Catholic Church actively defending aging pedophiles

[Molyneux]

Hartford, Connecticut (CNN) -- A bill in Connecticut's legislature that would remove the statute of limitations on child sexual abuse cases has sparked a fervent response from the state's Roman Catholic bishops, who released a letter to parishioners Saturday imploring them to oppose the measure.

Under current Connecticut law, sexual abuse victims have 30 years past their 18th birthday to file a lawsuit. The proposed change to the law would rescind that statute of limitations.

The proposed change to the law would put "all Church institutions, including your parish, at risk," says the letter, which was signed by Connecticut's three Roman Catholic bishops.

The letter is posted on the Web site of the Connecticut Catholic Public Affairs Conference, the public policy and advocacy office of Connecticut's Catholic bishops. It asks parishioners to contact their legislators in opposition of the bill.

The "legislation would undermine the mission of the Catholic Church in Connecticut, threatening our parishes, our schools, and our Catholic Charities," the letter says.

The Catholic archdiocese of Hartford also published a pulpit announcement on its Web site, which was to be read during Mass on Sunday, urging parishioners to express opposition to the bill.

The bill has been revised to address some of the church's concerns about frivolous abuse claims against it, according to Connecticut state Rep. Beth Bye, one of the bill's sponsors.

"The church didn't recognize that this bill makes improvements," Bye said. "The victims -- their lives have been changed and some will never recover from years of sexual abuse. For me, it's about giving them access to the courts."

Under the bill's provisions, anyone older than 48 who makes a sex abuse claim against the church would need to join an existing claim filed by someone 48 or younger. Older claimants would need to show substantial proof that they were abused.

"They were worried about frivolous lawsuits and so we made the bar high," Bye said.

The bill does not target the Catholic Church, she said.

The bishops' letter raised concerns that the bill would allow claims that are 70 years or older, in which "key individuals are deceased, memories have been faded, and documents and other evidence have been lost." The letter said that the majority of cases would be driven by "trial lawyers hoping to profit from these cases."

The bill passed in Connecticut's House of Representatives, and Bye said the state Senate should vote on it in the next week or two.

For what it's worth - I dearly hope that this bill passes. Otherwise posted without comment.

[Shroom Man 777]

I love how, in a public opinion kind of way, it makes the Catholic Church look like they're pro-child molesters or at least, against the persecution of child molesters. Very classy, that'll sure score them some PR points and make them look more credible. Not.

[Lord Pounder]

I love how, in a public opinion kind of way, it makes the Catholic Church look like they're pro-child molesters or at least, against the persecution of child molesters. Very classy, that'll sure score them some PR points and make them look more credible. Not.

That's exactly what the Catholic Church are doing, covering up for peadophiles and then trying to alter laws to stop the public doing anything about it. Just look up the blasphemy law they got passed in Ireland. The Government tried to say it was because of Ireland becoming more multi-ethnic, that's bullshit the real reason was because so much dirt was being dug up on the church in Ireland. Fucking disgrace

[Punarbhava]

The proposed change to the law would put "all Church institutions, including your parish, at risk," says the letter, which was signed by Connecticut's three Roman Catholic bishops.

Well now, maybe they should have thought of that before molesting children.

Judging from the response on the Internet, this whole thing is really coming to a head, much more so than the last time the sexual abuse made the news. Hopefully something positive, like major changes to the church and the arrest of all abusers, comes of it.

[Rahvin]

Very poor decision on the part of the Catholics, to be sure. I'd bet the bill is more likely to pass with the Church's opposition, not less.

But I have to wonder - 30 years past the victim's 18th birthday to file charges? Part of the justification for a statute of limitations is due to evidence trails going cold after a certain amount of time. How accurately can a 48-year old person remember events from when they were a child? I barely trust eyewitness testimony (with regard to specifics, like descriptions) as it is, let alone 30+ years after the fact. I don't question that the victim would remember such a traumatic event after 20-30 years (unless we're talking about "repressed memories" discovered under hypnosis or some such), but unless the victim knew the abuser pretty well, I don't know if I'd be able to trust their testimony enough to get a conviction if I were on a jury...and there's not likely to be any other evidence beyond the victim's testimony if no charges were filed (and thus no investigation was started) until decades after the fact.

[[R_H]]

But I have to wonder - 30 years past the victim's 18th birthday to file charges? Part of the justification for a statute of limitations is due to evidence trails going cold after a certain amount of time. How accurately can a 48-year old person remember events from when they were a child? I barely trust eyewitness testimony (with regard to specifics, like descriptions) as it is, let alone 30+ years after the fact. I don't question that the victim would remember such a traumatic event after 20-30 years (unless we're talking about "repressed memories" discovered under hypnosis or some such), but unless the victim knew the abuser pretty well, I don't know if I'd be able to trust their testimony enough to get a conviction if I were on a jury...and there's not likely to be any other evidence beyond the victim's testimony if no charges were filed (and thus no investigation was started) until decades after the fact.

On the other hand, at least that person came forward, even if it has been 30+ years

[Rahvin]

But I have to wonder - 30 years past the victim's 18th birthday to file charges? Part of the justification for a statute of limitations is due to evidence trails going cold after a certain amount of time. How accurately can a 48-year old person remember events from when they were a child? I barely trust eyewitness testimony (with regard to specifics, like descriptions) as it is, let alone 30+ years after the fact. I don't question that the victim would remember such a traumatic event after 20-30 years (unless we're talking about "repressed memories" discovered under hypnosis or some such), but unless the victim knew the abuser pretty well, I don't know if I'd be able to trust their testimony enough to get a conviction if I were on a jury...and there's not likely to be any other evidence beyond the victim's testimony if no charges were filed (and thus no investigation was started) until decades after the fact.

On the other hand, at least that person came forward, even if it has been 30+ years

Sure, but for what? If there's not enough evidence for a conviction, the person came forward to go through even more trauma by reliving the experience in a courtroom and facing their abuser, and then they don't get justice because you can't convict people of child sexual abuse based solely on the say-so of the victim (well, maybe some juries can, but I wouldn't be able to without something to corroborate).

[Solauren]

Part of the point in removing the statue of limitations may not be to allow the first person reporting the offender to cause a conviction.

It does, however, add a certain degree of 'weight' and 'comfort' to another victim coming forward.

A lot of victims will not face the offender, because they've already 'lost' '1 on 1' with them, and don't want to go through that again.

But, if you have 5 or 6 people going 'Hey, I'm not taking this anymore', it can be very empowering.

Removing the statue of limitations may not result in a conviction from older crimes, but it peope going 'you know what, 35 years ago..." might convince the victims of more recent crimes to come forward.

[Rahvin]

Part of the point in removing the statue of limitations may not be to allow the first person reporting the offender to cause a conviction.

It does, however, add a certain degree of 'weight' and 'comfort' to another victim coming forward.

A lot of victims will not face the offender, because they've already 'lost' '1 on 1' with them, and don't want to go through that again.

But, if you have 5 or 6 people going 'Hey, I'm not taking this anymore', it can be very empowering.

Removing the statue of limitations may not result in a conviction from older crimes, but it peope going 'you know what, 35 years ago..." might convince the victims of more recent crimes to come forward.

That's very true. Physical evidence may be a foregone conclusion, and individual testimony may be far from accurate, but multiple independent victims against a single attacker is a different matter altogether.

[TithonusSyndrome]

Well this is only sort of related, but I didn't feel it warranted it's own thread, so let's see what recent trifle the Vatican has offered up to make themselves seem more cool:

ATICAN CITY — The Vatican has finally made peace with the Beatles, saying their drug use, "dissolute" lives and even the claim that the band was bigger than Jesus are all in the past — while their music lives on.

Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano paid tribute to the Fab Four in its weekend editions, with two articles and a front-page cartoon reproducing the crosswalk immortalized on the cover of the band's album "Abbey Road."

The tribute marked the 40th anniversary of the band's breakup.

"It's true, they took drugs; swept up by their success, they lived dissolute and uninhibited lives," said the paper. "They even said they were more famous than Jesus," it said, recalling John Lennon's 1966 comment that outraged many Catholics and others.

"But, listening to their songs, all of this seems distant and meaningless," L'Osservatore said. "Their beautiful melodies, which changed forever pop music and still give us emotions, live on like precious jewels."

It is not the first time the Vatican has praised the legendary band from Liverpool.

Two years ago, Vatican media hailed the Beatles' musical legacy on the 40th anniversary of the "White Album." And last month the Vatican paper included "Revolver" in its semiserious list of top-10 albums.

Now, L'Osservatore says that the Beatles' songs have stood the test of time, and that the band remains "the longest-lasting, most consistent and representative phenomenon in the history of pop music."

Giovanni Maria Vian, the editor in chief of L'Osservatore Romano, said Monday that he loves the Beatles.

He said that at the time of Lennon's sensational statement, Osservatore "commented that in reality it wasn't that scandalous, because the fascination with Jesus was so great that it attracted these new heroes of the time."

Sad. Fucking. Sad.

HEY KIDS WE DON'T HATE THAT NEW ROCK AND ROLL RACKET YOU LISTEN TO WE'RE NOT SO BAD SEE

[Psychic_Sandwich]

Wow. That is a terrible, terrible PR blunder, and I'm surprised the person who thought it was a good idea is smart enough to remember to breathe.

[Invictus ChiKen]

URL

GAY COVER-UP MUST END

April 5, 2010

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on two news stories released today by the Associated Press:

One of the AP stories on priestly sexual abuse admits that "The overwhelming majority of the victims were adolescents. That means very few guilty priests were pedophiles, a term mental health professionals reserve for those who target pre-pubescent children." Fine. But then it says something which is positively remarkable: "Even though about 80 percent of victims were boys, the John Jay researchers and other experts on sex offenders say it does not mean the perpetrators were gay." So what would they be? Heterosexual?

The AP article relied on the extraordinary remark by Margaret Smith, a professor who worked on the John Jay study. She said that while Donohue "quoted the study's data correctly," I nonetheless "drew an unwarranted conclusion." What? That most of the molesters have been gay? Here is what she said: "The majority of the abusive acts were homosexual in nature. That participation in homosexual acts is not the same as sexual identity as a gay man." So if two men sodomize each other, no one really knows if this qualifies as gay sex. Now I must admit that when I was studying for my doctorate in sociology at NYU, they never taught me such logic.

Both AP stories say the reason why there were so many male victims is because the priests did not have access to girls as altar servers. Nonsense. There have been girl altar servers in some U.S. dioceses since 1983, and almost everywhere since 1994. The statistics actually show that the more priests have access to girls, the less likely it is for girls to be abused.

Here's the tally. As reported in 2004, between 1950 and 2002, 81 percent of the victims were male; in 2005, it stayed the same; in 2006, it dropped to 80 percent; in 2007, it climbed to 82 percent; in 2008, it jumped to 84 percent; and in 2009, it stayed at 84 percent.

In other words, even though priests have less access to males, homosexual priests are molesting them at a higher rate. It's time to end the gay cover-up once and for all.

Nice attempt to shift the blame there Bill... I sure that is a real comfort to the female victims...

[The Cooler King]

Nice attempt to shift the blame there Bill... I sure that is a real comfort to the female victims...

Jesus H. Christ on a fucking pogo stick. Shit like this helped add to my decision to leave the church (well, that and science, but that's another story). Still, Donohue's long been a raving fucktard; anything that even tangentially criticizes official Catholic Church positions becomes, in his eyes, some sort of conspiracy aimed at bringing the Church down.

Oh... and why would the Church care about female victims? They've been victimizing females for millennia.

[Edi]

Threads merged. We don't need a new topic for every single fucking article about the ongoing Catholic Church pedophile cover up scandal.

Keep it to this thread from now on.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Um...

I love the idea behind rescinding the statute of limitations here, but I don't think it would help anybody who's already over 48. Otherwise you run into the problem of ex post facto, and while it may not stop a trial, it might be interpreted in the scumbag's favor on appeal.

[General Zod]

Um...

I love the idea behind rescinding the statute of limitations here, but I don't think it would help anybody who's already over 48. Otherwise you run into the problem of ex post facto, and while it may not stop a trial, it might be interpreted in the scumbag's favor on appeal.

Uhm, no. With as many consequences as changing the statute of limitations has, this isn't even remotely related to ex post facto. Kiddy fiddling doesn't suddenly become any more or less legal by changing the amount of time you have until you can press charges.

[FSTargetDrone]

The Vatican has finally made peace with the Beatles, saying their drug use, "dissolute" lives and even the claim that the band was bigger than Jesus are all in the past — while their music lives on.

How nice of them to be so magnanimous and forgiving, despite The Beatles' various failings (such as they are).

This, frankly, is highly offensive, given what is happening with the Church. The recently-uncovered letter written by the then-Cardinal Ratzinger to someone about not defrocking a known pedophile, the cover-ups, etc. The idea that they would waste a second on something like this (no slight to The Beatles, don't get me wrong) when the Church has such a disaster (of its own making) is revolting. No one cares (nor should care) what the Church's opinion of popular media is or was.

[Liberty]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... orted.html

Vatican says catholic priests suspected of abuse should 'always' be reported

By Nick Squires in Rome

Published: 9:01PM BST 12 Apr 2010

In the latest sign that the Holy See is striving to respond to the worldwide sex abuse crisis rocking the Catholic Church, the Vatican published on its website its guidelines for handling predator priests.

"Civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed," the Vatican stressed, in an apparent attempt to deflect criticism that it has been secretive and defensive over the issue.

The guidelines stated that "in very grave cases where a civil criminal trial has found the cleric guilty of sexual abuse of minors or where the evidence is overwhelming," the Pope can defrock the priest.

The rules have been in operation since 2003, when they were set down in an internal document by the Vatican's doctrinal enforcement department, the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, of which the future Pope Benedict XVI was head until 2005.
The fact that the Vatican chose to publish them online, in English, was interpreted as an attempt to show greater transparency and accountability over the issue.

The Church has been shaken in recent weeks by paedophilia scandals in Austria, the Netherlands, Italy, the US and the Pope's homeland, Germany.

The pontiff, who turns 83 on Friday, has himself faced allegations that he failed to act decisively enough against paedophile priests when he was the archbishop of Munich in the early 1980s and then when he led the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Um...

I love the idea behind rescinding the statute of limitations here, but I don't think it would help anybody who's already over 48. Otherwise you run into the problem of ex post facto, and while it may not stop a trial, it might be interpreted in the scumbag's favor on appeal.

Uhm, no. With as many consequences as changing the statute of limitations has, this isn't even remotely related to ex post facto. Kiddy fiddling doesn't suddenly become any more or less legal by changing the amount of time you have until you can press charges.

No, but if the crime would have been past it's statute of limitations when the law was changed to remove that statute, there's a very good chance that an appeals court will find in favor of the accused, for the very same reasons you have to consider the legal status of a given accused crime at the time it was commited.

If they legalize murder over matters of personal honor tomorrow, someone insults me and I shoot him tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow they re-legalize murder-for-honor, I cannot be charged. If tomorrow, the Federal Government somehow makes protesting a funeral a federal crime, they can't sent the FBI crawling to Westboro to take the Phelps Phuckers down for any funeral protests they have done in the past.

Likewise, if I'm away, free and clear, because of the statute of limitations being expired now, and tomorrow they extend it to indefinity, they should have no case. The same reason that prevents you from making it a crime to do something that a person is doing, then nailing him on him doing it before it was a crime, will hold true for doing it if the statute of limitations expired, then gets extended on that crime.

[Molyneux]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... orted.html

Vatican says catholic priests suspected of abuse should 'always' be reported

By Nick Squires in Rome

Published: 9:01PM BST 12 Apr 2010

In the latest sign that the Holy See is striving to respond to the worldwide sex abuse crisis rocking the Catholic Church, the Vatican published on its website its guidelines for handling predator priests.

"Civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed," the Vatican stressed, in an apparent attempt to deflect criticism that it has been secretive and defensive over the issue.

The guidelines stated that "in very grave cases where a civil criminal trial has found the cleric guilty of sexual abuse of minors or where the evidence is overwhelming," the Pope can defrock the priest.

The rules have been in operation since 2003, when they were set down in an internal document by the Vatican's doctrinal enforcement department, the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, of which the future Pope Benedict XVI was head until 2005.
The fact that the Vatican chose to publish them online, in English, was interpreted as an attempt to show greater transparency and accountability over the issue.

The Church has been shaken in recent weeks by paedophilia scandals in Austria, the Netherlands, Italy, the US and the Pope's homeland, Germany.

The pontiff, who turns 83 on Friday, has himself faced allegations that he failed to act decisively enough against paedophile priests when he was the archbishop of Munich in the early 1980s and then when he led the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.

Hurrah!
So it only took them...what, sixty years?

[General Zod]

No, but if the crime would have been past it's statute of limitations when the law was changed to remove that statute, there's a very good chance that an appeals court will find in favor of the accused, for the very same reasons you have to consider the legal status of a given accused crime at the time it was commited.

The fact that the statute of limitations in Connecticut has been changed 3 times already makes me think that your scenario is not likely.

[Darth Wong]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... orted.html

Vatican says catholic priests suspected of abuse should 'always' be reported

By Nick Squires in Rome

Published: 9:01PM BST 12 Apr 2010

In the latest sign that the Holy See is striving to respond to the worldwide sex abuse crisis rocking the Catholic Church, the Vatican published on its website its guidelines for handling predator priests.

"Civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed," the Vatican stressed, in an apparent attempt to deflect criticism that it has been secretive and defensive over the issue.

The guidelines stated that "in very grave cases where a civil criminal trial has found the cleric guilty of sexual abuse of minors or where the evidence is overwhelming," the Pope can defrock the priest.

The rules have been in operation since 2003, when they were set down in an internal document by the Vatican's doctrinal enforcement department, the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, of which the future Pope Benedict XVI was head until 2005.
The fact that the Vatican chose to publish them online, in English, was interpreted as an attempt to show greater transparency and accountability over the issue.

The Church has been shaken in recent weeks by paedophilia scandals in Austria, the Netherlands, Italy, the US and the Pope's homeland, Germany.

The pontiff, who turns 83 on Friday, has himself faced allegations that he failed to act decisively enough against paedophile priests when he was the archbishop of Munich in the early 1980s and then when he led the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.

In related news, Tiger Woods declares that he will not permit himself to commit adultery.

[CarsonPalmer]

How nice of them to be so magnanimous and forgiving, despite The Beatles' various failings (such as they are).

This, frankly, is highly offensive, given what is happening with the Church. The recently-uncovered letter written by the then-Cardinal Ratzinger to someone about not defrocking a known pedophile, the cover-ups, etc. The idea that they would waste a second on something like this (no slight to The Beatles, don't get me wrong) when the Church has such a disaster (of its own making) is revolting. No one cares (nor should care) what the Church's opinion of popular media is or was.

Well now wait a minute. L'Osservatore Romano is a regular daily newspaper, and they have an entertainment section of a sort. It isn't like the Catholic Church made special effort to put this out; it just went out in a daily edition of the paper. There are a lot of legitimate areas where they've fucked up so badly that its hard to believe (rather, should be hard to believe but isn't), but continuing to publish a daily newspaper isn't one of them.

[FSTargetDrone]

Well now wait a minute. L'Osservatore Romano is a regular daily newspaper, and they have an entertainment section of a sort. It isn't like the Catholic Church made special effort to put this out; it just went out in a daily edition of the paper. There are a lot of legitimate areas where they've fucked up so badly that its hard to believe (rather, should be hard to believe but isn't), but continuing to publish a daily newspaper isn't one of them.

The CTV story above said the "The Vatican has finally made peace with the Beatles..." That implies that the Vatican itself had changed its opinion of the Beatles. Now, if it is indeed merely the newspaper's editorial staff or some writer commenting on it, that is one thing, but that is not what the quoted article suggests. The original CTV piece also says:

"It is not the first time the Vatican has praised the legendary band from Liverpool." Additionally, the headline on the article reads: "Vatican forgives Beatles for 'bigger than Jesus' remark"

So is it poor wording by the CTV article about the paper? If so, it should say, "The Vatican's newspaper L'Osservatore Romano has finally made peace..." It may be a little confusing (perhaps I was confused) to separate the paper's opinions from the Vatican's, given the unusual state of the Vatican itself. If The Philadelphia Inquirer wrote an opinion about some issue commented on by the city government (or, say, the mayor), no one would confuse the opinion of the government with that of the newspaper's editorial staff. However, if something put out by the mayor's office did the same on the city's website, one might be apt to think it's an official statement.

[CarsonPalmer]

The CTV story above said the "The Vatican has finally made peace with the Beatles..." That implies that the Vatican itself had changed its opinion of the Beatles. Now, if it is indeed merely the newspaper's editorial staff or some writer commenting on it, that is one thing, but that is not what the quoted article suggests. The original CTV piece also says:

"It is not the first time the Vatican has praised the legendary band from Liverpool." Additionally, the headline on the article reads: "Vatican forgives Beatles for 'bigger than Jesus' remark"

So is it poor wording by the CTV article about the paper? If so, it should say, "The Vatican's newspaper L'Osservatore Romano has finally made peace..." It may be a little confusing (perhaps I was confused) to separate the paper's opinions from the Vatican's, given the unusual state of the Vatican itself. If The Philadelphia Inquirer wrote an opinion about some issue commented on by the city government (or, say, the mayor), no one would confuse the opinion of the government with that of the newspaper's editorial staff. However, if something put out by the mayor's office did the same on the city's website, one might be apt to think it's an official statement.

Its poor wording by the paper, and it should say "The Vatican's newspaper..." The CTV article is wrong; here's a different article that describes it better:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/arts/ ... A_BRF.html

At a time when the Vatican could use a little positive notice in the news media, the Holy See has momentarily turned attention away from the helter skelter it has lately faced by offering its enthusiastic praise for the Beatles. In its weekend editions, L’Osservatore Romano, the official newspaper of the Vatican, commemorated the Beatles on the 40th anniversary of that group’s breakup, and endorsed the Fab Four’s music without quite giving a thumbs-up to the band members’ lifestyles, The Associated Press reported. “It’s true, they took drugs; swept up by their success, they lived dissolute and uninhibited lives,” L’Osservatore Romano wrote. “But,” the newspaper added, “listening to their songs, all of this seems distant and meaningless. Their beautiful melodies, which changed forever pop music and still give us emotions, live on like precious jewels.” Giovanni Maria Vian, the editor in chief of L’Osservatore Romano, told The A.P. that he is a fan of the Beatles, and he minimized John Lennon’s notorious 1966 remark that the band at that time was “more popular than Jesus.” “In reality it wasn’t that scandalous,” Mr. Vian said, “because the fascination with Jesus was so great that it attracted these new heroes of the time.”

Even there, though, the NYT acts like the Pope is writing the paper, when he's really not. I don't think anybody is 100% sure exactly how the Pope (or the cardinals around him) relate to the paper, but it seems to basically boil down to them vetoing things and occasionally saying "Hey, write about this..."

The one thing I can't tell you though, is what the fuck this Giovanni Maria Vian fellow is trying to say with his article-ending quote. Either the translator for this piece is a blind idiot, or Vian talks in total non sequiturs.