11 Priests Removed

[Soxy]

Linkage

 

Cardinal removes 11 priests over sexual abuse

 

Tribune staff report

Published September 26, 2005, 1:33 PM CDT

 

Cardinal Francis George today announced 11 priests of the Archdiocese of Chicago would be permanently removed from public ministry over allegations of sexual misconduct with minors.

 

"In each of the 11 cases, Cardinal George has determined, based on the information presented, that sexual misconduct did occur," the archdiocese said in a prepared statement issued today.

 

Each individual no longer can participate in public ministry, present himself as a priest or act as an agent of the archdiocese. Their names and specifics of the allegations against them were not disclosed, nor was information immediately available if any had been charged criminally.

 

The cardinal's actions followed a two-year review of the cases of 14 Chicago-area priests by the Vatican. Disciplinary action was approved in 11 cases. The cases of two priests were referred to canonical trials, which are pending. One case was moot because the priest had died.

 

The Chicago archdiocese paid $18.2 million in settlements for sexual abuse cases last year. Since 2002, 19 of its priests have been removed from ministry.

 

The cardinal's actions were consistent with the church's "zero tolerance" position, which bans sexually abusive priests from ministry to protect children from abuse.

 

In a June interview, George, vice president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, voiced his support for zero tolerance.

 

"We've all had the experience, of several years, of working with this. The norms have served us well. And I think most bishops understand that," George said. "If the sexual abuse is very clear, this makes somebody, from my perspective, unsuitable for ministry, and so that remains the case."

 

Bishops drafted the rule, also referred to as the "one-strike policy," in 2002 amid waves of abuse allegations and charges of church cover-ups. The policy became part of the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People.

 

After a two-year trial period during which nearly 700 abusive priests were removed from public ministry, the bishops voted overwhelmingly in June to renew for five years the charter and a related canonical law document for handling abuse, the Essential Norms.

[Steff]

Nice.. don't name them. Let the risk linger of them getting another job around children and continuing their sick actions. :headshake

 

 

Must be the poor education they got as children... :rolly

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Nice.. don't name them. Let the risk linger of them getting another job around children and continuing their sick actions.  :headshake

Must be the poor education they got as children...  :rolly

LOL

 

Well the entire thing has been to keep them away from civil authorities...

 

From a column on my site:

According to documents unearthed in 2003 legal actions, journalist Russ Kick found that the earliest document discussing priest rape was distributed in 1962. He states that the document "Instruction on the Manner of Proceeding in Cases of Solicitation" was sent to every high ranking cleric. The document said that anybody who allegedly raped a member of the parish would face a private Church court, secular officials would not be told and the paperwork would end up in the diocese's "secret archives". The document even states that, under punishment of excommunication, all clergy will keep the rape suppression secret "even for the most urgent and most serious cause for the purpose of a greater good." The document was personally approved by Pope John 23.

 

When Father James Porter pled guilty for molesting 28 children in the 1960s and 1970s, the document record shows that the church fully knew of his crimes -- and shuffled him to new parishes where he could prey on unsuspecting children. In 1973, Porter wrote Pope Paul 6 confessing his penetration of children and demanding to be let out of the priesthood.

 

The Church yet continued to hide him from legitimate authorities. In a document dated May 29, 1999 -- John Paul II calls for the removal of a priest accused of molesting a child. In the document he discusses how the priest should be moved to an area where his crimes are not known. He goes on to say that the priest could not be removed if allowing him to stay there would "cause no scandal".

[southsideirish71]

As a Catholic any priest that molests a child should be ex-communicated from the church. Kick them out, hand over all the evidence to the authorities and put them in general population in the jail. Becoming a priest is a sacrament, its a promise to God to teach the word of the lord. There is only one way to deal with this type of evil, root it out, and eradicate it. No more of this pussy footing around it.

[southsider2k5]

As a Catholic any priest that molests a child should be ex-communicated from the church.  Kick them out, hand over all the evidence to the authorities and put them in general population in the jail.  Becoming a priest is a sacrament, its a promise to God to teach the word of the lord. There is only one way to deal with this type of evil, root it out, and eradicate it. No more of this pussy footing around it.

 

You want an even quicker way to end the Catholic church's protection of child molesters? Have the IRS revoke their tax free status if they aid and abet any more felonies as an organization. I guarentee you will see some reform at that point.

[Texsox]

You can't just blame the Church for the secrecy. If the victims come forward, the Church can't hide it. Problem is, these are situations where both the accused and the accuser do not want publicity. I have a hard time finding fault with someone who does not want the public attention of coming forward and reporting having been abused.

[southsideirish71]

You can't just blame the Church for the secrecy. If the victims come forward, the Church can't hide it. Problem is, these are situations where both the accused and the accuser do not want publicity. I have a hard time finding fault with someone who does not want the public attention of coming forward and reporting having been abused.

 

Its a sexual assault. The victim should not have to make themselves public. All they need to do is to make outcry to the authorities. Sexual assault is one of the most unreported crimes. Especially sexual assault on children.

 

The church should be proactive. I dont see where in the mission of the church does it say anything about protecting the predators. Children are the most precious resource and the church of all places should be a haven for the protection of the innocent. My church spends a lot of time out at abortion clinics protesting the murder of the innocent. What about the protection of the innocent post birth.

[Texsox]

There is still the investigation, the trial, etc. It is arguably the most difficult area of our justice system in balancing the rights and compassion for the accuser, and the constitutionally guaranteed, innocent to proven guilty, right to face his accuser, accused.

 

I'm not certain what I would do if faced with that choice. Take a pile of cash and deal with it, or forgo the cash, take time off of work, face testifying about something that would be very embarrasing, be challenged about my statements, etc.

[southsider2k5]

You can't just blame the Church for the secrecy. If the victims come forward, the Church can't hide it. Problem is, these are situations where both the accused and the accuser do not want publicity. I have a hard time finding fault with someone who does not want the public attention of coming forward and reporting having been abused.

 

The point is they have a 50 year pattern of removing felons from trouble situations, and moving them to situations where they can continue to commit felonies, all without reporting these crimes to the proper authorities. They are legally obligated to report these crimes, and they do not.

[Soxy]

I'm not certain what I would do if faced with that choice. Take a pile of cash and deal with it, or forgo the cash, take time off of work, face testifying about something that would be very embarrasing, be challenged about my statements, etc.

I wouldn't be able to testify, no way at least not in an open court room. Sexual assault is humiliating enough, but I can't imagine how horrible that must be--to testify against a "man of God." But they don't need the victim's permission to go ahead with it. Once a case has been opened or filed, it's no longer about the victim--it's the State vs, which has its upsides and downsides.

 

Fortunately, I would get dismissed from a jury on this case pretty damn quick.

 

I don't think I could take the cash either. You can't buy what assholes like that take away.

 

The only way anyone wins in these cases is that the perp is taken away from that parish (and hopefully all other's) children.

Edited September 27, 2005 by ChiSoxyGirl

[Texsox]

The point is they have a 50 year pattern of removing felons from trouble situations, and moving them to situations where they can continue to commit felonies, all without reporting these crimes to the proper authorities.  They are legally obligated to report these crimes, and they do not.

 

Please don't think I am excusing this behavior, I was just offering for thought the perspective of the victims that want the Church to keep it quiet while removing the offending Priest.

 

We should also balance the 50 year history with societies handling of sex crimes. Rape victims were routinely discredited, their clothes, their mannerisms, suggestions that they "wanted it". Churches weren't the only institutions that swept these things under the rug. I believe we have to address the full range of the problem, not just think we can dump it all on one doorstep.

[Soxy]

We should also balance the 50 year history with societies handling of sex crimes. Rape victims were routinely discredited, their clothes, their mannerisms, suggestions that they "wanted it". Churches weren't the only institutions that swept these things under the rug. I believe we have to address the full range of the problem, not just think we can dump it all on one doorstep.

Amen.

 

s***, go back to the biblical rules of dealing with a rape. This stuff has been happening for way more than 50 years, it's just that in the last 50 years people have started to listen and believe.

[tonyho7476]

Nice.. don't name them. Let the risk linger of them getting another job around children and continuing their sick actions.  :headshake

Must be the poor education they got as children...  :rolly

 

I think there is something inherently wrong with wanting to be a priest. Suppressing the sexual side of one-self is not normal. I think a lot of these guys grew up feeling homosexual urges, and then went into the church feeling they would just become celibate. And then all this s*** happens. Obviously some of these offenses are against women, but it seems like a majority are against young boys.

 

What's my point? I don't know.

[Soxy]

I think there is something inherently wrong with wanting to be a priest.  Suppressing the sexual side of one-self is not normal.  I think a lot of these guys grew up feeling homosexual urges, and then went into the church feeling they would just become celibate.  And then all this s*** happens.  Obviously some of these offenses are against women, but it seems like a majority are against young boys.

I disagree entirely.

 

First, pedophiles and homosexuals are NOT the same thing. Gay men are NOT attracted to children, they're attracted to other gay men. They're no more attracted to little boys than you probably are to little girls.

 

Second, some people feel the call to priesthood and want to make a sacrifice to God and their gift and sacrifice is celibacy. I don't agree with a celibate priesthood, but I believe that to most priests it is a joyful sacrifice to the Lord.

[Texsox]

I think there is something inherently wrong with wanting to be a priest.  Suppressing the sexual side of one-self is not normal.  I think a lot of these guys grew up feeling homosexual urges, and then went into the church feeling they would just become celibate.  And then all this s*** happens.  Obviously some of these offenses are against women, but it seems like a majority are against young boys.

 

What's my point?  I don't know.

 

 

You are in an interesting area. I don't know of any mainstream religion that approves of sex outside of marriage. So following your reasoning, anyone who is single and celibate, following their religions teachings, would not be normal?

 

The Priesthood is not an easy life, and I really doubt these guys joined to fight their homosexual tendencies. It is also inaccurate to portray homosexuality and pedophilia with the same brush. We've had three or four female teachers convicted of pedophilia with young males. I don't think their heterosexual drives caused that.

[tonyho7476]

I disagree entirely.

 

First, pedophiles and homosexuals are NOT the same thing. Gay men are NOT attracted to children, they're attracted to other gay men. They're no more attracted to little boys than you probably are to little girls.

 

Second, some people feel the call to priesthood and want to make a sacrifice to God and their gift and sacrifice is celibacy. I don't agree with a celibate priesthood, but I believe that to most priests it is a joyful sacrifice to the Lord.

 

correct, pedophiles and homosexuals are not the same...I still say that something is wrong with celibacy....and that individuals that are attracted to kids or people who feel their own homosexuality is bad, have turned to priesthood as a solution to suppressing their feelings. There are too many examples of this happening among priests.

[Soxy]

correct, pedophiles and homosexuals are not the same...I still say that something is wrong with celibacy....and that individuals that are attracted to kids or people who feel their own homosexuality is bad, have turned to priesthood as a solution to suppressing their feelings.  There are too many examples of this happening among priests.

I have never seen any significant (and reliably done) work on the this. If you have any actual statistic basis for your statement, I would love to see it. Because I highly doubt that is the reason people join the priesthood. I'm sure there are the minute numbers that actually join for those reason, but I doubt that happens any more than with teachers, counselors, etc. . .

 

But, I will change my tune if you can provide me with facts instead of antedotal comments and observations.

[tonyho7476]

I have never seen any significant (and reliably done) work on the this. If you have any actual statistic basis for your statement, I would love to see it. Because I highly doubt that is the reason people join the priesthood. I'm sure there are the minute numbers that actually join for those reason, but I doubt that happens any more than with teachers, counselors, etc. . .

 

But, I will change my tune if you can provide me with facts instead of antedotal comments and observations.

 

I'm putting 2 and 2 together...maybe I'm not getting 4...but I have hard time believing that these priests didn't have these feelings before they became priests. If they did, which I am assuming...then I would see joining the priesthood as trying to hide from your problems and say 'I will suppress all sexuality'...when they should actually be getting help from professionals.

[Texsox]

correct, pedophiles and homosexuals are not the same...I still say that something is wrong with celibacy....and that individuals that are attracted to kids or people who feel their own homosexuality is bad, have turned to priesthood as a solution to suppressing their feelings.  There are too many examples of this happening among priests.

 

Then explain all the other pedophiles, like teachers, that are not celibate? Pedophiliacs are attracted to occupations and other opposrtunties to be around children. Teachers, coaches, day care workers, medical field, etc.

 

And if one is following their religion, is single, they should be celibate. Are you suggesting that males and females should be having casual sex so they avoid abusing children?

[tonyho7476]

Then explain all the other pedophiles, like teachers, that are not celibate? Pedophiliacs are attracted to occupations and other opposrtunties to be around children. Teachers, coaches, day care workers, medical field, etc.

 

And if one is following their religion, is single, they should be celibate. Are you suggesting that males and females should be having casual sex so they avoid abusing children?

 

I'm dropping this...I guess I'm saying that the priest pedophiles joined the church to try and suppress their feelings...and I don't respect religion much, despite 12+ years in catholic schools, so I never should have gotten into this thread.

[Texsox]

I'm dropping this...I guess I'm saying that the priest pedophiles joined the church to try and suppress their feelings...and I don't respect religion much, despite 12+ years in catholic schools, so I never should have gotten into this thread.

 

Actually it's an interesting point that has been mentioned in many different ways. And perhaps some Priest did join because they wanted to live a celibate lifestyle. But there are no chastity belts, and anyone could, if they wanted, lead a chast lifestyle regardless of their occupation. I'm just not convinced a pedophile, knowing it's already illegal, would think that a vow of celibacy would be just the ticket to stop his urges. I would actually argue that a pedophile that was thinking at this level, would actually want a job that allows sex with adults in hopes of channeling those sexual urges.

[JUGGERNAUT]

:rolly The key word is "allegations". It is up to law enforcement agencies to determine if these "allegations" are serious enough to issue arrest warrants. If that were to happen the Freedom of Information Act would afford the media the right to their names.

 

The Church have taken a "guilty by association" policy where allegations are enough to remove the men from public ministry. Only a liberal would expect something more than that.

[Mercy!]

Nice.. don't name them. Let the risk linger of them getting another job around children and continuing their sick actions....

Early in the morning, I clicked on a link on the Tribune site that I thought was going to take me to that story, and it was a list of each of the priests, their parishes, and when the “events” took place. One was as long ago as the 1950’s, some from the 1980’s. Glad to know the hierarchy is on top of things.

 

I don’t see that link right off the bat, anymore. Maybe it’s still there somewhere. Didn’t feel like doing a search on sicko priests.

Edited September 27, 2005 by Mercy!

[JUGGERNAUT]

My GM here at home chewed me out to no ends the last time I got involved with time-consuming debate. I'm on a 1 post per thread per day limit now. I'm on the honor system & already violated it. That's weighing on my conscience already. I'll weigh in again tomorrow. Take care.

Edited September 27, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[kapkomet]

My GM here at home chewed me out to no ends the last time I got involved with time-consuming debate.  I'm on a 1 post per thread per day limit now.  I'm on the honor system & already violated it.  That's weighing on my conscience already.  I'll weigh in again tomorrow.  Take care.

 

 

 

Hopefully you get some time to debate the healthcare issue. I'm curious as to what you have to say in that one.