Posted on 02/11/2012 10:13:46 AM PST by RnMomof7
Some 200 Catholic priests suspected of sexual abuse are living undetected in communities across California, according to an attorney who represents hundreds of plaintiffs who sued the LA Archdiocese for molestation they say was inflicted on them by priests and clergy of the church.
Ray Boucher has mapped sixty locations where suspect priests live, in cities and towns from northern to southern California, and provided those locations to NBC4 exclusively.
“Many if not all these priests have admitted to sexual abuse,” Boucher said. “They live within a mile of 1,500 playgrounds, schools and daycare centers.”
Since none of the priests has actually been convicted of sex abuse, none can be identified under Megan’s Law, or their whereabouts revealed in related public databases.
“What the issue is here, is how you weigh the right of the people,” said Boucher, who is also one of the attorneys representing students in the Miramonte Elementary School sex abuse scandal. “In particular the right of children to be protected from molestation versus the right of privacy."
Among Boucher’s many clients in the church action are Manuel Vega and Dan Smith.
Vega is a former police officer from Oxnard who took special interest in sex crimes investigations because, he says, he was sexually abused as a teenager by his parish priest.
“He forced me to masturbate while he took pictures of me,” said Vega, who believes that the public is often too squeamish to recognize what child molestation actually entails – and thus not properly outraged by it.
“When we talk about sexual abuse we’re talking about sodomy,” he said. “There’s pubic hair, there’s sweat, there’re smells, there’re grunts.”
Dan Smith, another alleged abuse victim, is reeling from the recent collapse of his marriage which he blames in part on the psychological effects of the molestation he says he suffered as a child – at the hands of his local parish priest.
“He would rape me and then say this is what God’s love feels like,” Smith said, struggling to hold back tears more than twenty years after the alleged incidents.
Both men helped make legal history by joining 500 other plaintiffs in suing the LA Archdiocese for sexual molestation, with Boucher as their lead attorney.
In 2007 the LA Archdiocese reached an unprecedented $660 million settlement with many of the plaintiffs without admitting any wrong-doing.
It also agreed to let the courts decide which of the case-related church files should be made public, including those identifying alleged and admitted predators.
But according to Boucher and court documents, the Catholic Church has since engaged in a cover-up. By Boucher’s account, Church officials allowed priests suspected of sexually abusing children to retire, flee the country or hide in rehab clinics until the statute of limitations on prosecution ran out.
“What the church did is take these guys and send them off to facilities where they treat pedophile priests without ever alerting police,” Boucher said. “By enabling these priests to be hidden for so many years the church protected them from being prosecuted.”
Meanwhile legal disputes delayed the release of the promised personnel files, and Donald Steir, an attorney for several priests, went to court to argue that those who’ve been accused but no convicted should have their names and privacy protected.
“They are being punished as if they have been convicted, or at least that’s the desire – to punish them,” Steir said. “That’s not fair.”
“It’s difficult if you represent an alleged terrorist or a pedophile, because people don’t really care about the rights [including privacy rights] for these type of people,” Steir said. “But once we erode the rights of a group of people we don’t like, we effectively have started down a path where other people’s rights can be similarly denied.”
The courts, expressing concern for children, overruled most of these arguments and similar ones by the Archdiocese, which declined to comment for this story.
And a judge has ordered release of some personnel files, set for some time in the coming weeks. But he also credited the church for its increased sensitivity in dealing with molestation cases and decided to withhold the names of church officials who handled the earlier cases.
It is a ruling that reminds Boucher of the breakdown in accountability in the Penn state pedophile scandal. “Look at Penn State and see how important and significant it is when people in authority enable sexual abusers to continue,” Boucher said. “That underscores how significant it is to get these names out.”
Under the judge’s ruling the church can also keep secret, subject to further court review, the names of priests who have not been convicted and who have only one or two allegations against them or have allegations disputed by the church.
To Smith that seems like a formula for further cover-up by church officials.
“If their interests were to protect the kids, they would have released the documents,” Smith said. “As a parent not knowing who your neighbor is -- that is really scary.”
Many of these unidentified priests are included in Boucher’s location map.
“The danger” said Vega, “is that you have a person who has this sickness in them who is amongst the children.”
The plaintiffs in the church scandal are planning to appeal the latest rulings to assure broader disclosure of suspects’ names and locations. But Boucher warned this could take time, allowing suspects to keep their privacy protected, as well as their undetected presence in neighborhoods across California.
Yeah, certainly that will assuage the questioner forever now.
< / sarc >
Believe it or not, yes. I do think it’s helpful to establish up front our mutual opposition to such behavior, and acknowledge that it happens where it shouldn’t.
I think it doesn’t help the Roman Catholic Church for certain members’ initial response to be defensive, rather than simply acknowledging the facts of a particular case at hand.
Once that is firmly established — that pedophilia is completely unacceptable among our religious leaders — then we can point out (rightly) that such sin is found not just in Catholic leadership, but in Protestant leadership, and in humanity at large. And that celibate service is not the cause of pedophilia.
Again, it’s the initial defensiveness that sours the discussion.
Read my comment above.
Do I need to even say it?
You’re out front in your attack on the Church, and you wonder why some might be defensive?
You’re loud in your pronouncements of what others ought to do and your judgement of the Church, and you wonder why some might be defensive?
Really?
If I could ask y'all to take off your Catholic "glasses" for just a moment, let me just ask you this. If, in this "culture war" between secularism and Christianity, which is the better, more logical tact:
B. Fellow Christians should directly address grievous moral offenses. Present a united front that does not excuse nor hide offenders, dealing with each incident according to law and Biblical church discipline.
I'm going to have to choose (B) every time, simply because it IS the Biblical mandate we have from God. To turn such things into an us versus them fight, brings shame and dishonor to Christ's name AND all other Christians. Do you really think the hardcore anti-Christian groups out there draw any real distinctions between Catholics and other Christian traditions? I think they like to lump us all together as those "religious hypocrites and bigots". So when one group or another is seen as in any way excusing, hiding, rationalizing or justifying a member's or group's criminal behavior it harms ALL of us.
Now I know full well that not all Catholic priests are pedophiles just as not all Protestant ministers are. But what we - none of us - should EVER be accused of is covering up this heinous crime or in any way excusing those who are guilty. I don't think any of y'all are doing that, but, rather than turn this kind of discussion into an us vs. them among Christians fight and presuming anyone who dares bring up the incidences that happen and how they are or should be dealt with, why not prove to the anti-Christians out there that we do as a whole take this very seriously, that we strongly condemn when it does happen and that we will not shy away from doing our own housecleaning. We certainly don't want the ungodly out there thinking we can't or won't do this, no matter how painful or disruptive it may be.
When Paul confronted the Corinthians about the dude who was STILL among them who had "had" his father's wife, he said, "It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife." (I Cor. 5:1) Just what do we think Paul would have had to say if a minister of the Gospel had done something far worse, sexual abuse of a child? This is something that should NEVER be named among the church of Christ. When it does happen, WE should be the first to deal with it and not allow it to be another stone thrown at us from the world. We need to take that stone of condemnation away from them and let them see how REAL Christians deal with such things.
Nice false dichotomy you constructed there.
Perhaps something closer to the reality of the RF would better serve if interested.
Since you were pinged to 225, I should have pinged you to 226.
Let me explain my position. Obviously, as Scripture says and no one needs convincing, ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God. It most certainly IS part of our fallen human nature and is why Christ came to be the sacrifice for our sins so that we can be redeemed from the curse of sin. What I'm talking about WRT dogmas and doctrines being judged is simply to look at what and how the Catholic Church teaches about sin and salvation. If you have leaders within the church that are involved in gross and ongoing sin - in this case the sin of child sexual abuse and its causes - then you MUST look at what the hierarchy says about such sin, how it has dealt with it in the past and what they require of those who are leaders. You must also understand what is believed and taught about the new birth and the existence of the indwelling Holy Spirit who is given as an earnest of our inheritance as well as the ability to live lives that honor God and are capable of holiness, free from the bondage of sin.
I posted a link a few days ago that really opened my eyes about just how serious and ongoing sinful sexual behavior among the Roman Catholic clergy really is. The link in case you want to read it is http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/929551/posts. It is a FR thread about a book written in the eleventh century by St. Peter Damian, the Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia during the papacy of Pope Leo IX. Among St. Peter Damian's most famous writings is his lengthy treatise, Letter 31, the Book of Gomorrah [Liber Gomorrhianus], containing the most extensive treatment and condemnation by any Church Father of clerical pederasty and homosexual practices. His manly discourse on the vice of sodomy in general and clerical homosexuality and pederasty in particular, is written in a plain and forthright style that makes it quite readable and easy to understand. In keeping with traditional Church teachings handed down from the time of the Apostles he holds that all homosexual acts are crimes against Nature and therefore crimes against God Who is the author of Nature.
It is also refreshing to find an ecclesiastic whose first and primary concern in the matter of clerical sexual immorality is for God's interests, not man's, especially with regard to homosexuality in clerical ranks. Also, his special condemnation of pederastic crimes by clergy against young boys and men [including those preparing for holy orders] made over nine hundred years ago, certainly tends to undermine the excuse of many American bishops and Cardinals who claim that they initially lacked specific knowledge and psychological insights by which to assess the seriousness of clerical pederastic crimes.
Considering the utterly deplorable state of the secular clergy and monastic life during the 10th and 11th Centuries, I think we can say, without contradiction, that the publication of the Book of Gomorrah must have sent shock waves throughout the Church.
The thread article discusses the book as well as the condition of the clergy today and what has and has not changed. The author of the article goes on to say that:
I think it is quite obvious that the above official directive of the Dominican Order, as promulgated at the 1995 Caleruega meeting, represents a radical departure from traditional Church teachings on the necessity of scrupulous screening of, and vetting out of men and women with perverse sexual inclinations as candidates for the priesthood or religious life.
The Dominicans, how ever, along with other religious orders such as the Salvatorians, Paulists, Jesuits, and Christian Brothers to name but a few, are not alone in adopting pro-homosexual screening and ordination policies. Virtually all dioceses have a similar policy.
For example, as recently as April 28, 2002, the Baltimore Sun ran a story titled "Future priests vow to make a difference," in which Rev. Gerard C. Francik, the Baltimore Archdiocesan director of vocations told staff reporter John Rivera that the fact a man is 'gay' does not, in itself, disqualify him from entering the seminary as the Church condemns homosexual acts not homosexual orientation.
U.S. Bishops Violate 1961 Vatican Directive
In March of this year, Catholic News Service [CNS] revealed what must be one of the all time best kept secrets of the American Church.
In a wire-service release titled, "Vatican to Enforce 1961 Document Banning Homosexual Priests and Religious," CNS revealed that in 1961, under the pontificate of Pope John XXIII, a directive was issued by the then-Sacred Congregation for Religious reiterating the Church's opposition to the ordination of homosexual priests and religious. [90] The document which was sent to all Ordinaries in the United States reads in part: "Those affected by the perverse inclination to homosexuality or pederasty should be excluded from religious vows and ordination." [91] Readers will note the words "perverse" and "inclination" [not just acts] and the significant pairing of homosexuality with pederasty. The Holy Office under the indefatigable Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani was certainly on the right track.
Unfortunately, while the 1961 document notes that "the community-life and priestly ministry would constitute a 'grave danger' or temptation for these people [i.e., homosexuals and pederasts] it does not appear to recognize the 'grave danger' that such individuals pose to the priesthood, the religious life and the Catholic faithful including the young, the mentally retarded, and seminary students and other clerical homosexual targets". [92]
Since this writer has been unable to obtain a copy of the 1961 document from what is now called the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life in Rome, it has been necessary to depend on the above CNS report for details on its content. It appears however that the document contained no specific oversight regulations to insure its enforcement and was not well publicized in the Catholic press. Rather, CNS explains, the implementation of the directive was left to the "prudence" of local bishops and heads of religious orders,-----a combination that has proved to be a prescription for disaster in the modern Church. [93]
Vatican Formulating New Directives
According to the same CNS report, while the Holy See is currently scrambling to get a handle on the immediate issue of sex crimes and maleficence involving clerical pederasts, it is also preparing to issue a reformulated version of the principles enunciated in the 1961 document so that, in the words of CNS, "the message gets through more clearly to local Churches". [94] Unfortunately, it appears that the only one who can't seem to 'get the message,' given the fact of forty years of non-compliance by the American hierarchy, is the Vatican.
In any case, CNS did quote some anonymous Church officials as saying that the new regulations will only pertain to future priests, not those already ordained, and that care will be taken not to offend the 'delicate sensibilities' of homosexual candidates to the priesthood by attempting "to impose an arbitrary norm" against them. [95] Translation-----the Holy See has no realistic and concrete plans to systematically dismantle the hierarchical, diocesan and religious order homosexual network already in place throughout Catholic dioceses in the United States and around the world.
Homosexual Situation Graver than Damian's Time
In Part I of this article, I indicated some common threads that link the clerical homosexual practices of St. Peter Damian's day with our own times. Human nature being what it is, I think we can assume that the clerical catemites of homosexual bishops of 11th Century Rome probably enjoyed the same familiar astronomical rise in power and position as those today. And no doubt, Damian was witness to the petty intrigues, spites and jealous rages that are characteristic of sodomical relationships. He may have also been aware of the always present element of blackmail or potential blackmail attached to any illicit sexual affair, especially one involving sodomy. And as I have already noted, Damian did condemn the practice of homosexual clerics confessing and giving absolution to one another or to theIr lay partners-----a practice widely used today in clerical homosexual circles.
However, homosexuality, as a vice, has not always played itself out in exactly the same manner in different periods of history. There are significant differences between the practice of homosexuality in clerical life in the mid-1000s and today.
For example, while Damian mentions that one active sodomite at a monastery can continue to practice the vice with "eight or even ten equally foul companions," the monk does not reveal the existence of any large network of sodomites at the monastery or what might be called a homosexual 'subculture' in the region or city-states of Italy or other areas of Europe. [97]
That such a vast 'gay' network and subculture [actually an anti-culture] exists today among homosexuals in general and clerical homosexuals and pederasts in particular has made the problems associated with a homosexual clergy in the seminary, priesthood and religious life considerably more dangerous and complex than that which confronted Damian and Pope Leo IX in 1049.
The Homosexual Underworld and Overworld in the Catholic Church
The active and flourishing homosexual network in the Church, with tentacles that cross national boundaries and reach into the Vatican itself, can be divided into an active and flourishing homosexual underworld and an ever-expanding overworld that protects and succors the underworld. Within the Church structure itself, homosexual clerics or religious who prefer young men or even older partners have tended to move into positions in dioceses or religious orders that offer opportunities for acquiring financial resources, power and upward mobility. Many have become rectors at large seminaries or moved into key positions of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops/United States Catholic Conference [NCCB/USCC] now known as the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops [USCCB] which has always been a major force in the Church's homosexual network.
Clerical homosexuals with a creative bent and penchant for novelty are often attracted to programs of 'liturgical renewal' or Church 'wreckovation'. Homosexuals with pederast inclinations, on the other hand, tend to go 'where the boys are,' that is, parish schools and youth centers and institutions such as orphanages and camps run by religious orders.
Oddly enough, the great advances made in electronic communications which have made the worldwide clerical homosexual underworld and overworld possible, has turned out to be a two-edged sword for them.
A common practice in the Church that dates back to the 800s and was probably known but disapproved of by St. Peter Damian, is that of removing clerics found guilty of criminal acts, including sodomy, on the basis of whether or not their offenses were publicly known, or carried out and confessed in secret.
In cases that had become "notorious," the offending cleric was defrocked and/or handed over to the secular authorities for punishment. If his crime was known only to a few persons such as his confessor or religious superior, the offending cleric was privately reprimanded, served a penance, and then was permitted to continue at his post, or transferred to a similar post in a different diocese. [98] This practice has been somewhat modified today by using so-called "treatment centers" or homosexual/pederast- friendly dioceses to squirrel away offending clergy until the heat, is off.
----------------------------------------------
I'll let you read the rest of the article, if you desire. As I said, I was shocked that what we see as a huge problem from the Catholic Church today with the multi-billion dollars of settlements coughed up so far, that this problem is NOT a new one but has been ongoing for many centuries demonstrates that there is a disconnect between what the Church officially says it believes and what actually happens in real life. I do not relish nor enjoy bringing this up, it sickens me to think of so many innocent lives destroyed over such a sick and evil vice. For a religion that claims to represent the universal body of Christ, unable to err and its dogmas binding upon all who are Christians, I sure expected a higher standard for its leaders. That homosexuality and its attendant vile workings is on the outside opposed by the hierarchy, but on the inside has permeated to the very top and is not Biblically dealt with is what causes me to doubt the stature assumed to be given to it by Christ. Whether it ever did have this authority or not, it seems that it can no longer truthfully lay hold of that claim. God will not be mocked.
I'm sorry you read it like that, I guess you forgot to take the "glasses" off.
I’m sorry but even with 20/20 vision it bears very little resemblance to the reality of this forum. A) is nowhere evident and the “united front’ of B) is, frankly, laughable to one experienced on this or similar threads.
The issue is just another rock some throw at the Church which they oppose and attack at every opportunity. For some, this is the great majority of their posts on the RF.
That’s reality should you wish to check it.
Why are those who exclusively attack the Catholic Church for abuse so slow to acknowledge that Catholics have repeatedly condemned the abuse by some of their religious leaders.
Again for the record:
I AND ALL THE CATHOLICS HERE CONDEMN ANY AND ALL ABUSE COMMITTED BY ANY CATHOLIC PRIEST AND ANY ATTEMPTS TO COVER IT UP BY ANY BISHOP.
This is something that I and others have stated time and again on many occasions. Will you now acknowledge that it has been done? Will you also acknowledge that this abuse is neither typical nor unique to the the Catholic Church?
I'm not saying (A) is how it works now, just that that is preferred is the message y'all seem to be sending with all this talk about the non-Catholics on this forum contributing to the "secular" score whenever the Catholic Church is criticized - no matter how justified the criticism is. Option B is certainly preferable and maybe doable here, but no one can MAKE someone do something they don't want to do. We can show a better way and refuse to fall back to the defensive position on reflex, though. Teach by example? It was just a thought.
I think you should know that given an opportunity for honest and courteous discussion, I usually take it. And presented with a poster bent on slam and slander, well...
The opportunities for the first are rare, the other option for the second is to ignore. Defending is not a ‘reflex’ for me, it is the only option other than ignore and let garbage go unanswered. I don’t think this is a principled stand nor what the Church expects of me.
In any case, I’ve come to believe your ideal is not going to comprise much of this or any other anonymous, mostly unmoderated internet forum.
Now, to return your favor, I’ll take a turn at you: Why is it, in my experience including this latest, that you only correct me and other Catholics? Or have i missed your attempts in the other direction?
in this "culture war" between secularism and Christianity
Protestantism in most of its major branches is either defeated or in the process of being defeated. Religion has been politicized by the left and the left has won most of the battles against what used to be the primary forces of morality and civilization as existed within mainstream Protestant denominations. The megachurches? same result.
The primary force and institution standing for what was Western Civilization is the Church. This is why She is the major target for this regime and all 'progressives.'
Those few on FR who are committed enemies of the Church (just follow my postings) are unwitting, hopefully, allies of the very forces we oppose in this war, those who, like them, see defeating the Church as a primary mission.
These are critical times and i think we have to choose our enemies very carefully.
Of course. Read my comment 222 again for my explanation.
Why are you so upset? Why the all-caps? Is it wrong of me to want to see Roman Catholics establish up front that pedophilia among a minority of their leadership is first of all wrong, and that maybe the defense of their Church and the “everyone else is doing it” arguments should come a bit later, and not be the first thing y’all say?
You wrote, “Those few on FR who are committed enemies of the Church ...”
I haven’t seen that.
I have seen some opposition to arrogance among certain Roman Catholics, who believe their denomination is THE CHURCH and that other congregations are outside Christ’s Church. But I haven’t seen much, if any, opposition to The Church (meaning, those who’ve been adopted as children of the Father God).
Some opposition, arrogance, some Catholics. Yes, that's probably all it is.
I think you’re trying to say something clever by pointing to my profile page, but I’m not following you. Could you explain? Is there something on my profile page that you find telling?
Why are Roman Catholics so slow at just coming out against abuse committed by some of their religious leaders, rather than primarily coming out in defense of their denomination?Catholics have repeatedly come out and condemned this abuse but you act as if this condemnation has never happened. How many times do Catholics have to condemn this abuse before you will be satisfied?
I do not think that you understand the reaction of Catholics on this subject. First, despite charges to the contrary, not one Catholic has ever defended these crimes. Yet that is exactly what we have been charged with time and again. No one is more horrified by these crimes than Catholics.
Second, we need to drop the naïveté and have some honesty here. The subject of this abuse has been brought up time and again not in order seek justice against the abusers but as a tool to attack and delegitimatize the Catholic Church. This is clear by the fact that the posters only post about the abuse in the Catholic Church. It is also shown when they segue into attacks against Catholic teaching, as I have shown in post #175. This is clear when they frame the discussion with "the Catholic Church did …" rather than "Fr. X did …" or "Bishop Y did …" The true agenda of those who keep returning to this subject is revealed whenever they use the formula "Catholics who defend their priests" as if any Catholic is actually defending the abusing priests. The unstated assumption is that all priests are abusers, that in order to condemn those who are guilty of abuse one must reject the entire priesthood and the Catholic faith itself. Indeed there are some who have explicitly stated this.
So yes, I will never defend the abuse or coverup by priests or bishops but I will defend the Church whenever you try frame it as the Church and the Catholic faith are guilty rather than the individual priests that committed the abuse.
Yep. Telling, obvious, plain... Very easy to understand in context if one is following the discussion. You do remember the discussion, right?
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.