Posted on 04/01/2011 1:53:58 PM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg
The Archdiocese of St. Paul has a list of 33 priests accused of sexually abusing minors. But, unlike a similar list of priests revealed this week by St. John's Abbey in Collegeville, the St. Paul priests will remain unnamed.
St. John's released the names of 17 monks who have faced credible allegations of sexual abuse or misconduct as part of a lawsuit settlement.
Victims' rights advocates have pushed to make such lists public for years. Roman Catholic archdioceses in Milwaukee, Chicago and Baltimore are among those that have revealed the names of accused priests...
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
Here is the opinion of a real court.
” The diocese(?) says at least eight of the 33 priests on the list are dead and the rest no longer are in the ministry.”
So far, the courts have sided with the archdiocese and barred publication of the list.
Many people would be surprised to realize the truth that most news stories are opinion.
If there's a byline, it's an opinion.
And if there's not a byline, like with AP, it's still the opinion of one or more people working for AP.
Facts are facts, however. And quotes are quotes. All within someone's written opinion.
The fact that other diocese have released lists of names of accused priests shows us that this is not an impossible or illegal request.
It does, however, help to protect children from further abuse, if this is someone's paramount goal.
No one is saying the courts are required to release the names.
The point is, in order to protect children, many Roman Catholic dioceses have released the names of suspected pederast priests.
To protect children.
Those who do not release the names apparently think protecting suspected pedophiles is more important.
The only reason?
Were the Boston and Philadelphia archdioceses "engaged in a witch hunt" when they released the names of suspected pederast priests?
Isn’t the real issue here that that Roman Catholic Church Inc. has be trying to keep it all a secret?
The only reason?
Were the Boston and Philadelphia archdioceses "engaged in a witch hunt" when they released the names of suspected pederast priests?
In fact, I should have included a line from the thread's article...
Roman Catholic archdioceses in Milwaukee, Chicago and Baltimore are among those that have revealed the names of accused priests...
So we have archdioceses in Boston, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Chicago and Baltimore "revealing the names of accused priests."
Are they all on a "witch hunt?"
It’s all under the papal oath of secrecy upon penalty of excommunication.
None of that has changed. Crimen Sollicitationis is still in effect. And all these dioceses and priests know that.
And prosecutors are learning that fact, just like Frank Keating learned.
In the Cathedral of Lubeck in Germany is a Lenten Monitory which may be taken as God's answer to such blasphemy:
Ye call Me Master, and obey Me not:
Ye call Me Light, and see Me not;
Ye call Me Way, and walk Me not;
Ye call Me Life, and desire Me not;
Ye call Me Wise, and follow Me not:
Ye call Me Fair, and love Me not;
Ye call Me Rich, and ask Me not:
Ye call Me Eternal, and seek Me not;
Ye call Me Gracious, and trust Me not;
Ye call Me Noble, and serve Me not;
Ye call Me God, and fear Me not;
If I condemn you—blame Me not. Amen
We are put on this earth "to glorify God and enjoy Him forever" by His free gift of grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue" -- 2 Peter 1:2-3
"Rejoice evermore. Pray without ceasing. In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you." -- 1 Thess. 5:16-18
"Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,
"the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." -- John 6:63
Not death.
What “blasphemy?”
I can't imagine why it would have been pulled by a moderator. It was blasphemous, but it didn't break any rules on the RF.
And that should end the discussion.
But, now we enter the Wack-a-Mole part of the game.
One of these things is not like the other. One of these things does not belong.
“St. John’s Abbey in Collegeville released the names of 17 monks who have faced credible allegations of sexual abuse or other misconduct. The disclosure was part of a settlement of lawsuits against the abbey.”
The Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis has a list of 33 priests accused of sexual abuse involving minors
“I don’t believe all of them [33 priests] have been credibly accused,” Eisenzimmer said. “I’m largely basing this on what I know about each of those cases.”
U.S. bishops commissioned the John Jay College of Law in New York to compile a nationwide statistical summary of the clergy abuse of minors not long after the church’s clergy sex abuse scandal erupted in Boston in 2002. Dioceses were asked to review their records over the past 50 years and submit data for the study”
‘We included people in the John Jay study that probably there’s serious doubts about whether the allegations are true or not,” he said. “The study asked us to identify allegations of sexual abuse. But it defined allegations quite broadly, as any accusation that’s not implausible. To be ... as honest as we could, we put people in that category where there had never been a criminal proceeding to determine whether they had abused someone; there had never been a civil proceeding of any sort.’”
Hee are some facts which would be of interest to those who care about such things.
The list was compiled 8 years ago for submittal to the John Jay study on the sexual abuse crisis. Criteria for submittal of names for that list was quite broad and did not require “legal” standard of proof. The names go back 50 years. 8 of the priests are dead and the remaining priests are no longer in active ministry. There was never any criminal or civil proceedings against any of the accused. What I would like you to answer is how
“17 monks who have faced credible allegations of sexual abuse or other misconduct. The disclosure was part of a settlement of lawsuits against the abbey.”
is at all equal to “’We included people in the John Jay study that probably there’s serious doubts about whether the allegations are true or not,” he said.
...But it(the study) defined allegations quite broadly, as any accusation that’s not implausible. To be ... as honest as we could, we put people in that category where there had never been a criminal proceeding to determine whether they had abused someone; there had never been a civil proceeding of any sort.’”
To help you figure this out here is a handy list of terms.
Credible Allegations.
Lawsuit Settlement
Criminal Proceeding
Civil Proceeding
Broadly
Not Implausible.
Th court obviously understood the difference. I believe many court opinons are public record you could perhaps read their reasoning for yourself. Do them the kindness of letting them know you take issue with their decision.
People also need to learn the difference between factual reporting and opinion. There is a weakness in some persons’ understanding. This is a fact: “St. John’s Abbey in Collegeville released the names of 17 monks who have faced credible allegations of sexual abuse or other misconduct.”
This is an opinion “Until all the names of the all offenders become known and exposed ... other survivors will suffer in secrecy and silence and shame until they know they’re not alone,” Anderson said.”
This is a mix of fact and fiction made to present events in an unfavorable light. “The archdiocese’s list of those facing sex abuse allegations dealing with minors stays unpublished, counter to what others have done.”
The true part is tht the list stays unpublished. The rest is manipulation of facts to lead to the conclusion the reporter wants the reader to make. This is not the same as reporting facts and having the reader draw their own conclusions from those facts.
How can the lede be true when the list is from 8 years ago and goes back 50 years and used the broadest of definitions when deciding who should be included? How can that be true when none of the accused have faced any civil or criminal proceeding? Mind you criminal investigations remain confidential but usually a reporter will approach the authorities and ask then get politely told “We do not commit on the status or existence of current investigtions.” Or something to that effect.
The lede makes it seem priests whose names are in the hands of the legal authority and about to be hauled off before the grand jury to face questioning about credible allegations of abuse are being protected by the Diocese.
Mind you if this was the case the names should still be (withheld until the investigation was complete). But that is not the situation at all. You instead have a list of 33 priests going back 50 years whose names were submitted for the John Jay study. None of these priests are active. Some are dead. It was not required that a credible allegation had been made to be included on the study list.
So lets review.
Broadly defined accusation does not equal credible allegation.
Release of records to meet a lawsuit settlement does not equal release of the names of persons who may be innocent.
The court decision to block the release of names does not equal protection of pedarast.
The distinctions may be lost on many but they are important. Important enough that courts make rulings in such cases to clarify those distinctions.
Yeah but I’m done here. Trying to explain minor annoyances such as legal rights of the accused to certain people gives me a headache. I shudder at the thought of some here ever, ever being called for jury duty or ever being accused of a crime. More so the latter because if they truly believe accusation equals guilt then they will not be as vigilant as they should to protect their own rights. In short they will be railroaded. Pity that. But you know you can’t take chances.
Stopping to consider the shoe on their foot. Justice.
Yeah but I’m done here
You made the key point; time to leave the game - just as the topic morphs into the whack-a-mole segment.
Well done.
Stopping to consider the shoe on their foot. Justice.
Yeah but I’m done here
You made the key point; time to leave the game - just as the topic morphs into the whack-a-mole segment.
Well done.
I agree.
Statements like this should cause anyone with an interest in honest discussion to flee from this thread and from any like it. This is pure, unadulterated garbage and flamebait of the first order.
Warning: this thread is toxic!
What's worse, over the past several months, the errors in the above statement have been pointed out to the current poster on multiple occasions. The number is in the double digits for it has been repeated ad nauseum.
Yet here it is..... once again.
Readers can draw their own conclusions, as to why this might be.
For bystanders who aren't sure what issue the above document addresses, here it is.
The first paragraph tells you all you need to know.
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.