Posted on 04/01/2011 1:53:58 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg
The Archdiocese of St. Paul has a list of 33 priests accused of sexually abusing minors. But, unlike a similar list of priests revealed this week by St. John's Abbey in Collegeville, the St. Paul priests will remain unnamed.
St. John's released the names of 17 monks who have faced credible allegations of sexual abuse or misconduct as part of a lawsuit settlement.
Victims' rights advocates have pushed to make such lists public for years. Roman Catholic archdioceses in Milwaukee, Chicago and Baltimore are among those that have revealed the names of accused priests...
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
Shhh...
Secret.
Accused does not necessarily equal credible allegations. It is common practice for name of accused person who are not yet being investigated or who are under investigation, to remain confidential until results of an investigation are in.
The article does not bother to say when these accusations arose or how long ago the alleged crimes happened.
Once an investigation is complete by all parties having jurisdiction then by all means names should be made public. Notice too the article does not say the names are being withheld from law enforcement. As the names would also remain confidential while undergoing a criminal investigation.
That is how the law works.
Doesn’t matter.
Your, and my, value on this thread is solely as targets.
Best to just not play the game.
That is how the law works.
That's not how the law works.
That is how some RC dioceses work.
Not all. Some. Some have chosen to make the names public so parents and churches can be alert to any possible danger to their children.
Once again, we see there are people in the RCC who do not hold the welfare of children preeminent.
Here's the full news story...
http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/faith/119035049.html
Publication can help victims heal and encourage others to come forward, he said. They also can help prevent future abuse, he argues. Often, the listed priests have never been prosecuted or charged because the statute of limitations has run out. "If the list isn't out there, survivors are going to suffer in silence," he said. "Until they know that someone else has suffered the same thing they did, they think they're the only one. Many of the priests on the lists are still alive. The question is, 'Who are they, and where are they?' Is one of those priests the kind gentleman that moved in next door and is very kind to your kids?"
"Terence McKiernan, president of BishopAccountability.org, which tracks Catholic clergy sex abuse cases, said he's aware of about 24 dioceses that have made public lists of clergy accused of sexual abuse involving minors.
T”hat’s not how the law works.”
Yes it is. Why don’t you try calling up the DA’s office or the office of the Grand Jury and asking them if Father James is under investigation. It is also how professional boards work.
If the other Diocese have decided to release names based only on accusations they are really taking a chance of being exposed for a defamation suit by the accussed should no credible allegations come about.
You better dang well believe if I was accused of criminal behavior with no substantial proof or with questionable proof I would protest most vehemently if my name was released before any determination if it was valid to levy criminal or civil charges.
Secret.
Yeah.. TOP secret!
Hoss
This must be part of their zero-tolerance policy. /SAR
Ah, yes. It's always "no substantial proof" and "questionable proof."
Did you read the evidence presented in the Philadelphia pederast priest scandal? Or is that all "questionable proof," too?
And here's the Grand Jury's report from 2005, which serves to illustrate how the Grand Jury's suggestions to the RCC were completely ignored.
LOL. Endless, isn’t it?
I don’t hate the Catholic church, I just want accountability.
Is that too much to ask?
Perhaps it is...
The article does not claim any substantial proof was given or that credible allegations had been made in all cases. It simply reads that the priests were accussed.
By the way that Grand Jury report the investigation leading to those findings was indeed confidential.
It might have escaped your notice but accusations are not the same as a Grand Jury report. If you want I am sure someone with more patience can explain the difference.
It seems it really bother you that the law presumes innocent until proven guilty when it comes to pirests accused of crimes against children.
Does this same standard apply to any person accused of crimes against children? Doe it apply to any person accused of any crime?
I am asking in all sincerity. What other rights or laws do you think should be plowed under to meet your prejudice against priests?
Should there be a separate legal standard under civil and criminal law for priests accused of abuse? Should they have a right to trial? Should they have the right to legal counsel? Should they have the right to face their accuser in court if that accuser is now an adult? Should they have the right to see the evidence against them?
If not why not?
Endless indeed. Here they admit they made a ‘mistake’ for covering up. “ We are painfully aware that in the past we did not do enough to prevent abuse of children and vulnerable adults, and that we made mistakes by thinking that restrictive measures we undertook with regard to Donald McGuire would be effective. More important, we failed to listen to those who came forward and to meet their courage in dealing with Donald McGuire as we should have.”
***
I believe the names and photos need to be released. Parents need to know who these people are so they can protect their children.
If you don't agree with me, please don't try to change my mind. I won't.
I am a grandmother of 2 toddlers, and I want information about clergy, teachers, and coaches accused of sexual crimes.
Unless, of course, they're more interested in protecting child abusers than children.
The plea comes after a scathing addition to three men's lawsuit was filed in Circuit Court alleging that Jesuit leaders in Chicago knew that now-defrocked Catholic priest Donald McGuire was sexually abusing underage boys and that they sought to cover it up and mislead authorities. "We want the prosecutor of Cook County to investigate whether there is sufficient evidence of crimes committed by the Jesuit superiors," said Barbara Blaine, president of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP.) "It seems as though there's evidence of conspiracy (and) evidence of perjury." An advocacy group for people abused by priests on Wednesday asked Cook County State's Attorney Anita Alvarez to launch a grand jury investigation into the Chicago-based Jesuit province.
If and when a grand jury is called, we'll get its findings. In Chicago, I don't hold out much hope for "transparency."
And the "evidence" you're looking for, Lastchance, begins with the fact that the RCC defrocked Donald McGuire and then apologized for not protecting children from him.
see post 16
That's mind-reading and therefore making it personal and is against the rules of the FR RF.
“An advocacy group for people abused by priests on Wednesday asked Cook County State’s Attorney Anita Alvarez to launch a grand jury investigation into the Chicago-based Jesuit province.”
Different case from what is under discussion on this thread. I favor the proposed action.
“And the “evidence” you’re looking for, Lastchance, begins with the fact that the RCC defrocked Donald McGuire and then apologized for not protecting children from him.”
I am confused how is the McGuire case evidence that the 11 priests accused in another Diocese are guilty?
PS I am not making it personal. You keep equating accusation with prima facie. Why else would you demand that names of those who may currently be under investigation be released? The only reason is to engage in a witch hunt. What I do favor is the findings of any investigation be made public and that the priests under investigation and/or accused by relieved of any public ministry till the investigation is complete. Heck if they can set a bail amount or refuse bail so the guy stays in jail after arrest fine by me too.
If that investigation (I mean the State’s) finds credible allegations have been made and that the offenses fall outside the statute of limitations than prosecution should proceed as warranted under law. If found guilty appropriate sentencing up to and including the Gulag should be levied.
That is how a society that is ruled by law works. I want it to work. I want it to work even for the guilty. I want this because the protection of our constitutional rights is kind of a sticking point for me.
Innocent people do get accused of crimes. Even innocent priests get acussed of crimes. But guilty or not there is a procedure that is followed in law to assure the legal rights of the accused are met while the public is protected. If you have issue with that you can contact your local district attorney and demand all people accused of a crime and under confidential investigation have their namnes made public. I’m sure it would go over well with legal types.
What you have posted is not a news story it is an opinion that appears in a news story. Remember too the story posted originally stated names were released as part of a legal settlement. That is quite different than demanding the name be produced upon first formal accusations being made.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.