Papers in Pedophile Case Show Church Effort to Avert Scandal

              Papers in Pedophile Case
              Show Church Effort to Avert
              Scandal

                   OSTON, Jan. 24 — The Roman Catholic
                   archdiocese here seemed more preoccupied
              with avoiding a scandal involving a pedophile priest
              than making sure the priest had no further contact
              with children, documents released today suggest.

              The documents — depositions, letters and
              memorandums from 84 civil lawsuits against the
              priest and the archdiocese — reveal in detail that
              the church knew of the priest's pedophilia, but
              moved him from one parish to another for 30
              years.

              The revelations prompted Boston's cardinal, Bernard F. Law, to apologize for the second time this month for
              the archdiocese's handling of the priest, John J. Geoghan, 66, who was convicted last week of molesting a
              boy in a youth club pool and faces two more criminal trials on similar charges.

              More than 130 people in half a dozen parishes here said Mr. Geoghan, who was defrocked in 1998,
              molested them as children in incidents that occurred from 1962 to 1995. The church has settled about 50
              lawsuits for a total of more than $10 million.

"I made a mistake in assigning John Geoghan," Cardinal Law said. "I regret that assignment, and I have
attempted to learn from that mistake."

In a departure from longstanding church policy, the cardinal also announced that he would require clergymen
and officials of the archdiocese to report to the authorities past accusations of sexual abuse by priests.

"We will be going to public authorities with the names of all priests that we
are aware of that have abused minors," Cardinal Law said.

He also said he was convening a panel of medical experts to study ways to
prevent child abuse and deal with victims.

              The 10,000 pages of new documents include depositions by bishops who
              were aware of Mr. Geoghan's problem, notes from psychiatrists who
              evaluated him, letters from parishioners complaining of church inaction and
              letters from the two cardinals during Mr. Geoghan's tenure, the late Cardinal
              Humberto Medeiros and Cardinal Law.

              The Boston archdiocese has long tried to keep the documents sealed, and
              they became public only after The Boston Globe filed a request to see them
              and a judge ordered the records opened last year. The Globe published
              excerpts and an analysis of the records today.

              In one deposition, Bishop Thomas V. Daily, now leader of the Brooklyn
              diocese, was asked if it were archdiocesan policy "to avoid scandal where
              possible."

"And were these events types of events that would cause scandal for the church?" Bishop Daily was asked.

              In a 1982 letter, Margaret Gallant, a relative of seven boys molested by Mr. Geoghan, wrote to Cardinal
              Medeiros complaining that Bishop Daily had "suggested that we keep silent." Her relatives, Mrs. Gallant
              wrote, "never as much as received an apology from the church, much less any offer for counseling for the
              boys."

              In reply, Cardinal Medeiros wrote, "While I am and must be very sensitive to a very delicate situation and one
              that has caused great scandal, I must at the same time invoke the mercy of God and share in that mercy in the
              knowledge that God forgives sins and that sinners indeed can be forgiven."

In the documents, church officials, including Cardinal Law, often treated Mr. Geoghan as a sinner who had
repented and recovered.

              "It is most heartening to know that things have gone well for you and that you are ready to resume your efforts
              with a renewed zeal," Cardinal Law wrote to Mr. Geoghan in 1989, when the cardinal allowed the priest to
              return to St. Julia Parish in suburban Weston after treatment.

The documents released today deepened the anger that Boston Catholics already felt over the church's
handling of the case.

              "Even the ones who raised the red flag, they raised it as scandal, they said they didn't want scandal to come to
              the church," said Thomas H. Groome, a professor of religious education at Boston College. "That the crime
              had caused extraordinary damage to the parishioners and their children was not in their consciousness."

              Some parishioners and a few priests have called on Cardinal Law to resign. But today the cardinal, who is
              considered close to the pope and is one of the country's most influential Roman Catholic leaders, dismissed
              that possibility.

"The solution to this problem as I see it does not include my resignation as archbishop," Cardinal Law said.
"You don't walk away when the problem is difficult."

              Two weeks ago, in his first apology, the cardinal announced a policy of zero tolerance of future sexual abuse
              of children by priests and required clergymen to report evidence of such abuse to the state authorities. This
              followed a Vatican order requiring all archdioceses to report accusations of pedophilia to the Vatican.

But this week, the Senate in this heavily Roman Catholic state voted to go beyond Cardinal Law's actions,
passing an amendment that would require reporting of evidence of past sexual abuse.

              "In a state like Massachusetts, in a city like Boston, I think that's a considerable turnaround," said Thomas H.
              O'Connor, the university historian at Boston College. "The general perception was that the Legislature would
              do pretty much what the cardinal said, but they can't afford to take that position any longer."

In response to the Legislature, the cardinal revised archdiocese policy to require reporting of past abuse as
well.

              In his first apology, Cardinal Law said he relied on psychiatric evaluations that suggested Mr. Geoghan could
              be safely reassigned to parishes. The newly disclosed documents contain a number of positive evaluations of
              Mr. Geoghan. But they also include negative ones, including notes that Bishop Robert J. Banks took from a
              conversation he had with one of Mr. Geoghan's psychiatrists in 1989, saying "you can't afford to have him in a
              parish," and "you better clip his wings before there is an explosion."

              Later that year, Mr. Geoghan was removed for treatment and then allowed to return to St. Julia Parish. Soon
              after Mr. Geoghan's reinstatement, the documents show, Bishop Banks wrote to doctors at the treatment
              center, who had written that Mr. Geoghan had "atypical pedophilia, in remission" and "mixed personality
              disorder with obsessive-compulsive, histrionic and narcissistic features."

              In his note, Bishop Banks said that he was disappointed by the evaluation and that he had been given oral
              assurances by the center that "it would be all right to reassign Father Geoghan to pastoral ministry." The
              bishop asked for a letter confirming that, and he received a note from the doctor saying it was "quite safe" to
              reinstate Mr. Geoghan in the parish and "the probability that he would sexually act out again is quite low."

The documents make little mention of Mr. Geoghan's victims and give little indication that the church offered
the victims counseling or comfort.

Today, several people who say they were molested by Mr. Geoghan as boys said the documents destroyed
their trust and respect for the church.

"I believe in the Catholic religion, but I can't go to church," said Anthony Muzzi Jr., 47, who said he was
molested over two years, sometimes while Mr. Geoghan was "blessing us in the bedroom."

"I've lost my faith in the church," Mr. Muzzi said. "I have to say my prayers in my vehicle going to and from
work."

I simply love God's word and His son, and ANYTHING that doesn't line up with scripture needs to be exposed for the lie that it is.

Who is to determine what lines up with Scripture?

Do you believe that Scripture is self-interpreting, and therefore needs no intermediary to deliver exegesis or dogmatic interpretation?

If it is not self-interpreting, then how do you know which interpretation is correct?

This post is only for educational purposes, and is no way intended as insult or to suggest anything whatsoever. But certain of you should read this, in the case of the very very small chance it may apply:

Behaviors that may be early warning signs of schizophrenia include:

	Hearing or seeing something that isn't there
	A constant feeling of being watched
	Peculiar or nonsensical way of speaking or writing
	Strange posturing
	Feeling indifferent to very important situations
	Deterioration of academic or work performance
	A change in personal hygiene and appearance
	A change in personality
	Increasing withdrawal from social situations
	Irrational, angry or fearful response to loved ones
	Inability to sleep or concentrate
	Inappropriate or bizarre behavior
	Extreme preoccupation with religion or the occult

If you or a loved one experience many of these symptoms for more than two weeks, seek medical help immediately. No cure for schizophrenia has been discovered, but with proper treatment and support, many people with this illness can lead productive and fulfilling lives.

There's a sad point I have to agree with almost. In many fundamental churches, divorce is not considered when someone comes forward for membership. However, in Baptist churches, there is no such thing as annulment, either, so there are two sides to that coin. A Marriage is a marriage, period.

A lawful marriage is a marriage, period. I'm pretty sure Baptists recognize the concept of unlawful marriages. Such as shotgun marriages -- If the compelled party escapes after the wedding (assume no pregnancy here), and gets a civil divorce, is he forbidden from getting married voluntarily later? What if cousins or siblings marry? What if a backsliding church member gets married to an unbeliever in a civil ceremony, then comes to her senses? A Buddhist ceremony? A ceremony at the local Temple of the Frog Goddess? A New Age ceremony where the commitment made is not "till death do us part," but "so long as we both are fulfilled?" What about a church ceremony where one or both of the parties was too drunk or mentally impaired to comprehend what they were doing?

I think that allowing divorce and remarriage for frivolous reasons makes a mockery of marriage, but so does recognizing as marriage everything that purports to be marriage.

I'm Southern, so I'm reluctant to bring up these examples when talking about the majority religion in my region (Baptists) -- lest anyone get the wrong idea, please assume my more gothic examples are taking place in California. (where are you going to find a Buddhist or Frog Goddess temple in the South -- outside Atlanta -- anyway?)

An analogy I offer is that honorable and honest members of the law enforcement community despise dishonest, corrupt, brutal cops more than anyone could ever imagine.

I think this is a good analogy. What do honorable and honest policemen do when someone on the force dishonors them all? They condemn it. What do they do when Al Sharpton comes along, and says that the problem is all policemen? They condemn Al Sharpton's lies, along with the actions of the bad cops.

marajade posted (#42):
First I've heard that the gospels are unscriptural.

st.smith posted (#61):
Thats not what I said- I said sola scriptura i.e. the Bible alone is unscriptural. If its not- please show me the passage where it says only the Bible is a valid source of authority.

marajade posted (#62):
To: st.smith

The Bible itself.

I'd like to see how y'all work this one out!

LOL. I think you know quite well whose posts on this thread display paranoid schizophrenic delusions. So do all the other readers. Disagree with my opinions and religious beliefs if you will, but I do not continually lie, accuse others of lying, deny it when blatantly caught lying, refuse in Christian charity to apologize for obvious slander, and obsess over another Christian's faith. The behavior of the one to whom I refer seemingly fits many of the behaviors on that list I posted.

I'm crazy but I'm not mentally ill.

I'm pretty sure Baptists recognize the concept of unlawful marriages

The examples are too numerous to respond to right now, this late, but, no, there are no illegal marriages, but there may be some wrong ones. Either way, while a marriage may be dissolved, there remains the fact that a marriage occured previously, whether moral or otherwise (You mentioned incestuous types). Marriage is Marriage, and a Marriage is never not a marriage, just a past marriage.

There is no prevention against divorcees becoming members of a local assembly, but there is a condemnation by Jesus that those who marry divorcees are living in a state of adultery, so the Local church should consider this, and probably decide against for mal membership because Jesus Himself calls this sin. That does not mean the couple cannot attend worship, nor does it mean their children are condemned y God or something, just that they are in sin. God can still bless them but never the way He would have if there were no previous marriages.

With the commanality of divorce today, if all divorcees were prevented from worship, 1/4 to half the church populations would disappear, regardless of what denomination.

Race, until now I have never felt it necessary to defend the faith of my youth, but I've about had it with all of this RC bashing. I have been drawn to this disgusting topic Thread, because I am a parent and Grandparent and have a concern about children. Not too much my surprise it has once again been contorted into a catholic meltdown by a bunch of self appointed Nazi religious scholars.

"...one thing i mentioned about the WHORE OF BABYLON, I said it includes ALL religions, but that it would probably be headed by the RCC because the RCC has the organization the others don't, think about that!!!"""

WHORE OF BABYLON......A Roman Catholic!!! You have on more than one occasion made that same accusation, and I for one think you are FULL of SH*T, and at 6'4" 345 lbs, thats a real load to carry. LOLOL

I've never had a beef with you Race, I've been kidding myself that you were just a big Teddy Bear, that is until now. Lets see if you can handle it coming back! Lets just see fat a$$ if I get this straight, you're an out of work ME, stringing out the last of the State Unemployment Comp, and have all this time to dwell on the failing of my church, and you claim to be religious!!!!!! WHORE OF BABYLON INDEED... I haven't been a good Catholic in many years, but bigots like you are making me think I should kick it up a notch!

It's been my experience that the guys that drag the Biggest crosses, wave the Biggest Flags and OTHER STUFF, have little or nothing much to back it up..ha!

"I don't know you and didn't ping you. Why do you people lie? And instead of praying for me, why can't you TELL me how to be saved?????? "

I didn't know it was necessary to "know someone" before one is allowed to dispute vile lies being spread.

I will continue to pray for you, because the hate you harbor for the Catholic Church must be debilitating from an emotional, physical and most importantly, spiritual perspective.

How can you be saved........very simple.

Place all your faith, trust and devotion in Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior; Adhere to the ten commandments and display your Christian faith by performing good works.

I hope you absorb my comments in the sincere manner they have been presented.

I'm going to be gone for a hopefully short while due to surgery, but I will answer any response you may have when I recover.

God Bless,

EODGUY

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.