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 have seen no other cases of a network of pedophile priests where a huge institution is using all of its resources to cover it up.

Then in your bias and you are guilty of gross ignorance. The Episcopal Church in Canada is now almost completely bankrupt due to that which you bigots claim is only a "Catholic" problem.

Yet how many threads have there been here about the far worse problems in this national protestant church in Canada?

You cannot get off so easily. Some of us are not as ignorant of the widespread pedophilia and coverups going on in the protestant denominations.

MORE PROTESTANT MINISTERS GUILTY OF PEDOPHILIA THAN CATHOLIC PRIESTS, NEW RESEARCH REVEALS

A Penn State historian, Philip Jenkins, has done an in depth research of pedophilia and sexual abuse among the clergy and has come up with some rather eye opening facts. It seems that while 1.7 percent of Catholic clergy have been guilty of pedophilia (or sexual abuse particularly of boys), a whopping TEN percent of Protestant ministers have been found guilty of pedophilia!

This is all the more interesting, notes Jenkins, since there has been NO media term "Pastor Pedophilia" coined at all!

Jenkins theorizes that the media, proving the 'point' of the 'necessity' of sexual promiscuity, overemphasizes any instance of pedophilia found among the Catholic clergy since it can use this to criticize the entire idea of celibacy. But it is interesting that the NON Celibate Protestant ministers have a MUCH GREATER problem with it than the celibate Catholic priests!

Protestant pastor pedophilia is not within the frame of our 'social constructionists' as Jenkins calls the media:

"In the 1980's, [Pastor] Leyva had abused perhaps one hundred boys in several Southern states, but few of us ever learned of it. Leyva had the distinction of being a Pentecostal minister and was, therefore, not within the 'frame' of those who were busy constructing reality. The same is true of the three brothers, all Baptist ministers, who were charged with child molestation in the 1990's; the public learned little about this highly unusual series of cases because it was not deemed worthy of dissemination by those fixated on Catholic scandals." [1]
"Once the media elites focused their attention on framing the issue in terms of the 'celibacy' problem, it became difficult for them to assert that the problem was larger among the non-celibate Protestant clergy." [2]

Jenkins' research was based on several highly respected studies and statistics. He points out that whereas sexual misconduct has always been a problem, among Catholic and non Catholic clergy as well as among the general populace, what is new now is that the 'problem' of priest sexual abuse, constructed by the media as a result of a 'moral panic' occurring in the mid 1980's.

Sue Widemark

Mr. Bannon,

Allow me to apologize for my fellow Catholics for their vicious, below-the-belt posts to you. I am embarrassed by the level of hatred shown on this thread towards those of other faiths who are diligently and honestly expressing their own opinions. This is, after all, an opinion forum made up of a very religiosly diverse population. Why cannot the Catholics here express their views without referencing someone's weight ot employment status?

Race, I know you as a faithful political conservative, who has gone out on many occasions in all kinds of weather to fight the true enemy--the ever-corrupt liberal leftist element that ruled our country for 8 years under Clinton. I appreciate your steadfastness and commitment.

Please ignore those Catholics who are fueled by vitriolic hatred for those not "within the fold". I'm sure the Good Shepherd is not very proud of these sheep who behave more like wolves.

Good luck in your quest for decent employment! My prayers are with you.

Yes, faith, I saw today's Globe article. It looks like the Globe has a very effective strategy for turning up the heat on Cardinal Blowhard. (The man--Law--is a perfect example of the sounding trumpets and tinkling cymbals Paul wrote about).

Four Boston Archdiocesan pedo priests exposed -- 46 more to go. Each case is more reprehensible than the last. The priest exposed today--Lane-- is STILL a priest. Instead of being defrocked for raping troubled boys sent to the Catholic home he headed, he was REWARDED with the plum position of Director of Senior Priest Institute! Cardinal Law did this!! Cardinal Law must be de-frocked, de-mitred, and de-crosiered!!!

a whopping TEN percent of Protestant ministers have been found guilty of pedophilia!

This part is incorrect. The author misquoted the William Donahue review. See the bolded exceprts from the May 1996 The Catalyst:

Jenkins asks us to consider why there is no such term as "pastor pedophilia"? It is not for lack of pastors involved in sexual abuse, rather it has much to do with the way the issue of pedophilia has been "framed" by our social constructionists. For example, who ever heard of Tony Leyva?

In the 1980s, Leyva had abused perhaps one hundred boys in several southern states, but few of us ever learned of it. Leyva had the distinction of being a Pentecostal minister and was, therefore, not within the "frame" of those who were busy constructing reality. The same is true of the three brothers, all Baptist ministers, who were charged with child molestation in the 1990s: the public learned little about this highly unusual series of cases because it was not deemed worthy of dissemination by those fixated on Catholic scandals.

Were it not for the way the problem of clergy sexual abuse has been socially defined, the public would know that the problem is hardly confined to the Catholic community. Indeed, as Jenkins has written, "In reality, Catholic clergy are not necessarily represented in the sexual abuse phenomenon at a rate higher than or even equal to their numbers in the clerical profession as a whole." The biggest difference between the Catholic and Protestant clergy in relation to this problem is due mostly to reporting procedures: there is no counterpart among Protestants to the highly centralized data keeping done by the Catholic Church, hence it is often difficult to make comparisons between the clergy of the two religions.

Notwithstanding the difficulties that such data comparisons hold, the available information on clergy sexual misconduct shows that the problem is bigger among Protestant clergy. For example, the most cited survey of sexual problems among the Protestant clergy shows that 10 percent have been involved in sexual misconduct and "about two or three percent" are "pedophiles." With regard to the "pedophile" problem, the figure for the Catholic clergy, drawn from the most authoritative studies, ranges between .2 percent to 1.7 percent. Yet we hear precious little about these comparative statistics.

The reaction of the media to clergy problems has had something to do with the underreporting of this issue among Protestant clergy. Once the media elites focused their attention on framing the issue in terms of the "celibacy" problem, it became difficult for them to assert that the problem was larger among the non-celibate Protestant clergy. Moreover, the prurient interest appeal of the day time television talk shows found better fodder conjuring up images of sexually deprived Catholic priests rather than in reporting the truth.

I have yet to make a knowingly personal attack on anyone, it is like you say, I am just defending what I think, and often use scrupture to back up where I get that belief from. I am amazed at the hate speech coming from some people. They offer no knowlegable answer to statements made, they only name call; they fail to use scripture, or even the Catechism to defend their belief, they only attack me for having my belief. They never address the point, they only spew vulgar words and accusations.

Well, not everyone does this, but over 50% do, and just for saying I disagree with them, I am called a basher, a hatemonger, and other words best expressed with *****

You would think I was talking to a liberal sometimes, and I am not joking. The responses I get after posting an opinion are the same type of personal attack that the Clinton's gave their adversaries: Ignore the point made, slander/insult/belittle the person making the point instead.

That last comment about me being fat...well...can I sue for him being prejudiced against the gravitationally challenged??...Just a thought...(As long as the settlement includes payment for an industrial liposuction...sigh)

character attacks

Telling you that you are biased, and ignorant of certain facts, is not character attack. (VLH calling me a liar is a character attack.)

Saying that I am worshipping in the house of the Whore of Babylon, with its implication that I am deceived by a false demonic religious system, and its implication that thus I am condemned to hell, that is a character attack. That is not mere theological discussion among Christian brethren. It implies that I am totally decieved, and depraved, and that I am not truly a believer in nor follower of Christ Jesus.

Anti-Catholic bigots are guilty of the gravest of character attack when they make these hateful statements...no matter what their pious protestations to the contrary about simply "using scripture" to show us our "error."

Well lets see, you repeatedly and with great flurish, accuse my mother, father, 5 children and almost every member of my family and most of my friends of worshiping at the bosom of a WHORE, and that is somehow enlightened, insightful, charitable ....SPARE ME!!

That my faith is illegitimate was your opinion, and my comment about your excess weight isn't opinion, it's fact. It was meant to hurt, and degrade you Mr. Bannon, in a way that may just give you pause, to think about your own laser tongue. As for your present employment, or lack thereof, is also true, by your own testimony. I wanted to suggest that 600+ posts since Jan 1, is a hell of a way to fill the time between sending out 40 resumes to improve your predicament, and too many of those posts where hateful, and mean. I am not going to apologize for stating the obvious, only I will say I wish you hadn't inspired me to delve into your sorry recent musings. You could say, and I will , YOU ASKED FOR IT!

I couldn't find it on the web (using Google, which I consider to be an infallible authority to what is and is not on the internet). If you find it or recall its points, let me know. I lose a lot of books the same way.

Anyway, presumably if vows are required, some basic level of form is required (at the very least I guess they have to be wedding vows, between one man and one woman, and someone has to witness the exchange) and some basic level of intent is required of the parties. If the parties did not promise to be married, or did not freely intend to be married (for whatever reason, including incapacity) then what meaning had the vows? If intentional vows are not required, then do common law marriages or even one-night-stands count as marriages? If intent is irrelevant, would children playing or actors in a movie accidentally find themselves married?

Best of luck with the job search -- I've been there, and it's no fun. I'm looking forward to the vanity post announcing the end to your search, and describing the ideal job you've found.

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.