Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Survivors of Man Who Alleged Philadelphia Clergy Abuse Sue
Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | April 7, 2011 | John P. Martin

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.


TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; Moral Issues
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 141-150 next last
To: Cronos
It doesn't matter. The issue is whether the post can be read by all Freepers.

And it would not have come to this had some posters not used Latin to curse other posters, personally.

So the guideline now is that, unless the term is widely understood (e.g. adios) - translate it to English.

81 posted on 04/13/2011 8:59:59 AM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator; lastchance; Dr. Brian Kopp; MarkBsnr
Define "widely understood". even the term "is whether the post can be read by all Freepers." --> so if I say that something is pulchritudinous or that someone is pusillanimous, that needs a definition? When someone uses religious terms like saying exegesis or endogenous or uncommon English words like extraneous is that allowed or not?

What if I say the incessant criticisms were instrumental in moving the hitherto unformulated dissatisfactions from the subconscious to the conscious mind -- is that not allowed because all freepers can't read it?

If it is taken to mean read by all Posters then all English words of more than one syllable would be banned to bring it to the lowest common denominator.

82 posted on 04/13/2011 9:05:21 AM PDT by Cronos (Christian, redneck, rube and proud of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Your objection is disingenuous.


83 posted on 04/13/2011 9:17:49 AM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator
How exactly is it disingenuous? You said that The issue is whether the post can be read by all Freepers.

What if I say the incessant criticisms were instrumental in moving the hitherto unformulated dissatisfactions from the subconscious to the conscious mind -- is that not allowed because all freepers can't read it?

Latin is also not a foreign language in the US as we use it in our courts, in science, in even ordinary day to day language (habeus corpus). If someone wants to check what I meant, then this IS an internet forum, it is googlable

ergo. Latin is not a foreign language nor any less understandable than English wherein one may opt to comment on an prestidigitator being pulchritudinous but pusillanimous. One can then object to the utilization of words such as exegesis in any religious post then as being "not readable by all Freepers"

This site is meant for conservatives and we are a good sight more intelligent than liberals, especially to the levels at which we may cite multitudinous points to prove that conservatism (From the Latin, conservare) works.

84 posted on 04/13/2011 9:24:58 AM PDT by Cronos (Christian, redneck, rube and proud of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
English is the common language of the United States.

If you want to post in some language other than English, then translate whatever you are saying into English.

85 posted on 04/13/2011 9:33:41 AM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator

So, I can freely say that someone is pusillanimous?


86 posted on 04/13/2011 9:42:55 AM PDT by Cronos (Christian, redneck, rube and proud of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

You say that a statement is pusillanimous, bigoted, mean, stupid, etc. But if you say that about a Freeper, individually, that would be “making it personal.”


87 posted on 04/13/2011 9:59:22 AM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: starlifter
BTW, a grand jury hands up indictments...indictments are never handed down.

Thanks. That's interesting. Makes sense.

88 posted on 04/13/2011 10:46:31 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: lastchance; metmom; Alex Murphy; Gamecock; RnMomof7

It’s against the rules of the Religion Forum to post in foreign languages without a translation.


89 posted on 04/13/2011 11:58:07 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

I had no problem with giving an English translation and told the mod so. I did not give one originally because I did not find a good one right away.

By the way congratulations on becoming a moderator. You have been doing the job long enough without official sanction it is about time they passed the torch to you with full honors.


90 posted on 04/13/2011 11:59:46 AM PDT by lastchance (Hug your babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: lastchance; Dr. Eckleburg

The RM instituted that rule after some Catholics were posting exorcism prayers to non-Catholics in Latin.

Now, Dr. E was doing you a favor by telling you of that so you wouldn’t get in trouble with the RM. On the other thread, you were just expressing concern about not wanting to break the RF rules.

I don’t understand why people get in such a snit when someone tries to help them out. Dr. E is not making up the rules and her telling you what they are does not mean that she has become a mod or is playing one.

If you’d like, we could just not tell you when you’re breaking the rules and let you take the fall yourself and find out the hard way. Would you prefer that?


91 posted on 04/13/2011 12:43:36 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
"It’s against the rules of the Religion Forum to post in foreign languages without a translation."

Oh, Doctor, what lovely rules! I am so enraptured!

I'm sure all in question appreciate your attempts at strict enforcement. After all, there is no rule against playing at moderator. Heck, lets all try our hand at it!

Be advised, I am not implying in any way that the clergy guy pictured is you.

92 posted on 04/13/2011 1:42:08 PM PDT by Celtic Cross (Some minds are like cement; thoroughly mixed up and permanently set...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: metmom

The mod had already made that requested and I complied with his request. This was before Dr E decided to play mod.


93 posted on 04/13/2011 2:35:46 PM PDT by lastchance (Hug your babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: metmom; Dr. Eckleburg

I should have addressed my answer to both of you. My apologies for that shortcoming.


94 posted on 04/13/2011 2:38:00 PM PDT by lastchance (Hug your babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Celtic Cross

Is that rain on my leg???


95 posted on 04/13/2011 2:38:57 PM PDT by lastchance (Hug your babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: lastchance; Dr. Eckleburg

Well, your post came before the RM’s post so it would be not be unexpected for someone reading and replying to the posts in numerical order on the thread to reply to your comment before reading the RM’s comment.

I’d hazard a guess that Dr. E did not see the RM’s comment at the time she posted hers. If she’d seen it, there’d have been no need for her to add to it.


96 posted on 04/13/2011 2:49:02 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: metmom; Dr. Eckleburg

You are of course free to put a charitable interpretation on Dr E’s post. In that you are (and I am being sincere) a better person than I.


97 posted on 04/13/2011 2:51:17 PM PDT by lastchance (Hug your babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy; Dr. Eckleburg

Dianne: “Methinks the lady doth protest too much!”

Woody: “Shouldn’t that be ‘I thinks’ Miss Chambers?


98 posted on 04/13/2011 11:13:38 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: lastchance; Alex Murphy
You mentioned me numerous times in your post, yet you didn't ping me, Lastchance.

Your posts are an excellent example of half-way condemnation, always ending in a caveat that these priests aren't really to blame because either the statue of limitations has expired and people's memories fade and we don't really know the truth and children can lie and the victims were adolescents and not children...

yadayadayada.

Mistakes were made.

Your posts are also an excellent example in answer to the question -- how do Roman Catholics end up ignoring all the corruption at the center of their church?

Simple. By ALWAYS giving the benefit of the doubt to the priests and ALWAYS finding reason to blame the victims and their nasty lawyers and the "anti-Catholic" public.

You can criticize our response to your posts all day long. But your posts are online for all of us to read for ourselves. And the vast majority of those posts always end in some variation of -- "but we must also understand that..."

99 posted on 04/14/2011 1:24:34 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

lolol


100 posted on 04/14/2011 1:34:49 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 141-150 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson