imperative.

 

[Padres1969]

Firstly, you don’t withhold evidence just because you aren’t sure whether it’s already been reported by someone else.

Secondly, you aren’t ‘assuaging’ my concerns by reporting evidence to authorities. You are assuaging the concerns of victims and potential victims. Don’t do it for me. Do it because it is a moral/legal imperative.

I think you’re misunderstanding. I don’t have physical evidence beyond what was already provided by the victims and was made publicly available. That’s what I meant when I said this isn’t idle gossip. These events occurred, lawsuits were engaged, etc… All that I’ve seen has come out of what was made publicly available, not from any involvement with the case. But what has come to light alone should have been more than enough for the clergy involved to be expelled from the church. MY concern, and what should be your concern as well, was that the laicization did not occur.

And if that doesn’t concern you or you don’t think it should be discussed simply because…, then I consider that additional reason for concern.

 

[pnewton]

I think you’re misunderstanding. I don’t have physical evidence beyond what was already provided by the victims and was made publicly available.

So what were they convicted of? Were they tried? Found not guilty? No billed?

Law enforcement is not the job of the Church. People who know of abuse (all, not just bishops) are obligated to report this knowledge. Then the proper enforcement is in the hands of police, district attorneys and juries. What the Church must do is err on the side of caution if it is even probable that a priest is a molester, while at the same time upholding the same rights for him that you would expect were someone to accuse you of this crime.

 

[Padres1969]

So what were they convicted of? Were they tried? Found not guilty? No billed?

Law enforcement is not the job of the Church. People who know of abuse (all, not just bishops) are obligated to report this knowledge. Then the proper enforcement is in the hands of police, district attorneys and juries. What the Church must do is err on the side of caution if it is even probable that a priest is a molester, while at the same time upholding the same rights for him that you would expect were someone to accuse you of this crime.

They weren’t convicted or tried as the statute of limitations had run in the cases tied to my childhood parish when they were finally brought to light (a not uncommon issue with these cases as they broke). They were however sued in civil court, but the abusers both settled the matters out of court to avoid the long and revealing public trial. So they were not found “not guilty”, they and the diocese were forced to pay restitution in some form via the settlement.

And I agree, anyone who comes across such matters has an obligation to report them. And that I would expect someone’s rights if accused of a crime to be upheld. But in a matter where a priest dodges criminal justice by virtue of a hole in our legal system (statutes of limitations that are far too short for these matters) and dodges public civil justice by virtue of the church paying off his victims privately (which means the church IS fully aware of the issue and guilt), then the church also has an obligation to rid itself of the pedophile.

 

[pnewton]

But in a matter where a priest dodges criminal justice by virtue of a hole in our legal system (statutes of limitations that are far too short for these matters) and dodges public civil justice by virtue of the church paying off his victims privately (which means the church IS fully aware of the issue and guilt), then the church also has an obligation to rid itself of the pedophile.

I see. In the American justice system guilt is decided in court. Statute of limitations are not a loophole, but a justice that prevents people from being tried without a chance for a fair trial. I do not know what state this was in, but in every state I know, the statute of limitation for child abuse begins only after the alleged victim turns and adult, and then it is rather generous.

Out of court settlements are neither an admission, or an indication of guilt, as anyone who has been sued understands. Perhaps our differing perspective here is because I recognize the need for justice for both the alleged victims, and those whom they accused. If a person waits decades before claiming to be a victim, it is not realistic to expect everyone to believe them, or for the evidence to exist needed to convict them.

But I noticed a discrepancy. You say this is current, and yet also that the statute of limitations has expired. What gives?

 

[Padres1969]

I see. In the American justice system guilt is decided in court. Statute of limitations are not a loophole, but a justice that prevents people from being tried without a chance for a fair trial. I do not know what state this was in, but in every state I know, the statute of limitation for child abuse begins only after the alleged victim turns and adult, and then it is rather generous.

Out of court settlements are neither an admission, or an indication of guilt, as anyone who has been sued understands. Perhaps our differing perspective here is because I recognize the need for justice for both the alleged victims, and those whom they accused. If a person waits decades before claiming to be a victim, it is not realistic to expect everyone to believe them, or for the evidence to exist needed to convict them.

But I noticed a discrepancy. You say this is current, and yet also that the statute of limitations has expired. What gives?

Not a discrepancy at all. The victims did not come forward until the last 10 years while the crimes occurred over a decade earlier in both child molesting priests cases. So while the civil suits were recent, the statute of limitations had already run criminally. This was not an unusual occurrence with regard to abuse cases as many victims stayed quiet well into adulthood.

 

[pnewton]

Not a discrepancy at all. The victims did not come forward until the last 10 years while the crimes occurred over a decade earlier in both child molesting priests cases. So while the civil suits were recent, the statute of limitations had already run criminally. This was not an unusual occurrence with regard to abuse cases as many victims stayed quiet well into adulthood.

I guess that is the point. These are not recent cases. Also, they are not known to actually be sex offenders.

 

[Padres1969]

I guess that is the point. These are not recent cases. Also, they are not known to actually be sex offenders.

They’ve come to light recently, that makes them a recent issue even if the abuses themselves happened over a 30+ year span between his ordination in 1964 to the mid/late 1990’s. And when you have a guy accused by 17 victims over that 30+ year span (and many of those victims have sued and settled, he doesn’t have to be convicted for you to know he’s a child molester. 17 people don’t independently come out of the woodwork at churches spanning California from a 50 year time span accusing a guy for kicks.

 

[pnewton]

They’ve come to light recently, that makes them a recent issue even if the abuses themselves happened over a 30+ year span between his ordination in 1964 to the mid/late 1990’s. And when you have a guy accused by 17 victims over that 30+ year span (and many of those victims have sued and settled, he doesn’t have to be convicted for you to know he’s a child molester. 17 people don’t independently come out of the woodwork at churches spanning California from a 50 year time span accusing a guy for kicks.

And not one of those every said anything for thirty years? Do you not see why, even given the nature of oppression of child abuse, I am skeptical of such stories? I definitely believe there is likely others far closer to the situation that were involved in covering up such crimes, those with a greater burden to speak up and take action. Perhaps if this was done in a timely manner then the person could be convicted.

In any case, without details, I have no opinion. For example, was there a court settlement in place when these people came forward? Did they get a card in the mail, like I get ever so often, asking if they wanted to be party to a lawsuit? No, I do not make assumptions without sufficient facts. It is likely you know enough to have an informed opinion.

 

[Padres1969]

And not one of those every said anything for thirty years? ** Do you not see why, even given the nature of oppression of child abuse, I am skeptical of such stories? ** I definitely believe there is likely others far closer to the situation that were involved in covering up such crimes, those with a greater burden to speak up and take action. Perhaps if this was done in a timely manner then the person could be convicted.

I guess I don’t. Perhaps it’s knowing the oppressive and incredibly damaging impact that any sexual abuse can have first hand, that I have absolutely no trouble understanding that it has got to be exponentially more damaging when it happens to people when they’re young children, by men no less whom they’re taught are literally their conduit to Christ on Earth. And I agree there were likely those closer to the situation that had a burden to speak up and did not. Heck I can imagine there are still those closer who should be speaking up but choose to remain silent for one reason or another, not the least of which is probably their own shame.

In any case, without details, I have no opinion. For example, was there a court settlement in place when these people came forward? Did they get a card in the mail, like I get ever so often, asking if they wanted to be party to a lawsuit? No, I do not make assumptions without sufficient facts. It is likely you know enough to have an informed opinion.

No, nothing like a court statement. More likely it’s the press coverage the case got that opened the flood gates. And the reason the first cases came out, was that after a time in obscure retirement outside parish life, the priest in question was assigned (albeit temporarily) to a position working with kids again. It appears to have been the straw that broke the camel’s back for the victims, knowing that the priest in question was going to be in position to likely garner fresh victims that was too much. But I can respect your not forming an opinion one way or another without more info.