U.N. Report: Vatican Policies Allowed Priests To Rape Children
FEB 5 2014, 8:36 AM ET
From the Link: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-n-report-vatican-policies-allowed-priests-rape-children-n22531
The United Nations heavily criticized the Vatican on Wednesday for what it said was a systematic adoption of policies allowing priests to rape and sexually abuse tens of thousands of children.
The devastating report published by the U.N. Committee on the Rights of a Child said the Vatican must “immediately remove” all known or suspected child abusers within the clergy.
It said the Holy See had “systematically placed preservation of the reputation of the church and the alleged offender over the protection of child victims.”
In response, the Vatican said in a statement published on its website that some points made in the report were an “attempt to interfere with Catholic Church teaching.”
The Vatican said it would examine the report thoroughly and reiterated its commitment to defending and protecting child rights in accordance with the U.N. guidelines and “the moral and religious values offered by Catholic doctrine.”
The U.N.’s conclusions come after an unprecedented hearing in Geneva on Jan. 16 in which Vatican representatives were questioned by the U.N. committee.
Its recommendations are non-binding and the U.N. has given the Vatican until 2017 to report back. It criticized the institution for submitting its last report 14 years late.
“Well-known child sexual abusers have been transferred from parish to parish or to other countries in an attempt to cover-up such crimes,” the report said.
It later added: “Due to a code of silence imposed on all members of the clergy under penalty of excommunication, cases of child sexual abuse have hardly ever been reported to the law enforcement authorities in the countries where such crimes occurred.”
The U.N. report also denounced the Holy See for its attitudes toward homosexuality, contraception and abortion.
Priests, Abuse and Vatican Conspiracy with Fr. Thomas Doyle and Abuse Survivor Helen McGonigle
We speak to two guests that offer two complimentary perspectives on the ongoing sexual abuse scandals in the Catholic Church: First, Fr. Thomas Doyle, speaks about the upper echelons of conspiracy in the Vatican that have enabled abuse to go on untreated.
Then we hear from Helen McGonigle, who had been a victim of priest Brendan Smyth–a man that had been moved time and time again by the church and abused hundreds of children in his years as a priest.
Helen McGonigle is an attorney from Brookfield, Connecticut who has become an advocate for survivors of clergy abuse. As a child, she was abused by Brendan Smyth, a notorious pedophilic Catholic priest who abused children on two continents for several decades. McGonigle’s story became internationally known when it was featured in a documentary by Chris Moore, a journalist in Northern Ireland. The revelations of Smyth’s crimes and the subsequent cover up of those crimes by church officials created an outcry that has had ramifications for both Irish clerical and secular officials.
Thomas Doyle was ordained a Dominican priest in 1970 in Dubuque, Iowa. He did graduate studies in philosophy, and theology at the Aquinas Institute of Philosophy and Theology and political science and Soviet Studies at the University of Wisconsin. He pursued further graduate work in Canon Law at the Gregorian University, Rome, Catholic University of America, the University of Ottawa and St. Paul’s University, Ottawa. He was awarded a Doctorate in Canon Law in 1978. In addition Father Doyle studied addictions therapy at the Naval School of Health Sciences and is a fully certified Alcohol, Drug and Addictions therapist. He holds MA degrees in philosophy, theology, administration, Canon Law and political science as well as his doctorate in Canon Law.
He has written several books and articles on a variety of subjects related to Church law and practice. Included among these are one book and twelve articles on the clergy abuse crisis. He co-authored Sex, Priests and Secret Codes with Richard Sipe and Patrick Wall. Tom Doyle has lectured extensively throughout the U.S., in Canada and in Europe on the clergy abuse issue.
He has been recognized for his work in the area of clergy sexual abuse by Voice of the Faithful which awarded him their first “Priest of Integrity Award” at the first Voice of the Faithful Conference in July 2002. He also received the “Cavallo Award for Moral Integrity” in 1992 and the “Isaac Hecker Award” from the Paulist Fathers in January, 2003. He received the “Community Hero Award” from the Association of Trial Lawyers of America in July, 2005 and the “Red Badge of Courage Award” from SNAP in July, 2007. In June of 2003 he was issued an official commendation from the Dominican Fathers for his “prophetic work in drawing attention to clergy sexual abuse and for advocating the rights of victims and abusers.
Secrets of St Peter’s: Shocking child abuse at Catholic Church school revealed
Express reporter Joanna Della-Ragione investigates shocking claims of historic child sex abuse at a former approved school, St Peter’s in Gainford, County Durham.
Speaking for the first time, the victims tell their own story and explain how the Catholic Church covered-up the appalling scandal.
Filmed and directed by Daniel Luccesi.
Warning: This film contains upsetting material.
Catholic suspected paedophiles allowed to continue teaching, despite complaints
May 17 2016
From the Link: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/catholic-suspected-paedophiles-allowed-to-continue-teaching-despite-complaints-20160517-goxam5.html
Catholic officials knowingly allowed two suspected paedophiles, including one of NSW’s worst, to continue teaching unpunished, eventually putting St Edmund’s College students at risk for a decade.
One cover-up involved a Marist Brothers principal in Sydney, who was aware that now-notorious child predator Brother Francis “Romuald” Cable was abusing boys, but failed to report him to police.
Cable instead went to Newcastle, where he molested another 11 children before leaving the order to teach at St Edmund’s between 1979 and 1989.
Fairfax Media has also established that the Christian Brothers, who then ran St Edmund’s, became aware of a complaint against one of their NSW brothers, but sent him to Canberra regardless, allowing him to allegedly abuse another boy.
The Christian Brothers concede their past handling of such cases was flawed and that “what happened 25 years ago is not what the community or we would accept today”.
The Marist Brothers say the Sydney principal never reported Cable’s abuse to his superiors, and that the order’s leadership did not become aware of any complaint until 1993, when his teaching career was over.
Francis ‘Romuald’ Cable
Cable hunted boys with an unnerving depravity and audacity before he moved to the ACT, molesting or raping at least 19 students at three Marist schools in the 1960s and 1970s.
Labelled one of NSW’s worst Catholic school paedophiles, he twisted religious doctrine and used his authority to manipulate victims, many of whom were troubled or from broken families.
He molested boys in his office, on excursions, behind his desk as fellow students sat nearby, and at the local swimming pool.
“You won’t say anything to anyone,” he told one boy. “You are not Catholic and have the mark of the devil on you.”
The same child was later beaten mid-rape to stop him screaming out in pain.
Afterwards, the boy asked Cable “what have you done to me?”, prompting the brother to hit him again, tell him to “remember our little secret”, and bless him in Latin.
Cable’s crimes were only recently reported publicly. He was sentenced last year to 16 years in jail for abusing 19 students over 15 years. Now 84 and frail, he is likely to die before he is eligible for release.
There is no evidence Cable abused children at St Edmund’s.
However, Fairfax Media can reveal that Cable could have been stopped 12 years before he even arrived in the ACT.
A principal at a Marist school in Sydney, St Gabriel’s in Pagewood, was told Cable was abusing boys as early as 1967.
One victim told police in 2013 that the principal came to his parents’ home, asked him whether he had been touched indecently, and then assured him and his father that Cable had been “spoken to” and would be moved.
The principal failed to report the allegations to the police, and Cable was sent to a school in Newcastle, where he abused a further 11 boys over the next eight years.
Strangely, a detailed, official history of the Marists’ Hunter Valley schools, published in 1998, omits any reference to Cable, despite his decade of service there.
But the Marists say the St Gabriel’s principal never took the matter to the order’s leadership when he learned Cable was abusing children in 1967.
“In saying that, in no way do we contradict the witness statement made in 2013 in relation to events in 1967, and we accept the witness may have told the principal at that time,” Marist Brothers Australia said in a statement.
“However no record, statement or summary of that allegation was ever forwarded by the principal to the Marist Brothers.”
The Marist Brothers said they first received a complaint about Cable in 1993, well after he had finished teaching but decades before police began investigating him. They had no cause for concern when Cable left the brotherhood and moved to Canberra.
The Marists also said the 1993 complaint could explain why Cable was not mentioned in the history of Hunter Valley schools published five years later.
“It is possible that his name was deliberately omitted to spare victims unnecessary discomfort.”
The Christian Brothers, who then ran the ACT college, say they immediately searched their records mid-last year after learning of his prior abuse in NSW, but found no complaints.
“We strongly urge The Canberra Times or any person who may hold any evidence of criminal conduct at the school to refer that to the police for the proper investigation,” the brothers said in a statement.
Cable was a lay teacher at the college, swapping his first name Francis for “Rom”, an abbreviation of the saintly moniker he took as a Marist brother.
Fairfax tracked down 10 of Cable’s St Edmund’s colleagues from the 1980s and told them of his history.
Many were shocked, saying they knew nothing of his past abuse nor of any complaint about him while he taught in Canberra. Several said the headmaster at the time would not have hired Cable had he known.
One clearly remembered Cable for his “ridiculous” contempt for the children. “He just had that real sense of hatred that kind of shocked me.”
Do you know more? email email@example.com
Roughly 20 of Cable’s ex-students from St Edmund’s were also found. Some described him as a cruel man, who picked on children and appeared to enjoy corporal punishment, while others said he was an unremarkable teacher who had not caused problems.
“My experience with him was horrible. He was not a nice person,” one said.
It is understood ACT police have not received complaints about Cable’s time at St Edmund’s.
But clergy-abuse survivors have expressed concerns about his decade here.
Bob O’Toole is a co-founder of the Clergy Abused Network. He was abused by another Marist teacher, Brother Leon Mackey, at the same Newcastle school where Cable preyed on children.
Mr O’Toole said Cable’s move away from the Marists would be unlikely to have changed his behaviour.
“I’d be extremely surprised. These people don’t just get to 1979 and suddenly stop.”
The NSW Christian Brother
A second brother was also sent to St Edmund’s in disturbing circumstances.
The man, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, was teaching at Christian Brothers schools in NSW before he came to the ACT in 1978.
A child-abuse allegation had been made against him in NSW. Despite being aware of that complaint, the Christian Brothers allowed him to move to St Edmund’s to teach until 1983.
“We acknowledge that this appears to have occurred notwithstanding a previous complaint that resulted in the later settlement of a civil claim,” the order said in a statement.
He was then accused of abusing a boy at St Edmund’s, which also led to a civil claim and settlement.
The brother was then moved out of the ACT, and has since been accused of more child sexual abuse after his time at St Edmund’s.
Those allegations are currently before a court interstate, restricting what the Christian Brothers can say about the brother.
But the order did say its past handling of such cases had been flawed and offered its “unreserved apology” to any student who suffered abuse.
“Sadly, it has been the ongoing learning from our own work and that of the royal commission that poor practices in the past have failed to deliver acceptable outcomes,” it said.
ACT Policing’s child-abuse taskforce, Operation Attest, can be contacted via 131 444.
Former Marist Brother Francis William Cable, aka Brother Romuald, admits sexual abuse
Ex-Marist Brother Romuald, AKA Francis William Cable, jailed 16 years for child sex abuse
June 18, 2015, 11 p.m
From the Link: http://www.theherald.com.au/story/3155128/the-mongrels-gone-paedophile-marist-brother-jailed/
FOR more than 15 years Marist Brother Romuald – Francis William Cable – hunted children down and molested them, with what a judge described as ‘‘frankly breathtaking audacity’’.
He left children bloodied.
He terrified them.
But in a Sydney court on Thursday his victims, now men in their late 50s and 60s, cheered as Judge Peter Whitford sentenced Cable, 83, to 16 years’ jail, and he was led away.
‘‘I was bleeding after he raped me one day and he said to me ‘You’ve got the blood of a jackal in you. Your mother must have been a jackal’,’’ said a victim, who cannot be identified, who was 12 when he was brutally raped on a weekly basis for at least a year from 1965.
‘‘I’ve never forgotten it. He said I was Satan because I wasn’t a Catholic. It takes it out of you, having to tell people what happened to you, but it was worth it. He’s gone. The mongrel’s gone.’’
Cable must serve at least eight years’ jail for crimes against 19 former students at Marist Brothers schools at Maitland, Hamilton and Pagewood between 1960 and 1974.
He was found guilty of 13 serious offences against two boys at Maitland and Pagewood after a trial in March.
Cable entered guilty pleas to crimes against 17 other victims several days later.
Judge Whitford said Cable’s ‘‘determined predatory conduct’’ over 15 years represented ‘‘a systematic and flagrant abuse of his position of trust and authority’’ over vulnerable young boys.
The former Marist Brother, who left the order in 1978, smiled on entering the court, and sat unmoved as the judge recounted the shocking detail of his crimes.
Two boys begged him not to rape them in the early 1960s.
The boy who was told he had the blood of a jackal was gagged and ‘‘hit about the head’’ when Romuald forced him to commit oral sex during a school beach excursion in the early 1960s.
Nightmares leave the man ‘‘prowling’’ his garden with knives, an axe and sometimes a machete, because ‘‘I think the Marist Brothers are out there still’’.
Romuald pushed his thumbs into the boy’s eye sockets ‘‘to prevent him from biting’’ during forced oral sex, the court heard.
‘‘The boy begged him not to do anything,’’ Judge Whitford said.
Brother Romuald favoured attacks in the water. Boys were abused at Bar Beach, La Perouse in Sydney, Merewether and Maitland baths and the Myall Lakes, where the Marist Brother put on a keg of beer at father-and-son camps.
He targeted children in families where a parent or relative had died, or fathers were violent or absent, or parents were extremely devout.
Brother Romuald showed ‘‘little concern about being detected and certainly no concern for the welfare, wellbeing and security of the victims’’, Judge Whitford said.
‘‘Many of the offences involved cruelty, which included physical violence on occasions, and at times actual harm.
‘‘It is impossible to believe the offender had any motivation beyond his own sexual gratification.’’
Judge Whitford acknowledged the lifelong consequences the men experienced because of the abuse.
Cable inflicted ‘‘considerable suffering, pain and humiliation on individual victims, not just at the time of the offending, but in the decades since’’.
‘‘All of the victims have demonstrated extraordinary resilience and depth of character in coming forward and giving their accounts of experiences that have had inevitably profound effects on their lives.’’
Judge Whitford described Cable’s crimes as ‘‘abominable’’.
‘‘It’s impossible to conceive that the offender had any motivation beyond his own sexual gratification, which he pursued without any consideration for the childhood, innocence, and future of his victims,’’ Judge Whitford said. Cable will remain in jail until at least 2023.
TWO men in their 60s sat in a corridor outside a Sydney District courtroom on Thursday and talked about their school days more than 50 years ago.
They exchanged photos of Marist Brothers school at Maitland, and talked about teachers and the friends who had committed suicide.
Then they talked about Brother Romuald.
‘‘He’s as evil now as he was 50 years ago,’’ said one of the men, 66, who was a timid boy, vulnerable and eager to please when Romuald made him a target.
‘‘As far as I’m concerned, he’s Satan. He did anything he liked without any fear of comeback, without any sign of remorse. He just didn’t care. This is not an idle comment – he’s the most evil person I’ve ever known.’’
The second man, also 66, was a talented child with a gift for drawing.
His parents were very strict Catholics who revered priests and thought they could do no wrong.
Brother Romuald was his teacher in 1962.
‘‘He set us a task one day to draw the ‘Hand of God’ [depicting a reclining, naked male body],’’ the man said.
‘‘I actually did a perfect copy but when he saw it, he called me out, tore it in two and flogged the shit out of me in front of the class.
‘‘He used to do things so that he could flog kids and he took great pleasure out of it.’’
Brother Romuald would sit in an office watching boys play cricket.
‘‘You weren’t supposed to go beyond the line. When enough boys had gone over the line, he would blow the whistle so that everyone had to freeze. Then he’d come down and cane kids. And he was violent.’’
The man who was a timid boy told his wife only two years ago that he had been sexually abused as a child.
‘‘I just put it behind me for all those years, but then there was so much out there about it, it all came flooding back – how vulnerable we were, how young,’’ he said.
‘‘It came up on the news that he’d been charged and I said to my wife: ‘That’s him’.’’
He cheered with other victims and their families after Romuald was sentenced to 16 years’ jail. But outside the court, he cried and hugged his former classmates.
Therefore I accuse by Vinnie Nauheimer
Due to the global ongoing sexual abuse and cover-up by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, it is safe to assume that the only part of Crimen Sollicitationis that was adhered to was the demand for secrecy. Up until 2002 almost every settlement involving sexual abuse by a priest came with an enforceable gag order on the victim. The victims were silenced while most offending priests were moved to new hunting grounds.
The logical question to ask is, “Cui Bono,” who benefits? Who benefits from the silence? It could be argued that the priest and his accuser benefit from the silence. However, since there were no remedies for the care, compensation or treatment of the victim, it is hard to see how victims benefited from Crimen instruction. There has never been any proof whatsoever of rampant false charges being brought against innocent priests. Therefore innocent priests haven’t benefited. So who are the chief beneficiaries of the documentCrimen Sollicitationis? The sexually abusive priest and the Roman Catholic Church are the only beneficiaries.
Therefore, I accuse!
Lest Crimen sidetrack us, the salient points are:
1. The document was sent from the International Headquarters.
2. The document was sent out globally.
3. The document was sent in secrecy.
4. The document demanded secrecy.
5. The penalty for violating secrecy is the harshest penalty the church can mete out: excommunication.
6. It labels the sexual abuse of children as “The Worst Crime” thereby admitting to the world the Vatican’s complete understanding of the vile nature of the act of sexually abusing children.
By their own hand they are condemned.
In the 28 countries we know about, the rape, sodomization, and molestation of children are publicly documented. Why then hasn’t Interpol gotten involved? Interpol states that the protection of children is one of their primary goals. This is the first paragraph taken from Interpol’s page on children:
Crimes against children
Children are the most vulnerable individuals in our society; they are also the most precious commodity that the world has and have a right to be protected from all forms of abuse. INTERPOL as an organization is also committed to eradicating the sexual abuse of children and has passed several resolutions making crimes against children one of International policing top priorities.5
They tell us that, not preventing, but eradicating (wiping out) sexual abuse is one of their top priorities. How can the sexual abuse of children be a top priority when the chief global culprit, the Roman Catholic Church has not been formerly accused by either the UN or Interpol?
The evidence is abundant for any who would make even a cursory examination of the facts. The Dallas Morning News did an entire series on the international scope of both clergy sexual abuse and its cover-up. Central to the series was the theme of hierarchy moving predator priests internationally in order to save them from being tried for crimes committed or to provide new hunting grounds or both.6
The facts accuse!
The need to protect children around the world is a global priority of United Nations. The U.N. through its UNICEF organization has put together “The Convention on the Rights of the Child.” Here are articles nineteen and thirty-four from that convention, which address the sexual abuse of children.
1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.
States Parties undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. For these purposes, States Parties shall in particular take all appropriate national, bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent:
- The inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any unlawful sexual activity;
- The exploitative use of children in prostitution or other unlawful sexual practices;
- The exploitative use of children in pornographic performances and materials.7
I accuse the RCC of violating the Convention on the Rights of the Child!
The Holy See, which could be a member of the United Nations by virtue of the fact that the Vatican is a city-state, has elected not to become a member of the UN. Rather it has been granted the nomenclature of permanent observer. This means that they enjoy the full rights of every sovereign member except the right to vote. In this way they can lobby for whatever they desire and not have to go on record as voting for or against an issue.
They chose to not to support “The Convention on the Rights of the Child.” The Holy See declared that “the application of the Convention should be compatible in practice with the particular nature of the Vatican City State and of the sources of its objective law.” in a statement issued when they declined to be a signatory. To date, all members but two have ratified the Convention.8
The United Nations through Interpol, its international police agency, and UNICEF, their children’s agency recognize the need to police and prevent the sexual abuse of children throughout the world. They state this is a top priority. The Convention on the Rights of the Child, which has been widely accepted by governments around the world, seeks to end the sexual abuse of children. Why then have the UN, UNICEF, and Interpol chosen to totally ignore the most public, international series of sex crimes and cover-ups against children running from the twentieth into the twenty-first century?
Having established that the sexual abuse of children is accepted by the RCC as being a criminal act, it follows that aiding and abetting criminals is also a crime. The international criminal activity of aiding and abetting sexual predators by the RCC is well documented. The award winning newspaper The Dallas Morning News did an excellent series of articles dealing with the international flight of pedophile priests to escape prosecution entitled Runaway Priests. The following are excerpts from some of their articles as listed on the website Bishop-accountability.org.
Dr. Navarro-Valls (chief spokesperson for the pope) previously declined to comment on The News’ investigation, which found more than 200 accused priests, brothers and other Catholic workers hiding across international borders and living in unsuspecting communities, often with the church’s support. About 30 of the men were wanted by law enforcement in another country.9
Where is Interpol? Where is the outcry from UNICEF?
Bishop Thomas V. Daily of the Diocese of Brooklyn, in an exchange of correspondence with a Venezuelan bishop in 1991 about allegations against Father Diaz, praised the priest’s work in his diocese even as a 60-count indictment was pending against him in Queens on child sexual abuse charges. Later that year, after pleading guilty to three counts of sexual abuse in the case, Father Diaz was deported to Venezuela, where the pattern of victimizing young boys continued unabated.
And so it went throughout Father Diaz’s ministry. Moving from country to country, from parish to parish, from victim to victim, he was often held unaccountable by church officials and was treated delicately by some law enforcement authorities, the interviews and documents show.10
How can the above be anything but an international criminal conspiracy?
His order, the Salesians of Don Bosco, has long moved priests accused of sexual abuse from country to country, away from law enforcement and victims. Indeed, it is how many others in the Catholic Church have dealt with the problem, a yearlong Dallas Morning News investigation has found.11
The crimes committed by the hierarchy of the RCC against the children of the world have been documented many times in many countries. In each country from Poland, to Ireland, to the United States around and down to Australia, the story is the same. Priests who commit criminal acts of sexual abuse against children are shuffled from country to country with no regard for either local or international law. These priests are shuffled by a complicit hierarchy who are guilty of aiding and abetting criminals. Once transferred, these priests are free to prey upon a fresh population of unsuspecting families who revere the priest as god’s representative on earth.
In 2002 Pope John Paul II stated before the world, “There is no room in the priesthood for those who sexually abuse children.”12 But nothing was done; priests were still being shuffled and names of priestly perpetrators are still a closely guarded secret. In April of 2008, while on the plane over to the United States, Benedict XVI said, “I am deeply ashamed” 13 while referring to the Clergy Sex Abuse Scandal. On July 19, 2008, in Australia, he said,
“I ask all of you to support and assist your bishops, and to work together with them in combating this evil. Victims should receive compassion and care, and those responsible for these evils must be brought to justice.”14
“And those responsible for these evils must be brought to justice!” Strong words from the pope! The pope is an honorable man; bishops and cardinals are all honorable men and they speak well. Yet nothing was said about revoking Crimen Sollicitationis. Did he forget that as Cardinal Ratzinger in 2001, he reaffirmed its validity? He can say one thing publicly, but as long as he still binds everyone with knowledge of clergy abuse to the absolute law of secrecy under the chapter 11, “ a secret of the Holy Office,15” the pope is only mouthing words. As long as Cardinals, Law, Mahony, George, Egan and Levada remain in office, he is only mouthing words. As long as bishops and the leaders of religious orders who shuffled pedophiles from country to country remain in the priesthood, the pope is only mouthing words. The pope is the only one who can start bringing those responsible for these evils to justice!
It is time to put an end to the global scourge of clerical child abuse and put these criminal priests behind bars along with the members of the hierarchy who have purposefully aided them. (It seems that Pope Benedict agrees with me.) These crimes are a violation of God’s law, Church law, Civil law, and International law (all covered in this treatise). As proven in the United States, the only thing that will change the way the RCC harbors their criminals is a courtroom. Interpol must aid in the capture of these international child abusing fugitives and the U.N. must bring charges against the Vatican in the World Court. Only the credible threat of listing the Vatican as a criminal organization, making them stand trial for the abuse of tens of thousands of children and covering-up for thousands of priests will force the much needed changes while making the world a safer place for children. Interpol and the UN had every right to get involved in the clergy abuse scandal because it violates their conventions. Now both the UN and Interpol have an invitation to get involved straight from the pope’s mouth. Pope Benedict XVI has just asked for “aid and assistance” followed up by “those responsible for these evils must be brought to justice.” The Vicar of Christ on earth is asking for help in bringing to justice to those who committed and helped in crimes of sexual abuse against children. What greater invitation can be made?
Note 1. To any lawyers who may represent or have represented survivors of sexual abuse. Crimen Sollicitationis means “crime of solicitation” which refers to crimes of the confessional. Reading this text is extremely difficult because everything up until Title V is about soliciting in the confessional. Title V paragraph 72 states: “Those things that have been stated concerning the crime of solicitation up to this point are also valid, changing only those things necessary to be changed by their very nature, for the worst crime,” TakeCrimen Sollicitationis (English version) and put it in a Word document. Then do a find/replace with find Solicitation and replace it with child abuse. You will be amazed at how it clarifies the document giving you a clearer understanding of what Crimen Sollicitationis says about the clergy abuse of children.
About the author: Vinnie Nauheimer has written extensively on the subject of clerical abuse. He has written two books on the subject of clergy abuse. One of poetry “Silent Screams” and one comprised of selected letters sent over an eight year period on the subject of clergy abuse called “Epistles on Clergy Abuse.” His art, poetry and writing can be found on websites around the world. Though they don’t issue a degree in Clergy Abuse, Mr. Nauheimer successfully survived advanced classes from the School of Intimidation and Slander sponsored by the NY Archdiocese. Both his and his family’s degree of pain were acknowledged by a Grand Jury probing the issue of clergy abuse. His goals are the same as those stated by Pope Benedict XVI in Australia on July 19, 2008: “Victims should receive compassion and care, and those responsible for these evils must be brought to justice.”
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases_by_country#See_also July 9, 2008 and http://www.scribd.com/doc/1021887/SEXUAL-ABUSE-IN-THE-CATHOLIC-CHURCH-2002 – July 9, 2008
2. http://www.priestsofdarkness.com/crimen.pdf – July 10, 2008
3. The 1922 Instruction and the 1962 Instruction “Crimen Sollicitationis,” Promulgated by the Vatican: Thomas Doyle, O.P., J.C.D. – June 30, 2008
4. http://www.priestsofdarkness.com/crimen.pdf – July 10, 2008
5. http://www.interpol.int/Public/Children/Default.asp – July 11, 2008
priests_hiding_in_plain_sight.5ee1e9be.html, – July 11, 2008
7. http://www.interpol.int/Public/Children/Conventions/unConvCR.asp – July 12, 2008
8. http://www.unicef.org/pon95/chil0008.html – July 12, 2008
9. http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news/2004_09_12_Dunklin_InThe.htm – July 12, 2008
10. http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/timeline/2002-04-20-Murphy-Diaz.htm – July 13, 2008
11. http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news/2004_06_20_Dunklin_ConvictedSexual.htm July 13, 2008
12. http://www.poynterextra.org/extra/abusetracker/2002_04_21_archive.htm – July 18, 2008
13. http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2008/04/15/pope-says-he-is-deeply-ashamed-of-clergy-abuse-scandal/ – July 18, 2008
14. http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=2&ContentID=85771 – July 19, 2008
15. http://www.priestsofdarkness.com/crimen.pdf – July 10, 2008.
Title V: The Worst Crime
From the Link: http://catholicarrogance.org/Catholic/RC_clericalpedophilia.html
“73. To have the worst crime, for the penal effects, one must do the equivalent of the following: any obscene, external act, gravely sinful, perpetrated in any way by a cleric or attempted by him with youths of either sex or with brute animals (bestiality).
74. Against accused clerics for these crimes, if they are exempt religious, and unless there takes place at the same time the crime of solicitation, even the regular superior can proceed, according to the holy canons and their proper constitutions, either in an administrative or a judicial manner. However, they must communicate the judicial decision pronounced as well as the administrative decision in the more serious cases to the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office.4
The wording of Title V is extremely important as it confirms the Vatican’s own knowledge and acceptance of the fact that the sexual abuse of children, regardless of sex, is a crime. The Vatican did not use the words evil, sinful, offensive, lapse of judgment, moment of weakness or illness. They used the word “crime” which is the only word that can adequately describe the act of a priest preying on a child for his own sexual gratification. Therefore, by stating that “the sexual abuse of children is a crime,” the Vatican tacitly acknowledges before God and man that priests who commit the crime of having sex with children, are in fact criminals! They also demand that these criminal acts be reported to their international headquarters, the Vatican.
Criminals commit crimes. Sex with children is a crime under both canon and civil law. Therefore, there can be no doubt that priests who commit the crime of sexual abuse with children are criminals! Ipso facto, those who protect these criminals are themselves guilty of aiding and abetting criminals. The Vatican has known for centuries that the sexual abuse of children is a criminal offense. In that, they are in total agreement with the secular law of just about every country on earth.”
Not only is the sexual abuse of children considered a crime by the Vatican, but to add emphasis to the matter, the Vatican chose to label it “The Worst Crime.” Of all the adjectives that are available to describe a crime, the Vatican chose to call the sexual abuse of children “The Worst.” What does that make the men who allow these sexual predators ply their trade unabated? What does this do to the commonly used hierarchal defense, “I didn’t know?” What does it say about the hundreds of bishops in 28 known countries around the world who failed to live up to the Vatican’s standards? What does it say about a Vatican that tolerated these failures?
Crimen Sollicitationis directs the bishops to prosecute crimes of child sexual abuse? Failing to do so makes them all scofflaws! They scoffed at every indecency perpetrated on the bodies of children around the world. Neither bishops nor the Vatican can claim ignorance of the law anymore! Whether it was an internal or external law, they failed to prosecute the rapists, sodomizers and molesters in their midst; by their own account, the criminal element.
The English Translation of the Crimen Sollicitationis
In a document addressed to “all patriarchs, archbishops, bishops and other diocesan ordinaries”, the Vatican gives instructions on the “manner of proceeding in cases of solicitations”:
The text, it adds, is to be “diligently stored in the secret archives… as strictly confidential. Nor is it to be published nor added to with any commentaries”.
Some excerpts follow:
The crime of solicitation takes place when a priest tempts a penitent, whoever that person is, either in the act of sacramental confession, whether before or immediately afterwards, whether on the occasion or the pretext of confession, whether even outside the times for confession in the confessional or [in a place] other than that [usually] designated for the hearing of confessions or [in a place] chosen for the simulated purpose of hearing a confession…
[The object of this temptation] is to solicit or provoke [the penitent] toward impure and obscene matters, whether by words or signs or nods of the head, whether by touch or by writing whether then or after [the note has been read] or whether he has had with [that penitent] prohibited and improper speech or activity with reckless daring…
The Ordinary of the place in these cases is the judge even for regulars [religious], even though exempt. It is indeed strictly prohibited for their superiors to interpose themselves in cases pertaining to the Holy Office.
However, having safeguarded the right of the Ordinary, there is nothing to prevent superiors themselves, if by chance they have discovered [one of their] subjects delinquent in the administration of the sacrament of Penance, from being able and having the obligation of being diligently watchful over those same persons, and, even having administered salutary penances, to admonish and correct, and, if the case demands it, to remove him from some ministry.
They will also be able to transfer him to another [assignment], unless the Ordinary of the place has forbidden it because he has already accepted the denunciation and has begun the inquisition.
Although, as a rule, a single judge, by reason of its secrecy, is prescribed for cases of this type, it is not forbidden, however, for the Ordinary in the more difficult cases to approve one or two assessors and counsellors, selected from the synodal judges; or even to three judges, likewise chosen from the synodal judges, to hand over the case to the judges to be handled with the mandate of proceeding collegially…
Minor helpers are to be used for nothing unless it is absolutely necessary; and these are to be chosen, in so far as possible, from the priestly order; always, however, they are to be proved faithfulness and mature without exception.
Because, however, what is treated in these cases has to have a greater degree of care and observance so that those same matters be pursued in a most secretive way, and, after they have been defined and given over to execution, they are to be restrained by a perpetual silence, each and everyone pertaining to the tribunal in any way or admitted to knowledge of the matters because of their office, is to observe the strictest secret… under the penalty of excommunication.
The oath of keeping the secret must be given in these cases also by the accusers of those denouncing [the priest] and the witnesses.
First knowledge of the crime
Since the crime of solicitation takes place in rather rare decisions, lest it remain occult and unpunished and always with inestimable detriments to souls, it was necessary for the one person, as for many persons, conscious of that [act of solicitation], namely, the solicited penitent, to be compelled to reveal it through a denunciation imposed by positive law. Therefore:
The penitent must denounce the accused priest of the delict of solicitation in confession within a month to the Ordinary of the place or to the Holy Congregation of the Holy Office; and the confessor must, burdened seriously in conscience, to warn the penitent of this duty.
The faithful, however, who knowingly have disregarded the obligation to denounce the person by whom he was solicited, within a month, falls into an excommunication, not to be absolved unless after he has satisfies the obligation or has promised seriously that he would do so.
The duty of denunciation is a personal one and is to be fulfilled regularly by the person himself who has been solicited.
Anonymous denunciations generally must be rejected. However, they can have supportive force or give the occasion for further investigations, if the particular circumstances of the matters involved render an accusation probable.
The obligation of denunciation on the part of the solicited penitent does not cease because of a spontaneous confession by the soliciting confessor done by chance, nor because of his being transferred, promoted, condemned, or presumably reformed and other reasons of the same kind. It ceases, however, at his death.
Before [the person making the denunciation] is dismissed, there should be presented to him, as above, an oath of observing the secret, threatening him, if there is a need, with an excommunication reserved to the Ordinary or to the Holy See.
If two witnesses cannot be found where each individual knows both the denounced and the denouncer, or if they cannot be interrogated at the same time without the danger of scandal or without detriment to the good name concerning him, then arrangements to be made, so that two persons, by means of a divided [testimony], namely, interrogate two witnesses only about the denounced and another two only about the individual denouncers.
In this case, however, it will be necessary to inquire elsewhere as to whether hatred, enmity or any other human disaffection against the denunciated [priest] was the case.
If it is evident that the denunciation totally lacks a foundation, [the priest] should order this to be declared in the Acts, and the documents of the accusation should be destroyed.
If the indications of the crime are vague and indeterminate or uncertain, he should order that the Acts be put into the archives, to be taken up again if something else happens in the future.
If, however, there are indications of a crime serious enough but not yet sufficient to institute an accusatorial process, he should order that the accused be admonished according to the different [types of] cases the first or second [time?], paternally, seriously or most seriously, adding, if necessary, an explicit threat of the trial process, should some other new accusation is laid upon [the accused] meanwhile, a check should be kept on the morale of the accused.
Those who are in danger of falling back [into their former ways], and therefore of becoming greater recidivists should be submitted to particular vigilance.
As often as, in the prudent judgment of the Ordinary, it seems necessary for the amendment of the delinquent, for the removal of the near occasion [of soliciting in the future], or for the prevention of scandal or reparation for it, there should be added a prescription for a prohibition of remaining in a certain place.
Whenever an Ordinary immediately accepts a denunciation of the crime of solicitation, he should not omit telling this to the Holy Office. And if by chance he treats of a priest whether secular or religious having residence in another territory, he should transmit at the same time, an authentic copy of the denunciation itself.
Any Ordinary who has proceeded correctly against some priest who is soliciting should not omit to informing the Holy Congregation of the Holy Office, and, if it is a matter in which a religious is involved, also the General Superior concerning the outcome of the case.
If any priests condemned of the crime of solicitation, or even only admonished, should transfer his residence to another territory, [one] Ordinary should immediately warn the [other] Ordinary of the things that preceded that person and of his juridical status.
If any priests suspended in a case of solicitation from hearing sacramental confessions but not from sacred preaching happens to go to another territory to preach, the Ordinary of this territory should be reminded by the prelate or the accused, whether secular or religious, that he cannot be utilised for hearing sacramental confessions.
All these official communications shall always be made under the secret of the Holy Office; and, since they concern the common good of the church to the greatest degree, the precept of doing these things obliges under serious sin [sub gravi].
From the audience of the Holy Father, 16 March 1962
Our Most Holy Father John XXIII, in an audience granted to the most eminent Cardinal Secretary of the Holy Office on 16 March 1962, deigned to approve and confirm this instruction, ordering upon those to whom it pertains to keep and observe it in the minutest detail.
At Rome, from the Office of the Sacred Congregation, 16 March 1962.
Place of the seal
A Cardinal Ottaviani
The formula for taking an oath to exercise one’s office faithfully and to observe the secret of the Holy Office
I promise sacredly, vow and swear, to observe inviolably the secret in all matters and details which will take place in exercising the aforesaid duty.
THE CATHOLIC LEAGUE’S BILL DONOHUE PAYS HIMSELF $408,000 PER YEAR
By Paul Kendrick
Voice from the Desert
January 12, 2012
The Catholic League’s Bill Donohue pays himself $408,000 per year to manage a small budget nonprofit group.
Should the Catholic League lose its tax-exempt status?
Will Bill Donohue make public his detailed expense reports?
Although Bill Donohue’s Catholic League is a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, Donohue pays himself a salary and benefits of $408,000 per year.
Wouldn’t you think a Catholic Christian like Bill Donohue would have as his first priority the raising of funds to help establish programs and services to enable the poor and needy? Donohue’s group has $28 million in the bank, but there’s no record of him helping anyone other than himself to the Catholic League’s cookie jar (and his top aide who receives salary and benefits of $206,000 per year).
By the way, Donohue’s exorbitant salary is “explained” on the Catholic League’s 2010 tax return. “A compensation committee exists within the Board of Directors. This committee compares the salaries of other top management officials at other nonprofit organizations. This information is obtained by reviewing the Form 990 for other comparable organizations, which can be obtained from Guidestar.org.”
Yet, according to Guidestar’s most recent Compensation Report (see link below), 363 non profit CEOs, with annual budgets between $1 million and $5 million, received an average salary of $147,289 ($120,142 median). Again, Donohue pays himself $408,000. The low end of the salary range for Catholic League size nonprofits is $62,691 (10th percentile) and the high end of the salary range is $259,063 (90th percentile).
Donohue’s salary is a whopping 340% above the median for nonprofits of his Catholic League’s budget size. The Catholic League’s revenues are under $3 million. During the same time that millions of American are struggling to make ends meet, Donohue gave himself a nice cost of living increase, putting himself well over the $400,000 mark.
Which begs the question, is the 501(c)(3) regulated Catholic League non profit organization operated for the benefit of Bill Donohue’s private interests?
Let’s not kid ourselves. Donohue’s $408,000 salary puts him in the top 1% of all wage earners in the United States . To most people a $408,000 is a lot of money, especially if you’re out there everyday advertising yourself and your work as being accomplished on behalf of Jesus Christ.
So, what will it take for Bill Donohue to provide a public and detailed accounting of his airfare, meals and hotel expenses while traveling on Catholic League business? Does Donohue fly first class? Does Donohue stay in the most expensive hotels? What are the costs of meals and entertainment? What are the names and occupations of all others whose travel and miscellaneous expenses are paid for by Donohue from the Catholic league’s coffers?
And while Bill Donohue is busy being open and transparent by putting all his expense reports online, let’s ask Bill if we can take a peek at each and every piece of email and other correspondence between Bill, Catholic bishops, priests and other so called “devout” Catholics who encourage and support Donohue and his “Catholic” league mission.
Non-Profit Salary | GuideStar.org
Nonprofit salary data for over 131K positions at 87,000 organizations.
It’s Time For A RICO Prosecution of the Catholic Church: Governor Keating’s Forced Resignation Shows the Church Will Not Reform Itself
It’s Time For A RICO Prosecution of the Catholic Church:
Governor Keating’s Forced Resignation Shows the Church Will Not Reform Itself
By Marci Hamilton
From the Link: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20030619.html
hursday, Jun. 19, 2003
Recently, Governor Frank Keating, a former federal prosecutor, compared the Catholic Church’s instinct for secrecy to that of La Cosa Nostra. He plainly hit a nerve:
Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles called for his resignation.
Keating has been the one pure voice for truth in the Church since the scandal began. Mahony is the Cardinal who has refused to cooperate with Los Angeles prosecutors, or even to fill out the anonymous questionnaire intended to help the Church itself assess the scandal.
Tragically, Keating lost the fight; and Mahony won. The members of Keating’s own oversight committee for the Church, the lay National Review Board, joined Mahony in calling for his resignation.
Worse, rather than mounting a defense of Keating, the Church allowed him to be forced out. And it did so knowing full well the public was watching particularly closely, for the Bishops were getting ready for their annual meeting. The message could not have been clearer: True internal Church reform is not going to happen. Clear-eyed critics like Keating will be shown the door.
Keating now no longer heads the Board. In his gutsy resignation letter, he stuck to his guns: “My remarks, which some bishops found offensive, were deadly accurate. I make no apology. . . . To resist grand jury subpoenas, to suppress the names of offending clerics, to deny, to obfuscate, to explain away; that is the model of a criminal organization, not my church.”
Why did Keating’s remarks so deeply anger the Church? The answer is that this reference touched on the Church’s own worst, and likely unacknowledged, nightmare: that it is in fact corrupt and that the federal RICO (Racketeering-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) statute might be used against it
That prospect is not as unlikely as the statute’s title may indicate. RICO has not only been used against the mafia; it has also been used to target apparently legitimate organizations, such as corrupt labor unions, as well. It is now time to use it against the Catholic Church.
Why the Analogy to La Cosa Nostra Was Apt
Imagine a large, wealthy, and hierarchical organization that persists in believing it is above the law. Over many decades, the organization has employed a tradition of blood brother secrecy to keep its illegal actions from being analyzed or criticized in the press, or prosecuted and punished by legal authorities. It employs powerful, adept, and highly-paid lawyers, and resists judicial process whenever it can.
Meanwhile, the organization’s leaders are united in a secret bond that requires them to do whatever it takes to protect the organization from scandal. For them, the cover-up of serious crimes is a way of life, a feature of their everyday business.
Those who believe Keating’s analogy was overstated, or unfair, should consider that this description fits both the Mafia, and the Catholic Church’s approach to child abuse by its own clergy.
Of course, one might object that there are differences between the two institutions. Most obviously, the Mafia is in the primary business of murder and other crime; the Church’s primary business has nothing to do with sexual abuse, though it was an accessory to it numerous times over the years.
But that difference doesn’t matter, under RICO: Labor unions aren’t in the primary business of crime, and they still face RICO prosecutions. Indeed, one major target of RICO is the takeover of a legitimate organization by criminal elements.
One might also object that the harms the Mafia wreaks are greater than those the Church has wrought. But that is a dangerous, and in some way, useless comparison to make: Both institutions have done grievous damage.
Evidence by now has shown that numerous priests in the United States have used their position of trust and power in order to sexually victimize children repeatedly. Those children, many of whom are now adults, have suffered lifelong tortures.
Some have therefore said, correctly so, that the Church has been engaged in the knowing murder of young souls. Years after the physical abuse ends, those souls continue to search for faith and for God within a dark cloud of crushed beliefs and shame.
Their suffering must finally be taken seriously. To disparage it by saying that it isn’t “like murder,” and thus that the Church is unlike the Mafia, profits no one.
And in any event, the Church need not be the twin of La Cosa Nostra to properly face prosecution under the RICO statute. All it needs to be is what it is: An organization that has repeatedly been used to perpetrate and cover-up serious crimes, including obstruction of justice.
It’s High Time For a RICO Prosecution of the Church
RICO is needed, because local prosecutions are not going to suffice. Some brave local and county prosecutors are going after the Church’s crimes in the interests of the children who have been hurt so terribly. But others foolishly continue to trust the Church to set things right itself – something it has had the opportunity to do for decades, and never really tried, let alone succeeded in.
Instead, for years, the Church told the newspapers not to report the stories and the prosecutors not to charge the perpetrators and the parents not to report the crimes, because they would take care of it. But they did not take care of it. They simply let the suffering, and the scandal, and the evil fester. So why does anyone believe it can be trusted, now, to effect meaningful internal reforms?
Scattershot local prosecutions cannot by themselves bring the Church to full confrontation with its institutional problem. As in the game of whack-a-mole, the Church has adopted a strategy of using whatever legal means are at its disposal to try to force its problems back underground. Apparently, it hopes that, at some point, it will be able to put down the mallet and wander off to the merry-go-round.
A federal RICO prosecution would force the Church to confront its problems more directly by forcing it to face a federal prosecutorial juggernaut, as opposed to isolated local actions. While worthwhile, commendable, and necessary, these local prosecutions are not enough to prompt the thorough going national, institutional reforms needed.
After all, this is a scandal of national proportions. It affects children in many cities and states. The Church is a national – indeed, an international – and not a local institution. Yet, neither the Department of Justice, nor the local United States Attorneys’ Offices, have, to my knowledge, so much as held a news conference.
When the Bush Administration recently – after the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping – pushed legislation to institute a national Amber alert system, the Administration recognized that child abuse is not an isolated problem; it affects all fifty states. Meanwhile, the Administration is pushing for educational reform in the public schools via federal legislation and the private schools via vouchers – seeing, once again, a federal interest implicated in an issue that affects children across the nation.
But now, when it comes to the Church, the Administration hypocritically pretends that the nation’s children’s interests are no longer of federal concern. In so doing, it has left a nation’s worth of children behind – when it had vowed not to leave behind even one.
That may be a serious miscalculation. The votes of Catholics are powerful, but they will not always align with the views of the Church hierarchy. Many Catholics support Church reform precisely because they are devout, and they love the Church, and not those who have betrayed its mission.
The Administration may well have severely underestimated the hunger of the American people–Catholic and otherwise–for justice in this instance. Citizens believe deeply in the rule of law, justice, and fairness. And there are few kinds of conduct more despicable, to the vast majority of Americans, than allowing predatory pedophiles to victimize trusting children, again and again.
Thus, if the Administration ever does the right thing, and uses the RICO statute to go after the Church, it may find that it has done the politically advantageous thing as well. Conversely, if it fails to employ RICO, and the Church continues its intransigence, the Administration may feel the heat from citizens, parents, and others come election time.
Marci Hamilton is the Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. An archive of her columns on the Catholic Church’s clergy abuse scandal, among other issues, can be found on this website. Her email address is firstname.lastname@example.org