Sex abuse scandal. Guess the religion?

[Kidlicious]

The history of violence against women and the accepted nature of it is far different than simply "people fighting for their rights"

Well you lost me now. Human domination seems the same all around. Men to women and men to men seems basically the same to me.

[Kidlicious]

I don't trust the slimes to get anything right.

It seems that you've already taken what they've said as truth, but now you don't trust them out of convenience. Turning a blind eye is the same as lying.

[Asher]

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/786550--vatican-knew-of-abuse-in-ontario-victim

Vatican knew of abuse in Ontario: Victim
Papal embassy officials told in 1993, says man abused by former monsignor

An Ontario victim of a pedophile priest who later became a top Vatican official says the Vatican knew of allegations against the priest years before he was convicted.

The priest, former Monsignor Bernard Prince, was convicted in 2008 of molesting 13 young boys between 1964 and 1984. Most of the incidents occurred in the Killaloe area, near Pembroke in eastern Ontario. He was defrocked last year.

Prince was appointed to a top Vatican job in Rome in 1991 – the year after the Roman Catholic Diocese of Pembroke learned of sex abuse allegations – says the victim, who can't be identified because of a court publication ban on identifying him. The victim says in 1993 the Apostolic Nunciature in Ottawa – the Vatican's embassy – was notified of the allegations.

Yet Prince remained secretary general of the Vatican's Pontifical Society for the Propagation of the Faith until his retirement in 2004.

"The Apostolic Nuncio in Ottawa was aware of the allegations," says the victim, referring to the Vatican's ambassador at the time, Archbishop Carlo Curis.

"They did nothing about it," the victim alleges, referring to Vatican officials. "In fact, they just continued to cover him up."

The victim, now 53, is one of several who have filed civil lawsuits seeking damages against Prince and the diocese of Pembroke.

Questions surrounding the Vatican's treatment of Prince – now serving a four-year prison sentence in British Columbia – come as the Roman Catholic Church is facing a wave of sex abuse scandals in Ireland, Germany, Austria, Switzerland and the Netherlands.

Pope Benedict XVI is also under fire. Documents obtained by The New York Times indicate the Vatican office he headed when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger refused to discipline a U.S. priest accused of molesting some 200 deaf boys.

Ratzinger led the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith from 1981 until 2005, when he was elected Pope. Part of his role was deciding what to do with abusive priests.

It has also emerged that Ratzinger, while archbishop of Munich in 1980, approved the transfer of a priest accused of pedophilia for psychiatric treatment, rather than report him to police.

Ratzinger was later notified the priest had been reassigned to another parish, according to a memo cited by The New York Times on Friday. The priest was eventually convicted of molesting boys.

A Vatican statement Friday again insisted that Ratzinger did not know that the German priest had been reassigned to another parish. A Vatican newspaper editorial described attacks against the Pope as "ignoble," insisting there was never a cover-up of allegations of clerical sex abuse.

In Ontario, Robert Talach, the London-based lawyer for Prince's victim, wants the Vatican to come clean: "What did the Vatican know, and did that factor into how they treated (Prince) when he got to Rome?" he asked.

Talach has filed 14 separate civil lawsuits against Prince and the Pembroke diocese. He says six have been resolved. The remaining lawsuits each demand $2 million in damages.

The diocese's lawyer, Charles Gibson, acknowledges that allegations of sex abuse against Prince were made before he was transferred to the Vatican job in Rome, but denies a cover-up took place.

"The fact that he went to Rome had nothing to do with the fact that there was an allegation of sexual abuse against him," says Gibson, making clear that the transfer was not the Church's way of helping Prince duck the allegations.

Asked if the diocese had informed the Vatican's embassy of the sex abuse allegations against Prince, Gibson says: "I have to check it out, but I think that's true."

Gibson never got back to the Star with the information, despite two further reminders.

The Vatican's embassy in Ottawa did not respond to a request for an interview on the matter.

An embassy employee asked the Star to email Monsignor Luca Lorusso, an official at the embassy. He did not respond to a message outlining the Prince case and asking about steps the embassy took once it was informed.

Talach says civil law does not permit him to say whether he has documents proving the diocese notified the Vatican embassy. Documents can be made public only after they've been filed with the court, he notes.

Pembroke Bishop Michael Mulhall did not reply to requests for interviews. The diocese's spokesman, Bruce Pappin, said Thursday he would try to confirm whether the sex allegations were passed on to the Vatican's embassy. Late Friday afternoon, he said he was unable to do so.

In an earlier interview, Pappin said one difficulty in getting information is that almost all the diocese officials who dealt directly with the sex abuse allegations have since died.

One who is still alive is Rev. John Green, now at a Pembroke nursing home. Green says he first heard of the allegations when the girlfriend of the victim interviewed by the Star brought it to his attention in 1990.

Asked if the information was passed on to the Vatican, Green says: "I would think that that would be the appropriate thing to do."

Talach has almost 100 clients alleging sexual abuse by priests in Ontario and the Maritimes. The incidents span from the late 1950s to the early 1980s.

The way bishops in almost all cases reacted, Talach says, suggests a Church-wide policy: "Stop the spread of the information, move the perpetrator, and with some sort of religious duress, at least, make your best effort to keep the victims and the family quiet, and back to business as usual."

Talach represented 11 of the 13 men Prince was convicted of abusing as young boys.

Prince was ordained at the Pembroke diocese in 1963. Pappin says he stopped working there in 1967. He was an assistant general secretary for the Canadian Conference of Bishops in the early 1970s. He then taught at Saint Paul University before moving to Toronto as director of Canada's Pontifical Mission Society.

"He was a rising star," Pappin says.

He was promoted to the Vatican job in 1991 and became a friend of the late Pope John Paul II.

He became a monsignor during the time he was at the Vatican, says the victim, who helps run a website about Prince.

"Is that standard procedure – you promote someone who has allegations of sexual abuse against him?" the victim asks.

The victim says he had six meetings with officials of the Pembroke diocese after Prince went to Rome. He said he decided not to press charges on condition that Prince receive psychiatric treatment and be monitored. Church officials assured him that was happening, the victim says.

The victim, who lives in Killaloe, then met a friend who told him she saw Prince vacationing in Thailand. The victim then confronted church officials: "You're not monitoring him at all," he says he told them. They responded: "We don't really have any control over what is going on in the Vatican," he recalls.

A bench warrant was issued for Prince in October 2005, while he was still living in Rome. He was arrested when he returned to Canada in 2006.

At his trial in 2008, Prince, then 72, pleaded guilty to 12 charges of indecent or sexual assault. He was found guilty on a 13th charge of indecent assault.

"My abuse started when I was 8 and it went on until I was 15," the Killaloe victim says. "He was a family friend, plus I was an altar boy.

"He had a cottage close to our house. There were assaults at the church, there were assaults in his mother's house, there were assaults in his vehicle, there were assaults in our house – you name it.

"There were 60 to 80 incidents of assault."

He applauds Pope Benedict XVI for being the first pope to meet with victims of sexual abuse by priests.

However, the victim adds: "He says all the right things, but there is zero follow-up. It's all, `Oh, we feel for your pain.' No you don't, because you're not doing anything about it.

"There's rot in the system."

[Dinner]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100331/ap_on_re_us/us_church_abuse_letter

The Catholic Church knew about pedophile priests for the last 50 years and instead of cleaning it up they decided to cover it up.

[Ben Kenobi]

It seems that you've already taken what they've said as truth, but now you don't trust them out of convenience. Turning a blind eye is the same as lying.

Not when they fabricate evidence.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDkxYmUzMTQ1YWUyMzRkMzg4Y2RiN2UyOWIzNDVkNDM=

The New York Times on March 25 accused Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, of intervening to prevent a priest, Fr. Lawrence Murphy, from facing penalties for cases of sexual abuse of minors.

The story is false. It is unsupported by its own documentation. Indeed, it gives every indication of being part of a coordinated campaign against Pope Benedict, rather than responsible journalism.

Before addressing the false substance of the story, the following circumstances are worthy of note:

• The New York Times story had two sources. First, lawyers who currently have a civil suit pending against the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. One of the lawyers, Jeffrey Anderson, also has cases in the United States Supreme Court pending against the Holy See. He has a direct financial interest in the matter being reported.

• The second source was Archbishop Rembert Weakland, retired archbishop of Milwaukee. He is the most discredited and disgraced bishop in the United States, widely known for mishandling sexual-abuse cases during his tenure, and guilty of using $450,000 of archdiocesan funds to pay hush money to a former homosexual lover who was blackmailing him. Archbishop Weakland had responsibility for the Father Murphy case between 1977 and 1998, when Father Murphy died. He has long been embittered that his maladministration of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee earned him the disfavor of Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, long before it was revealed that he had used parishioners’ money to pay off his clandestine lover. He is prima facie not a reliable source.

• Laurie Goodstein, the author of the New York Times story, has a recent history with Archbishop Weakland. Last year, upon the release of the disgraced archbishop’s autobiography, she wrote an unusually sympathetic story that buried all the most serious allegations against him (New York Times, May 14, 2009).

• A demonstration took place in Rome on Friday, coinciding with the publication of the New York Times story. One might ask how American activists would happen to be in Rome distributing the very documents referred to that day in the New York Times. The appearance here is one of a coordinated campaign, rather than disinterested reporting.

It’s possible that bad sources could still provide the truth. But compromised sources scream out for greater scrutiny. Instead of greater scrutiny of the original story, however, news editors the world over simply parroted the New York Times piece. Which leads us the more fundamental problem: The story is not true, according to its own documentation.

The New York Times made available on its own website the supporting documentation for the story. In those documents, Cardinal Ratzinger himself does not take any of the decisions that allegedly frustrated the trial. Letters are addressed to him; responses come from his deputy. Even leaving that aside, though, the gravamen of the charge — that Cardinal Ratzinger’s office impeded some investigation — is proven utterly false.

The documents show that the canonical trial or penal process against Father Murphy was never stopped by anyone. In fact, it was only abandoned days before Father Murphy died. Cardinal Ratzinger never took a decision in the case, according to the documents. His deputy, Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, suggested, given that Father Murphy was in failing health and a canonical trial is a complicated matter, that more expeditious means be used to remove him from all ministry.

To repeat: The charge that Cardinal Ratzinger did anything wrong is unsupported by the documentation on which the story was based. He does not appear in the record as taking any decision. His office, in the person of his deputy, Archbishop Bertone, agreed that there should be full canonical trial. When it became apparent that Father Murphy was in failing health, Archbishop Bertone suggested more expeditious means of removing him from any ministry.

Furthermore, under canon law at the time, the principal responsibility for sexual-abuse cases lay with the local bishop. Archbishop Weakland had from 1977 onwards the responsibility of administering penalties to Father Murphy. He did nothing until 1996. It was at that point that Cardinal Ratzinger’s office became involved, and it subsequently did nothing to impede the local process.

The New York Times flatly got the story wrong, according to its own evidence. Readers may want to speculate on why.

Here is the relevant timeline, drawn from the documents the New York Times posted on its own website.

15 May 1974

Abuse by Fr. Lawrence Murphy is alleged by a former student at St. John’s School for the Deaf in Milwaukee. In fact, accusations against Father Murphy go back more than a decade.

12 September 1974

Father Murphy is granted an official “temporary sick leave” from St. John’s School for the Deaf. He leaves Milwaukee and moves to northern Wisconsin, in the Diocese of Superior, where he lives in a family home with his mother. He has no official assignment from this point until his death in 1998. He does not return to live in Milwaukee. No canonical penalties are pursued against him.

9 July 1980

Officials in the Diocese of Superior write to officials in the Archdiocese of Milwaukee about what ministry Father Murphy might undertake in Superior. Archbishop Rembert Weakland, archbishop of Milwaukee since 1977, has been consulted and says it would be unwise to have Father Murphy return to ministry with the deaf community. There is no indication that Archbishop Weakland foresees any other measures to be taken in the case.

17 July 1996

More than 20 years after the original abuse allegations, Archbishop Weakland writes to Cardinal Ratzinger, claiming that he has only just discovered that Father Murphy’s sexual abuse involved the sacrament of confession — a still more serious canonical crime. The allegations about the abuse of the sacrament of confession were in the original 1974 allegations. Weakland has been archbishop of Milwaukee by this point for 19 years.

It should be noted that for sexual-abuse charges, Archbishop Weakland could have proceeded against Father Murphy at any time. The matter of solicitation in the sacrament of confession required notifying Rome, but that too could have been done as early as the 1970s.

10 September 1996

Father Murphy is notified that a canonical trial will proceed against him. Until 2001, the local bishop had authority to proceed in such trials. The Archdiocese of Milwaukee is now beginning the trial. It is noteworthy that at this point, no reply has been received from Rome indicating that Archbishop Weakland knew he had that authority to proceed.

24 March 1997

Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, Cardinal Ratzinger’s deputy at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, advises a canonical trial against Father Murphy.

14 May 1997

Archbishop Weakland writes to Archbishop Bertone to say that the penal process against Father Murphy has been launched, and notes that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has advised him to proceed even though the statute of limitations has expired. In fact, there is no statute of limitations for solicitation in the sacrament of confession.

Throughout the rest of 1997 the preparatory phases of penal process or canonical trial is underway. On 5 January 1998 the Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee says that an expedited trial should be concluded within a few months.

12 January 1998

Father Murphy, now less than eight months away from his death, appeals to Cardinal Ratzinger that, given his frail health, he be allowed to live out his days in peace.

6 April 1998

Archbishop Bertone, noting the frail health of Father Murphy and that there have been no new charges in almost 25 years, recommends using pastoral measures to ensure Father Murphy has no ministry, but without the full burden of a penal process. It is only a suggestion, as the local bishop retains control.

13 May 1998

The Bishop of Superior, where the process has been transferred to and where Father Murphy has lived since 1974, rejects the suggestion for pastoral measures. Formal pre-trial proceedings begin on 15 May 1998, continuing the process already begun with the notification that had been issued in September 1996.

30 May 1998

Archbishop Weakland, who is in Rome, meets with officials at the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, including Archbishop Bertone but not including Cardinal Ratzinger, to discuss the case. The penal process is ongoing. No decision taken to stop it, but given the difficulties of a trial after 25 years, other options are explored that would more quickly remove Father Murphy from ministry.

19 August 1998

Archbishop Weakland writes that he has halted the canonical trial and penal process against Father Murphy and has immediately begun the process to remove him from ministry — a quicker option.

21 August 1998

Father Murphy dies. His family defies the orders of Archbishop Weakland for a discreet funeral.

— Father Raymond J. de Souza is a chaplain at Queen's University in Ontario.

[Asher]

Right-wing member of Catholic Church defends Pope. Also, Ricky Martin is gay. News at 11.

[Ben Kenobi]

He's also, sadly for the Grey Lady, right.

Have you seen the interview with the fellow who was presiding over his case?

Pretty slick that the NYTimes somehow wrote an article quoting him without actually managing to contact him.

Perhaps they've been employing clairvoyants for some time now.

[DaShi]

I hear that the Church is going to punish the priests involved in scandals by having young boys molest them.

[Asher]

That guy gets bonus points for accusing the New York Times to be part of a "coordinated campaign" against Catholicism.

Establishing the sanity of the members of the Catholic Church...one nut at a time.

[Asher]

Pretty slick that the NYTimes somehow wrote an article quoting him without actually managing to contact him.

Perhaps they've been employing clairvoyants for some time now.

It's cute you think quotes in newspapers are always directly said to the newspaper, and never quotes that the person has said to other people or elsewhere.

Cite this, by the way. What're you talking about?

[BlackCat]

Not when they fabricate evidence.

It doesn matter much - the RCC still have accepted and have hidden child molestation as a standard practice.

It's good if the RCC actually accepts that it has to accept normal legal jurisdictition and no longer can protect child abusers.

[germanos]

Dear God... Could you please strike down those who abuse the suffering of thy chosen People on the day thou had thy son nailed to a cross?

Pope's preacher compares abuse row to anti-Semitism

[Ben Kenobi]

It doesn matter much - the RCC still have accepted and have hidden child molestation as a standard practice.

It matters a great deal. If you have to fabricate evidence, then your case is weak.

It's good if the RCC actually accepts that it has to accept normal legal jurisdictition and no longer can protect child abusers.

Have you seen the numbers of abusers in the 'normal' legal jurisdiction? Or the schools for that matter? Whatever the RCC is doing it is actually doing a much better job than the criminal justice system.

[BlackCat]

It matters a great deal. If you have to fabricate evidence, then your case is weak.

No, not if there are overwhelming evidence besides that.

Have you seen the numbers of abusers in the 'normal' legal jurisdiction? Or the schools for that matter? Whatever the RCC is doing it is actually doing a much better job than the criminal justice system.

School teachers committing such crimes isn't protected by the school system and send to a new school where they can continue their crimes. They are investigated by the police and if there are evidence then they are tried at a court. The RCC does the opposite - they protect and hide the criminals and do what they can to avoid public persecution.

[Ben Kenobi]

No, not if there are overwhelming evidence besides that.

Overwhelming evidence of what? Papal involvement?