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.
"Substantiate..."
Where have we heard that word before?
Oh, yeah, it's all over the Grand Jury report. Here it is again on page 64 (referring to Daniel Neill, the victim who took his own life, as "Ben")...
Even though almost every former altar boy told the investigator that Father Gallagher always brought up masturbation with children in the confessional, only three Review Board members thought it necessary to restrict him from hearing children's confessions. On July 24, 2008, Ms. Hagner notified Ben that the Review Board could not substantiate his allegation. Less than a year later, Ben committed suicide."Despite Ben's obvious credibility, the corroboration of other witnesses, the allegation the year before by someone with no connection to Ben, and the lies of Father Gallagher, the Archdiocesan Review Board found Ben's allegations unsubstantiated. Bishop Timothy Senior, the Vicar for Clergy, concurred with the Review Board's recommendations, as did Auxiliary Bishop Daniel Thomas. Cardinal Rigali accepted the recommendation on July 3, 2008.
Two better questions would be how do these pederast priests "substantiate" their own salvation when they destroy young children, and how do Roman Catholic parents "substantiate" the protection of their children when they set them among these ravening wolves?
lol. Anxious?
Four indictments were just handed down. Why don't you contact the DA's office and ask.
If you read the article, you'll see the four defendants are set to formally enter their pleas on April 15.
“the DA’s office isn’t prosecuting.”
Present tense.
Again let me repeat. Nothing in the article or the report you site states the Archdiocese refused to believe Neill.
Did they fail in not being able to substantiate his claims. I think they did.
How did they drag out his case? They did not receive any report on him until 2007. The abuse happened thirty years prior.
I agree with the Grand Jury report on the gross negligence and inexcusable response to the victims by the Archdiocese.
However you have shown nothing that affirms the reporter’s statement that the Archdiocese refused to believe Neill.
Sadly I think in the majority of cases it was worse. They did believe the victims. Knew the victims were telling the truth and still acted against them.
If the article had stated that the Archdiocese failed to pursue credible allegations or that the board could not substantiate Neill’s claim although other victims made similar allegations I would have no quarrel. Those are facts. They are facts that show wrong doing on the part of the Archdiocese and the board.
Whether they believed the victim or not should not enter into the investigative process. That process must not be compromised by failure to gather evidence, interview witnesses and review document or allow for the exclusion of evidence that does not support the conclusion that is desired. That is what happens when an investigation is done correctly without prejudice or preconceptions.
I think disrupted is too mild a term for what should happen to this past policy.
The damage done to the victims by the abusers and by those who covered it up can not be appeased by earthly justice alone. But until the Lord’s day pursuit of and reliance on that earthly justice will have to do. If the wrong doings of Bishops and priests are exposed in that pursuit of justice so be it. If that leads to charges being laid and findings of guilt so be it. If that means jail or fines or both so be it.
No one should be outside the law.
Plenty in the article and the report states the Archdiocese refused to believe Neill.
More than plenty. All the bizarre denials to the written words I've posted from the Grand Jury report cannot change that fact.
Did they fail in not being able to substantiate his claims. I think they did.
I don't think they did. The Grand Jury doesn't think they did. The District Attorney who indicted the four priests doesn't think they did. The judge hearing the case doesn't they did.
The ONLY people who do think so are Roman Catholic apologists whose "reading comprehension," as you posted in your comment 32, hasn't yet been "grasped."
“Plenty in the article and the report states the Archdiocese refused to believe Neill.”
There is no statement to that effect at all.
“Did they fail in not being able to substantiate his claims. I think they did.
“I don’t think they did. The Grand Jury doesn’t think they did. The District Attorney who indicted the four priests doesn’t think they did. The judge hearing the case doesn’t they did.”
I think uyou misunderstand me I meant that the board, if they had done a proper investigation should have been able to substantiate Neill’s claim. That they did not take a more aggressive stance in pursuing evidence is certainly a failure on their part. That was a wrong doing on their part.
Please post a quote from the board or from the archdiocese that they refused to believe Neill. Post a quote or excerpt from the Grand Jury report saying the same. You have not done so.
There were very real and inexcusable failures on the part of both the Archbishop and the board it is not necessary to put a spin on these facts by making statements that are not supported by what happened.
Thank you for this repetitive illustration that there is never enough “substantive” evidence for Roman Catholics to denounce their pederast priestcraft and the hierarchy which hides, defends, protects and promotes them.
1. God KNOWS the truth, even when facts are covered up and the victims cowered and perpetrators allowed free reign, AND, he does not forget! He will require an accounting of ALL regardless of status or place or false claims of innocence. Every secret will be revealed, every hidden thing will be brought into the light. "It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Heb. 10:31)
2. God is the Great Healer - Jehovah Rapha. No wound is too deep, no heart too broken, no soul too lost to despair, that He is not able to bind back up. He is the God of all comfort and He alone works miracles in those who, to Him, surrender all their burdens.
3. We are called to "come out from the world and be separate". Only by His grace and mercy through the sacrificial work of Jesus Christ - God in the flesh - are we empowered to do that. Those, who by horrific, long-term acts of evil, prove they are NOT His own. Superficial acts of piety do not prove what is in the heart and that is true regardless of religiosity or status attained. Those who commit such atrocities while hiding behind the outward appearance of holiness will be exposed in this life or the next. God is not a respecter of persons - we are all naked before him - and only those clothed in the righteousness of Christ will be welcomed into Heaven.
4. Genuine heart wrenching repentance NOW and a full "coming clean" confession to those injured and acceptance of the consequences of the full force of the law is what God requires for those who would have any chance of redemption over this deep gaping wound. It is needed as far up the pike as it needs to go and, unless it happens, the edifice that claims the criminals will also be brought down with them. Of this I am SURE! God's people MUST MUST make a stand and demand accountability. No more leaving it to the higher-ups to sort out. For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God. (I Peter 4:17)
We ARE the house of God now, we ARE the temple of God.
I did no such thing. I will not tolerate claims you make about my character. You claim there is never enough “substantive” evidence for Roman Catholics to denounce their pederast priestcraft and the hierarchy which hides, defends, protects and promotes them.
I take it that you include me in that statement. Yet I wrote in my reply to you that “The damage done to the victims by the abusers and by those who covered it up can not be appeased by earthly justice alone. But until the Lord’s day pursuit of and reliance on that earthly justice will have to do. If the wrong doings of Bishops and priests are exposed in that pursuit of justice so be it. If that leads to charges being laid and findings of guilt so be it. If that means jail or fines or both so be it.”
I also wrote “the board, if they had done a proper investigation should have been able to substantiate Neill’s claim. That they did not take a more aggressive stance in pursuing evidence is certainly a failure on their part. That was a wrong doing on their part.”
I also told you this “Sadly I think in the majority of cases it was worse. They did believe the victims. Knew the victims were telling the truth and still acted against them.”
Regrading the Grand Jury report I wrote “I have no problem with the report and agree with most of its findings.”
Regarding the investigation of Neill’s report “That they did not do enough to gather this evidence is indeed a great fault and entirely to their blame.”
None of what I have written supports your base claim that I refuse to denounce pederast priests. I am sick to death of the RM failure to call you to account for repeatedly stating that Roman Catholic freepers do not denounce abusive priests and those who covered up their crimes. You get away with it despite answers that contradict your assertions being given over and over again.
You are entitled to your opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts and you are not entitled to lie about me.
‘
For instance, one Freeper may say "Catholics worship Mary" and believe it is the absolute truth. Another poster may say that very same statement is a damnable lie. No volume of evidence or reasoning would change either mind. And since I am not God, I cannot decree truth.
Are you saying it is true that I do not denounce pederast priests?
Read what she claimed and read my response to her. She impugned me by implying that as a Catholic I did not denounce pederasty. I called her on that by giving concrete examples of my condemning the same.
The fact that she is permitted to make that personal statement against me without censure speaks volumes.
The truth is that she made a claim about Catholics. I am Catholic. That is personal. Worse the claim was not just a difference of opinion about Catholic teaching but an outright false assertion regarding how Catholics respond to pederast priests. The underlying assumption beingg that Catholics including me not only tolerate but support pederasts and their vile crimes. That is the truth about her post to me.
You had better believe I will not allow such statements to go unchallenged nor will I tolerate the personal attack inherent in such posts.
If I even began to make claims such as she has I would be moderated in a twitch.
I mean no offense, but it looks as though you are supporting the allegation that lastchance does not denounce pederast priests, when you fail to admonish other posters who make inflammatory remarks that are clear flame-bait.
When there are repeated flame-bait remarks, it seems wrong to only admonish the one who responds, and not the one who makes the remarks (continually, I might add).
I am not supporting the allegation, I am responding to his complaint about me (post 53).
I understand that fully.
But we are talking here NOT about Mary, but about one poster making a flame-bait accusation that for Catholic posters “there is never enough ‘substantive’ evidence for Roman Catholics to denounce their pederast priestcraft and the hierarchy which hides, defends, protects and promotes them.
THAT is not a matter of simple disagreement, that is a smear of every Catholic on the forum, and it is flame-bait. It is an accusation that implies that every Catholic is guilty of the CRIME of abetting child rapists. Any Catholic who makes any remark on one of these threads is subjected to the same accusation, repeatedly.
Not quite the same as a disagreement over who does or doesn’t “worship” Mary.
Again, I mean no disrespect, nor can I possibly imagine being in your position. I just wonder if the situation has been made clear to you.
Of course, as always, you have our support for the work you do for us, as well as our prayers for your blessing.
Simply put, I cannot say that one poster has said enough that the other poster must now yield, i.e. case closed.
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.