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.
Well stated, clearly and plainly said.
thank you.
You wrote, “Catholics have repeatedly come out and condemned this abuse but you act as if this condemnation has never happened.”
Again, my point is that the FIRST response in this discussion, and discussions like it, is “everyone’s doing it” and “stop picking on the Catholics” and “it’s not as bad as everyone says” and so on. Instead, the FIRST RESPONSE should be humility, acknowledging that a minority of priests are pedophiles, and that such sickness should be rooted out from the Roman Catholic Church.
Is what I’m saying really that hard to understand?
I’m not saying anyone is “defending these crimes.” I’m saying that the first response is defensiveness: to defend the Roman Catholic Church. Do you see the difference?
The problem here is that the Roman Catholic Church claims to be the only legitimate denomination, the implication being that they’ve got it right and non-Roman Catholics have got it wrong. Another implication is that only Roman Catholic priests are qualified to interpret Scripture, and that if I try to do so, then I’m engaging in “YOPIOS” (your own personal interpretation of Scripture). How is a pedophile (there are some pedophile priests, you know) more qualified than I am to interpret Scripture? Why am I to be mocked because I strive to practice discernment as I interpret Scripture, rather than leave all that up to a priest, whose character may be entirely corrupted?
Such a context is fertile ground for critique. Claiming to be THE ONLY VALID CHURCH, and claiming that its priests are more qualified than I to interpret Scripture, is just begging for critique.
You should not be surprised, then, when some people point out the corruption within your denomination, a denomination Roman Catholics exalt over any other.
Me? I exalt Christ over all denominations. Sure, I say, “May Rome decrease and Christ increase.” I also say, “May Protestantism decrease and Christ increase.” I don’t care if you try to critique my denomination, because I don’t claim that it’s THE ONLY LEGITIMATE EXPRESSION of the Body of Christ. Christ is the cornerstone of His Church, the family of all those whom He has adopted.
So we have at least two things going on here — a knee-jerk defensiveness that Roman Catholic FReepers often express (kinda like the defensiveness Mormon FReepers seem to feel), and the arrogant position that many RC FReepers posit that God loves their denomination more than He loves other denominations. I find both attitudes offensive.
I’m still not following you. What is the context? Do you have a response to the questions I posed on my profile? If so, I’d love to hear it.
My advice to you is to stop digging. You’re making the point you’re arguing against.
As your post reveals, the point here is to attack the Church and attack faithful Catholics. It’s even the point of your profile page.
And you say you wonder why Catholics are defensive. Naivé? No, I think this is too coy for that word.
Sorry, the "I haven't a clue what you could possibly be talking about" game ceased to work a while back.
Several answers. Sometimes I do and have "corrected", as you put it, non-Catholics on doctrine. I have had numerous discussions concerning the deity of Jesus, the end-times, OSAS and other topics. I also am neither the moderator nor anyones mother. We are all supposedly grown-ups and we can only be responsible for what we say. It's not my role to tell other people what they can or cannot express, though there HAVE been times I have Freepmailed some to counter what they may have said or how it was said. So unless you read EVERY one of my posts, you cannot know that I "only correct you and other Catholics. When a thread topic covers areas where I may disagree, I sincerely try my best to stay respectful while trying to dispute someone else's views or beliefs.
What my intent was in presenting my idea of productive dialog was simply to state an ideal, something we should all try to strive for. It has to do more with our own self-correction as Christians and not letting the ungodly world system have an upper moral hand. Since they are the real hypocrites - condemning an act that they celebrate in themselves - we should not be reacting to every failure they judge in us as if we had not realized when we failed.
My main objection to what I see as knee-jerk complaints, is that the idea that the Catholic Church suffers enough criticism from the world so other Christians should not pile on, gives the impression that Catholics think they should be above any criticism - no matter what they teach or do. I don't accept that because I do not accept that the Roman Catholic Church is the ONE TRUE CHURCH incapable of error. Perhaps that is the real reason why any criticism is rejected - Catholics do not believe their church can make mistakes.
The point of my profile page ... is to show that Christ rejected the teachings of the priests and their traditions, and called people to adhere to His teachings instead.
Oh, you thought I was talking about the Roman Catholic Church? No, I was talking about the Jewish Synagogue of Jesus’ day.
The point is that we are called not to a church, but to a relationship. Whether you’re Jewish or Roman Catholic or Baptist, that’s fairly irrelevant. Christ calls us to repentance and faith in Him, not membership in a particular religious organization.
Sometimes I do and have "corrected", as you put it, non-Catholics on doctrine
wasn't what I meant correcting on, but:I also am neither the moderator.
yeah, this kind of correcting that you do, the form not the content.
my intent was in presenting my idea of productive dialog was simply to state an ideal, something we should all try to strive for.
Yet it was only addressed to two Catholics.
Catholics think they should be above any criticism…
That's not my point, but your problem with me seems to be how I respond to those who attack the Church. It might help you to understand that this is not a problem for me, on the contrary, it is encouraging.
If you wish an honest courteous dialogue or debate, I'm more than willing. Those very few on here who slam, slander and make it their mission to attack the Church, might find my response uncomfortable or objectionable. That comes with the territory. I can't imagine it otherwise unless I join them and the other enemies of the Catholic faith, which I'm not about to do.
It's not knee-jerk, but it is in response. If your moderator hat finds its way back on your head again, and you wish to correct my form, direct the correction to those I'm responding to and, miraculously, you will find my objectionable post will cease and no longer be a bother to you or them.
best regards..
Have you read your own page? It's right there at the top.
Whether you’re Jewish or Roman Catholic or Baptist, that’s fairly irrelevant.
That's your belief, I wish you well with it.
Your criticism of the Church is that Catholicism claims:
they’ve got it right and non-Roman Catholics have got it wrong.
Which also applies to you in reverse: you claim you've got it right, Roman Catholics got it wrong.
You think you're right, Catholics think they're right. Kinda comes with the religious territory to think you're right, else one would change territory.
But I'm not making it my mission or key to my religion to be anti-Theo's church/belief/congregations.
How about this: We both address our evangelization toward non-Christians and we not help the radical secularists in destroying this nation and Western Civilization by fighting each other at every opportunity.
Deal?
The "form" you see me "correcting" really is about content. The content which is of some Catholics rejecting anyone who tries to challenge the Church on either doctrine OR on its hierarchy's behavior. I tend to see them closely related.
The reason I directed my response to the two of you was directly towards the woeful comments you both were making about just this very thing.
That's not my point, but your problem with me seems to be how I respond to those who attack the Church. It might help you to understand that this is not a problem for me, on the contrary, it is encouraging. If you wish an honest courteous dialogue or debate, I'm more than willing. Those very few on here who slam, slander and make it their mission to attack the Church, might find my response uncomfortable or objectionable. That comes with the territory. I can't imagine it otherwise unless I join them and the other enemies of the Catholic faith, which I'm not about to do.
That's just it, D-fendr, I don't have a problem with YOU - not personally and I am not "bothered" by you either. I am all for honest and courteous dialog and debate. Maybe what really compels you or others is that you see criticism towards anything about the Catholic Church as direct criticism of yourselves and you are unable to separate the two. When you have criticized Protestantism, do I defend it out of hand, or do I instead defend doctrinal differences? I don't see my faith tied up with what sign is on the outside of my local church doors, instead it is based upon the person of Jesus Christ and his revelation to us through the Holy Scriptures.
some Catholics rejecting anyone
No, not anyone. Homework: how many anyones in my case?
you see criticism towards anything about the Catholic Church as direct criticism of yourselves and you are unable to separate the two.
Huh? Homework: Support your contention.
Homework: Research my posts, their content, whom they are directed toward and what they are in response to. The arc and trend is very obvious.
Until then, spread the love around, be the critic of someone else for a while. I'm fine with my actions and take full responsibility for them. I do what I think is right and necessary as best I can with God's help in this and other arenas.
Yes, I stand by what I wrote: “Whether you’re Jewish or Roman Catholic or Baptist, that’s fairly irrelevant.”
Jesus was Jewish, and practiced most of the Jewish customs. He did not belong to a Roman Catholic church, or a Baptist church. Most of His friends were Jewish. One can be both Jewish, and a follower of Jesus, as demonstrated by Jesus’ close friends.
So yes, “Whether you’re Jewish or Roman Catholic or Baptist, that’s fairly irrelevant.”
And yes, I’ve got it right: Those who’ve placed their faith in Christ have been adopted into His family are His children. Our “denomination” is pretty irrelevant. Insofar as someone thinks another is less of a Christian because they belong or don’t belong to a particular denomination, they are “not right.”
I am not "going on like this" about you but replying to what I thought was a request for answers. If you don't like my answers, I can't help it. At least you know that my intentions are honest and I also respond as I am lead to. No hard feelings, okay?
I already knew that and can probably cite your beliefs as well as you. I'm a convert.
Now what about the deal question?
I should hope so; but if you are to critique intelligently, you'd need to study what it is you're critiquing. And, if it ain't me, then I have better things to occupy my time as well.
Mine were addressed to a more universal "you" ..
Certainly, not all of 'em, and please "some" instead of "you" if that's what you mean. I don't know why you picked me for this unless you thought it applied to me; and, obviously, I still don't agree with that thought.
Maybe you should go back and take another look at the posts that prompted my honest suggestion.
This is my post that got you going:
Yes, it seems to me some don't think it through, the results of their actions on all religious and on the culture war all of us are engaged in. Either don't consider it or don't care; in any case the result is the same: score one for secularism, minus one for religion and Christianity.I don't see how this long discussion addresses this post; rather, it seems quite off the topic to me.
No hard feelings, okay?
Of course not. I was ready to drop this discussion before it even began. :)
The “deal question” is reasonable.
Let’s promote Christ as Savior and Lord, Scripture as entirely trustworthy, and gathering together with other believers as an affirmation of Christ’s love for His Bride.
Do you accept or reject the deal offered?
I addressed your question already, affirming the “deal” as reasonable. I went on to elaborate:
Let’s promote Christ as Savior and Lord, Scripture as entirely trustworthy, and gathering together with other believers as an affirmation of Christ’s love for His Bride.”
Thanks, for clarity, it was:
“We both address our evangelization toward non-Christians and we not help the radical secularists in destroying this nation and Western Civilization by fighting each other at every opportunity.”
As far as elaborating on that, I’m really not interested in working through some ecumenical statement or theology, I’m fine with you preaching whatever you wish provided, as above, “We both address our evangelization toward non-Christians.”
Institutional beams and institutional splinters in institutional eyes.
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.