How is it that, years later, the priests accused of child molestation haven't been prosecuted? How is it that this cardinal is allowed to withhold evidence? I don't mean by the courts, because they're ordering him to produce it. I mean by Catholics. How is it that every single Catholic in America hasn't sent a letter, signed a petition, marched right up to the church where this guy works and said, "We want justice. These priests are an offense against God, our faith and our religion and your protection of them is too." How can any church that shields child molesters from prosecution, as a matter of standard procedure, possibly act as a moral authority? Please understand I don't mean this as an attack on Christ, Christianity, Catholicism or Catholics. I just don't understand why the people most affected by this aren't more outraged. Has anyone here ever met a Catholic that would defend this cardinal's position? http://ktla.trb.com/news/local/ktla-090804priest_lat,0,7142328.story?coll=ktla-news-1 Mahony Ordered to Release Files on Accused Priests Judge rejects claim that prosecutors in sexual abuse cases were interfering with Church operations in violation of the Constitution. By Jean Guccione Times Staff Writer September 8, 2004, 11:33 AM PDT Cardinal Roger M. Mahony was ordered today to turn over documents in the secret personnel files of Roman Catholic priests accused of sexually abusing children after a judge rejected his claim that prosecutors were interfering with Roman Catholic Church operations, in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Superior Court Judge Thomas F. Nuss ruled that disclosing internal documents to criminal investigators doesn't violate the ability of the church to freely exercise religion, nor does it illegally entangle the state in church business. Rather, the state has a compelling interest in prosecuting child molesters, he ruled. Mahony's lawyers — who have waged a fierce, 2-year legal battle behind closed doors to keep the subpoenaed documents secret — have vowed to appeal Nuss' ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary. Those hardball tactics were criticized this year by an independent Catholic national review board that found that Mahony's legal "argument did little to enhance the reputation of the church in the United States for transparency and cooperation." Mahony's quest to withhold the documents is being fought on two fronts: in the criminal case, where prosecutors have charged two priests with molesting children, and in the civil arena, where lawyers for more than 500 alleged victims say those papers will prove that the church hierarchy failed to protect children from known molesters. Prosecutors have for 27 months — through the Los Angeles County Grand Jury — sought Archdiocese of Los Angeles records regarding child sexual abuse committed by Catholic clergy. "Our intention is to gather evidence wherever it exists," said Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley, whose prosecution of a dozen priests for older crimes was blocked by the courts last year. Cooley praised the ruling: "I once again urge Cardinal Mahony, as I first did in 2002, to give priority to the protection of children from child molestation by providing the fullest possible disclosure of evidence of sexual abuse by clergy," he said.
There would be absolutely no excuse if concealing evidence is all that was going on. But that isn't all that is going on. Yes...the Catholic church is a religious institution, but it is also an employer. This involves disclosing the contents of an employee's confidential employee file. (emphasis on "confidential") There have been scores of lawsuits about this very thing. Do I want to see child molesting priests prosecuted? Yup. You bet your ass. There is, however, a basic liability issue involved in handing over an employee file. If I were their lawyers, I would tell the church to hand over the employee files only pursuant to a warrant or court order.
As a Catholic, I cannot defend their actions. I actually became so disillusioned by the church that I walked away for awhile, only returning recently when my grandfather passed away. I dont buy all their crap (the non-wheat wafer crap, the protecting of child molestors, the anti-condom stance in the midst of a herpes epidemic) but I love the ritual of mass so I try to ignore anything outside of the church I am in. I asked my priest the same question over a game of darts a few months ago, and he basically said what Ref said. He said its pretty damn complicated and he's glad that Houston has been spared from this scandal. I didnt mention Father James Potter who was busted in 1992 in New Mexico...he has spent some time in Houston and there are rumors... or Father Gilbert Gauthe who terrorized kids in SE Louisiana but was reassigned to Texas for awhile (unfortunately for Texan kids). Those are only the famous ones.....there could be more. So terrible.
All Christians, and especially Catholics should be deeply ashamed of the way the church dealt with allegations of child abuse. The cover ups and shuffling of priests between parishes is not defensible by any moral standard. I can understand reluctance in handing over files given class action lawyers are now involved. Especially when one considers the size of some of the settlements that have been awarded. However, I tend to agree with the following note: They need to somehow cooperate with the prosecution as much as possible, while, at the same time, protecting themselves from civil action. I'm not so sure they're as concerned about employee confidentiality as they are fearful of class action liability. At least i hope they are no longer looking after the accused ahead of consideration for the victims. It's an sad consequence that given the threat of crippling civil litigation, they are almost forced to resist the criminal investigation. Even if they wanted to fully cooperate in the criminal case, i'm not sure how they do it prudently without hanging themselves on the civil cases.
This isn't about handing over confidential files --- that is another issue. But years ago when they found out about the charges the police should have been called. That was their moral obligation -- and they dropped the ball. If a VP at my company finds out that one of his employees is molesting children and does not do anything he can to bring him to justice he would be a moral failure --- the same is true of the Cardinals. It should have never come to the point where they are fighting over confidential records because they should have been reported to the authorities the first time there was any inkling this was going on. It is appaling and unexcusable to cover up/hinder/not report known child abusers.
It's worse than that, Geronimo. They didn't just fail to turn these guys in -- they transferred them to new parishes. As a matter of procedure. How any bishop who did this is still allowed to call himself a Catholic is beyond me. David Cross has a particularly crude piece about this where he says, "You or I, you know, because we weren't anointed by God, we would go to jail. But these priests get a much worse punishment. They're taken out of their parish where they were comfortable, from whence they were molesting children, and they're sent to a whole new parish where it's 'Hello, fresh meat.'"
I'm a Catholic and something I found funny recently is that when Sinead O'Connor tore that picture of the Pope, wasn't she doing it in protest of child abuse and molestation by priests? Kind of funny in a sad way.
was she?? that was way before this scandal broke. you're all right. it's inexcusable. churches are to be held to a higher standard...not a lower one. it's an absolute abomination...and there is zero defense for it at all.
Chappelle had Paul Mooney doing a bit called Negrodamus and he was asked about Micheal Jackson. Funny stuff. Q: Negrodamus, what mistakes did Michael Jackson make before he got arrested? Negrodamus: Michael Jackson should have not been a singer. Michael Jackson should have been a priest; then he would have just been transferred. Unrelated but also funny: Q: Negrodamus, Why is President Bush so sure Iraq has weapons of mass destruction? Negrodamus: Because he has the receipt.
Apparently sexual abuse was the reason. She changed the lyrics of the song she sang to include 'sexual abuse' as opposed to 'racial injustice'. After the song was over, she said 'fight the real enemy' and tore up the picture of the Pope.
I'm no defender of the Catholic church, nor a practicing Catholic, but... In 12 years of attending Catholic parochial schools, I only encountered priests or nuns who were devoted to the well being of children. Let's not forget that the vast majority of Catholic clerics are actually there for the service of go(o)d. Those who are criminals, should be treated as such.
I don't buy the legal argument. If you work at a store and you sexually harrass the customers or co-workers then that's just cause for termination right? why is it any different here if priests are considered employees? if confidentialty lawsuits are a concern then the church doesn't even have to report the crime to the police. they can just kick these guys out onto the street so they won't be a danger to others. (at least not in the context of being a priest).
I'm also catholic and did the twelve year stint in Catholic School. I also never ran into such problems with any priests are nuns but I can say I have ran into some hateful nuns and priests in my time. I also stopped going to church about year before this scandal broke. I can say that when I return to church, it definitely will not be catholic. The fact that this thing was covered up is my problem also. I know that there is a only tiny percentage of priests who are accused, but the fact that the greater institution protected them is the problem. They showed you where their priorities were. And its not like this is a recent phenomenom. The church has had to deal with these problems for centuries. We just happen to live in an age when such things can't be kept as dirty little secrets anymore. The catholic church is stuck in the 10th century and I don't want to be a part of it anymore unless there is real reform. Real discussion.
I'm glad to see you as well. I hope things are going great for you. Don't forget that if the accused confessed it to their superior, they are arguably covered by a priest-penitent privilege. Conversely, if a Cardinal violates the confidentiality of the confessional, he is a moral failure of a different kind - one that goes directly to the heart of their vocation. Unless you're under a legal and moral obligation to maintain confidentiality. Yep...the priest at my parish was accused of abuse. The charges later were determined to be completely untrue. He went through such an ordeal that the doctors made him take a few months off from his work because he was about to drop dead of a heart attack. Of course then you have to worry about paying unemployment insurance, not to mention the threat of wrongful termination lawsuits. Dear Mr. Max: Please cease and desist, at once, from the evangelizing of my people. Any further actions shall be handled as an act of terrorism under the Patriot Act. Sincerely Ref.
I highly doubt that fear of a rash of priest v. church litigation is part of their motivation. I'm going to guess that their exposure to that sort of thing is, and historcially has been, rather limited, given that churches in general are able to skirt employment laws in ways that private employwers can't. (see, e.g., the "ministerial exception" in Title VII cases). Furthermore, I think it's generally irrelevant either way, since I don't see how "it might expose us to civil litigation" has ever been a valid response for withholding documents subpoenaed in a criminal investigation....because it's just not. That's why they lost and the judge ruled against them, I would think.
If any of you could adress these issues for me, I'd really appreciate it: 1) To me, these actions are proof that no man should abstain from sex his entire life. Unhealthy and unnatural. If these men had abstained from pre-marital sex, and "gotten some" with their wives, then this wouldn't even be a problem. Ask any psychologist or psychiatrist you like, the longer you abstain from sex the more it affects your judgement in certain situations. 2) Why haven't they been prosecuted, and removed from the church? Does the government have to do this? Who, in his right mind, would still go to a church where these people practice? Everyone should refuse going to this guy's church. People make mistakes, but there are certain mistakes that don't just HAPPEN. You don't shoot a guy in the head and say "woops". You don't take a whole school hostage and say "woops". You don't attach a bomb to yourself and then detonate it and say "woops". You don't wage war on a country, pit half the people against each other, get 100 of your own soldiers killed, and almost attack a holy shrine and then say "woops". 3) Only Catholic priests are not all allowed to have sex, right? (I know there's a word, but don't know how to spell it... celebate?) 4) Were there any priests when Christ was alive, and if not, when did Catholocism originate and when were the first Priests appointed, and for what exact reason?
