Posted on 04/12/2011 10:17:57 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg
"A Bristol Township man killed himself after the Archdiocese of Philadelphia refused to believe that a priest had molested him when he was an altar boy...
According to the lawsuit, Neill reported the abuse to the school principal at St. Mark's in 1980, but his complaint was ignored. The principal instead allegedly "called Daniel a liar and threatened Daniel that his family would be disgraced if he persisted" with the accusations..."
I imagine there is a special place in hell for those who ruin children’s lives through abuse of any kind.
If you get around to reading the 2011 Grand Jury report, I’d be interested in your thoughts.
I don’t know what the law was regarding mandatory reporting in 1981 but I think if there was such the principal certainly would fall under the category of those obligated to do so. I wish the article indentified him.
It is very difficult to substantiate 20 year old accusations which is one reason for the statutes of limitations. It does not mean a party is not guilty it just means there is not enough evidence to determine the facts. However if the incident had been reported in 1981 the evidence would have been fresh and the likelyhood of establishing the facts much higher.
The article does not indicate that the archdiocese was informed in 1981. Both they and the police should have been told at that time.
"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." -- Matthew 18:6
Where is it shown that the archdiocese refused to believe him? It shows only that a school principal not only refused to believe him but threatened him when he reported the abuse in 1981 and that an independent review board could not substantiate the claim of abuse.
Neither of those is the same as a refusal to believe. In the first there is nothing to indicate that the archdiocese was even informed of the claim in the latter it does not say they don’t believe the claim to be true only that they can not find evidence to support either the veracity or false hood of the claim.
It is not odd that they were unable to substantiate a 20 year old claim.
Thus we now know the reason for Crimen Sollicitationis and the victim and his family being sworn to the "oath of papal secrecy" under threat of excommunciation.
The victim is told not to go to the police but to report the abuse to a priest. The priest may or may not decide to go to the bishop. The bishop then dithers, stalls, and eventually denies anything untoward took place, as in this story.
End of discussion. The victim is silenced and the priest is free to continue to rape children.
It's no surprise it may take years for some of these crimes to see the light of day.
The real question is, of course, why didn't the priests/bishops/diocese go directly to the police when this accusation was made in 1981?
Read the Grand Jury report. It gives us a clue.
There was plenty of corroborating evidence in this case. It was ignored.
Why didn’t the priests/bishops/parochial school authorities go directly to the police when this accusation was made in 1981?
The Grand Jury obviously feels differently...
The grand jury cited the handling of Neill's complaint as one of three examples of the archdiocese's failure to act on complaints that seemed credible.
“Thus we now know the reason for Crimen Sollicitationis and the victim and his family being sworn to the “oath of papal secrecy” under threat of excommunciation.”
Still pulling up that old canard? Facts are readily available for those who bother to search them out.
Why do you assume the Principal was a priest?
Reading comprehension is usually grasped in the lower grades so I am puzzled over the assertion that “The bishop then dithers, stalls, and eventually denies anything untoward took place, as in this story.” Just where in this story does any Bishop deny anything untoward took place. Please name the Bishop. Please show me where he said such a thing.
Yes the principal should have gone to the police. Especially if there were mandatory reporting laws in place. Nothing in the article indicates this principal informed the archdiocese of the accusation. That is an assumption on your part.
What corroborating evidence would that be? Not that I think the priest was not guilty but I am speaking in terms of legally admissable evidence needed to prosecute a case and secure a conviction.
They should have 100% gone to the authorities.
I meant the original complaint in 1981 not the latter one in 2007 (?). I certainly agree with the grand jury report about that.
PS. Which is why it is so inexcusable that the 1981 report of abuse was not given to authorities. I do not doubt that the archdiocese mishandled the second reporting of the abuse. I imagine it must have been very traumatic for the victim to have to relive (in a sense) what happened to him all those years ago and to be told it could not be substantiated. What I don’t know is how the board could have substantiated a 20 year old claim and what the Grand Jury uses as criteria to determine a claim is credible.
Did you read the article?
From the article...
One told investigators that the priest had "improper relationships" with students but wouldn't elaborate, the grand jury said. Others allegedly confirmed aspects of Neill's accounts..." "Neill gave church investigators vivid details about the abuse and names of other altar boys, the grand jury found.
But then we have the same old concluding paragraph is so many of these cases...
"An independent archdiocesan review board ruled that it could not substantiate the complaints..."
lol. Yeah, real "independent," that "archdiocesan review board."
Pathetic.
Why not read the Grand Jury's report and find out?
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.