Vatican Admits: Most Priests Accused of Sex Crimes were NEVER Tried

[RainDog]

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/03/15/vatican.priests.sexual.abuse/

Catholic Church officials never prosecuted more than half the roughly 3,000 priests accused of sexual impropriety in the past decade, a top Vatican official has revealed.

There has been "no trial" in 60 percent of cases, mostly "because of the advanced age of the accused," said Msgr. Charles J. Scicluna, head of the Vatican office that investigates crimes the church considers most serious.

The priests in those cases were subject to "administrative and disciplinary provisions" such as instructions not to celebrate Mass or hear confessions, Scicluna told L'Avvenire, the Italian Catholic bishops' newspaper, on Saturday.

Those cases include some of the most "sensational... which have caught the attention of the media," he said, without revealing more details.

So, they let these pedophiles continue for DECADES to abuse children, DID NOTHING ABOUT IT WHEN THEY KNEW, then did nothing about it WHEN THE ABUSE BECAME KNOWN BEYOND THE CHURCH because they let it go on for so long that those pedophiles are too old to bother with???

The crotch-sniffers in the Vatican are repulsive beyond words. What moral authority does any institution have when it spends DECADES providing COVER AND OPPORTUNITY for pedophiles?

These people DO NOT CARE ABOUT CHILDREN. They do not care about women. They care about perpetuating their own power.

When you contribute to this church, you contribute to the support of pedophiles.

[HeresyLives]

1. Is there a link for this story?

LOL never mind, thank you.

[RainDog]

4. I had a picture of the hummingbird eggs!

I thought I'd copied the CNN link but... oops.

OT- the hummingbird eggs are not yet hatched. :)

[HeresyLives]

13. Well I liked that,

I just hoped the link was available as well. :)

The webcam is a great idea...something people don't usually get to see.

[Fumesucker]

2. But they really, really, really care about fetuses..

You have to give them that.

[Warren DeMontague]

18. I don't think the fact that they helped child abusers escape justice for decades

in ANY WAY compromises their moral authority when they tell people not to use birth control...


...do you?

:sarcasm:

[HereSince1628]

3. 3.0.0.0 ! ! ! ! ! ??????? Wow. There is a number.

[RainDog]

7. actually, one of the abused has a site that claims the number of known

abusers was 6000.

And, of course, these numbers are for the priests who have been outed thus far, not the hundreds of claims from people now in Germany, Italy, Spain, The Netherlands and Switzerland...and South American nations too, as has been recently revealed.

Since the church moved the priests to other nations so that they could abuse children there, it's not simply the number of priests who were abusers but THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN THEY ABUSED.

[HereSince1628]

9. Indeed . . .

A 50 year career, even at 2-3 children per year. The numbers become staggering.

[RainDog]

29. Abuse is also a generational issue

Whether someone has been intentionally abused or not.

When these pedophiles abuse their power, they not only harm the abused in terms of trust for those who supposedly have their best interests at heart.

such abuse actually impacts the structures of the brain.

some people looking into PTSD are also looking at the question of whether or not such physiological changes are heritable.

Whether they are biologically heritable or not, the abuse leads to psychological changes that impact those abused throughout their lives. most especially when there are triggers that remind of the event, such as when their own child reaches the same age.

this can bring on memories that have been repressed - or, more to the point, behaviors, like rage, that are the direct result of the damage abusers inflict upon their victims.

[happyslug]

26. And even the Catholic Church admits that number to low

As I stated above, the Church agency that handles these cases found only about 20% of the cases are true pedophilia, most of the accusation would be classified as teen age homosexuality (or the desire for legal yet still teen age young boys i.e. over the age of 12). Please note this is out of about 400,000 priest world wide. Thus we are talking of less then 1% of all priests (But even the internal church agency believes the number is low).

A good Chart on the age of Consent world wide:
http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm

More details:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe#Vatican_State

The Vatican age of consent is complex, it is age 12 UNLESS the victim is "dependent" on the perpetrator (i.e. teacher-student) then it is age 15. If the perpetrator is caught OUTSIDE the Vatican, the fact that the crime occurred inside the Vatican is NOT a defense in any action brought by the Italian Government (Whose age of consent is age 14). Now the Italian Government can NOT bring an action against a resident of the Vatican for having sex in violation of Italian law but not Vatican law (I.e. with a 12 or 13 year old) UNLESS the perpetrator is caught outside the Vatican, then he can be charged under Italian law even if the offense occurred inside the Vatican. Given the nature of the Vatican State you have very few pre-14 year olds inside the Vatican so this difference in law in less significant then is looks. Just pointing out the problem of consent, which is ALWAYS an issue when it comes to cases like this, did the victim agree to it? Under 12 NOT an issue under Vatican law, it remains a non-issue if the victim is under 15 and is a student and the perpetrator is a teacher. It is NOT an issue if the victim is age 14 if the perpetrator is caught outside the Vatican.

[RainDog]

27. but as you note, consent is not a viable excuse for pedophiles when they are the teachers/priests

of those they abused.

so, even within the "Vatican's Laws," these priests were pedophiles.

how does Italian v Vatican law fall in the recent prostitution ring being set up right out of the Vatican?

I assume those prostitutes (both male and female) were of age. However, as far as I know, the Vatican disapproves of prostitution even when those they exploit are of age.

...and do they insist that the female prostitutes forgo birth control?

isn't that an interesting moral issue for the church. hmmmm. is it "wronger" to have sex with a prostitute if she uses birth control?

[moobu2]

5. Time for regime change

But first they need to be charged with operating an organized criminal enterprise and have all the churches assets and all records seized.

[RainDog]

8. Support for the church = support for pedophiles.

this is the modern history of the church.

if anyone gives money to this church, they give money to uphold the abuse of children.

[rocktivity]

6. Candidate for this year's "You Call This NEWS?" award

Not prosecuting them was half the fun!

:eyes:
rocktivity

[Echo In Light]

10. k/r

[happyslug]

11. Please note these are CHURCH based prosecutions NOT Criminal Prosecutions

This involved a trial held by the Vatican in regards to a Priest violating his duties as a priest, NOT criminal charges brought against the same Priest. Such accusations are subject to an internal ten year Statute of Limitations (Changed to ten years by John Paul II in 2001, it is ten years from the date the child turns 18). In most US States the Criminal statute of limitations is two years and many states that starts on the last day of the abuse NOT when the child turns 18 (Civil matters are different, with California having no statute of limitations but most US States having a four year statute of Limitation starting when the child turns 18).

For more see this from the Vatican itself:
http://212.77.1.245/news_services/press/vis/dinamiche/e1_en.htm

[RainDog]

14. Since the church moved pedophiles from nation to nation w/o prosecution

what makes them any different than an international pedophile ring?

people's refusal to accept what the hierarchy is really about?

[happyslug]

24. Technically, no Priest can move into another Diocese without that Bishops approval

This makes moving a Priest from one country to another difficult, through NOT impossible. Technically no bishop can go into another bishop's diocese without that Diocese's Bishops approval (i.e. even the Pope when he visit another Country, must have that country's bishops "permission" to enter their country, but more a technical impediment then a real one for permission is almost always granted for the Pope appointed the present Bishop AND will appoint his successor).

Now, the Catholic Church do move around its priests. Sometime this is for disciplinary purposes, other time it is for other reasons. For example a Priest from the Altoona-Johnstown Diocese was transferred to a monastery in Arizona after it came out he had molested some young teenagers. At the subsequent civil trial he had to return but since the accusations were first made public he has had no access to young teens and has been doing work in a monastery where he can be kept separate from young teens. Another example involves some priests from Louisiana that has been kept in Rome in an school to help teach new American Priests. Louisiana wants them back but the Vatican refuses to extradite them for the alleged crime on the ground the victims were over age 15 and as such of the age of consent in the Vatican, Italy and most of the world. Louisiana holds 18 is the age of consent, and thus a conflict in the law as to the defense of consent. In most of the world consent is a defense if the victim is over age 14 (12 was the historical age of consent, but most of the world has raised it to age 14, but some jurisdiction has raised it to age 18, thus you get the situation where a man, age 18 was found guilty of pedophilia for having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend who he later married, For that crime he is on that State's Megan List as a child sex offender).

My point is in most cases priests are NOT moved out of a Jurisdiction to avoid prosecution for this type of crime. In most cases the statute of limitation ran out while before anyone brought it to the attention of the local prosecuting attorney. It is rare to hear of a priest facing any criminal charges do to very strict criminal stature of limitation. The vast majority of cases you hear about are civil in nature for the courts are more willing to expand statute of limitations in such cases for it means mere money damages NOT jail time. All US jurisdiction only start their statute of limitations running in civil cases when the victim reaches age of 18 (This was do to a US Supreme Court Case that ruled it was unconstitutional for Pennsylvania to limit any action involving paying support to seven years, a law on Pennsylvanian Law Books since Colonial times. The Court ruled that since the Child could NOT bring the action themselves till they turn 18 any Civil statute of limitations can only start to run when the child can file the court action themselves, as opposes to being brought in the child's name by the Child's parents, and that is age 18 in all states). Thus it is rare for a priest to be moved out of a country to avoid criminal prosecution for in most cases the statute of limitations ran out on the criminal case while before any charges were brought. The main problem for the Catholic Church has NOT been criminal prosecutions of its priests but civil actions asking for money damages for compensation for the abuse. Being civil, merely being out of the jurisdiction does NOT protect the diocese (and in most cases only the diocese has the money to pay for the damages and no one is looking at the priest to pay the damages). It is the money damages that is doing the most harm to the Catholic Church NOT criminal charges.

[RainDog]

25. interesting info

can you explain to me why Ireland has paid billions for the abuse by priests rather than the church?

[happyslug]

38. If I remember right the problem with Ireland was that the Church ran the a Government System

Remember, even today, the Catholic Church has a special place within Irish law, it is the State Church. As the State's Church when it is acting for the state, the state is liable for its actions. One of the best example of this involved a 1938 Pennsylvania Supreme Court Case. The Philadelphia School District had rented an abandoned school to a Boy Scout Troop, then one day the School Board awarded a Contract to tear the School down without informing the Boy Scout Troop. The next day the de-construction company show up and started to tear down the School. Some of the members of the troop appeared to try to recover their stored items in the School. The Crew told them to wait till nightfall. That night as the boys tried to recover their property over a board laid over part of the old school one of the boys fell and injured himself. He (or more accurately his parents) sued the School Board and the de-construction crew. The court dismissed the case as to the School Board on the grounds of Sovereign immunity but the court upheld the claim against the de-constriction company on the grounds the it was trespassing on the property of the boy scout. The de-construction company only right to the School was from the School Board WHO HAD GIVEN ITS RIGHTS TO THE BOY SCOUT TROOP WHEN THE SCHOOL BOARD RENTED IT OUT TO THEM. Since the School board had NO right to be on the School property (Since the Troop had a valid lease) it was trespassing by the deconstruction crew and as such they were 100% liable for the injury to the boy. Notice, by law the School Board could not be sued by the boy, but the de-construction company whose only right to enter the school was from the landlord/School Board was 100% liable.

Now, while the School Board was NOT liable to the boy for the injury, it was liable to the de-construction company for any costs involved in tearing down the School. i.e. the boy could NOT recover from the School boy, but the De-construction company could. The difference is based on contract law. The boy had no contractual agreement with the School or the de-construction crew and thus could only sue on the grounds of trespass. As such the School Board was immune but the De-construction company was not. On the other hand the De-construction company had a CONTRACT with the School Board and could sue on that rights it had under that contract including any costs incurred do to failure of the School Board to provide a clean title. The same with the Catholic Church in Ireland, they were acting as agents of the state. The Church could not claim sovereign immunity (Just like the Contractor above) but could claim contractual rights for reimbursement do to the failure of the state to do its job (Which, if I remember right, was to investigate any claims of abuse which the Irish state did NOT do).

[RainDog]

39. again, great information

does any of this play into Ireland's recent economic problems?

or is this just a measly billion?

[happyslug]

40. I see and have heard of no connection, this is a "normal" cost of business

I use the term "Normal" for I use to do Children and Youth work as a lawyer representing parents. The vast majority of my cases involved parents that needed to be taught how to be parents, i.e. they problem were less abuse and more neglect. On the other hand I did do occasional work involving abuse. In those cases I learned a lot. For example something like 90% of all abuse occurs with in families. Outside abuse is the exception NOT the rule (and this includes sexual abuse). We hear of the Priests doing the abuse, not because they do more abuse then others (The records seem to indicate otherwise) but of the three big groups that has been accused of such abuse the Catholic Church can NOT claim Sovereign Immunity (As does the Public Schools, were most abuse occurs), or have no money so lawyers do NOT take up the case such as in regards to day care centers (Where a lot of accusation of abuse were made in the late 1980s early 1990s, but subsequent investigation found to NOT have occurred or hopelessly exaggerated). Yes, the Catholic Church has a problem, unlike public schools which can hide behind Sovereign Immunity and day care center (which tend NOT to have any money) the Catholic Church has assets that a Judgment can be collected on. One of the oldest joke in the legal profession is that the hardest part of collecting on a Judgment is NOT getting the Judgment but collecting on it. If the person who did the abuse is a public school teacher you can sue that teacher and get a huge judgment on the teacher. The problem is it may take decades (if ever) for the Judgment to be paid by that teacher. You can NOT go after the teacher's employer, the School District, for Sovereign Immunity prevents such lawsuits AND more often then not any home the teacher owns is owned with the teacher's spouse and in regards to Judgments, as a general rule, you can NOT sell marital property for the debt of one spouse. Since most homes are held in the name of both spouses it is marital property and can not be touched. Day care center has similar problems if you only get Judgment against one spouse (and that is generally the wife, the husband generally has another job) providing you can get around the fact most day care centers have no money.

On the other hand the Catholic Church is NOT protected by Sovereign immunity and it has assets that a Plaintiff can go after. The Catholic Church, in many ways, a perfect defendant, it has money, it has no special protection under the law (such as school districts) and given its structure it is easy to prove that the Bishop knew of a priest's "weaknesses" and that the Bishop did nothing.

As to the situation in Ireland, the above are cost the Catholic Church (and every other organization that deals with teen age and pre-teen children) have had to deal with for centuries). It is NOT new. The extent of the press coverage is new, but if you go back further then the 1920s such accusations were common. The decline was more a reflection of the fact that such incidents occur in EVERY organization dealing with people of that age AND that if you reported on the Catholic Church the reporter would have to report on other organizations, Such organizations also included businesses. People tend to forget that prior to WWII most people started employment at age 14. In fact do to pressure of the Great Depression, two opposing things happened at the same time, first a lot of children dropped out of school to get work to help their families, while more children stayed in School for there were no jobs for them to get. This increase in people in high school lead the Federal Government to change unemployment Statistics from 14 and above prior to 1947 to 17 and above after 1947. My point is when it comes to the age where such pedophilia occurred, prior to WWII it was more likely to occur within businesses that first hired 12-14 years olds then in Schools, both Catholic and Public. It is only with the acceptance that ALL children should finish High School do we have most pre-teens and teenagers in High School as oppose to being on their own. The police had always protected businesses (For the simple reason if the police did not they would be fired and replaced by someone who would, I am talking of pre-WWII police forces. True Civil Service only hit most Police Department as part of the New Deal of the 1930s) from such accusations so switching to protecting Schools was NOT that much of a jump.

I do NOT want to get to far off the subject and go into HOW the pedophile cases occurred (Like most such debacles it has many causes not any one single cause) but address the cost of such abuse. The costs are high but not that high as to be unmanageable. In many ways it is a cost of doing business with people of that age (10-15 years old). Anyone who deals with such situation have to make efforts to keep it under control, but no one with any experience with Children and Youth litigation will suggest it will be ever be eliminated. The best policy is to have a policy to prevent it and when that policy fails to try to undo the harm. These costs are pretty steady. In regards to Ireland I have NOT heard of any truly excess cost tied in with such cases. I have heard of high settlement fees but nothing really out of the ordinarily for such cases, just high do to the fact it is now being reported while 20 years ago such situation were just not reported. Ireland's problem is tied in with its embrace of wall street as a poor English speaking Europe NOT anything the Catholic Church had done. Wall Street is in Ireland to protect Wall Street and if that includes the destruction of Ireland, that is OK with Wall Street.

[RainDog]

41. the issue is the cover-up

all institutions will have problems. all do.

the issue at hand, ultimately, is that the current pope articulated the way to handle things that say these issues must be handled by the church, not civil courts, then a gross failure to handle those cases.

opinions for motives may differ as to why he stipulated that those who were abused were to speak to no one but a priest about this issue. No matter what the motive, this is abuse as well. it is psychologically binding someone to his or her abuser to protect them.

as far as the pre-school stuff in the 1980s - that was a lot of hysteria in the line of Shark Attack Week because mothers are going to work and putting their children in daycare.

in the case of the church, we're looking at a systemic cover-up. when public schools find out about abusers, they are not, to my knowledge, protected from prosecution by their school systems.

if the incident of abuse is .04% (a figure I read in relation to this.. if you have better stats, please share) among both parents and the priesthood, that would seem to indicate that more abuse comes from parents because of the number of them but more abuse occurs per capita from priests. it would also make sense to assume that there are more victims per person with abuse via the church because of their access to youth over decades.

the reason that this issue is of interest to me in relation to the church is not that I think there are more abusers in the church than other places. the reason it is of interest to me is because this same institution claims moral authority to determine health care decisions for women. its claims to this authority are as bogus, not simply because of their generational tradition of sheltering abusers, but because of their irrational claim to moral authority by this pope or any other.

[RainDog]

32. quote from your post

"It is the money damages that is doing the most harm to the Catholic Church NOT criminal charges."

yes. this is what I hope will bring down this organization. I hope this bankrupts the church. it has already done much harm to them in Ireland, as already noted.

That's how the mob was kneecapped too.

[RainDog]

yes. the first of the article makes it clear that THE VATICAN FAILED TO PROTECT CHILDREN

from these abusers.

that is the entire point.

[StarlightGold]

12. Aw, you're just persecuting

the poor, put-upon catholic church!! (I refuse to dignify them with capital letters). Other denominations do bad things too, ya know!! I think I need to give even more money when the collection plate comes around!!

Yes, that was my attempt at sarcasm. My God, I haven't felt to much rage and disgust in a long, long time.

[RainDog]

15. "I was just following orders" Cardinal Brady explains as he refuses to step down

after he admitted he harbored a pedophile and told children to SHUT UP about the abuse.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/8569206.stm

The BBC Northern Ireland radio phone-in show I hosted on Monday received a record number of texts as we debated Cardinal Sean Brady's position.

...Eighty percent of the texts we got were hostile. "He should resign immediately," said one lifelong Catholic.

He says he was merely following orders from his superiors.

Some victims of clerical abuse have pointedly reminded him that this argument didn't work in Nuremberg in 1945, and it doesn't work now.

and whose orders were they? were they the orders written by Ratzinger?

[Warren DeMontague]

16. Three Words: International Criminal Conspiracy.

I find it astounding how enthusiastic some are to chase Roman Polanski all over the globe to serve him justice (which he should be served, by the way) yet for some reason there's a BIG OL' blind spot when it comes to enforcing the same rules on kindly old Father McFondlefingers.

Seriously. The entire apparatus of that organization is in blatant disregard of anything resembling international law, if you ask me.

[RainDog]

17. didn't even think about that abuser, Polanski

but, yeah, that's quite a point to make, isn't it?

One man vs more than 3000.

If only he were catholic, it would have been okay! :/

[Warren DeMontague]

19. And one incident, versus countless.

Given the moral outrage drummed up over Polanski, it's a little curious, isn't it? :shrug:

[RainDog]

20. Yes, indeed it is

especially when this same institution thinks it has the right for force women to give birth.

when I see their position on abortion, I wonder if it's merely to provide fodder for pedophiles.

yes, all life is sacred... we say that so that we can fuck children. that should be the anti-woman mantra.

[RainDog]

23. and you're asking where the outrage is on DU over this v. Polanski?

I didn't participate on those threads so I don't know who was calling him out, but, yeah, why aren't those same people calling out the pedophiles in this case?

[Warren DeMontague]

33. Yeah, I'm just trying to put it into perspective.

I mean, aiding, abetting, and apologizing for child abusers as they flee across international boundaries to escape justice should be wrong in ALL cases. That's my take.

[Liberal_in_LA]

21. wow... just when you think the scandal can't get worse...

[RainDog]

22. the only good thing to come out of this

looking back at the pedophile abuse that came out in Ireland in the 1990s, some good has come out of this.

almost all seminaries in Ireland are closed now.

the church put the state in hock for more than a billion dollars (damages for victims) -- I don't know why the state pays and not the church, but surely at some point Ireland might ask... why are we paying for their abuse instead of the church?

church attendance is at an all-time low and people are loudly and vocally stating their disgust with this gang of creeps.

[AngryOldDem]

36. It's been that way for years, and why Boston was such a bombshell.

In the real world, what Church leaders did is called aiding and abetting (among other things) and they've been able to get away with it by hiding behind the "sanctity of the institution."

The Church literally makes me ill.

[d.gibbs]

28. Let them come out of the closet and marry each other

instead of bugging kids.

[RainDog]

30. gay does not equal pedophile. the abused were females, too. n/t

[AngryOldDem]

37. Quite so.

A few years back I was active in Voice of the Faithful, and I would say that about half of those abused who came to our meetings were women. One was molested on a school bus by her priest back in the 1950s.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. And Ratzinger the Pope parades about in Prada

promoting intolerance and discrimination, meddling in the affairs of nations, traveling the world preaching his judgment of others. How dare he, and how dare those who empower him so empower him? What standing do these criminals and accomplices have to call for bigotry against others? How dare this Ratsy and his corrupt and putrid peers speak a word against anyone?

[Blue-Jay]

34. Many of their victims were "tried".

Either "tried" in the court of public opinion, or just TRIED.

[AngryOldDem]

35. What's even more outrageous....

Parish priests here in the U.S. are kept on the payroll and still get all the "perks" parish housing, etc., until their cases are adjudicated by the Vatican. Defrocking is a process that can take YEARS. In the meantime, they are still drawing a salary and basically getting a paid vacation until such time justice can be served. In my former archdiocese, I can think of NO priest accused of sex crimes who served ANY time in jail.

The Church wonders why people are leaving it in droves, and finds its sanctimonious policies offensive and insulting. Look in the mirror, hierarchy: YOU are the problem.

[TexasObserver]

42. Recommend