New documents released by the Los Angeles Diocese of the Roman Catholic Church as part of a negotiated settlement show a 75 year pattern of priests accused of abuse being transferred from church to church and school to school:
The confidential records show that for more than 75 years the nation's largest archdiocese shipped accused priests between therapy and new assignments, often ignoring parishioners' complaints.
And, in many cases, there was little mention of child molestation. Instead, euphemisms such as "boundary violations" were used to describe the conduct.
The documents were released late Tuesday as part of settlement talks with lawyers for more than 500 accusers in a civil lawsuit. The records, which summarize clergy personnel files, offer details in numerous cases, though much of the information has already been published in various forms.
I've asked before, I'll ask again: why are there not bishops and archbishops up on charges of aiding and abetting these felonies? If a school administrator, a teacher, a doctor or a therapist even suspects that a child is being abused, it is a crime for them not to report it. If a school administrator had a teacher accused of molesting a student and they didn't report it, but rather transferred the teacher to another school, he would likely be in prison for that. Why are church officials treated any differently? The answer: cowardly prosecutors who don't want to risk their election prospects by angering the Catholic vote.
- Log in to post comments
I live in one of those communities--Spokane, where the elected District Attorney is indeed fearful of prosecuting the church hierarchy criminally, but has taken action to support the selling of church assets and properties to pay for the settlement litigations. Spokane is predominantly conservative, a hotbed of fundamentalist and evangelical homeschools and homeschool material development, etc. The DA is so afraid of punishing those regarded by the electorate as one of their own, he still hasn't charged the sitting arch conservative Mayor (recall pending court review) who has been identified by several former boyscouts and others as gay "statutory" molestor. You supposition seems to hold up all too well.
I'm beginning to wonder. Is the laity really so stupid as to continue subjecting their children to potential molestation? One wonders why they didn't just move on when it became clear to any sentient being that the RCCI hierarchy wasn't listening to them and didn't care about them.
I guess PTBarnum was correct all along: there is a sucker born every minute.
Regarding your last paragraph, apparently with the RCCI (Roman Catholic Church, Inc.--the hierarchy) in many areas there was a tacit agreement with the prosecutor that the RCCI would "take care of the situation." Obviously they did not.
I did some research a few years ago over the internet and discovered to my surprise that there was also more than a bit of child molestation involving conservative Protestant denominations, that actually did make it to court. As far as I could tell, the differences between the RCCI and Protestants was that the Protestant denominations were relatively small and did not have the political clout of the RCCI.
Come on Raj, I am sure that it is still a really small fraction of the priests guilty of abuse - the vast majority are perfectly safe.
KeithB at October 14, 2005 12:08 PM
I am sure that it is still a really small fraction of the priests guilty of abuse - the vast majority are perfectly safe.
I did not suggest otherwise. I won't repeat what I wrote, I'll just suggest that you re-read it.