It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Is Catholicism under Persecution?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 13 2002 @ 11:30 PM
James the lesser, just for the record, am not against pedophile priest being placed in Jail. But I am in favor of generating some research into cause and effect, this from a clinical standpoint. There may in fact be those who enter the priesthood, because they see this job as a way to abuse children.

Personally though I feel that the idea that they are Illuminati agents who are secretly working for the Devil to be four short of a six pack (if you know what I mean). These men if convicted belong in jail. And should be made to deal with the same scrutiny all pedophiles have to confront when released (after serving there time).

posted on Dec, 13 2002 @ 11:58 PM
A few notes:

You guys are assuming you know what lies in the hearts of very religious people (this is NOT a path that most folks -- INCLUDING MOST HOMOSEXUAL PEDOPHILES -- take.

Look at your lists of sex offenders in your area. You'll notice there's a lot more who AREN'T priests than there are priests.

And, while we're shrieking about little boys, I should point out that if you look at the stats, little girls are being raped (and apparently not by priests, though the numbers of Protestant clergy doing it are there) and molested as well by the religious community.

Fact: Pedophiles AND sex abusers come in all professions, all colors, all shapes, all sizes, and all religions.

Fact: Some undoubtedly flee to the church to try and escape the "demons" of their own sexuality.

Fact: Lots of religions have celibate priests.

I think the Catholic clergy tried to deal with it as any powerful organization deals with embarrassing things (think of the "Tailhook" scandal that brought out the abuses (sexual) of the Air Force... and how it was a sensation and then got covered up and had been going on for years.)

I've seen cops deal with scandal in the ranks this way, doctors, fraternity members... lots of other people. I don't condone it, but I don't look at it as something unique to the Catholic clergy.

posted on Dec, 14 2002 @ 12:28 AM
I think the media is more at fault than anyone than blowing this out of proportion. The story needs to be told, and parents need to be warned, but CNN has done a really good job in frightening people into thinking that all black-robes are pedos.

Somehow, this doesn't happen when a coach of some kid's sports team is caught in the act. Or when it happens at summer camp. Or when Uncle Joe does something to his neice... but priests! How awful!

I think the moral of this story is that all humans are human, and some (if not most) will take advantage of a situation when they can. I can 'regretfully' remember taking advantage of one or two bar chicks that were way too drunk...before I found God. I think any of us on this board, if given a ring of invisibility, would abuse the power. I also think anyone in a position of authority is always tempted to abuse that authority.

Therefore, always keep an eye on your kids and never leave them alone with any adult, even one you think you know and can trust, until you are absolutely sure your child will tell you if anything amiss is going on. You are ultimately responsible for your child's welfare.


posted on Dec, 14 2002 @ 12:56 AM
Byrd at present the List of Pedophiles do not include priest because they are not being convicted. Secondly a priest (in whatever sect) is in a unique position in relation to Children (when one takes a child to see a doctor are they often left alone)? This is because of the vow of Chastity that affords them with an almost legal right to be alone with a child consistently. And avoid any suspicion (even in a case where the child complains.

Furthermore the Church has touted this situation as a problem specific to the United States. You know what, I do not buy it. And neither do I think it has not being going on for a long time and all over the world (not just the Catholics either). Just like you very rarely hear about serial killers in other parts of the world. This situation could result in a sentence in which often fall under the definition of an accident (by the government official responsible for dealing with the problem). Ergo while lots of religions do have celibate priest not all countries adhere to there constitutions.

Now what is this about Demons?

posted on Dec, 14 2002 @ 01:13 AM

Buddhism is known for having homos in it's midst. I'm sure pedos have made it in, too.

BANGKOK, Thurs. June 1, 1995 -Seven senior Buddhist monks face monastic charges of debauchery and improper conduct today after Thai police raided a houseboat, interrupting a drunken party, police said. Chiang Mai police interrupted the raid last night after receiving a tip that there was a wild party in progress on the rented houseboat, which was moored on a small lake in the northern province.
The monks had been drinking, police said. [The Bangkok English-language daily newspaper, The Nation] reported that one monk was found engaging in a homosexual act with a 25-year-old lay follower [a lay follower is any practicing Buddhist not ordained as a monk], but police did not confirm that report.
Police did not arrest the monks as they had broken no criminal law. Instead, they were turned over to monastic officials who will investigate the matter.
In Phnom Penh, a Cambodian Buddhist monk claiming to be 300 years old has been defrocked for sleeping with prostitutes, the Koh Santapheap newspaper said. Yesterday's edition of the popular Khmer-language newspaper said religious authorities in Kandal province expelled the monk for "debauched actions". It said the monk also boasted he possessed magical powers of healing.
The case -- the first reported about sexual misconduct among the Buddhist clergy in Cambodia -- is similar to a recent scandal in neighouring Thailand involving a monk. - AFP, Reuter.

Monky Business
To save its reputation, Thailand's clergy needs urgent reform

Growing Pains
The Philippines, Indonesia and Taiwan are in turmoil. No one said democracy would be easy

Other Buddhist monks in Thailand have been known to slip out of their temples for an evening of carousing in karaoke bars by disguising themselves with hats, wigs or sunglasses. But Phra Khru showed more panache: He donned the uniform of a senior army officer on his way to a tryst with a woman friend. And it wasn't just any old get-up from an army-navy store. Phra Khru, 43, appropriated the name and persona of a well-connected colonel in the special forces. Small wonder the Thai authorities came down hard, charging the monk last week with impersonating an officer. That could mean several years in jail.

The incident, clandestinely captured by a TV station, would be comical if it weren't so sad. Some 90% of the 60 million Thais are Buddhists, and monks are among the nation's most respected citizens. But a minority regularly abuse this reverence by behaving in very unmonkish ways accumulating expensive cars, breaking their celibacy vows or even engaging in fraud. It has been a particularly bad month for monks. Phra Khru's antics aside, newspaper readers have been startled by pictures of abbots in handcuffs, accused of embezzling money from their monasteries. Another report recounts the seduction of temple boys by a group of homosexual monks. "It looks as if Buddhism's decline is irreversible," lamented one editorial.

That may be an exaggeration, as the vast majority of Thailand's 300,000 monks keep their vows and perform irreplaceable good works ranging from spiritual guidance to hospice care and drug-detoxification programs. But there is little doubt that greater effort is needed to curb wayward clerics by both secular and religious authorities. Because of Buddhism's central importance in national life, the state has long been reluctant to act against errant monks until they have been defrocked by the Buddhist hierarchy. (Phra Khru would likely have escaped arrest had he impersonated a less prominent officer.) Police should not hesitate to crack down on anyone who breaks the law, monk or layperson. Of course, frequenting bars and having sex do not fall into this category. Rather, the police should take swift and decisive action against such offenses as harboring criminals, dealing drugs and swindling people.

Ultimately, the clergy must reform itself to arrest the decline in its reputation. Most members of the Sangha Supreme Council, Thailand's top Buddhist authority, are over 70. The body needs to be reinvigorated with younger and more energetic members. That could mean amending the 1962 Sangha Act, under which only high-ranking monks can be appointed. The religious leadership should also institute more transparent mechanisms to investigate abuses and discipline wayward monks. That would highlight its reformist determination and boost its credibility and prestige.

Above all, the clergy must redouble its efforts to adhere to the moral precepts that underpin its role as a paragon in society. True, monks' vows do not include one of poverty. Still, why do so many abbots need to drive around in Mercedes 500 SELs? Society's growing materialism is no excuse to join the bandwagon. Indeed, money-worship only highlights the need for clerics to remind ordinary folk, via personal example, that there are other, less tangible riches in life. Thailand's troubled monkhood needs to go back to basics.

Just thought you should know.


posted on Dec, 14 2002 @ 10:42 AM
Wait, comparing two adult men having sex to preists
raping little boys? The other guy was 25, and while both may have been impaired by alchohol, still consensual(Sp?) adults.

Then, putting wigs on to go out and have sex with women, how does that compare with raping little boys? They don't force the women then tell them not to tell anyone because they will do it again for next few years.

And good point to who posted the how they didn't believe this just happening in America. For probably still being hidden in France, England, and other countries. Also, wasn't there a scandal in the eighties just like this? And the seventies? Not old enough to know about the seventies, and to young during the eighties to care about the news. No way the preists
went well, it the ninties, might as well rape little boys now. And why just boys? Don't catholic
have any access to women? I find it strange that they just had little boys.

Doubt this is anything psychological, just a bunch of perverts in power. And why they given more attention then the football coach and such? Cause they preists
! They are suppose to teach kindness and love and all that. They are figues of power. The church
itself ran most of Europe at one time. They, unlike uncle Joe, were trusted by millions, thought to be "holy", and are suppose to be better than the rest. Yet they turn out to be scum. At least normal gays sleep with consenting(sp?) adults, don't rape little boys.(most of the time, just like most normal hetro won't rape women, but some do)

posted on Dec, 14 2002 @ 12:43 PM
Current estimates of Roman Catholic priests in the U.S.= 49,000 to 50,000

Estimates of pedophile priests = 3,000 (6.1%) to 8,000 (16.3%)

188 Dioceses in the U.S. Divide 3,000 by 188 = 16 perpetrators per diocese
Divide 8,000 by 188 = 42 perpetrators per diocese

Current experts claim a pedophile could abuse 200-265 children in a lifetime.

200 x 16 perps/diocese = 3,200 victims/diocese

200 x 42 perps/diocese = 8,400 victims/diocese

3,200 victims/diocese x 188 dioceses = 601,600 victims
in U.S.

8,400 victims/diocese x 188 dioceses = 1,579,200 victims in U.S.

Average American family consists of 4-6 people
(3,200 victims/diocese) 601,600 victims x 4 family members = 2,406,400 indirect victims

60l,000 victims x 6 family members = 3,609,600 indirect victims

(8,400 victims/diocese) 1,579,200 x 4 family members =

6,316,800 indirect victims

1,579,200 x 6 family members = 9,475,200 indirect victims

These numbers are a reflection of immediate family only and do not reflect the indirect victims within the parishes that are affected.

188 Bishops are responsible for the pain of at least 601,600 direct victims and as many as 9,475,200 indirect victims a total of as many as 10,076,800 people. Clearly, something is wrong.

Additional information:
Using the lower numbers the number of direct victims and survivors alone could populate a city larger than Boston. Using the higher numbers, it would be the fourth largest city in the U.S. one between the size of Houston and Chicago.

Note: These figures were compiled by the late Linkup president from many sources, and unfortunately, he did not cite all of them. The number of dioceses and priests in the country are widely known. The percentage that are pedophile priests remains controversial; AW Richard Sipe, one of the leading experts, estimates around 6%.


Four in 10 US Catholic nuns report having experienced sexual abuse, (a rate equivalent to that reported by American women in general), a study by Catholic researchers supported by major religious orders, has found. The study found that sisters have known sexual abuse less in childhood, dispelling what the authors call an "anti-Catholic" canard that girls fled to convents to escape sexual advances. During religious life, close to 30% of the nation's 85,000 nuns experienced "sexual trauma," ranging from rape to exploitation to harassment. A total of 40% reported a least one experience of that kind. NCR, 1/15/99

See The Nuns' Stories for more information.
The Wisconsin Psychological Association's survey found offenders distributed among the following professions: Psychiatrists 34%, Psychologists 19%, Social Workers 13%, Clergy 11%, Physicians 6%, Marriage Counselors 4%, and Others 14%.

The Center for Domestic Violence found that 12.6% of clergy said they had sex with church members. 47% of clergy women were harassed by clergy colleagues.
The Presbyterian Church stated that 10-23% of clergy have "inappropriate sexual behavior or contact" with clergy and employees.

The United Methodist research (1990) showed 38.6% of Ministers had sexual contact with church members and that 77% of church workers experienced some type of sexual harassment.

The United Church of Christ found that 48% of the women in the work place have been sexually harassed by male clergy. The Southern Baptists claim 14.1% of their clergy have sexually abused members.

In the Roman Catholic Church there are over 800 priests that have been removed from ministry as a result of allegations against them. We also know of 1,400 insurance claims on the books and that the Church has paid out over $1 billion in liability with an estimated $500 million pending. One noted expert claims that there are over 5,000 priests with some type of allegation against them. If this is true, then there are at least 1,000,000 direct victims of clergy sexual abuse and between 4-6 million indirect victims in the U.S.

Our institutional churches, who have proclaimed themselves to be the moral backbone of society, have failed all of us. We need to continue to bring them to moral and civil accountability. I think we might want to pray for them as well.

Further reading

About Nuns being abused

posted on Dec, 14 2002 @ 04:02 PM
James, yes they are not allowed to have women ( because )
they ( choose ) to give their life to god when entering.

So why would they enter the priesthood knowing this??

One would conclude that they do not respect or value their religion and treat it as
any other orginization, therefore the whole church gets bashed when these false priest do
such things.

and toltec, thanks for the article, and remember the last line.

" maybee we should pray for them as well "

a true sign of love is praying for souls, in and out of the priesthood.

Also, i can handle the priesthood toltec.


because i value my faith and know it is gods church. And i ((choose)) to live
in life long celibacy, not forced to, but choose to.

i will decide at a later time if i will enter.

In the latter days to come there will be a restoration of the church as god talks about, and i
would love to be part of it.


posted on Dec, 14 2002 @ 08:52 PM
Where in the bible does it say a catholic priest can't sleep with a woman? Or was it edited by the church again to include that?

posted on Dec, 14 2002 @ 10:46 PM
Interesting stats, Toltec! I hope you have it marked for the next time this argument comes up!

As to "where in the Bible it says this," it doesn't. Unmarried men (people without family entanglements) have more time to serve a deity and pray. There's lots of things about life that the Bible doesn't say... like whether it's okay to use a dialup modem or whether it's okay to wear pastel colors after Labor Day or whether you put the salad fork to the outside of the dinner fork when you're setting the table.

It also doesn't say to pray five or six times per day. An ordered life, free of entagnglements and property and devoted only to thought and prayer is said to be the finest kind of servicce.

(it's also the hardest type of service to a deity, judging frm the number of people who violate its' strictures.)

posted on Dec, 14 2002 @ 10:49 PM
Truth that is a good point

posted on Dec, 15 2002 @ 01:29 PM

Originally posted by Toltec
See Attached:

Link to site

[Edited on 14-12-2002 by Toltec]

Very good link Toltec.

But I'm still thinking that these paedophlies are all evils and have to sentenced to jail for the rest of their live.

posted on Dec, 15 2002 @ 08:31 PM
Evil is an interesting word U-P but consider words like baser or animalistic tendencies. As well as a desire to act outside the framework, of a particular cultures morality they do fill in certain gaps.

There are two crimes which should carry very long sentences, the first of course is Serial Murder and the other is Serial Rape (which does include the sexual abuse of children/adolecents in any way).

posted on Dec, 15 2002 @ 09:08 PM

Originally posted by Toltec
There are two crimes which should carry very long sentences, the first of course is Serial Murder and the other is Serial Rape (which does include the sexual abuse of children/adolecents in any way).

There is one more infinite crime Toltec - setting and ruling flawed systems and orders.

posted on Dec, 15 2002 @ 09:55 PM
Religion and morality go together like boiled beef and carrots. You often find them together but it is perfectly possible to have one without the other.

Many people have swallowed the idea that morality started with religion to such an extent that they cannot separate the two. I myself was under the impression that religion had a significant causative link to morality until quite recently when I came to see the truth.

Man is a primate. All primates have innate morality. A moral sense is vitally important to the efficient running of any society or group. There are no amoral primate groups anywhere. The Mafia have morals, baboons have codes. There are differences between the various groups and their codes of morality but all primate groups have some morals and standards of behaviour. Religion is also very common but it is not universal and it did not cause the codes or the instinct to observe them. These are facts that need to be clearly stated. Morality does not require religion.

In Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union millions of people were brought up during the middle decades of the twentieth century in a state that was thoroughly atheist and many of the households and communities within those states were also atheist. There was no collapse of morality. You were not more likely to be robbed, raped, murdered or cheated in Leningrad than you were in Manchester. Why? Why did people freed from the fear of divine retribution not suddenly start behaving like amoral animals? Because we are animals. We are political animals, animals that need to live within societies and feel respected by them.

Religion is not the bulwark of morality any more than the cockerel crowing if the cause of the dawn or the virgin sacrifices are the cause of the volcano keeping quiet. This trick has been perpetrated on people for centuries and people continue to fall for it. It is very reminiscent of the great Santa Claus conspiracy. The surest way to lose a job on television is to state clearly that there is no such person as Santa Claus. No adult believes in Santa Claus, but most are part of the conspiracy. We mustn't let children know that there is no Santa Claus because ... er, well, because. And we mustn't let the people, especially the poor, know there is no God because, well, because. We wouldn't want to face those consequences would we?

What is there to be afraid of in the truth that God is just as much an imaginary being as the bogeyman, the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy? None whatsoever. Morality in our species does not rest upon fear of God. We act morally because to do so makes us feel good about ourselves and makes us better friends and allies. Being good and moral is the right thing to do for your own selfish self interest. The best thing we can do as a society to make morality more widespread and more potent is to strip away all aspects of religion from it. Being good is the right thing to do because it simply is the right thing. We as a species have an innate sense of morality just as we have an innate ability to learn language. We need it. We are political animals. We have an innate sense of what is or is not fair. We need respect and the esteem of our neighbours, friends and colleagues. This makes us behave morally.

Our morality breaks down with anonymity. It is no surprise that the biggest cities in the world have the most selfish drivers. If you drive in a small town in Kansas you see people being polite and well mannered not because they fear the wrath of God but simply because in small communities people expect to interact again with you at another time. In contrast in New York, Hong Kong or Rome the rule of the road is to curse and never trust the other driver.

The way to keep morality and lose the encumbrances of religion is to promote morality in and of itself. We as a species know what morality is and we recognize moral behaviour when we see it. We are naturally moral because we have developed complex instincts to help us in social situations. These instincts work as long as we allow them instead of burying them in external threats and admonishments. The ten commandments do not help us discover ultimate morality. We all know it when we see it. The way to get people to behave in a moral way is to trust them, to integrate them and to allow them to develop fully as individuals in a caring society. People will only act as amoral criminals if they fall into a criminal subculture, are mentally deficient in morality (rare conditions do exist that cause these problems) or are in a situation in which crime really does pay in a way that can become a life choice.

However you cannot create a moral society with nothing but kindness. We also need something else, something deeply unfashionable but vital to the healthy running of any society; intolerance. We must promote intolerance of criminality and cheating. We as social animals naturally despise the cheat and the thief, but too many liberal bed-wetter types have been telling us that the thief only steals because of what we do to him. This line must be resisted and fought from both ends. We must both minimize the lure of cheating by ensuring that all can live without falling into crime and at the same type promote natural justice in the community. Criminals must be ostracized. But this is not enough. People who use the glamour of crime and immorality vicariously to achieve their legal business ends must also be shunned. Refuse to watch films that glamorize crime and violence. Refuse to buy music produced by violently antisocial people. Walk away from people who talk about such things. If you are introduced to somebody who makes their living from glorifying violence and crime wipe your hand and walk away. They might claim that they are just satisfying a demand, they are right, but we as individuals should see to it that we never add to that demand and do all we can to spurn those that do.

God cannot punish the wrongdoer or the man who sells his products with images of crime and violence but we can. How many crimes have been prevented by the fear of God? Do Christians never commit crime or sin? Do atheists spend all their days stealing from charity collection boxes, murdering strangers and sexually abusing children? There is no link between belief in the supernatural and God and morality. If the only reason a Christian can give for continued belief in his incredible theory is the idea that such a belief is a useful tool to keep the poor from falling into immorality then his religion is morally bankrupt. The only purpose I can see in religion is as a way to catch the attention in order to reinforce the messages of the natural morality that we as a species are already responding to. It cannot be beyond the wit of our species to come up with other ways to spread lessons of morality than this. Surely the poor and the dangerous will be inclined to listen more clearly if we treat them as adults rather than simply threatening them with the bogeyman again?

posted on Dec, 16 2002 @ 08:27 PM
I believe it was Toltec who aserted that this was not just happening in the US.In the UK right now the head of the catholic church in England is under some pressure to resign.

One of the most senior figures in the Catholic Church in England and Wales has defended his decision to allow a known paedophile to continue working as a priest, despite warnings he would re-offend.
A BBC investigation found evidence suggesting Archbishop Cormac Murphy-O'Connor ignored the advice of doctors and therapists that Father Michael Hill would carry on assaulting children.

Police are investigating 7 cases.In one the Catholic church moved a priest to a house oposite a primary school.

posted on Dec, 17 2002 @ 06:45 PM
Carl DeLuca's Law Review
By Carl P. Deluca, Esq.

Published September 1996

Priest Pedophiles and Bishop not Off the Hook Yet

Recently the Rhode Island Supreme Court answered some questions posed to it from the Superior Court and the Federal District Court regarding the cases that have been filed by people who were raped or sodomized by local Roman Catholic priests while children. The decisions generated much media attention. Unfortunately, not all of the media reports were accurate, and most failed to explain the status of the cases and what is a stake.

The questions posed to the Supreme Court concerned disputed issues of law that were critical to certain claims some of the victims were making. The questions did not relate to every claim or ground that was alleged, and the Supreme Court was not asked to decide these cases, since to do so would have been inappropriate.

The first question posed to the Supreme Court pertained to a statute that was passed by our legislature in 1992. This statute, 9-1-51 provided that any person who was sexually abused as a minor would have 7 years to bring a claim from the date they discovered the harm to them. The statute is premised on the fact that you don't always realize the injury that has occurred to you when the "wrong" is done to you.

An example of not discovering the harm to you as soon as the wrong is done, would be a medical mal-practice claim where you "successfully" were operated on in 1990. Another doctor examines you in 1991 and tells you that the source of your current problem is a mistake that was made in the 1990 operation. You didn't discover the injury until a year after it actually "occurred."

Children who were raped or sodomized by priests were often told that what the priest was doing was part of their "education" and that there was nothing wrong with it. Some were threatened and told that they would go to hell if they told anyone what happened. Most were mentally injured by the crimes that were committed against them and unable to press complaints against their tormentors. As a result, they were unable to remember or discover their claim at all, or unable to make the claim due to their mental injury.

The court determined that the statute, 9-1-51, did not extend the statute of limitations against people who might be responsible as a result of their negligent conduct, other than the priests themselves. However, this does not mean that members of the church hierarchy are not responsible for their intentional conduct. This is important because the victims are claiming that the church hierarchy knew about the priests' behavior and covered it up. This would include claims against a pastor who may have looked the other way, or a bishop who may have moved the priest from parish to parish to avoid scandal, rather than inform the police.

A related question posed to the Supreme Court asked whether this statute could revive the time to file suit for claims whose time had otherwise expired. The Supreme Court responded that the statute could extend the time to file a claim that has not already expired, but could not revive those that had expired.

The second question was which statute of limitations applied in regard to the non-perpetrators (the pastors, bishop, etc.), if 9-1-51 didn't apply. The court responded that the ordinary 3 year statute of limitations applied unless one of the many exceptions to that statute came into play. For example, if the victim was twelve at the time of the crime he would have three years from the date he attained the age of majority to bring his claim, not three years from the date of the incident. The court also mentioned the fact that if someone was disabled from making their claim, the statute of limitations would extend to 3 years beyond the removal of the disability.

The Supreme Court referred to their answer to the next question as an example of one of the exceptions that might extend the normal 3 year statute of limitations. The next question was "Does the inability to remember an event of sexual abuse extend the time to make the claim?" The answer, which was not reported in most media accounts was "yes." The Supreme Court went on to say that whether or not this disability exists is a question for the trial judge and should be resolved in preliminary hearings for each case. But, the answer was still "yes."

This answer of "yes" does not conclude that this inability to remember exists in any particular case, but states the obvious conclusion that if a person could prove that they couldn't remember the incidents of abuse due to some physical or mental trauma, you couldn't very well expect them to bring a claim for it. Therefore, the cases against both the priests and the Bishop and Diocese of Providence are still viable pending the hearings on disability. For those that have concerns about cases based on "repressed memory," it is important to note that many of the priests have pled guilty to these crimes already, and most have been accused by many people. These four questions are the only issues that were decided by the Supreme Court. However, these are not the only issues pertaining to these cases. When attorneys bring claims for people, they often allege several theories of liability. If they lose in regard to 3 theories, they may still have 2 viable theories of liability remaining. You only need one viable theory to prevail.

It is also important to remember, that repression is not the only possible type of disability. In many of these cases, experts will testify that most of these victims were mentally disabled from making their claims due to the harm that was done to them. Some of them suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and some of them suffered from an inability to face their tormentors akin to an agoraphics inability to leave their house, or an acrophobics inability to face heights. These disabilities are very real, even if it is difficult for those of us not similarly afflicted to understand them. The Plaintiffs expect to prevail with the use of this theory of disability to extend the statute of limitations in many of the cases against both the priest and the bishop, etc.

In the cases that were filed against the priests, the Diocese of Providence and the Bishop of Providence, many theories of liability were claimed. Most were not submitted to the Supreme Court for their consideration. One of the theories that were not submitted to the Supreme Court was that the Priests, the Bishop and the Diocese of Providence conspired to conceal these acts of rape and sodomy in order to avoid scandal and liability. If a court finds that they fraudulently try to conceal these facts, they may not be able to rely on the ordinary statute of limitations.

The Plaintiffs have tried to conduct discovery in these cases in order to prove their accusations, but the Bishop and Diocese of Providence have resisted having to answer any questions or provide any information. Their position is that the litigants have no right to this information and the courts have no right to order them to provide it.

Thus far, the Bishop's efforts to stall have been successful. In at least one case where discovery was conducted the file has been sealed by the court. That case, involving Father O'Connell was discussed by the Providence Sunday Journal on July 30, 1989, in an article written by Judy Rakowsky. Father O'Connell was the pedophile priest who raped and sodomized countless children in Rhode Island, even though Bishop Gelineau was warned about him. O'Connell was convicted in Rhode Island for his crimes in 1986, and when released from jail he moved to New Jersey. Shortly after his release he was arrested and convicted in New Jersey for the same crimes.

In the sealed case, Father McGeough testified that he reported Father O'Connell's behavior to Bishop Angell in 1977 verbally, and in writing to Bishop Gelineau in 1978. According to Father McGeough, Father Matano informed him that Bishop Gelineau asked Father O'Connell to resign or leave the parish and O'Connell refused. Bishop Gelineau acknowledged receiving the report from Father McGeough, but the Bishop did nothing to stop O'Connell's predation despite numerous warnings by priests and parishioners. Bishop Gelineau often refused to answer questions about that case during discovery citing "internal forum" privileges that would not apply now that O'Connell has died, and were never affirmed by the Court as valid objections.The Plaintiffs are anxious to pursue discovery of these matters, but the Bishop and Diocese maintain the position that even if they have done the things of which the Plaintiffs accuse them, they cannot be held legally responsible for their actions due to First Amendment privileges. It is the hope of the Plaintiffs that the courts will tell the Bishop and Diocese of Providence that they can be held responsible for their actions and inactions. As long as they believe they can't be held accountable, the danger exists that they will not take the appropriate actions to prevent children from being raped and sodomized by priests. That is why they must be held accountable. That is why the plaintiffs persist.

See attached and note the Christian Churches effort to treat the problem as related only to the USA.

National Catholic Register


new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in