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.
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.