Steff Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/11/18/clergy-abuse.ap/index.html Friday, November 18, 2005 8:11 a.m. EST (13:11 GMT) LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- California's Supreme Court has upheld an appeals court ruling that forces the nation's largest Roman Catholic archdiocese to turn over the personnel files of two former priests accused of molestation. The ruling issued Wednesday is the latest development in a battle between the Los Angeles County district attorney, who subpoenaed the private files three years ago, and the archdiocese. Archbishop Roger Mahony has argued that opening the files would violate the church's constitutional guarantee of religious freedom. Donald Steier, an attorney for the former priests, said he was considering an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The ruling means prosecutors could scour personnel files for evidence that could result in criminal charges against additional clergy and possibly even Mahony himself. One former priest, Michael Wempe, is expected to go on trial within weeks on charges of committing a lewd act on a child and oral copulation of a person under 16. The district attorney's office has said it is also investigating several other cases that could fall within the statute of limitations for prosecution of sex abuse. "This is an important milestone in addressing the issue of clerical sexual abuse," District Attorney Steve Cooley said. "I look forward to immediate access to files we subpoenaed from the Los Angeles Archdiocese." In a separate civil case, a judge ruled Wednesday that a monsignor must answer questions in a deposition and cannot assert "clergy privilege" to avoid revealing whether he heard confessions of a deacon accused of sexual abuse. "The penitential privilege protects 'a communication made in confidence,"' wrote Judge Haley Fromholz, who has been supervising a global settlement of more than 550 civil lawsuits against the archdiocese. "It does not prohibit the disclosure of the fact that the communication occurred." The church argued that all communications between a priest and a bishop are privileged. Some priests might continue to refuse to answer questions despite the ruling, said Donald Woods, an archdiocese attorney. Monsignor Michael Lenihan was deposed last summer in cases involving three priests, including Michael Baker, a deacon he supervised who later admitted abusing two brothers and has been accused in other cases. I just don't understand it. Why, why, why... would the church NOT want to have these sicko's prosecuted and put away. :banghead Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 I think they're afraid of just how much damage it would cause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted November 18, 2005 Author Share Posted November 18, 2005 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 18, 2005 -> 11:01 AM) I think they're afraid of just how much damage it would cause. Because the damage to the children they molest is no big deal.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 18, 2005 -> 11:01 AM) I think they're afraid of just how much damage it would cause. I don't really care about the appearance of the Catholic Church. These people are criminals and need to be put away for a very long time. If the church gets the appearance of a bunch of child molesting sickos then thats just too f***ing bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 QUOTE(Steff @ Nov 18, 2005 -> 12:01 PM) I just don't understand it. Why, why, why... would the church NOT want to have these sicko's prosecuted and put away. Because when it's revealed just how many priests were involved, and how the diocese hid the violations, it's going to make the L.A. church look REEEEAAALLL bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 Don't get me wrong, I agree with the sentiments here - but they're going to control and fight the releasing of documents until the bitter, bitter end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted November 18, 2005 Author Share Posted November 18, 2005 QUOTE(Wong & Owens @ Nov 18, 2005 -> 11:06 AM) Because when it's revealed just how many priests were involved, and how the diocese hid the violations, it's going to make the L.A. church look REEEEAAALLL bad. I know.. I really wasn't looking for it to be answered. Ya know when you are just so baffled by something that you just say "why.. how.. can it be...." over and over again.. ? That's how I feel about this.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 QUOTE(Steff @ Nov 18, 2005 -> 12:09 PM) I know.. I really wasn't looking for it to be answered. Ya know when you are just so baffled by something that you just say "why.. how.. can it be...." over and over again.. ? That's how I feel about this.. LOL, I hear ya. When I read this type of stuff it really enforces my decision to go atheist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NUKE_CLEVELAND Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 QUOTE(Wong & Owens @ Nov 18, 2005 -> 11:06 AM) Because when it's revealed just how many priests were involved, and how the diocese hid the violations, it's going to make the L.A. church look REEEEAAALLL bad. Throw em all in the slam. Anyone involved needs to burn for this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 QUOTE(Steff @ Nov 18, 2005 -> 12:01 PM) http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/11/18/clergy-abuse.ap/index.html Friday, November 18, 2005 8:11 a.m. EST (13:11 GMT) LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- California's Supreme Court has upheld an appeals court ruling that forces the nation's largest Roman Catholic archdiocese to turn over the personnel files of two former priests accused of molestation. The ruling issued Wednesday is the latest development in a battle between the Los Angeles County district attorney, who subpoenaed the private files three years ago, and the archdiocese. Archbishop Roger Mahony has argued that opening the files would violate the church's constitutional guarantee of religious freedom. Donald Steier, an attorney for the former priests, said he was considering an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The ruling means prosecutors could scour personnel files for evidence that could result in criminal charges against additional clergy and possibly even Mahony himself. One former priest, Michael Wempe, is expected to go on trial within weeks on charges of committing a lewd act on a child and oral copulation of a person under 16. The district attorney's office has said it is also investigating several other cases that could fall within the statute of limitations for prosecution of sex abuse. "This is an important milestone in addressing the issue of clerical sexual abuse," District Attorney Steve Cooley said. "I look forward to immediate access to files we subpoenaed from the Los Angeles Archdiocese." In a separate civil case, a judge ruled Wednesday that a monsignor must answer questions in a deposition and cannot assert "clergy privilege" to avoid revealing whether he heard confessions of a deacon accused of sexual abuse. "The penitential privilege protects 'a communication made in confidence,"' wrote Judge Haley Fromholz, who has been supervising a global settlement of more than 550 civil lawsuits against the archdiocese. "It does not prohibit the disclosure of the fact that the communication occurred." The church argued that all communications between a priest and a bishop are privileged. Some priests might continue to refuse to answer questions despite the ruling, said Donald Woods, an archdiocese attorney. Monsignor Michael Lenihan was deposed last summer in cases involving three priests, including Michael Baker, a deacon he supervised who later admitted abusing two brothers and has been accused in other cases. I just don't understand it. Why, why, why... would the church NOT want to have these sicko's prosecuted and put away. :banghead One word Bankruptcy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted November 18, 2005 Share Posted November 18, 2005 Yea, that's true. They probably would have juuuuuuuuuuuust a little less in the collection plate, and couldn't cover the million dollar payouts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.