Posted on 04/12/2011 10:17:57 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg
It was one of the more searing allegations in the recent Philadelphia grand jury report on clergy sex abuse:
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.
On Wednesday, relatives of the man, Daniel Neill, became the latest to sue the archdiocese over its response to abuse victims. Neill shot himself in June 2009.
"It's a wrongful death is what it is," said Jeff Anderson, a lawyer for Neill's family.
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. The report identified Neill by the pseudonym "Ben."
That report has spawned criminal charges against four current or former priests, four lawsuits by alleged victims, and the suspension of more than two dozen priests while the church reexamines complaints against them.
One of those on administrative leave is the Rev. Joseph J. Gallagher, the priest Neill said had repeatedly molested him at St. Mark's in Bristol in 1980 and 1981.
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.
The lawsuit does not identify the principal by name.
Neill, a department store worker and aspiring actor who had bit parts on TV shows, reported the attacks to the archdiocese's victim-assistance program in 2007. It was the second complaint against Gallagher in about a year, according to the grand jury report.
Neill gave church investigators vivid details about the abuse and names of other altar boys, the grand jury found.
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 - such as the priest's habit of hearing boys' confessions in a church loft and asking them about masturbation - although not the abuse itself.
When confronted by archdiocesan investigators, Gallagher at first denied the allegations, then became "more evasive" in his answers, according to the grand jury report.
An independent archdiocesan review board ruled that it could not substantiate the complaints. In July 2008, a victim-assistance coordinator told Neill of the decision.
I didn’t see the Mod’s comment until just now.
Glad you complied with the rules, albeit belatedly.
Interesting. From the looks of the post numbers (76-79), it seems like you posted the translation after the RM reminded you of the rules.
And you offered as a reason for your not posting the translation -- "I did not know that Latin was a foreign language."
I suppose we can all learn from this - not to post in a foreign language, including Latin, until we've found "a good" translation which we can post at the same time.
Last I knew, English was the language we speak here.
Anything else is, by default, foreign.
Try posting my response in full.
Well do just looking for the best translation. Though I did not know that Latin was a foreign language. Being Catholic and all. Wink.
Dies Irae is a rather common phrase and the full text has been set numerous times to music. See Mozart. I honestly thought that being common to Western learning a translation would not be needed as it is rather easy to find.
It is not some obscure piece of writing unknown to most people.
Spare me your lecture. Had I known the rule I would have provided the English text righ away.
Not everyone knows Latin just because a few Catholics do. Granted many people know a smattering of Latin since it is so widely used, and some people do know enough to recognize an exorcism prayer directed at some one else.
Just because you know something, doesn’t mean everyone else does.
I did not assume that. I assumed that it would be easy enough for someone to seek out a translation while I looked for the best one to post.
More unmitigated RC balderdash
mannipulative !!!!CONTROL!!!!
intimidation nonsense . . .
If they can’t coerce, manipulate, !!!!DEMAND!!!! things according to their sensibilities, then they seem compelled to hyper-ventilate and scream that things are absurd to the max . . . evidently just for effect or to flatter their Alice In Wonderland constructions on reality.
An endless supply of such flows from the Vatican Cult 24/7.
Ahhhhhhhhh
Yet another effort to coerce the RM into supporting Vatican Cult sensibilities or be labeled something dastardly as judged, juried and sentenced by the Vatican Cult’s RC Rabid Cliques on Fr.
Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo IMPRESSIVE!
/sarc
The cry of catholic condemning the RCC hierarchy of covering up and the evil acts of priests against catholic children is deafening.
Can you guys shout louder - no one can hear you. Or are catholics not a part of the RCC, just pew sitters? Or if catholics speak out against the Vatican/RCC and their approach in handling these sexual deviants would they be called ‘heretics’ by their church? Is it fear that is stopping the 1B catholics they claim to have?
Surely, if there was some kind of demonstration, even in PA, it would make news. After all, demands are what catholics do. ACTION is what was needed years ago - now the law is involved in one diocese trying to bring justice for those victims who have been left ‘solely’ by the church and members they once trusted. Come to papa, children.
All silly rants behind the screen on who said what, if you don’t disagree....blah, blah. Take your rants where they belong - to the Vatican/RCC.
Quix,
I am not going to sit idly by when somebody implicates that I approve of pederasty from anyone. If that is somehow offensive to you so be it.
I would support and expect you do defend yourself against any such implications.
If one pays attention they would find that a lot of anger and disgust and demands for change have been voiced over the scandal and its handling.
Really? Where? when? did this ‘lots’ happen?
Pentecostals get slammed in absurd, harsh, very insultingly assaultive ways by your RC etc. cohorts on here all the time.
Most of the time, they are thinly veiled virulently vicious attacks on me personally—questioning or assaulting my sanity, my Christianity, my theology, my reasonableness etc. to the nth degree.
So what.
It’s par for the course. It’s the obsessive, compulsive, desperate focus and evidently need of some curious souls on FR.
Those who know me best and care for me most know better than to believe I’m guilty of a lot of that junk.
The rest don’t matter enormously.
Most folks know that most RC’s are thoroughly disgusted with the priest/altar boy antics, sin, perversities as much as anyone.
I can’t imagine that there’s a single RC hereon, who’s remotely any sort of authentic Christian, who’d condone such horrific stuff.
HOWEVER, 24/7/365 a number of RC’s SOUND LIKE they are excusing either the priests or the hierarchy
. . . excusing one or both for things that are grossly inexcusable.
That’s mystifying, exasperating, shocking to most Proddys.
The message relentlessly proffered to us is that
IT’S THE INSTITUTION AT ALL COSTS REGARDLESS OF THE VICTIMS, REGARDLESS OF THE TRUTH, REGARDLESS OF THE LAW, REGARDLESS OF HOLINESS AND RIGHTEOUSNESS—REGARDLESS!!!!
That’s horrifically outrageous to many of us Proddys.
And, many Proddys probably run out of ways to try and make that case as vividly, memorably and arrestingly as possible. Yet, they feel it is such a burningly desperately important issue that they must continue to try—hoping that at least a few more RC’s may wake up sufficiently to help press for more righteous responses on the part of the public, those in the pew and the hierarchy.
There may be a few who are so outraged by what we see paraded in the public consciousness year in and year out on the horror story . . . that they feel compelled to rub it in the RC’s faces relentlessly until the RC’s say uncle and begin to AT LEAST SOUND LIKE said RC’s take the problem as serious as the Proddys do . . .
AT LEAST HOPING AND PRESSING FOR THE CONSERVATIVE FR RC’S TO
CONSIDER THE VICTIMS AS IMPORTANT OR MORE SO, THAN THE WHITEWASHED PROPAGANDA THE VATICAN INSTITUTION SEEMS TO BE SO DOGGEDLY DETERMINED TO HIDE BEHIND . . . AT ALL COSTS. . . . SOMETIMES, OVER THE DEAD BODIES OF THE VICTIMS—LITERALLY.
Even if one FEELS personally accused . . . there are a variety of reasonable Christian ways to respond to that—some even somewhat vividly and forcefully . . . without breaking the forum rules and without being as absurd as the Vatican institution is on the topic.
Sorry.
I fiercely disagree with
“a lot of . . .”
There have been rare such responses—a scarce smattering.
I’d guesstimate that out of 10,000 RC responses on the topic on FR, maybe at most 8-24 of them have been admitting anything serious and expressing mea culpa for the institution in the slightest.
ALL THE REST HAVE BEEN SHUCKING, JIVING, WHITE-WASHING, WEASEL WORDS, EXCUSING, DENYING ETC TO THE EXTREME.
AND THAT’S
ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS.
That some Proddys still press the issue so relentlessly and so forcefully.
If a major “Christian” institution can get away with such rationalizations, weasel worded excuses for
rank sexual abuse of minors
—then there’s no end or limit to the evil that can so readily and easily be done “in Christ’s Name.”
THAT’S OUTRAGEOUS TO MORE THAN A FEW PRODDYS, imho.
That screams for stark anger and outrage.
That screams for loud and persistent protests of a starkly vivid sort.
That screams for an altering of the Vatican stance, tone, attitude—and not just occasional blips here and there from rare courageous folks in the hierarchy but across the board AT LEAST AS LONG AND LOUD AS THE DENIALS HAVE BEEN.
I have
ALWAYS
found the RC’s use of latin on FR
to be
OSTENTATIOUS,
HAUGHTY,
ELITIST,
EXCLUSIONIST,
PRISSY,
SNOBBISH,
IN-GROUP PRANCING,
A KIND OF IN-GROUP SHOVING OF A FINGER IN THE FACE OF THE PERCEIVED OUT-GROUP,
A KIND OF BAITING,
SHALLOW,
A CHEAP SHOT,
ARROGANCE,
. . .
AND FURTHER, THAT ALL THE RATIONALIZATIONS FOR DOING SO
ALSO FIT IN ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE CATEGORIES.
The effort was not one of COMMUNICATION
EXCEPT THAT THE MESSAGE BEING COMMUNICATED WAS THE ABOVE CATEGORIES.
I don’t find that the least bit Christ-like.
You make important points, imho.
Thx.
You are threatened by a common Latin phrase and the text which has been used over and over again in music?
So what about Amicus Curae? Nota bene? Antebellum?
Venie Vidi Vici? Q.E.D? Ad Hoc? Habeas Corpus? Per Annum? Subpoena Duces Tecum? Semper Fi? E Pluribus Unum? Common enough phrases that they should be recognized even outside of their usual context.
Do you object to B.I.D ro T.I.D. or N.P.O orders from your doctor? Twice a day, three times a day, nothing by mouth.
Are the following o.k.? Christus Rex, Dominus Iesus, IESUS NAZARENUS REX IUDAEORUM, Sanctus. Is the wonderful hymn of Psalm 115 no longer permitted to be sung in Latin? “Non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam” Yeah I can see us Catholics are real haughty for knowing the terms for Christ the King. Lord Jesus. Jesus of Nazareth King of The Jews. Holy. Not to us Lord, not to us, but to your name all the glory.
Knowing a few secular and church Latin phrases is not haughty. It sure as heck ain’t snobbish. I accept it as a common sign of basic education in Western thought. Crap I feel deprived that I don’t know Latin. School boys and girls used to read Virgil in the original as a matter of course. Grammar school. The founding fathers enjoyed a Classical education. Were the haughty? Elitist?
I honestly can not believe that this matter is such an issue to some. Please let the courts now so they stop using Latin ASAP.
I didn’t say anything about being or feeling threatened.
That’s NOT the issue.
I gather my words did not make sense with the RC DAFFYNITIONARY daffynitions mentality reading them.
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.