Category Archives: Cardinal Timothy Dolan
How the undemocratic activities of the Catholic Church silences critics
From the Link: http://churchandstate.org.uk/2016/07/how-the-undemocratic-activities-of-the-catholic-church-silence-critics/
Adapted from chapter 13 of our chairman Dr. Stephen D. Mumford’s seminal book, The Life and Death of NSSM 200: How the Destruction of Political Will Doomed a U.S. Population Policy (1996). The book is available at Kindle here, and is available to read for free here.
Distortion of the Church’s Image
In 1990, the Times Mirror Company, owner of a number of large U.S. newspapers, conducted a national poll, “The People, Press and Politics.” This poll asked interviewees questions that would permit the measure of “favorability.” Eleven political institutions were compared. The Catholic Church ranked number one with an 89 percent favorability rating, handily beating the Supreme Court, Congress and the U.S. military. Evangelical Christians were given a 53 percent rating. Among famous world leaders, including living U.S. Presidents, the pope ranked number one with a favorability rating of 88 percent. Only Vaclav Havel came within 10 points of the pope.
This is either an amazing phenomenon or an impressive accomplishment by the bishops, or both. The Catholic Church in America is in serious decline. As noted earlier, half of all American priests now quit the priesthood before age 60. The average age of nuns in the U.S. is 65 years and only 3 percent are below age 40. Nearly one-third of the Catholic schools and one-fourth of the Catholic hospitals have closed in the past 30 years. Contributions by members have fallen by half in the same period, with Catholics having the lowest contribution rate of any of the major churches. Were it not for the billions of dollars received by the Church in federal, state and local tax funds, the income from corporate gifts made as a result of Catholic influence within public and private corporations, and as a result of influence within major private foundations, the Church could not possibly survive in its current form.
As noted, millions of Catholics have left the Church and become Protestants. The September 1995 New York Times/CBS News Poll revealed that 28 percent of those who had been raised as Catholics no longer considered themselves Catholic. In other words, 17 million individuals whom the bishops claim as Catholics have left the Church. In November 1979, about half of all Americans surveyed regarded the pope as a universal moral leader. By 1995, according to this survey, the proportion had fallen to 31 percent, a 40 percent drop. A 1994 Los Angeles Timessurvey found that 43 percent of priests and 51 percent of nuns say that things in the Church are not so good. According to a study conducted by the Alan Guttmacher Institute and reported in USA Today on January 29, 1993, Catholics account for 31 percent of all abortions in the U.S. but are only 22 percent of the U.S. population. A September 1995 Washington Post/ABC News Poll queried: Is the Roman Catholic Church in touch with the views of Catholics in America today, or out of touch? Nearly 60 percent of both Catholics and non-Catholics responded, “out of touch.” To the question, “Do you think someone who is using birth control methods other than the rhythm method can still be a good Catholic?,” Ninety-three percent of Catholics said yes. To the question, “Do you think someone who gets divorced and marries someone else without Church approval can still be a good Catholic,?” 85 percent said yes. To the question, “Do you think a woman who has an abortion for reasons other than her life being in danger can still be a good Catholic?,” 69 percent said yes. The Catholic Church in the U.S. can only be described as an institution in serious decline.
How can the Church and the pope have such high favorability ratings under these circumstances? This is an important question for all Americans and the American political process. The answers will tell how the Rockefeller Commission recommendations and the NSSM 200 recommendations, and every major initiative taken thus far to control U.S. and world population growth have been killed by the Church without Americans being aware of it. We will return to this question in the next chapter.
The bishops have been permitted to make the rules on how they are reported on. This has been accomplished by using many different tools and devices and only a few will be discussed here. A 1991 study conducted by the Center for Media and Public Affairs and published by the Knights of Columbus and the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, a study conducted by Catholics for use by Catholic activists, found that in spite of the fact that the Catholic Church is in precipitous decline and that half of its priest and nuns said that things in the Church are not so good, “the ‘Church hierarchy’ is cited more than 50 times as often as ‘identified Church dissidents’!” Given the state of the Church one would expect the opposite to be true. The dissenters obviously have something to talk about, but press reporting on dissension and dissenters has been successfully discouraged by the Church leadership. Given the enormous potential for dissenting opinion, the bishops’ accomplishment in suppressing media coverage of this opinion is truly impressive. A reasonable question is: what other information is the Church successfully suppressing?
As mentioned in Chapter 11, the news outlets that placed the Church in a negative light were virtually all snuffed out or muzzled earlier in this century by the Knights of Columbus; this institution continues to take great pride in its early successes. Its efforts in recent years and the efforts of other Catholic institutions, such as the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, to suppress information that places the Church in a bad light have been mostly successful (the issue of child molestation being the only significant exception but even on this issue they do what they can).
Any time a report appears in the press placing the Church in a bad light, almost without exception there is an immediate demand for an apology and retraction made to the reporter, editor and publisher by these Catholic thought police. Written responses and demands for publication are immediately forthcoming. These responses are usually published and it is amazing how many apologies are made and published. There are scores of examples each year and they can be found in the publications of these thought police. They eagerly share their successes with their members. But when a negative report appears in one newspaper or magazine it rarely appears in another, regardless of its newsworthiness—Carl Bernstein’sTIME magazine article is a good example.
Economic retribution as a tool to suppress criticism was used more commonly in the last century and earlier in this century than today because it is now largely unnecessary. The long history of its use and the success enjoyed with it makes the mere threat of its use highly effective.
Perhaps far more important than the outright intimidation practiced by many of the right-wing Catholic organizations is the self-censorship practiced by reporters, editors and publishers. All know there is a line that has been drawn by the bishops that they are not to cross—and they rarely do. They are aware of the rules formulated by the bishops regarding how Church matters are to be reported—and nearly always follow them. They know they will be punished if they do not conform.
Indeed, the bishops have had far greater success in intimidating non-Catholics than in retaining their own faithful. This is not limited to the press. With 26 years in the population field, I can say from experience that the fear of retaliation by the Catholic Church has paralyzed the population movement. I have also found that the fear felt by many American politicians aware of the undemocratic activities of the Church has resulted in their silence on this issue.
The Roman Catholic Church is a political entity headquartered in Rome and controlled in Rome. Its teachings and policies are set in Rome. All of its employees work for and represent the interests of the headquarters in Rome. It has awesome political power in the U.S. and the world over. It has inviolable territory, diplomatic representation to governments around the world and its minions sit on international bodies of a purely secular nature. It has political interests, including security-survival interests which are in direct conflict with those of the United States Government and its people. But the image of the Catholic Church presented by the American press does not reflect these realities. We are led to believe that this institution is primarily religious in nature. On the contrary; numerous observers over the years, including scholar Paul Blanchard, have correctly described the Catholic Church as a political institution cloaked in religion. Little has changed. The Church and its Vatican are firstly a political institution, now desperately trying to survive.
Much distortion is possible because relevant information that would limit distortion is not collected in the first place, since the Church has succeeded in blocking its collection. For example, for the bishops to claim “we speak for 59 million Americans” alone gives the Church an enormous amount of political power to manipulate government policy. It is not possible to challenge their present count of 59 million, though the actual number of Catholics who consider themselves adherents of the Catholic faith and who are willing to give the bishops permission to speak for them in the political arena is undoubtedly but a fraction of 59 million. But when politicians hear the number 59 million, they listen intently. The result—a lot of political power.
These are but a few of the reasons Americans have such a distorted view of the Church. However, American priests, nuns and laymen have a much less distorted view; it is amply documented that they are leaving the Church in droves. The test of the image is in the polling. The image of a healthy, robust and expanding American Catholic Church is clearly wrong. American Catholics are not conforming to the extent that our perceptions tell us. We are affording the Church far more deference than it deserves.
Too Much Evidence to Ignore
American Catholics, like the rest of us, cannot ignore the steady barrage of evidence that their church is in an untenable position and that the pope and the Church, as Father McCormack phrased it, “bear a heavy burden of responsibility” for much of the misery, suffering and premature death we see around the world.
There are numerous examples: The cover story of the February 1994 issue of the Atlantic Monthly titled “The Coming Anarchy” by Robert Kaplan links anarchy around the world, including the U.S., to overpopulation. In a follow-up column in the New York Times, Anthony Lewis writes that overpopulation-induced environmental destruction will be “the national security issue of the early 21st century.” A Los Angeles Times News Service article titled, “Massive Famine Predicted Worldwide,” reports on a symposium of international agricultural experts who predict eight times the shortage of food worldwide, as now seen in Africa, by the year 2000.
A recent Reuters dispatch is headed, “U.N. report lists developing countries in danger of collapse,” naming eight. (Rwanda was the first to go.) The New York Times News Service reports: Pontifical Academy of Sciences recommends that couples have only two children to curb world population growth. A USA Today article begins, “The Catholic Church, long outspoken in its opposition to abortion, is engaging in a massive and unprecedented lobbying effort to stop passage of an abortion rights bill in Congress … which would prohibit states from restricting abortion.” (The bishops won—the bill is now dead.) A Los Angeles TimesNews Service article is titled, “Roman Catholic bishops declare their intent to fight any legislation that provides coverage for abortions” (including the Clinton health care plan, or any alternative covering abortion). A New York Times News Service article reports on a newly released Episcopal Church document that terms the Catholic attitude toward women “so insulting, so retrograde” that women should abandon Catholicism “for the sake of their own humanity.”
The New York Times reports that taxpayers save $4.40 for every public dollar spent to provide family planning (based on costs of baby’s first two years). A Wall Street Journal article reports on a University of California finding that every $1 spent on family planning services saves the state $11.20 later. The results of a Washington Post-ABC News poll in 1993 shows that the overwhelming majority of Americans favor the availability of abortion, and the percentages increased over 1992. A Reader’s Digest article titled, “A Continent’s Slow Suicide,” reports, “Now the African continent is sliding back to a precolonial stage.” The nightly TV news stories on Haiti, Somalia, Rwanda and Bosnia reveal that these conflicts are all related to overpopulation.
These hideous stories seem endless. Of course they have the same effects on Catholics as they do on non-Catholics. “The truth shall make you free” and this steady diet of information countering the Vatican’s position has emancipated Catholics from dogmas which have contributed to papal control. We have a distorted view of what American Catholics think. For decades, the Bishops have been telling us what Catholics think and most Catholics and non-Catholics alike have failed to question this arrangement. How did this arrangement come about and how is it maintained?
More importantly—how has the Vatican managed to subvert all serious efforts to deal with the overpopulation problem without the American public’s awareness of these covert operations? This is the subject of Chapters 14 and 15.
Timothy Cardinal Dolan ripped for delaying talk on child sex abuse
The time may not be right for Timothy Cardinal Dolan to talk about child sex abuse, but advocates say it’s long overdue.
Victim-turned-advocate Kathryn Robb says Dolan is putting a new generation of kids in danger by opposing legislation that would allow adult victims of child sex abuse to seek justice in claims that would likely affect predator priests.
Robb ripped Dolan after the leader of New York’s 2.6 million Catholics told the Daily News on Saturday at rally for farm worker rights that he was ready to discuss efforts to reform the law — but not just yet.
Time, however, is running out to eliminate the statute of limitations on child sex abuse since the state Legislature’s session ends June 16.
“It may not be time for you Cardinal Dolan, but it is time for survivors of sexual abuse and the children of the state of New York,” said Robb, who said she was molested by her eldest brother George Robb while growing up on Long Island. “We as responsible citizens who care about the safety of children and justice are not waiting for his call.”
New York’s statute of limitations bars victims of childhood sexual abuse from filing criminal charges or civil claims after their 23rd birthday. Victim advocates say it is one of the most restrictive in the nation.
Supporters of the Child Victims Act say the Catholic Conference, the lobbying arm of church’s bishops, has been the bill’s biggest obstacle. The CVA — one of a handful of bills under consideration — would eliminate the civil and criminal statutes of limitation for victims.
A spokesman for the archdiocese said he would discuss a Daily News request for a sit-down with the cardinal. The spokesman said Dolan declined to talk about sexual abuse Saturday because he did not want to overshadow the farm worker rights rally.
MARCH ACROSS BROOKLYN BRIDGE IN SUPPORT OF CHILD VICTIMS ACT
If you would like your organization to be listed, please submit your contact info in the form below, we will be updating the Facebook event daily to include any groups that wish to participate.
This is a link to the official Facebook event, we urge you to share it with your followers and encourage as many people as possible to join this important and historic event on behalf of children’s safety everywhere.
If you have any questions about this event or about this form, please feel free to contact Chaim Levin, one of the organizers of this event at firstname.lastname@example.org or 917-932-5394
It is time for politicians to make our Children their number 1 Priority. Join Assemblywoman Margaret Markey and Senator Brad Hoylman in taking a stance to end NY Statute of Limitations for Sexual Abuse claims.
Victims, Survivors, Advocates, Parents, Grandparents, Children and Activists Unite. We will start gathering at 11am on the cadman plaza park (north lawn),we will be giving out t-shirts and posters. The March across the Brooklyn bridge to city hall will start at 12pm. Please feel free to bring your own posters and signs as well.
The closest train stop nearby is the High Street on the A train
Organizations supporting this event:
Parent Against Predator
Jewish Community Watch
Horace Mann Action Coalition
United Support Network
Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance (JOFA)
Noble 9 Collective
The Voice of Justice
The Bridge Advocacy Center
NYS Downstate Coalition for Crime Victims
Crime Victims Treatment Center (CVTC)
Stop Abuse Campaign
Incest Survivors United Voices of America, Inc
It was ME Campaign
Massachusetts Citizens for Children
CallToAction Metro NY
New York City Alliance Against Sexual Assault
United Coalition Association
GA Families for Justice
FACSA | Foundation to Abolish Child Sex Abuse
If you would like your name to be added to this event, please fill out this form:
To ALL the Roman Catholic Pedophile Lovers and Defenders coming to my blog and being PIGS
Honestly? I could give two flying shits less, what you scumbag, pedophile loving, pew polishing, demonic shit stains on the underwear of humanity of the Unholy Roman Catholic Cult say, or whether YOU like what I am doing here or not. And I am DAMN SURE YOU are not going to like what I am going to say in this posting, but again, I could give two flying shits less if YOU do or not.
Plain and simple, rabid dogs deserve more mercy than any of you shit stain scumbags of this cult of pedophiles. A rabid dog does NOT know what it is doing. But all your disgusting, demonic, scumbag Pedophile Pimps do. All of you do. Each and every one of you low-life, scumbag pedophiles? Each and every one of your Pedophile Pimps? Each and every one of you retarded, brain-dead, brain-washed, pieces of shit pew polishers who defend them?
ARE ALL DESERVING OF DEATH, AND A DEATH THAT WILL INCLUDE YOU SCUMBAGS BEING TORTURED WITH YOUR OWN TOOLS OF YOUR INQUISITIONS, BEFORE WE CUT YOUR FUCKING HEADS OFF, PUT THEM ON PIKES IN FRONT OF YOUR VATICAN AND YOUR CHURCHES WITH THE WARNING THIS IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO ANY OF YOU SCUM WHO MESS WITH OUR CHILDREN.
I agree with your Saint Peter Damian when he said the following all the way back in 1049:
“Listen, you do-nothing superiors of clerics and priests. Listen, and even though you feel sure of yourselves, tremble at the thought that you are partners in the guilt of others; those, I mean, who wink at the sins of their subjects that need correction and who by ill-considered silence allow them license to sin. Listen, I say, and be shrewd enough to understand that all of you alike are deserving of death, that is, not only those who do such things, but also they who approve those who practice them.”
Letter 31, the Book of Gomorrah [Liber Gomorrhianus], containing the most extensive treatment and condemnation by any Church Father of clerical pederasty
YOU ALL CALL YOURSELVES THE ONE TRUE CHURCH OF JESUS, THE ONE HE OFFICIALLY STARTED. YOU CALL YOURSELVES THE HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THEN WITH ALL THAT YOU HAVE DONE TO CHILDREN AND TEENS? RAPING THEM? BRUTALIZING THEM? BEATING THEM? ENSLAVING THEM? USING THEM AS MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS INCLUDING FORCED STERILIZATIONS AND ABORTIONS? AND EVEN MURDERING THEM? THEN YOU GOT THE UNMITIGATED BALLS TO STATE TO ALL OF US HOW YOU ARE THE PROTECTORS AND DEFENDERS OF CHILDREN BECAUSE OF YOUR STANCE AGAINST ABORTION AND CONTRACEPTIVES?
WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU ARE TRYING TO FOOL OR CON?
THEN? YOU FUCKING ATTACK US? YOU INSULT US? YOU DENIGRATE US? YOU CALL US THE LIARS, THE GOLD DIGGERS OUT LOOKING FOR A PAYDAY?
OR BECAUSE WE SPEAK OUT AGAINST THE CRIMES…NOT THE SINS….COMMITTED AGAINST US, HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF US? HELL MILLIONS OF US ALL THROUGH THE HISTORY OF YOUR DAMNABLE CULT? YOU DARE CALL US ANTI-CATHOLIC BIGOTS AND HATERS OUT TO DESTROY YOUR CHURCH?
OR SHIT STAINS LIKE BILL PIG FACE DONOHUE OF THE CATHOLIC LEAGUE SAYS BECAUSE WE DID NOT PUNCH OUR RAPISTS IN THE FACE, THAT MEANS WE WANTED IT, WE ENJOYED IT AND WE ARE HOMOSEXUALS BECAUSE OF IT?
OR THAT WE SEDUCED OUR RAPISTS?
OR ALL THE OTHER EVIL, DISGUSTING, SHITTY THINGS YOU SAY AGAINST US?
HOW FUCKING DARE YOU!!! HOW FUCKING DARE YOU ATTACK US AND DEFEND YOUR CRIMINALS? HOW FUCKING DARE YOU DO THIS TO US? WHO SUFFERED INCREDIBLE HORRORS, PAIN AND SUFFERING BECAUSE YOUR SHIT STAIN PRIESTS, BROTHERS, NUNS AND SISTERS FUCKED US, RAPED US, TORTURED US, BEAT US, BRUTALIZED US AND MURDERED US!!!!
WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE? WHY I KNOW WHO THE FUCK YOU ARE.
YOU ARE SCUM, YOU ARE FUCKING DEMONS IN HUMAN FLESH, YOU ARE THE LOWEST FORM OF HUMAN LIFE ON THE EARTH, YOU DESERVE NO RIGHTS, YOU DESERVE NO MERCY, YOU DESERVE NO COMPASSION, YOU DESERVE NOTHING BUT FUCKING DEATH!!
PLAIN AND SIMPLE, YOU GODDAMN PEDOPHILE PIMPS, YOU POPE FRANCIS, YOU POPE EMERITUS BENEDICT XVI, YOU PEDOPHILE CARDINALS, BISHOPS AND ARCHBISHOPS, YOU PEDOPHILE PRIESTS, BROTHERS, NUNS AND SISTERS AND ALL OF YOU SCUMBAG PEW POLISHERS WHO STAND UP AND DEFEND THEM AND ATTACK US? ARE FUCKING DESERVING OF DEATH, JUST LIKE YOUR SAINT PETER DAMIAN PROCLAIMED IN 1049.
SO FUCK YOU ALL.
OH AND I TRULY WISH YOU ASSHOLE, SCUMBAG, PEDOPHILE LOVING AND DEFENDING SHITSTAIN ROMAN CATHOLIC PEW POLISHERS WHO SPEW YOUR SHIT TO ME, WHO THREATEN ME WITH DEATH? WHO SAY I SHOULD BE RAPED? WHO SAY I AND MY SONS SHOULD BE PUT TO DEATH FOR SPEAKING OUT?
WELL I FUCKING WISH, I REALLY WISH, WITH ALL OF MY HEART AND SOUL, WITH ALL OF MY BEING, YOU WOULD HAVE THE BALLS TO SAY YOUR SHIT TO MY FACE, IN PERSON, BECAUSE FUCKING TRUST ME IF YOU DID?
YOU WOULD FIND OUT IF YOUR GOD AND JESUS ARE REAL, CAUSE I WOULD HAVE NO FUCKING PROBLEM….IN BEATING YOU TO DEATH WITH MY FISTS AND FEET RIGHT ON THE SPOT THE MOMENT YOU OPEN YOUR PEDOPHILE LOVING OUTHOUSE PIEHOLES TO ME.
SO FUCK YOU.
The Catholic Church’s defiance and obstruction on child sex abuse
From the Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/defiance-and-obstruction-on-child-sex-abuse/2016/04/19/22efc3de-0351-11e6-9d36-33d198ea26c5_story.html
IN THREE years at the helm of the Catholic Church, Pope Francis has been a source of inspiration for millions of faithful around the world. In one critical respect, however, he has fallen short of his own promise: to come fully to terms with decades of child sex abuse by clergymen and the institutional cover granted to them by bishops and cardinals.
Francis has pledged “the zealous vigilance of the Church to protect children and the promise of accountability for all.” Yet there has been scant accountability, particularly for bishops. Too often, the church’s stance has been defiance and obstruction.
In his trip to the United States in the fall, Francis told victims that “words cannot fully express my sorrow for the abuse you suffered.” Yet his initiative to establish a Vatican tribunal to judge bishops who enabled or ignored pedophile priests has come to naught. Not a single bishop has been called to account by the tribunal, which itself remains more notional than real.
Meanwhile, church officials have fought bills in state legislatures across the United States that would allow thousands of abuse victims to seek justice in court. The legislation would loosen deadlines limiting when survivors can bring lawsuits against abusers or their superiors who turned a blind eye. Many victims, emotionally damaged by the abuse they have suffered, do not speak until years after they were victimized; by then, in many states, it is too late for them to force priests and other abusers to account in court.
Eight states have lifted such deadlines, known as statutes of limitations, for victims who are sexually abused as minors. Seven states have gone further, enacting measures allowing past victims — not just current and future ones — to file lawsuits in a finite period of time, generally a two- or three-year window.
A typical case is Maryland, where bills to extend the statute of limitations until the alleged victim turns 38 have failed even to come to a vote, owing to opposition from House of Delegates Judiciary Committee Chairman Joseph F. Vallario Jr. (D-Prince George’s) and the Catholic Church, among others.
In his trip to the United States, Pope Francis praised bishops for what he called their “generous commitment to bring healing to victims” and he expressed sympathy for “how much the pain of recent years has weighed upon you.” Yet by its actions, the church’s “commitment to bring healing” has seemed far from generous. And it seemed perverse to address the bishops’ “pain” when the real suffering has been borne by children.
How the Vatican evades human rights obligations through Canon Law, diplomatic immunity and other dodges
The Vatican doesn’t acknowledge human rights unless they are in accordance with Church doctrine. Its courts have been found by the EU to violate the right to a fair trial. And the Vatican has even maintained that its signature to one of the few human rights treaties it has signed (and even then with “reservations”) only applies to its own territory and not to the Catholic Church.
“One cannot then appeal to these rights of man in order to oppose the interventions of the Magisterium.”
— Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1990 
The Vatican not only quietly rejects the supremacy of human rights in principle, it also cultivates effective ways to get around having to implement them.
♦ Diplomatic recognition, sought worldwide, brings diplomatic immunity from charges of human rights abuse
The doctrine of sovereign immunity has its roots in the law of feudal England and is based on the idea that the ruler can do no wrong. In US law this is broadly applied to the heads of foreign states.  It was sovereign immunity that foiled an American attempt to sue Benedict XVI for the Vatican’s handling of child abuse by priests. The Church lawyers argued that the pope, as the Vatican’s head of state, enjoys immunity against lawsuits in US courts. 
In U.S. courts foreign countries are also generally immune from civil actions, with exemptions primarily for commercial acts. This means that unless a case can be brought in under an exemption the only recourse may be to try to sue the Vatican in a country which does not have diplomatic relations with it. However, as the map shows, most of the world’s countries (coloured blue) already recognise the statehood of the Holy See, as the Vatican is called officially.
There are very few (gray) countries left which don’t yet have diplomatic relations with the Holy See. These amount to just three island nations (the Comoros, north of Madagascar, theMaldives, southwest of India, and Tuvalu, north of New Zealand) — two African nations (Mauritania and Somalia) — three from the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Oman and Afghanistan) — and eight from Asia (Bhutan, People’s Republic of China, North Korea, Myanmar, Laos, Vietnam, Brunei and Malaysia). 
The logistics of suing the Vatican from some of these countries could be daunting. Furthermore, due to the Vatican’s persistent diplomatic efforts, the number of countries which don’t recognise the Vatican is declining every year. (And one of the few left, Tuvalu, is gradually disappearing beneath the rising seas).
The Vatican’s web of diplomatic relations also makes its representatives immune to prosecution under international law. The 1961 Vienna Convention tries to provide diplomats with the security needed to perform their jobs. It is thanks to this treaty that states now express their displeasure by expelling the diplomats of a foreign country, rather than imprisoning them.
— Diplomatic immunity in action: Archbishop Wesolowski is whisked away to the Vatican
However, this treaty was never meant to allow accused rapists of children to go free. Yet this appeared to be the intention when Bishop Paul Gallagher, the papal nuncio or pope’s ambassador to Australia refused to hand over to prosecutors documents on two priests who had abused more than 100 children over 40 years.  The nuncio invoked diplomatic immunity. However, as a UN committee later reminded the Vatican,  as a signatory of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, it was obliged to hand over this evidence.  Pope Francis was apparently so pleased by the nuncio’s attempts to block justice in Australia’s worst clerical abuse scandal, that the next year he promoted him to archbishop and to the number three post in his kingdom the Vatican’s Foreign Minister. 
as happened in the Dominican Republic.  There on June 24, 2013 a deacon was arrested and admitted to procuring impoverished boys to be sexually abused by the papal nuncio Archbishop Jozef Wesolowski.  By the time the deacon appeared on TV and said that others in the Church knew about this  the nuncio had vanished. He had been secretly whisked away and reappeared in the Vatican.
At the TV station they suspected that there had been a leak.
A “dossier” accusing papal nuncio Archbishop Josef Wesolowski of sex abuse of minors was sent to Pope Francis sometime in July  by Santo Domingo Cardinal Nicolás de Jesús López Rodríguez. The pope found the information credible enough to dismiss Wesolowski, nuncio to both the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico, on Aug. 21 via confidential letter N.2706/PR to the bishops of both countries.
Neither the civil authorities nor the public knew about Wesolowski until a local TV program did an exposé on Aug. 31. The result of a year-long investigation, the broadcast contained testimony from residents of the Zona Colonial in Santo Domingo that Wesolowski paid minors for sex.
Three days after the TV broadcast, a local bishop confirmed that Wesolowski had been recalled for sexually abusing minors.
Wesolowski reportedly had left the country only a few days before. 
In this case the Vatican acted against its own much-touted guidelines:
the church failed to inform the local authorities of the evidence against him, secretly recalled him to Rome […] before he could be investigated, and then invoked diplomatic immunity for Mr. Wesolowski so that he could not face trial in the Dominican Republic. 
Once he was safely in Rome the Vatican “confirmed that Wesolowski is a citizen of the Vatican city state, that the Vatican doesn’t extradite its citizens and that as a nuncio, or Holy See ambassador, Wesolowski enjoys full diplomatic immunity”.  Experts in international law say that the Vatican could have lifted the nuncio’s diplomatic immunity to let him face trial in the Dominical Republic (which could hardly be accused of having an anti-Catholic judiciary). 
However, the Church came under increasing pressure when the United Nations Committee against Torture stepped in. In June 2014 it urged the Vatican, if the investigation warranted it, to either try Wesolowski itself under the Vatican State criminal code (not canon law) or let someone else do so — and report back on the outcome. 
In August 2014, the Vatican gave Wesolwski a secret canon law trial to determine if he had violated Church doctrine. The Vatican tribunal found Wesolwski’s guilty of abusing young boys and defrocked him. But it refused to provide any information about his whereabouts or how he pleaded to the charges and refused to release contact information for his lawyer.  This deprived Mr. Wesolowski of his diplomatic immunity — so the Vatican then fell back on his Vatican State citizenship as the reason for not handing him over.
To avoid further challenges to its jurisdiction, the Vatican refused to provide the necessary documents to Polish prosecutors, who had hoped to try Wesolowski, a dual Vatican-Polish citizen.  The Vatican also got the Dominican Republic to fall into line. In August 2014, the day after Wesolowski lost his diplomatic immunity, the Santo Dominican prosecutor’s office announced that it was launching an investigation.  However, by the end of the year, the Dominican Republic’s top prosecutor was expressing “appreciation and satisfaction” with the Vatican’s actions (!) and said that the Vatican was the right place for the trial.  The Dominican authorities even stonewalled the legal inquiries of Polish prosecutors about Wesolowski,  which forced Poland to suspend its inquiry.  This cleared the way for the Vatican to conduct its own trial under the criminal law of its own state, which would satisfy the UN commitee, but keep control over the proceedings.
A Polish expert on church law, Prof. Pawel Borecki, explained why the Vatican was determined to maintain control:
“The Vatican will seek that this case does not go beyond its borders. Wesolowski is a high-ranking diplomat. He has knowledge of how the Roman curia works. He may also know about pedophilia in the church and if other high-ranking priests are involved in the crime. In a trial abroad he could reveal everything. Therefore, we can expect that the Vatican will not release him and it will hand down a severe punishment.” 
♦ Keeping out of key human rights treaty shields Vatican courts from international standards
The Vatican can’t be censured for violating the right to a fair trial which is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights because it hasn’t signed the treaty. Instead, in a 2001 court case, it was Italy that was faulted for enforcing the unfair judgement of the Vatican court.
In essence the European Court of Human Rights found in 2001 that the procedures of the Roman Rota, the ecclesiastical appeals court responsible for marriage-annulment applications, failed to reach the standards required for a fair trial under article 6(1) of the European Convention and that, therefore, its judgments could not properly be recognized and enforced under Italian law. ECHR noted that in Rota proceedings witness statements were not provided to parties, thus depriving the parties of an opportunity to comment on them. The parties were not advised that they could appoint lawyers to appear for them, nor advised of the terms of the legal submissions made by the canon lawyer appointed by the court to argue against annulment. Finally, the parties were refused sight of a full copy of the Rota’s judgment, in which the ecclesiastical court set out its reasoning. Given these circumstances, the Strasbourg court took the view that justice was not done in annulment proceedings before church courts. 
♦ Damage limitation, part 1: Blame the bishops
If the Vatican doesn’t sign a human rights treaty, it’s easier to confine blame (and costs) to the local bishop. This helps the Vatican deny all responsibility for what is done in the Church worldwide. Thus the Vatican’s top prosecutor admits no fault on the part of the Church watchdog body, the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith which, under Cardinal Ratzinger (now the present pope), dealt with abuse cases. 
♦ Damage limitation, part 2: Blame the priests
Even better, from the Vatican’s point of view, is to place sole blame on the errant priests.
— In the US Vatican lawyers argued that Roman Catholic clerics are not officials or employees of the Holy See.  This is now the main Vatican defence against lawsuits in the United States seeking to hold the Holy See liable for the failure of its bishops to stop priests from raping and molesting children.
Usually foreign countries are immune from civil actions in U.S. courts, but there are exceptions to the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act which courts have said were applicable in this case. The statute says that plaintiffs can establish subject matter jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign, if a crime was committed in the United States by any official or employee of the foreign state and that the crimes were committed within the scope of employment. 
— In the UK the same argument is being repeated. The English Catholic Church said priests are self-employed and thus it’s not responsible for victim compensation. Mindful of the dioceses in the US which were obliged to pay compensation to victims of clerical abuse and in some cases have gone bankrupt,  it has tried to argue that priests are self-employed.  However, in a High Court ruling on 8 November 2011 the judge rejected that argument, stating that the relationship between a priest and his bishop is sufficiently close so as to impose responsibility. According to the alleged victim’s lawyer, “This is a key decision with potentially far-reaching implications, effectively extending the principle of vicarious liability”. 
There are other theological variations on the responsibility theme: Whereas the Catholic Church says that its priests are self-employed, the Church of England, in order to avoid giving its priests workers’ rights, claimed they were employed by God.  And since 2008 it has said that they are “office holders”, in other words, employed by no one.
— In Australia, too, the Vatican tries to hold the priests, and not the Church, legally liable in cases of abuse. It does through the remarkable claim, supported in a 2007 decision by the Supreme Court of New South Wales, that the “Catholic Church” does not exist as a single legal entity.  Therefore it cannot be sued; it cannot be held responsible for the behaviour of individuals who work in its “unincorporated associations”. Victims of assault could sue the responsible individuals or their unincorporated associations but it would be pointless; the individual religious take vows of poverty and the unincorporated associations own nothing. 
However, in 2014 Cardinal George Pell suggested that the Australian Church was no more responsible for priests’ crimes than any other organisation was for its employees.  Yes, employees.
♦ Damage limitation, part 3: Blame religious orders then let them refuse to pay
The English High Court and Court of Appeal both ruled that a Catholic diocese was liable to compensate the boys in a Catholic home who had been beaten, kicked and raped. However, that didn’t stop the diocese from claiming that a religious order was responsible and refusing to pay. And, of course, the order also denied any responsibility.  By 2012 the legal proceedings had been dragging on for eight years and due to the strain, many of the broken victims had dropped out of the process. 
And in Ireland where the Catholic Church and 19 religious orders agreed to split the compensation 50-50, the orders, one after another, have refused to pay. As of 2012 this had been going on for ten years. 
Even the four orders of Catholic nuns who ran the Magdalene Laundries and profited from what amounted to slave labour have refused to pay.  The Good Shepherd Sisters, The Sisters of Our Lady of Charity, The Sisters of Mercy and The Sisters of Charity are keeping all the profits from selling prime real estate when their gulags were shut down are refusing to share this with their victims. 
In Canada it’s the same story. Eight Catholic orders ran the orphanages and psychiatric hospitals in the Province of Quebec. Federal subsidies were greater for psychiatric hospitals than for orphanages, so to maximise the profits, large numbers of normal children were “diagnosed” as feeble-minded or insane. In both kinds of Church-run institutions the children were subjected to unimaginable brutality and many died. Yet neither the orders involved nor the Vatican are willing to pay any compensation to the traumatised survivors. 
Since the pope is the head of every Catholic religious order, they must be doing this with his consent. As David Clohessy of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, writes,
The Catholic church isn’t some loosely-knit hippie commune. It’s a rigid, secretive, tightly-knit institution. So when crimes happen, it’s disingenuous for church officials to pretend that everyone involved is disconnected from one another. 
♦ Damage limitation, part 4: Blame the victim
In a sworn deposition in 2011 the bishop of Syracuse actually said that the victims of child-molesting priests are partly to blame for their own abuse. 
♦ Damage limitation, part 5: Lobby against extending the time limits for suing the Church
Many victims are unable to talk about abuse or face their accusers until they reach their 30s, 40s or later, putting the crime beyond the reach of the law. Yet in some US states, like New York, the victim is required to come forth by age 23. The US Supreme Court ruled that changes in criminal limits (statues of limitation) cannot be retroactive, so that any extension of present ones they will affect only recent and future crimes.  However, even this the Catholic Church is lobbying to prevent. If it succeeds, then the time limits can prevent penalties being applied for human rights abuses. Even when the Church admits it knew about the abuse, the priest admits that he did it, and there is independent evidence to back this up, “if the statute of limitations has expired, there won’t be any justice”. 
♦ Damage limitation, part 6: other “evasions and machinations”
These include (but are not confined to):
— Spending millions of dollars to fight sexual abuse lawsuits and keeping sealed the names of thousands of accused priests, as well as the outcomes of some disciplinary cases sent to the Vatican. 
— Hiding funds to avoid compensating victims. In 2007 a judge in informed the Diocese of San Diego that its attempt to shift the diocese’s assets while the case was pending violated bankruptcy laws.  And that same year the Vatican allowed the Milwaukee archdiocese to transfer $57 million into a trust for Catholic cemetery maintenance, where it might be better protected, as Archbishop Dolan wrote, “from any legal claim and liability.” 
— Legal quibbles of all kinds. For instance, in 2011 church leaders in St. Louis claimed not to be liable for an abusive priest because while he had gotten to know a victim on church property, the abuse itself happened elsewhere. 
— Going after honest clerics who act as whistleblowers. A group of priests and nuns formed in 2013 says the Roman Catholic Church is still protecting sexual predators. Calling themselves the Catholic Whistleblowers, they say that priests who spoke up have been “removed from their parishes, hustled into retirement or declared ‘unstable’ and sent to treatment centres for clergy with substance-abuse problems or sexual addictions.” 
— Subjecting the victims to an oath of secrecy. This is the oath that the victims of the Irish paedophile priest Father Brendan Smyth were obliged to swear before Cardinal Sean Brady in 1975 when he was a priest and professor of canon law: 
“I will never directly or indirectly, by means of a nod, or of a word, by writing, or in any other way, and under whatever type of pretext, even for the most urgent and most serious cause (even) for the purpose of a greater good, commit anything against this fidelity to the secret, unless a…dispensation has been expressly given to me by the Supreme Pontiff.” 
— Tipping off accused clerics to allow destruction of evidence. In Australia in 2002, when a bishop learned that a child victim of one of his priests had gone to the police, he drove to a neighbouring town to warn him. This gave the priest, who was later comnvicted for repeatedly raping four children, the chance to destroy incriminating evidence. 
— Witness intimidation. In Germany in 2009 the Catholic Church hired detectives who turned at the homes of abused children and tried to get them retract their claims against one of its priests. 
— Hush money. In Australia in 2015 the nephew of a priest said that Cardinal Pell had tried to bribe him to keep quiet about abuse by his uncle.  And this tactic was proven to have been used in Germany in 1999, when cash payments were made to the parents of abused children at the same time as they signed agreement to remain silent. See Money for silence.
♦ The Church follows its own Canon Law (which can be changed by a stroke of the papal pen) and must be forced to comply with civil law which is based on human rights
Amnesty International criticised the Vatican in its 2011 report, claiming it “did not sufficiently comply with its international obligations relating to the protection of children”. AI pointed out that the Vatican enlarged its own definition of “crimes in canon law” beyond “the sexual abuse of minors” ― but not the punishments
Amendments to the canon law promulgated in May introduced the “delicts” of paedophile pornography and abuse of mentally disabled people; the maximum punishment for these “delicts” is dismissal or deposition. Canon law does not include an obligation for Church authorities to report cases to civil authorities for criminal investigation. Secrecy is mandatory throughout the proceedings. 
As if the record unpunished priest abusers were not proof enough, a letter written in 2001 by a senior Vatican official has come to light praising a French bishop when he was convicted of failing to report a paedophile priest to the police. In 2010 the Bishop was given a three-month suspended prison sentence for not denouncing the priest, who was sentenced to 18 years in jail in 2000 for sexually abusing 11 boys. 
However, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, Prefect of the Congregation of the Clergy, told the Bishop, “I congratulate you for not denouncing a priest to the civil authorities.” And he concludes the letter to the French bishop by holding up the Bishops’ behaviour as a model for others; “This Congregation, in order to encourage brothers in the episcopate in this delicate matter, will forward a copy of this letter to all the conferences of bishops.” 
The Cardinal said afterwards that his letter was about protecting the seal of the confessional in accordance with Church law (Canon 983), but there is no mention of this in the text itself and at his trial the Bishop disputed this.  However, even if this were true, this would not hold in France which has apparently legislated a “duty to report” where children are involved. “French law recognises the seal of the confessional as part of a protected category of ‘professional secrets’, but makes an exception for crimes committed against minors”. 
Later the Cardinal also dropped a bombshell. He claimed that, “After consulting the pope, I wrote a letter to the bishop, congratulating him as a model of a father who does not turn in his children.” 
If Castrillon Hoyos is telling the truth, then John Paul personally approved sending this letter in direct violation of the instruction Card[inal] Ratzinger’s CDF had sent down months earlier, urging bishops in countries where the law obliges them to report knowledge of sexual crimes against children to civil authorities, to follow the law. If Castrillon Hoyos is being truthful, it would suggest that, as far as the pontiff was concerned, the Ratzinger directive was window dressing. 
The Church record of stonewalling criminal investigations certainly suggests that, until and unless forced to do otherwise, Canon Law, the legal system of the Catholic Church, is all the Church feels bound to follow. The outspoken Monsignor Maurice Dooley, an expert on Canon Law, has even stated this publicly. In 2002 he declared that bishops did not have to tell the Irish police about paedophile clerics and might even shelter these priests. “As far as the Church is concerned, its laws come first.”  And in April 2010 the Brazilian Archbishop Dadeus Grings concurred, saying that priestly abuse was a matter of internal church discipline, not something to report to the police. “For the church to go and accuse its own sons would be a little strange.” 
And even senior churchmen claiming that it is Church policy to report suspected abuse to the police have been found to be lying. In Australia, for instance, despite assurances by a bishop that the church had enforced strict rules to ensure such cases were reported to the police as a “matter of absolute policy’”, he and an archbishop secretly defrocked an abuser who was assured that “your good name will be protected by the confidential nature of this process”. 
In 2014 a United Nations committee severely criticised the Vatican’s handling of abuse cases and its failure to comply with the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The panel rejected the church’s key contention that the Vatican has no jurisdiction over its bishops and priests around the world, and is responsible for putting in effect the Convention on the Rights of the Child only within the tiny territory of Vatican City. By ratifying the convention, the panel said, the Vatican took responsibility for making sure it was respected by individuals and institutions under the Holy See’s authority around the world. 
To this the Vatican replied by using its usual shell game, switching between its three identities, as dictated by expediency: “The Committee has overlooked important distinctions between the Holy See, Vatican City State and the universal Catholic Church.” 
Further reading about the Pope and the law
Geoffrey Robertson, QC, “Put the pope in the dock. Legal immunity cannot hold. The Vatican should feel the full weight of international law”, Guardian, 2 April 2010. [This is a proposal to prosecute the Vatican under criminal law, where diplomatic immunity does not apply, but where an arrest could only be made in a country (like the UK, but not the US) which has signed the Statute of the International Criminal Court.]
“Call to treat Vatican as a rogue state: Lawyer Geoffrey Robertson says the church must abandon canon law”,Sydney Morning Herald, 9 September 2010. http://www.smh.com.au/world/call-to-treat-vatican-as-a-rogue-state-20100908-151cg.html
Afua Hirsch, “Canon law has allowed abuse priests to escape punishment, says lawyer”, Guardian, 7 September 2010. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/07/canon-law-abuse-priests-escape-punishment
Alan Duke, “Lawsuit demands Vatican name priests accused of sex abuse”, CNN, 22 April 2010. “Pope Benedict XVI was named as a defendant because he has the ultimate authority to remove priests and because of his involvement in reviewing sex abuse cases when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the suit says.” [This is a suit under civil law and, as the US has recognised the Holy See by establishing diplomatic relations with it, this suit depends upon proving that the Holy See acted in a manner which removes its immunity, as outlined above.]
Further reading about the Pope and the law
- Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Instruction: Donum veritatis, On the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian”, 1990-03-24, #36.
- “”Immunity”, The Free Dictionary.
- John L. Allen Jr, “The autonomy of bishops, and suing the Vatican”, National Catholic Reporter, 21 May 2010.
- Sandro Magister, “The Holy See’s Diplomatic Net. Latest Acquisition: Russia”, Chiesa, 14 January 2010.
The Holy See does not yet have relations with sixteen countries, most of them in Asia, many of them with majority Muslim populations. There is no Vatican representative in nine of these countries: Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Bhutan, the People’s Republic of China, North Korea, the Maldives, Oman, Tuvalu, and Vietnam. While in seven other countries there are apostolic delegates, pontifical representatives to the local Catholic communities but not to the government. Three of these countries are African: the Comoros, Mauritania, and Somalia. And four of them are Asian: Brunei, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar.
- “Australian abuse inquiry faces diplomatic standoff with Vatican”, National Catholic Reporter, 19 December 2013.
- [UN] Committee against Torture, Concluding observations on the initial report of the Holy See, 17 June 201, #14.
- See article 6.1, “Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography.” Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution A/RES/54/263 of 25 May 2000, entered into force on 18 January 2002,
- “British archbishop who claimed diplomatic immunity to avoid handing documents to paedophile investigators is promoted to third highest role in Vatican by the Pope”, Daily Mail, 10 November 2014.
- “Dominican Republic says Vatican to handle landmark sex abuse case”, Agence France-Presse, 1 December 2014.
- Laurie Goodstein, “Vatican Defrocks Ambassador in Abuse Inquiry”, New York Times, 27 June 2014.
- . “Priests accused of child sex abuse to stand trial in Poland?”, Radio Poland, 16 October 2013.
- Betty Clermont, “Pope Francis Concealed His Actions Against Two Prelates. Now Both ‘Whereabouts are Unknown’”, Daily Kos, 29 September 2013.
- Laurie Goodstein, “For Nuncio Accused of Abuse, Dominicans Want Justice at Home, Not Abroad”, New York Times, 23 August 2014.
- “Vatican to Polish prosecutor: we don’t extradite”, Associated Press, 11 January 2014.
- Laurie Goodstein, “For Nuncio Accused of Abuse, Dominicans Want Justice at Home, Not Abroad”, New York Times, 23 August 2014
- The United Nations Committee against Torture said on 17 June 2014, ref CAT/C/VAT/CO/1:
13. The Committee appreciates the confirmation provided regarding the ongoing investigation under the Vatican City State Criminal Code of allegations of sexual abuse of minors by Archbishop Josef Wesolowski, former papal nuncio to the Dominican Republic. The Committee notes that the Republic of Poland has reportedly requested the extradition of Archbishop Wesolowski. The Committee also is concerned that the State party did not identify any case to date in which it has prosecuted an individual responsible for the commission of or complicity or participation in a violation of the Convention (arts. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8).
The State party should ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation of Archbishop Wesolowski and any other persons accused of perpetrating or being complicit in violations of the Convention who are nationals of the State party or are present on the territory of the State party. If warranted, the State party should ensure such persons are criminally prosecuted or extradited for prosecution by the civil authorities of another State party. The Committee requests the State party to provide it with information on the outcome of the investigation concerning Archbishop Wesolowski.
- “Dominican court opens case on ex-Vatican official”, Associated Press, 31 August 2014.
- “Poland Suspends Inquiry Into a Former Vatican Envoy”, New York Times, 22 December 2014.
- “Dominican court opens case on ex-Vatican official”, Associated Press, 31 August 2014.
- “Dominican prosecutor OKs Vatican sex abuse case”, Associated Press, 2 December 2014.
- “Poland suspends paedophilia investigation against archbishop”, Polski Radio, 19 December 2014.
- “Poland Suspends Inquiry Into a Former Vatican Envoy”, New York Times, 22 December 2014.
- Donald Snyder, “Venue debated for trial of former nuncio accused of abusing minors”, National Catholic Reporter, 6 September 2014.
- Pellegrini v. Italy, 2001-VIII, Application No: 30882/96
- Laurie Goodstein, “U.N. Panel Criticizes the Vatican Over Sexual Abuse”, New York Times, 5 February 2014.
- Stoyan Zaimov, “Catholic Church Not Employer of Pedophile Priests, US Judge Rules”, Christian Post, 22 August 2014.
- “Bishops who mishandle abuse must be accountable, says Vatican official”, Catholic Herald, 8 February 2012.
- “Pope-bishop relationship key in sex abuse defense”, AP, 18 May 2010.
- “Settlements and bankruptcies in [American] Catholic sex abuse cases”, Wikipedia.
- “Catholic bishop criticises ruling on church liability for actions of priests”, Guardian, 15 November 2011.
Crispian Hollis, Bishop of Portsmouth, “The Diocese, Fr Wilf Baldwin and the High Court Judgment”, 10 November 2011.
- “Catholic Church responsible for child abuse, High Court rules”, The Lawyer, 9 November 2011.
- Jonathan Petre, “Clergy close to workers’ rights”, Telegraph, 19 January 2004.
- Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church V Ellis & Anor  NSWCA 117 (24 May 2007).
- Australian Cardinal angers abuse victims, The Tablet, 22 August 2014.
- Glen Coulton, letter to Sydney Morning Herald, 6 February 2011.
- “Church abuse case goes to highest court”, The Times, 23 July 2012.
- “Roman Catholic church stalls on £8m child abuse claims“, Observer, 15 November 2009
- “Counting the cost of abuse redress”, Irish Examiner, 01 October 2012
- “Kenny: I can’t force orders to contribute to Magdalenes redress fund”, Breaking News IE, 17 July 2013.
- Conor Ryan, “Site by laundry grave sold for €61.8m”, Irish Examiner, 05 July 2011.
- Petition concerning the Duplessis Orphans, presented to the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, on behalf of the Duplessis Orphans, by Dr. Jonathan Levy and Rod Vienneau, 15 April 2011. http://www.vaticanbankclaims.com/quebec.pdf This is a reliable summary, as any factual inaccuracies would expose this human rights lawyer to charges of perjury, as explained at the end of the document.
- “Child victims partly to blame in priest sex-abuse cases, Syracuse bishop testified”, Syracuse.com, 13 September 2015.
- “Judge: Try Philadelphia priests, official together”, AP, 29 July 2011.
- Marci A. Hamilton, “Why ensuring accountability for clergy sexual abuse of children has proved so difficult, even though it remains so crucial”, Findlaw, 6 May 2004.
- Marci A. Hamilton, a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University who represents plaintiffs in sexual abuse suits, quoted in “Church Battles Efforts to Ease Sex Abuse Suits”, New York Times, 14 June 2012.
- “Ahead of Pope Francis’ Visit, Survivors of Sexual Abuse Take Stock”, New York Times, 15 September 2015.
- Amnesty International, Annual Report, 2011: “Vatican”.
- “Dolan Sought to Protect Church Assets, Files Show”, New York Times, 1 July 2013.
“Appeals court: Judge erred on Milwaukee archdiocese fund”, AP, 10 March 2015.
- “Judge Orders External Audit of San Diego Diocese Accounts”, Associated Press, carried in San Luis Obispo Tribune, 11 April 2007.
- “Abuse victims criticise Brady’s decision to stay”, BBC News, 18 May 2010.
- “Revealed: the oath Brady, Smyth and the children swore”, Irish Independent, 3 December 2012.
- “Courage puts shame ‘squarely where it belongs'”, Sydney Morning Herald, 24 July 2013.
- “Church Whistle-Blowers Join Forces on Abuse”, New York Times, 20 May 2013.
- “Cardinal Pell denies attempting to bribe alleged abuse victim and helping to move paedophile priest”, Tablet, 21 May 2015.
- “Mo. appeals court rules Catholic church not responsible for some abuse”, St. Louis Public Radio, 5 July 2011.
- “How the German Catholic Church Protected a Pedophile Priest”, Spiegel, 24 April 2009.
- Tom Heneghan, “John Paul backed praise for hiding abuse – cardinal”, Reuters, 18 April 2010.
- Cardinal Darío del Niño Jesús Castrillón Hoyos to Bishop Pierre Pican, 8 September 2001. Translation in “Darío Castrillón Hoyos”,
- John L Allen Jr, “Crisis hangs over pope in Malta like volcanic ash”, National Catholic Register, 17 April 2010.
- Tom Heneghan, “John Paul backed praise for hiding abuse – cardinal”, Reuters, 18 April 2010.
- Rod Dreher, “Cardinal: John Paul approved of cover-up”, Beliefnet, 18 April 2010.
- Ciaran Byrne, “Controversial cleric a ‘grade A1 idiot’, says colleague”, Irish Independent, 20 March 2010.
- “Catholic archbishop says kids are spontaneously gay”, Examiner.com, 8 May 2010.
- “Calls multiply for inquiry into handling of sex abuse”, Sydney Morning Herald, 1 August 2012.
- Laurie Goodstein, Nick Cumming-Brice and Jim Yardley,“ U.N. Panel Criticizes the Vatican Over Sexual Abuse”, New York Times, 5 February 2014.
- “Holy See’s Comments to Observations From UN Committee on Rights of the Child”, Zenit, 26 September 2014.
2 Paths, No Easy Solution on Abusive Priests
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN and JODI WILGOREN
Published: March 3, 2002
ST. LOUIS, March 1— It has been 20 years since John Scorfina’s family complained to church officials about the Rev. Leroy Valentine’s sexualized horseplay with him and his two brothers, which they say ended with the priest molesting 11-year-old John.
It has been four years since the Scorfina brothers took $20,000 each from the Archdiocese of St. Louis on the condition they never speak of the settlement, believing that lawyers for the church had promised to remove the priest from parish work.
But when the three men recently learned that Father Valentine, who has denied any wrongdoing, was an assistant pastor at a church attached to a Catholic elementary school, the order not to speak could not contain their outrage.
”I just don’t want any kids to go through what I went through,” John Scorfina said this week.
Across the Mississippi River in Belleville, Ill., the priests who have been accused of sexual abuse no longer work in churches. One performs karaoke on Wednesday nights at the Lincoln Jug restaurant in Belleville and another pumps gas at his mother’s service station in the small town of Columbia.
In the mid-1990’s, the Diocese of Belleville publicly ousted 13 priests accused of inappropriate sexual contact with children, leaving them in an odd limbo — on the church payroll yet without portfolio, called ”Father” but barred from administering sacraments or wearing the collar. ”In the church,” said one, the Rev. Raymond Kownacki, ”you’re guilty until proven innocent.”
Here in the center of the country, these two dioceses — one, in a major city in which a third of the population is Catholic, the other a sprawling 11,000-square-mile expanse of small farm towns — have taken divergent paths in handling accusations of sexual abuse by clergymen.
While Belleville made headlines by removing priests, St. Louis quietly moved them around. Each diocese has a board to review the cases. In Belleville, a victim’s say-so was often enough for the board to strip priests of their church ministries; in St. Louis, many victims said they were unaware of the board’s existence.
As church officials nationwide rethink their approaches to the issue amid recent scandals, each bank of the river offers lessons about the intractability of the problem.
Belleville’s broad public sweep of priests from the altar may have eased victims’ pain, but it also left some parishioners uneasy that innocent men were being maligned, while others worried about potential pedophiles being released from the rectory, unwatched. The policy in St. Louis, until this week, of keeping nearly all accusations secret as the archdiocese moved the priests into new parishes, retirement, or low-profile posts, angered victims and may have led to further offenses.
The issue of sexual abuse by priests has taken on new urgency in recent months after disclosures that the Boston Archdiocese had known for years about the sexual misconduct of a priest who was accused of molesting some 130 children. That case led to repeated apologies from the leader of the archdiocese, Cardinal Bernard Law, who reversed his policy of keeping the matter within the church and gave state authorities the names of some 80 priests accused of abusing children over 40 years.
Since then, church leaders in New England and Philadelphia have informed parishes of similar accusations against priests, handed priests’ personnel files to prosecutors and relieved some of the accused of their duties. In Los Angeles, Cardinal Roger Mahoney issued a public apology to victims and released a new policy vowing that a priest who had abused a child would never return to active ministry.
Here in St. Louis, an archdiocese of 223 parishes, church officials announced the removal of two pastors today, saying they had ”raised the bar” about who is unfit to serve in a parish post. The standard, since 1996, had been that any priest deemed to pose a future risk would be removed. Since the Boston incidents, they say that any priest with a substantiated accusation against him will be ousted. The two priests received treatment after the accusations, which are 15 and 14 years old, officials said.
”As painful as it is, we’re going to keep the trust of our people,” said Bishop Timothy M. Dolan, the vicar for priests. ”We have to be able to say, we have to be able to believe, that there is no priest in a parish against whom there is a credible claim of clerical sexual abuse.”
Accusations about pedophilia have plagued the Roman Catholic Church in the United States since the first major case arose nearly 20 years ago in a Louisiana parish. Experts warn that, like alcoholism, pedophilia is a disease that can be controlled but not cured, and that problem priests should not be reassigned to parishes where they are at risk of abusing again.
David Clohessy, national director of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, who lives in St. Louis, says the experiences of Belleville, while flawed, are a starting point as bishops review policies. St. Louis, he says, is a model of what to avoid.
”In Belleville, like virtually every diocese in America, the survivor who comes forward has a long tough road,” he said. ”But in St. Louis, that road is steep, uphill, and seemingly endless.”
Parishioners Uneasy But Dependent
Father Valentine was the favorite of many children at St. Pius X, a parish and school in Glasgow Village, a community of identical aluminum-sided bungalows in the northern part of St. Louis. The priest took them out for ice cream and cheeseburgers. He lavished affection on children like the Scorfinas, who came from single-parent or troubled families. ”He was like the dad that wasn’t there,” said John Scorfina, who now runs a construction company.
Father Valentine, in an interview on Thursday at the rectory of St. Thomas the Apostle, where he is now an associate pastor, said he was barred by the legal settlement from discussing the case. When told that this was his opportunity to respond to whether there was any truth to the accusations, he looked down and shook his head. The senior pastor, the Rev. Henry Garavaglia, who sat in on the interview, said, ”Emphatically, I would say no.”
Then Father Valentine looked up and said suddenly, ”At the same time, parents should always be concerned who’s working with their children.”
Others who lived in Father Valentine’s parish said they felt uneasy about him, particularly when he wrestled with groups of boys and slid them over his body in a game he called ”crack your back.”
Tom Joseph, 32, remembers a 1982 trip with Father Valentine to the Illinois River in which he says the priest playfully tackled him, pulled down his pants and spanked him. Mr. Joseph, then 13, did not tell anyone, but says that he never went anywhere with the priest again.
Margie Lewis, a single parent, said that one day she called home and was surprised to learn from her daughter that Father Valentine was there wrestling with her son and his friends. She said that she asked him to come to the phone, but he would not, and that he left suddenly.
The Scorfina brothers were also home alone on the day they say that Father Valentine came over, and initiated a wrestling session. Soon, they say, the priest fondled two of the boys and then took John into a bedroom and sodomized him.
”I remember I had a Pittsburgh Steelers poster on the wall, and he made me name all the players until the deed was done,” John Scorfina said. Asked in his 1998 deposition how long it lasted, Mr. Scorfina said, ”About 10, 15 minutes, maybe, give or take, say, forever, 26 years.”
Katie Chrun, the Scorfinas’ mother, recalled that when she arrived home her youngest son asked: ” ‘Mom, should a priest touch you like that?’ I said, ‘Like what?’ ”
Mrs. Chrun said she contacted the authorities, but was told by pastors and a policeman that it was an internal church matter and to keep quiet and be forgiving.
Then, three months later, Mrs. Chrun, her mother and her sister went to meet with Father Valentine in the rectory. Mrs. Chrun and her sister, Linda Thurman, both say that he apologized and said that if he did something wrong, he must have blacked out.
Asked about the meeting, Father Valentine said, ”It was an apology that they had taken something wrongly.” He said he never said anything about blacking out.
Within the month, Father Valentine was removed with no explanation to the Scorfinas or the parishioners, and in the next 12 years was reassigned to three parishes, two of them with schools. Not until the Scorfina brothers filed their lawsuit, in 1995, were parishioners at the church where he worked at that time informed that there were accusations of child sexual abuse against him. The Scorfina brothers sued the Archbishop of St. Louis and Father Valentine and the archdiocese settled with the family in 1998.
Though they refused to discuss specific cases, Bishop Dolan, who also handles sexual abuse cases for the archdiocese, as well as the archdiocese’s lawyer and a psychologist who sits on the review board acknowledged that Father Valentine had been evaluated and treated by medical professionals, and that he had been put on sick leave for four years.
In 2000, as Father Valentine was assigned to his current post in Florissant, a St. Louis suburb, the church’s senior pastor sent parishioners a letter informing them about a 1982 accusation of sexual misconduct against Father Valentine. The letter said Father Valentine had ”unambiguously denied the allegation” and that therapists had concluded he posed ”no threat to children.”
Some Settled, Some Unheeded
Interviews and court records suggest Father Valentine’s is not the only St. Louis case where accusations led to transfers — or where victims complained of being ignored by the chancery.
Church officials refused to say how many priests, before last week, had ever been publicly removed because of sexual abuse. Doug Forsyth, a lawyer who has handled about two dozen cases against the archdiocese — 15 of which he said were settled — and victims’ advocates said the only cases they were aware of in which removal was publicly attributed to pedophilia were ones in which the priests did not deny the accusations in court.
One of those priests, the Rev. James Gummersbach, admitted in a 1994 lawsuit that he had abused boys in several parishes over decades. Further, in a sworn statement, he acknowledged that from his ordination in 1954 through the 1990’s ”the only known action taken by the defendant archdiocese in response to the accusations that defendant Gummersbach had sexual contact with minors was to transfer Gummersbach and instruct him to obtain personal counseling.”
One man who said his complaints about a priest went unheeded was Steven Pona. Court records show Mr. Pona, now 33, wrote to the the vicar general in 1983 contending that that the Rev. Bruce Forman, director of the Young Catholic Musicians orchestra and choir, tried to seduce him at a drive-in screening of ”Fast Times at Ridgemont High.” Mr. Pona said the incident followed at least five occasions in which the priest tried to approach him sexually.
”During the movies he had his arm around me in a funny sort of way, sort of at the waist,” Mr. Pona wrote in a teenager’s cursive. ”I pushed his arm back forcefully and said, ”Don’t, I’m not that type.’
Diocesan directories show that Father Forman, who did not return calls for comment, was moved only once in the last 20 years, in 1986, to the parish where he remains pastor. Mr. Pona’s letter, in a sealed envelope, was placed in the priest’s file, marked, ”To be opened by archbishop only,” according to court records.
Mr. Pona’s lawsuit, filed against Father Forman and the archbishop, was dismissed because of the statute of limitations. But as the issue resurfaced in the news in January, Mr. Pona said, he went to see Bishop Michael J. Sheridan, who at first was compassionate but later phoned to say he had researched the case and found no evidence.
On Friday, Bishop Dolan said Mr. Pona’s recent complaint might have gotten lost because it arrived shortly before Bishop Sheridan left for another assignment. Bishop Sheridan did not return several phone calls on Thursday. In the interview today, Bishop Dolan urged parishioners to ”tell us again” if they were unhappy with how complaints had been handled.
The archdiocese’s new strategy of removing priests based on substantiated accusations rather than assessment of future risk has already spawned criticism. Parishioners at St. Cronan’s Church, where the pastor was removed on Wednesday, gathered that evening to pray for their priest.
”People are feeling that it’s sort of an infringement of our Christian community to have someone taken from us without any consultation and without any explanation,” said Bill Ramsey, a member of St. Cronan’s. ”I don’t think anybody wants sexual abuse anywhere, but it’s a fact of life and there are more constructive ways to deal with it than ordering people away from other people.”
Model System Still Falls Short
The church used to shuffle priests accused of sexually abusing children among the 127 parishes in the Belleville diocese, too.
In a 1995 lawsuit against Father Kownacki, one of the ousted priests, and the diocese, Gina Trimble Parks asserted that while she was the priest’s teenage housekeeper, the priest repeatedly raped her over two years and ultimately fed her a quinine potion to bring about an abortion. Court records show Ms. Park’s family made the same assertions to the bishop in 1973, and that Father Kownacki had two previous complaints of sexual abuse against him from other assignments. He was sent for treatment and later returned to a parish.
The lawsuit was dismissed because of the statute of limitations. ”I was too old to fight it,” he said of his ouster in a recent interview, adding that his family and friends ”know the accusations aren’t the truth.”
The Rev. Clyde Grogan, longtime pastor of St. Patrick’s in East St. Louis, said he brought several victims and their families to the chancery to register complaints in the 1960’s and 1970’s, and nothing happened.
”You know how it was handled?” asked Father Grogan, raising his hand and forming a zero with thumb and forefinger. When victims complained, he added, ”The bishop would give lots of assurances. I think the strategy was, what do the people want to hear?”
That changed in 1993, after The Belleville News-Democrat published an article describing how a priest had molested high school boys aboard a houseboat on Carlyle Lake 20 years before. The accused priest was immediately removed and church leaders began rewriting their sexual abuse policy.
Four priests were ousted in the weeks that followed and eight more priests and a deacon were pushed out in the next two years as the diocese investigated a swell of complaints, most of which first appeared in The News-Democrat.One as eventually returned to a parish.
”We were kind of learning as we went,” said Msgr. James E. Margason, Belleville’s vicar general, who helped write the new policy. ”We were damaging someone’s reputation, we didn’t know if the allegation was true. What drove us was to protect children.”
Margie Mensen, a social worker who was the administrator of the Belleville review board from its formation until 1998, said a credible accusation from a victim was enough to remove a priest, often within days of the complaint. Many of the priests never presented their side to the board; only one admitted the abuse. Several refused treatment.
The diocese has since settled at least three of eight lawsuits (one is still pending in federal court) and paid for counseling for 49 people, including victims and their families. Though the state’s attorney subpoenaed all the review board’s records, it filed no charges, because the accusations were years old and lacked corroboration.
But if Belleville has been heralded as a model, many in the community remain dissatisfied with the process.
Father Grogan says the diocese’s 80-some priests are still divided as to whether they believe the abuse accusations. Parishioners at one church wore yellow ribbons to protest their pastor’s removal. Donations dipped for years as people feared the Sunday collection plate would go to defray legal expenses.
Those who say they are victims remain outraged that the priests retain their titles, salaries and pensions.
”That’s kind of a slap in the church’s face, my face, everybody’s face,” said Mary Aholt, whose husband was among those to receive a settlement. ”Everybody that’s paying their salary, and that’s everyone that belongs to the Catholic Church.”
Others worried that the church is not properly supervising the people it had deemed a problem. The Rev. Louis Peterson works in a restaurant in Lebanon, Ill. Father Kownacki collects coins and stamps in a dingy first-floor apartment in Dupo, Ill., where he said he sometimes celebrates Mass for family and friends, against the rules of his administrative leave. The Rev. David Crook has left the area.
”I have a whole new life,” said the lounge singer at the Lincoln Jug Restaurant, Msgr. Joseph R. Schwaegel, who still faces a federal lawsuit, along with the diocese, by a California man who asserts that Father Schwaegel repeatedly touched his genitals and raped him in 1973, when the plaintiff was 8. Father Schwaegel declined to discuss the case.
The Rev. Robert Vonnahmen, a former camp director who faced at least three lawsuits accusing him of luring boys to his cabin for massages that led to molestations, runs a Catholic retreat center and a $3-million-a-year tax-exempt tour company, formerly owned by the church, which leads Catholic ”pilgrimages” to dozens of destinations. (Two of the lawsuits were dismissed because of the statute of limitations, a third was settled out of court.)
At his office the other day, Father Vonnahmen wore a short-sleeved black shirt with Roman collar, button open, defying the church’s sanction. He has denied all accusations against him, twice petitioned the Belleville review board to reinstate him and has now appealed his case to the Vatican. ”I’m not going to give up on the Lord or the church, either one,” he said. ”I know these things happen occasionally. I can’t imagine the large number of people in Belleville. There was a rush to judgment.”
No Belleville priests have been removed since 1997. Monsignor Margason said the 800-number set up to receive abuse complaints has been silent for a year.
Long road toward priest’s removal traces church’s abuse journey
From the link: http://m.stltoday.com/lifestyles/faith-and-values/tim-townsend/long-road-toward-priest-s-removal-traces-church-s-abuse/article_26e0dab9-c94d-5a18-82eb-0ec4dce8cc12.html?mobile_touch=true
The St. Louis Archdiocese had what Archbishop Robert Carlson called sad news about clergy sexual abuse.
On May 1, the archdiocese posted a statement from Carlson on its website saying he had permanently removed the Rev. Leroy Valentine, 71, from ministry. An internal, lay investigatory board had determined that “incidents” taking place “in the 1970s” which had been “only recently brought to our attention” were credible, Carlson said.
The archdiocese also published an article in its weekly newspaper, the St. Louis Review, about Valentine’s removal saying the “allegation of abuse occurred in the 1970s.”
A closer look at Valentine’s story reflects a 30-year journey that neatly embodies the Roman Catholic church’s struggle to deal with its sexual abuse troubles over that time.
It’s a sad story — Carlson is right — about a priest who has been repeatedly accused of abuse, and yet neither the law nor the church can prove it. So the archdiocese, despite proclaiming again and again through the years that no allegation against Valentine has been found credible, says he’s “been monitored and supervised continuously since 1999.” He is not guilty. He is not innocent.
In 1995, three adult brothers sued the archdiocese accusing Valentine of molesting them in 1982. The brothers had been members at St. Piux X Catholic Church in the Glasgow Village area and attended the school there.
Valentine denied the charges, and then-Archbishop Justin Rigali backed him up in court. He put Valentine on administrative leave, and for a time Valentine entered a Catholic facility for troubled priests in eastern Franklin County. Subsequently his address was listed as a St. Louis apartment building.
In 1998, the archdiocese paid each of the brothers $20,000 settlements, and the following year Rigali assigned Valentine to a new parish.
In its story this week, the Review said that Valentine had “repeatedly stated” that the brothers’ allegations was untrue, and “was not found to be credible by civil authorities, and he was returned to active ministry.”
Rigali assigned Valentine to be associate pastor of St. Thomas the Apostle in Florissant in October 1999. In a letter to parishioners, the church’s pastor said “the conclusion of the therapists who evaluated Father Valentine is clear that he poses no threat to children. Additionally, the allegation has been resolved with no finding of guilt or liability on the part of Father Valentine.”
But a little more than two years later, the clergy abuse crisis had rocked the Catholic church back on its heels, and Valentine became the subject of a front-page New York Times story and multiple stories in the Post-Dispatch.
As the crisis expanded during the first months of 2002, the St. Louis archdiocese tightened its abuse policy saying no priest with a substantiated allegation of child sexual abuse would be allowed to work in a pastoral setting or a position that provided access to children.
After two priests accused of abuse resigned under the new policy, the archdiocese was under pressure to answer questions about any of its priests who had been accused of abuse in the past. Then-auxiliary Bishop Timothy Dolan (now a cardinal and archbishop of New York) said allegations against Valentine and two other priests who had been sued in civil court were unsubstantiated. The archdiocese had no plans to remove them or to review previous complaints, he said.
“There is nobody we are worried about in the ministry,” Dolan said.
He told the New York Times that, “we have to be able to say, we have to be able to believe, that there is no priest in a parish against whom there is a credible claim of clerical sexual abuse.”
Three days later, the archdiocese issued a statement specifically about Valentine, saying it “continues to support Father Valentine in his ministry to the people of St. Thomas the Apostle Parish.”
But then, a few weeks later, a former altar boy came forward. He was 32, and told the Post-Dispatch that he was 8 at the time Valentine had molested him, in 1978 at Immacolata Church in Richmond Heights. Valentine allegedly put the boy on his lap while hearing his confession, then put his hands in the boy’s pants.
“I was molested during the first sacrament I ever received,” the man said.
The archdiocese said then that it was investigating new accusations against Valentine “from many years ago.” The alleged misconduct dated to the 1980s, the archdiocese says now.
Valentine resigned from St. Thomas during that investigation but maintained his innocence, saying his departure was “in the best interest of our parish family, of the archdiocese and for my own personal well-being.”
But eventually, the allegations leading to Valentine’s resignation were also found to be unsubstantiated by the archdiocese’s advisory board.
And yet despite being cleared by the archdiocese, Valentine never returned to public ministry.
From his resignation in 2002 until 2005, Valentine lived in a private residence, according to the statement. Since then, he’s been living “in a retirement home.” Public records indicate that is Regina Cleri, the archdiocese’s retirement home for priests on its campus headquarters in Shrewsbury. A request to speak with Valentine went unreturned.
The archdiocese did not distribute a release about Valentine to the secular press. It declined to directly answer questions provided by the Post-Dispatch for this column. It also declined to make anyone available for an interview. Instead, it issued a statement from Phil Hengen, director of its Child and Youth Protection office, who said the recent, credible allegation took place in 1978.
The allegation involved “inappropriate touching of a minor” and the archdiocese learned of it last summer, Hengen said in the statement.
Archdiocese spokeswoman Angela Shelton said the recent allegation involves a single person who says Valentine abused him “on more than one occasion.”
Archdiocese officials investigated, and the process concluded with Carlson’s announcement May 1.
“Father Valentine,” according to Hengen, “will continue to live in a monitored, secure environment.”
La lettera di una vittima di abuso al sacerdote Papa Francesco in Italiano
Note an English Version of this Letter to Pope Francis shall be published in a blog right after this one.
Hey Papa Francesco, come ci si sente di annunciare da soli il rappresentante di Gesù e di Dio, mentre la protezione di tutti i pedofili Pimp i Cardinali, gli Arcivescovi, i vescovi e arcivescovi coperta gli stupri di massa e gli abusi dei bambini? Pensi che quello che affermano di rappresentare, Gesù non sarebbe la stessa cosa? Pensi che il Papa Francesco che Gesù ha voluto difendere e proteggere e difendere chi ha fatto questo? Pensi che Gesù li chiamerà Santo?
Il Catechismo della Chiesa Cattolica Romana parla di stupro come segue: PARTE TERZA: LA VITA IN CRISTO; PARTE SECONDA: I DIECI COMANDAMENTI, CAPITOLO DUE: “AMERAI IL PROSSIMO TUO COME TE STESSO”, ALL’ARTICOLO 6, IL SESTO COMANDAMENTO, i reati contro la castità: 2356 Lo stupro è forzato violazione dell’intimità sessuale di una persona. Non lesioni alla giustizia e alla carità. Stupro ferisce profondamente il rispetto, la libertà e l’integrità fisica e morale di ogni persona ha il diritto.
Credi che il Papa Francesco, che gli stupri e torture di centinaia di migliaia di bambini in tutto il mondo, perpetrati su di loro con la propria dei sacerdoti della Chiesa Cattolica Romana, è in conformità con i dettami del proprio Catechismo, o le parole del vostro Gesù?
Credi che il Papa Francesco, che tutti i bambini e gli adolescenti, che sono state violentate, torturate, ridotto in schiavitù, brutalizzata, utilizzato come esperimenti medici e sterilizzazione forzata, in istituzioni cattoliche, come la Maddalena e Buon Pastore lavanderie industriali, case come Venezia e Bindoon, le donne”s;s e Bambinio’s Case come Taum e la prima nazione industriale nelle scuole, in linea con i dettami del catechismo e Gesù Cristo?
Lei ci aveva chiesto di non troppo tempo fa per accettare le scuse e perdonare voi e la vostra chiesa per quello che è stato fatto per noi. Ma come si può perdonare voi e la vostra chiesa? Per essere perdonato, secondo la bibbia e gli insegnamenti, è necessario pentirsi di tutti i vostri peccati e crimini.
Tuttavia, come pure quelli di noi che sono state violentate e le nostre anime rubato da noi e che si sono suicidati a causa di esso, può dare a lui il perdono, o qualcuno di noi danneggiati, quando si rifiuta di pulire la casa di tutti i Cardinali, i Vescovi e Arcivescovi Metropoliti che coperto questi male crimini, ancora seduto nelle posizioni che sono?
Come Paul Anthony Carson, che dopo aver visto il sacerdote che lo stupro camminare per la strada e poi tornare a casa e appendere stesso, essendo trovato dai suoi genitori, perdonare?
Come Emma Foster, che è stata violentata da Padre Kevin O’Donnell, mentre in una scuola primaria che si sono suicidati perché, perdonare?
Come Daniel Neill, che si sono suicidati a causa del suo stupratore sacerdote, Joseph Gallagher, perdonare?
Come possono i 30 ragazzi violentata nel corso della scuola primaria Sant’Alipio, che si è suicidato lo perdono per i loro stupri?
Come Lou Pirona, Bill Zeller, David M. Jarobe Jr,Kathleen McGonigle, Eric Patterson, Bobby Thompson, Paul Tafolla, Daniel Romney, Gilbert Rodriguez, Eduardo Ramon Boehland, O coloro che per il campanello è suonato 170 volte nella Chiesa del Salvatore sul Wilshire Boulevard, che si sono suicidati negli Stati Uniti, o una qualsiasi delle altre vittime, in tutto il mondo, Che sono state violentate, torturate, brutalizzata dai vostri sacerdoti, religiosi, monache e suore della vostra chiesa, che si è suicidato, perdonare e la vostra chiesa Papa Francesco?
Essi non sono morti, di marciume nelle loro tombe, perché non solo i loro stupri da parte dei sacerdoti e fratelli, della Chiesa Cattolica Romana, ma a causa dei continui attacchi contro di noi le vittime e i superstiti, per la vostra Chiesa, il Cardinali, Vescovi e Arcivescovi, da tali persone dementi come Bill Donohue della Lega Cattolica, E da quelli che siedono nei banchi della Chiesa. Siamo stati bollati come bugiardi, cercatori d’oro in cerca di una paga da la vostra chiesa. Ci è stato detto per non sentire il nostro stupratore di fronte, mentre ci sono stupri, ciò significa che non solo ha voluto essere violentate, per noi è stato un piacere essere violentate e sono gli omosessuali a causa di esso. O che abbiamo conquistato il nostro stupratore. O come uno dei vostri sacerdoti, Padre Richard Ross che ha detto di avere alcuna simpatia per qualsiasi vittima, che non potevano fermare ciò che stava succedendo, e come vorrebbe prendere le vittime in una stanza e batterli con una mazza da baseball per mostrare loro che cosa vero dolore e sofferenza.
Perché noi, o chiunque perdoni Papa Francesco e la chiesa? Perché dovremmo o chiunque perdona tutti i Cardinali, come Timothy Dolan, Donald Wuerl, George Pell, Roger Mahony, Raymond Burke, Bernard Law, O di Arcivescovi e Vescovi, che hanno coperto e protetto questi degenerare gli stupratori, i torturatori e i violentatori di bambini, che li di parrocchia in parrocchia, attraverso le linee statali e internazionali, per evitare di essere scoperti, arrestare e perseguire penalmente?
Come possiamo noi, o perché perdonare tutti, quando si usa la vostra Chiesa gli avvocati, per la lotta contro noi in tutte le fasi del progetto e negare la nostra giustizia, con lo statuto delle limitazioni per il nostro caso respinto quando cerchiamo giustizia per il male i crimini commessi contro di noi, dai vostri sacerdoti e gli altri della Chiesa Cattolica Romana? O i Cardinali, gli Arcivescovi e Vescovi, con i cattolici romani in questa legislatura, di lotta dente e chiodo qualsiasi modifica dello statuto delle limitazioni, o l’apertura di una finestra per le vittime a farsi avanti e chiedere giustizia?
Il Cardinale Timothy Dolan, ha mostrato a noi come la chiesa sente davvero verso di noi, soprattutto quando si cercano giustizia per i crimini commessi contro di noi, la vostra chiesa. Quando New York ha superato il matrimonio tra persone dello stesso sesso, il Cardinale Dolan gridò come si sentiva tradito dallo Stato di New York per farlo. Eppure, nello stesso spirito, egli gridò e disse quanto segue sopra New York vuole cambiare la durata DI UN ANNO di prescrizione contro lo stupro e abusi: Ha dichiarato che ha voluto un anno di prescrizione contro lo stupro a essere mantenuta perché se la chiesa ha citato, “gli autori non soffrono. Non vi è alcun onere. Che cosa soffre sono i servizi e i ministeri dell’apostolato che stiamo facendo ora. Perché dove i soldi? Perciò i vescovi di 30 anni fa che presumibilmente può essere riassegnato i tossicodipendenti, non soffre. Sono morti. Per questo motivo, le persone che soffrono sono coloro che vengono serviti proprio ora dalla chiesa. Riteniamo che un terribilmente ingiusto onere.”
Notare che Papa Francesco? Leggere le sue parole e metta al posto delle vittime. Non una parola sui nostri oneri ingiusti, non una parola sul nostro dolore e della sofferenza. Non una parola circa il male degli orrori che abbiamo dovuto subire a causa della nostra vita, orrori che hanno provocato molti di noi, il suicidio.
E il Cardinale Dolan ha mentito nella sua dichiarazione. La maggior parte di queste Cardinali, Vescovi e Arcivescovi che hanno coperto i crimini contro i bambini, non sono morti, sono ancora vivo, protetto e difeso a tutti i costi la vostra chiesa. Il Cardinale Bernard Law, George Pell, Timothy Dolan, Roger Mahony, Donald Wuerl, e molti altri, sono in realtà ancora viva. Tutti loro hanno partecipato a queste imprese, che hanno partecipato al movimento pericoloso preti pedofili, per evitare il rilevamento e l’arresto per i loro crimini contro noi.
Lei, Santo Padre Francesco, è colpevole di questi stessi crimini. In relazione all’arcivescovo Jozef Wesolowski e altri. Si, il Santo Padre Francesco, era al corrente di ciò che l Arcivescovo Wesolowski aveva fatto per i bambini nella Repubblica Dominicana. Si sapeva che era a pagamento i bambini di strada di avere rapporti sessuali con lui, e di immagini pornografiche. Lei, Santo Padre Francesco, aveva portato in Vaticano a Roma, sapendo che una volta che avete fatto? E’ stato poi protetto sotto l’immunità sovrana del Concilio Vaticano ii, che in tal modo si evita che il suo arresto e la persecuzione penale di lui da parte dei funzionari della Repubblica Dominicana.
Lei, Santo Padre Francesco, sapeva che non era un pericolo per i bambini e gli altri, ma voi non lo mise in una cella nella prigione quando si aveva richiamato in Vaticano.E mentre Wesolowski aveva la sua libertà, per oltre un anno e mezzo, ha continuato i suoi crimini contro i bambini. Ha continuato a pagare i bambini per il sesso, ha continuato a prendere immagini pornografiche e video dei suoi atti criminali contro i bambini, ed è stato dimostrato che alcuni di questi bambini muore una morte orribile a causa di esso.
UN dossier accusa Wesolowski di abuso sessuale dei minori è stato inviato al Santo Padre Francesco “nel mese di luglio” 2013 Santo Domingo il Cardinale Nicolás de Jesús López Rodríguez. Il papa ha trovato le informazioni sufficientemente credibile per chiudere Wesolowski il 21 Agosto tramite lettera riservata. Ma il papa non ha mai riportato Wesolowski alle autorità civili né reso pubbliche le informazioni.
Tutti i prelati devono rendere credibili le accuse pubblico come un avvertimento per evitare il contatto con gli imputati. Inoltre, tutte le altre vittime dovrebbero essere incoraggiati a contattare un’autorità di perseguimento penale forse che l’inchiesta più semplice, di apprensione e di repressione più certe. Il gruppo, rete dei sopravvissuti di tali abusi di sacerdoti (SNAP), definisce l’inosservanza di tali provvedimenti come un “cover up”.
Wesolowski lasciato il paese di fronte a una TV locale programma trasmesso un documentario sul 31 agosto. È stato riportato nel gennaio 2014 che Wesolowski “è ora in grado di vivere a Roma ed è protetto da estradizione dall immunità diplomatica.” “Per me è stata una sorpresa vedere Wesolowski a piedi lungo Via della Scrofa a Roma, “Santo Domingo Vescovo Ausiliare Víctor Masalles twitter il 24 giugno 2014.
Imbarazzato, il Concilio Vaticano ii ha annunciato il 27 giugno che era stato Wesolowski laicized (spretato) “negli ultimi giorni … misure saranno adottate in modo egli è in una precisa posizione limitata, senza alcuna libertà di movimento,” ha detto portavoce vaticano, p. Federico Lombardi, senza specificare in che modo questo possa essere realizzato. La stampa ha riportato questo come prova del papa’s “tolleranza zero” per lo sfruttamento sessuale dei bambini.
22 Novembre 2014: Wesolowski era visto “camminare tranquillamente all’interno della Città del Vaticano…in apparente libertà” e si presume che vi vivono ancora agli arresti domiciliari. Questo ci dimostra che p. Federico Lombardi ha mentito, come di consueto con la Chiesa Cattolica Romana per quanto riguarda i pedofili
Defrocking significa un chierico è cotta senza essere denunciato alla polizia. La sanzione più grave a disposizione del papa scomunica. Papa Francesco scomunica un sacerdote australiano per sostenere le donne del coordinamento e matrimonio tra persone dello stesso sesso. Anche lui scomunicato i leader del gruppo di laici, siamo Chiesa, per celebrare la messa nella loro casa.
Ma, avete escludessimo arcivescovo Jozef Wesolowski, Papa Francesco? No ma non l’ha fatto. È evidente a noi vittime dei crimini della vostra chiesa contro di noi, che troverà un sacerdote dicendo: “le donne dovrebbero essere coordinati tra loro, e chi sostiene matrimonio tra persone dello stesso sesso, o un gruppo di laici di massa nelle loro case, più degni di scomunica, di un pedofilo, che ha pagato i bambini per il sesso, violentate, o posseduto oltre 100.000 bambini immagini pornografiche e video di bambini porno sul proprio computer.
Lei, Santo Padre Francesco, si è rivelato a noi, le vittime e per chi lotta per noi, che si sono appena come il resto. Di proteggere e difendere chi lo stupro dei bambini, invece di stare in piedi per loro, invece di stare in piedi per le vittime. Di proteggere e difendere i pedofili, e il pedofilo, come Papa Emerito Bendict XVI, i Cardinali, gli Arcivescovi e Vescovi che hanno coperto i crimini, ed è come al solito su questo argomento
Il Comitato dell’ONU contro la Tortura “trovato che il gran numero di violenze sessuali all’interno della Chiesa Cattolica sono ammontate a torture e trattamenti crudeli, inumani e degradanti”. Dopo che alcuni funzionari del Vaticano furono chiamati a Ginevra nel maggio 2014. per rispondere a domande difficili come per questo che il papa ritiene che la sua responsabilità per proteggere i bambini contro la tortura applicata solo sul Concilio Vaticano ii, la commissione ha presentato la sua relazione.
I membri “ha ordinato il Vaticano a mano sul file contenente i dettagli di commesso abuso sessuale accuse alle forze di polizia intorno al mondo, … di utilizzare la sua autorità sulla Chiesa Cattolica Romana nel mondo al fine di garantire che tutte le accuse di abusi clericali sono passati alla autorità laiche e di imporre sanzioni “significativa” su qualsiasi i funzionari della Chiesa che non è in grado di farlo.” Con l’eccezione di un paio di in scena eventi PR, il papa ha rifiutato di prendere una qualsiasi di queste misure.
Il Vaticano aveva pubblicato un “Rapporto Preliminare” preparatori per l’audizione. “In nessuna parte della Santa Sede [il nome della Chiesa il governo globale] Relazione Iniziale ai sensi della Convenzione non si fa alcuna menzione della diffusa e sistemica stupri e violenze sessuali perpetrate dal clero Cattolico contro centinaia di migliaia di bambini e adulti vulnerabili nel mondo. Non si parla di atti che hanno portato ad un sorprendente e quantità incalcolabile di danni nel mondo – profonda e duratura sofferenza fisica e mentale – con poca o nessuna responsabilità e l’accesso al ricorso …[T] Concilio Vaticano ii ha sempre minimizzato i danni causati dalle azioni del clero, sia attraverso la diretta sugli atti di violenza sessuale ed i funzionari della Chiesa” le azioni che seguono, come cover-up e vittima di colpa. … La Santa Sede la relazione iniziale di questo comitato è di per sé la prova di minimizzazione di questi reati e i danni.
Il Comitato contro la Tortura relazione è venuto “dopo gli alti funzionari hanno cercato di distanza del Vaticano legalmente dalla grande Chiesa … dicendo: “i sacerdoti non erano legalmente legata al Vaticano ma cadde sotto giurisdizioni nazionali. Ma il comitato insiste sul fatto che i dipendenti della Santa Sede, tra cui rappresentanti del papa nel mondo e i loro collaboratori, hanno la responsabilità di monitorare il comportamento di tutti sotto il loro controllo effettivo”.
Le seguenti facce e dichiarazione risulta, Papa Francesco, che si sono appena come il resto, quando giunge il momento di alzarsi per i pedofili, chi lo stupro dei bambini, dalla chiesa. Come non si prende veramente cura un bit circa le vittime, ma la difesa e la protezione della vostra chiesa e la pedofilia.
Come arcivescovo di Buenos Aires, Jorge Mario Bergoglio “rifiutato di incontrarsi con le vittime, e ha trascorso gran parte di silenzio sulla questione del clero abusi sessuali, ad eccezione di un sorprendente negazione che aveva affrontato un abusivo sacerdote. La sua azione era noto solo alla commissione un dietro le quinte relazione ai giudici che cercavano esonero di penalmente condannato sacerdote dal contesto la credibilità del sacerdote’s vittime.”
Poi, un mese e il giorno dopo che si era eletto Papa, è stato nominato un gruppo di Cardinali, di cui come arrivati C9, per essere il vostro consiglieri più vicini. E chi sono i membri del C9 consulenti?
Il Cardinale George Pell, arcivescovo e creatore del “Melbourne Risposta”, un sistema “progettato per controllare le vittime e proteggere la Chiesa … Pell destinati a ridurre al minimo i crimini, nascondere la verità, manipolare e a intimidire le vittime. … Alcuni parenti dei bambini maltrattati hanno chiesto al cardinale di una “mente psicopatica.” Pell conosce personalmente centinaia di persone coinvolte – le vittime e le loro famiglie, nonché gli autori. … Era un autorità ad alto livello nella Chiesa Cattolica quando la corte ha iniziato negli anni 1990 e le prime Cattolica figura in Australia fino a quando entrava a Roma. … [H]e è stato il leader di un sistema che tutela i reo e non innocenti. … [H]e l’uomo fu in carica nel corso di molti anni di questo scandalo. Egli, pertanto, può essere ritenuto responsabile e responsabile.”
Il Cardinale Francisco Javier Errazuriz Ossa: Errazuriz nazionale aveva fatto notizia per proteggere p. Fernando Karadima, la “peggior scandalo” della Chiesa cilena. “Power è il vero punto del caso. [Degli abusi sessuali contro i bambini] non sono possibili senza una rete di politici, sociali e religiosi potenza operante per 50 anni”, ha dichiarato analista politico Ascanio Cavallo, preside della scuola di giornalismo dell’Università Adolfo Ibáñez. I funzionari della Chiesa avevano avvertito già nel 1984 circa Karadima “comportamenti scorretti.” Il primo noto per raggiungere Errazuriz erano nel 2003. Nel 2006, un sacerdote nominato dalla Errázuriz allo scopo di studiare i reclami segnalati al cardinale che egli credeva “gli accusatori a essere credibile. Secondo la corte testimonianza civile nel 2011 in una denuncia presentata contro Karadima, i funzionari della Chiesa, tra cui Errázuriz, ha cercato di vergogna accusatori in caduta rivendicazioni, rifiutato di incontrarsi con loro e non è riuscito a effettuare indagini formali per anni. UN giudice ha respinto la causa penale contro Karadima nel novembre 2011. perché lo statuto delle limitazioni erano scaduti ma anche determinato che le accuse erano “veritiero e affidabile.
E quando Papa Francesco nominato Errázuriz al C9 consulenti, una delle vittime ha dichiarato che questo appuntamento: “un peccato e una vergogna.” Il 15 settembre 2013, Errázuriz detto che l’arcidiocesi non aveva la competenza per la loro “grande dolore”
Sì, il Santo Padre Francesco, ancora una volta, non abbiamo dalla bocca di uno dei propri consulenti, che coperto di preti pedofili, che la vostra chiesa non ha alcuna responsabilità per la loro enorme dolore.” Ma, Papa Francesco, che è poi la responsabilità per l’enorme dolore e sofferenza, di oneri ingiusti e l’orrore le vittime di stupri commessi contro di loro dai sacerdoti della Chiesa Cattolica Romana? È che le stesse vittime? Perché sembra che quando si tratta di questa vostra chiesa.
Quindi Papa Francesco, quando il Comitato delle Nazioni Unite sui diritti del fanciullo (CRC)richiesto, per informazioni dettagliate su tutti i casi di abusi sessuali su bambini commessi da membri del clero, religiosi o nun” per gli ultimi quindici anni e 1 novembre come un termine per la risposta. Le domande sono state inviate per la preparazione di un audizione pubblica prevista per il mese di gennaio. Che cosa dire e fare di questa richiesta?
Primo, un po’ di storia. Come uno dei firmatari della Convenzione sui Diritti del Bambino del 1989, la Chiesa è stata quindici anni di ritardo nella consegna di un report che descrive se avesse agito per “proteggere il fanciullo contro ogni forma di violenza fisica o psichica” come la convenzione richiede. Inoltre, il questionario ha cercato di stabilire se “gli autori dei reati a sfondo sessuale” è stato permesso di rimanere in contatto con i bambini, che un’azione legale contro di loro e se segnalazione di presunto abuso è obbligatoria. Esso ha anche incluso le query di sostegno per le vittime e gli incidenti in cui i ricorrenti erano stati ridotti al silenzio.
E qual è stata la tua risposta e il Sant’Uffizio per questo? Lei, Santo Padre Francesco e il Vaticano warnedthat potrebbe tirare fuori della Convenzione sui Diritti del Bambino, se spinto troppo duro sulla questione. In una relazione del proprio pubblicato sul sito web DELLE NAZIONI UNITE lo scorso ottobre, la Santa Sede ha ricordato il CRC delle riserve sulla giurisdizione legale e altre questioni, in quando ha firmato il patto globale. Ha detto i nuovi “interpretazione” dare motivi “per la cessazione o revoca” dal trattato.
E poi che cosa ha fatto Papa Francesco? Il 11 luglio 2013, il pontefice ha emanato una legge civile criminalizzare le perdite del Vaticano informazioni per la stampa e la violenza sessuale contro i bambini, compresa la pornografia infantile. I crimini sono punibili con un massimo di otto e dodici anni di carcere, rispettivamente. La legge applicabile all’interno dello Stato della Città del Vaticano e per i dipendenti della Santa Sede nella sua proprietà extraterritoriale e ambasciate.
Come hai fatto a rispondere al CRC Papa Francesco? Il 4 dicembre, il che indica che non è stata la pratica del suo governo di “fornire informazioni in merito ai casi specifici a meno che non venga richiesto da un altro paese come parte di un’azione legale” e “che il Vaticano può fornire informazioni solo sulle note e sui presunti crimini sessuali che hanno avvenuto in Vaticano.”
Quindi Papa Francesco, come un affronto alle facce delle vittime, che cosa ha fatto? Il 16 gennaio 2014, giorno in cui il CRC delle audizioni sono state per iniziare a Ginevra, Papa Francesco ha dimostrato ancora il disprezzo per le vittime della vostra Chiesa per celebrare la messa, seguita da un incontro privato, con il Cardinale Roger Mahony, arcivescovo emerito di Los Angeles. Il Washington Post (tra gli altri) aveva condannato Mahony noto per proteggere i tossicodipendenti, affermando che egli’s “fortunato a non essere in prigione” e che “il suo costante rilievo riflette la cultura dell’impunità nella Chiesa Cattolica un decennio dopo la sua tolleranza e la complicità della violenza contro i minori è stato esposto. “Dopo il colloquio privato con lei, Mahony blog “il tema dello scandalo non è venuto.”
Lo stesso giorno, Lombardi ha detto che la Chiesa ha sviluppato “una serie di iniziative e direttive”, che sono “molto utili” con le altre comunità. Egli ha anche criticato l’ipotesi che i vescovi o i superiori dei religiosi e delle religiose agire come rappresentanti o delegati del Papa.” Egli ha detto questa credenza è “assolutamente priva di fondamento.” Invece, le autorità civili dei paesi che hanno firmato la convenzione DELLE NAZIONI UNITE è direttamente responsabile della sua attuazione e per l’esecuzione delle leggi che tutelano i bambini.
Il panel ONU Vaticano ha chiesto ai rappresentanti di risposte alle domande che essi avevano inviato in luglio. Mentre i media americani sbandierano una dichiarazione fatta da uno dei funzionari del Vaticano che egli “viene”, la stampa estera non era troppo servile:
Germania Deutsche Welle: Vaticano risposta ;non odore test per la gente comune;
Venezuela, El Nacional: il Vaticano all’ONU oggi eluso con informazioni dettagliate su questioni relative all’abuso sessuale di minori da parte del clero in un esercizio retorico che tenta di dimostrare di avere la determinazione di impedire nuovi reati
Spagna, El Pais: il Vaticano ancora non si assume nessuna responsabilità per gli abusi sessuali
4. BishopAccountability.org notato quattro momenti significativi dell’audizione:
1. Per la prima volta, il Concilio Vaticano ii ha dovuto ammettere pubblicamente che ancora non prevedono l’indicazione di crimini sessuali alle autorità civili. Non fare questo passo quando i sacerdoti sono spretato.
2. La Santa Sede ha rifiutato di fornire i dati richiesti il 1º luglio.
3. Il Vaticano ritiene che l’obbligo del singolo autore e non la Chiesa, per risarcire le vittime
4. Gli ordini religiosi, che comprendono un terzo a metà del mondo&# 039 ;s Catholic chierici, ancora non sono costretti dalla Santa Sede a creare politiche abuso. (Papa Benedetto XVI ha ordinato i vescovi del mondo per farlo a partire dal 2011. L’ordine è stato ampiamente ignorato, anche dal cardinale arcivescovo di Buenos Aires, Jorge Mario Bergoglio.)
Quindi, il Santo Padre Francesco, ora mostrano come il Vaticano, te stesso e per gli altri bocchini per la vostra chiesa, ha svolto il guardare da un’altra parte gioco di sotterfugi e inganni. Di biasimare gli altri, dicendo: “ehi, guarda che cosa stanno facendo, perché con noi?
Delegato Vaticano alle NAZIONI UNITE, Arcivescovo Silvano Tomasi, ha risposto in un’intervista “Allo stesso tempo dobbiamo tenere in mente che anche se ci sono tanti milioni, quaranta milioni di casi di abuso di un anno per quanto riguarda i bambini, purtroppo in alcuni casi riguardano anche il personale.” Tomasi ha inoltre suggerito che il comitato DELLE NAZIONI UNITE potrebbe essere stato influenzato da “alcune ONG che supportano l’omosessualità, matrimonio tra omosessuali e altre questioni probabilmente ha presentato le proprie opinioni e rinforzo alla fine [il comitato] linea di pensiero in qualche modo.”
E poi è venuto fuori con questa dichiarazione Papa Francesco, sapendo che era una menzogna, perché la chiesa è stata tutt’altro che si muove con trasparenza e responsabilità. Il solo organizzativa, il Concilio Vaticano ii e la Chiesa Cattolica Romana ha dimostrato con le vostre azioni, è che si sta per proteggere la vostra chiesa a tutti i costi.
Il 5 marzo, nel 2014, il Papa, ha affermato che, per quanto riguarda la tortura sessuale dei bambini, “Le statistiche sul fenomeno della violenza contro i bambini sono sconvolgenti, ma anche dimostrano chiaramente che la grande maggioranza degli abusi provengono dal proprio ambiente familiare e da persone che sono vicino. La Chiesa Cattolica è forse l’unico ente pubblico che si muove con trasparenza e responsabilità. Nessun altro ha fatto di più. E ancora, la Chiesa è l’unico essere attaccati”.
Se le parole del Santo Padre Francesco e il resto erano verità? Quindi queste persone come il Cardinale Bernard Law, George Pell Timothy Dolan, Roger Mahony, Donald Wuerl e agli altri che lo hanno coperto questi crimini contro i bambini, che hanno contribuito a perpetuare questi crimini contro i bambini, che hanno protetto i pedofili sui figli, sarebbe stato scomunicato e alle autorità di perseguimento penale.
Se le parole del Santo Padre Francesco erano verità, quindi non vi ha ricordato l’arcivescovo Jozef Wesolowski nuovamente in Vaticano, in modo che egli potesse essere protetta da parte delle autorità della Repubblica Dominicana. Si avrebbe girato su di lui per la repressione dei crimini contro i bambini che ha commesso, invece di permettere che lui immunità sovrana per portarlo al Vaticano per essere protetti.
Se le tue parole sono verità, il Santo Padre Francesco, quindi non sarebbe possibile avere caricato il vostro C9 comitato consultivo con pedofili noti magnaccia, come George Pell e altri, contro il quale, non ci sono prove schiaccianti contro di loro hanno partecipato alla copertura di stupri e gli abusi di bambini.
Se le tue parole sono verità Papa Francesco, quindi la chiesa NON sarebbe negare alle vittime di questi crimini giustizia. La chiesa e gli avvocati di acquistare NON sarebbe ci nega le vittime giustizia utilizzando i termini di prescrizione contro di noi. Né contro qualsiasi modifica dello statuto delle limitazioni, o l’apertura di una finestra per le vittime a farsi avanti e chiedere giustizia per i crimini commessi contro di noi.
Se le tue parole sono verità Papa Francesco, non si sarà in grado di garantire che le vittime, di essere vittime, dagli attacchi fatto contro di noi.
NON sarebbe possibile che Bill Donohue, della Catholic League di attaccare noi vittime come lui, ci offende, demonizzare, diffamare. Tutto il male che ha detto contro di noi vittime, è uno che merita scomunica. Lei, Santo Padre Francesco, si chiama Bill Donohue, per la sua proclamazione come vittime sono niente ma bugiardi, cercatori d’oro, alla ricerca di un giorno di paga della chiesa. Per il suo confronto l’orrore, il terrore, la sofferenza e il dolore di noi vittime, che sono state brutalmente violentate, dei vostri sacerdoti, non solo dei nostri corpi, ma delle nostre anime, le nostre menti e i nostri cuori, per il suo essere uno schiaffo sul polso da una suora quando ha agito.
Per la sua menzogna sulla vittima, prclaiming lui come parte di un farmaco pista omicidio, come il dipartimento di polizia oggetto, quando la vittima, infatti, ha testimoniato in un farmaco omicidio, mettendo la sua vita a grandi rischi in questo modo. E a causa di Bill Donohue le azioni e le parole, che vittima ora è in pericolo di vita, dopo aver ricevuto minacce di morte e altre minacce, nonché essere battuti per la sua difesa e fa bene a testimoniare in un farmaco pista omicidio. La vittima è ora citano Bill Donohue e la Lega Cattolica per diffamazione e altre azioni civili e ancora, il Papa Francesco non è mai intervenuto per porre fine a Bill Donohue e i suoi attacchi contro le vittime del sacerdote lo stupro.
Se si stava parlando la verità Papa Francesco, poi, quando i Comitati delle Nazioni Unite sui diritti del fanciullo, e per la tortura, ha chiesto alla Santa Sede di abolire il segreto pontificio per le accuse di abusi sessuali su bambini, e al fine di diritto canonico obbligatoria la comunicazione all’autorità civile. Poi nel settembre del 2014, non si ha respinto la richiesta e gli ho detto che è fatto per motivi che le segnalazioni obbligatorie potrebbe interferire con la sovranità degli Stati indipendenti. Obbligo di segnalazione interferire con tale sovranità se una legge statale vietata reporting del clero abuso sessuale dei bambini alla polizia. Lo Stato non esiste.
Ma il Vaticano … illustra la sua reale intenzione di interferire nella sovranità degli Stati indipendenti, vietando reporting una volta procedimenti canonici, anche quando la legge civile richiede la comunicazione.
De facto il privilegio del clero con l’uso di segretezza, rendendo clero immune da procedimenti giudiziari civili per lo sfruttamento sessuale dei bambini, è stato istituito nel 1922 dal Papa Pio XI, ed è stato proseguito e ampliato da cinque dei suoi successori. Purtroppo, sembra che lei, Santo Padre Francesco hanno dato ogni indicazione di aggiunta alla lista, come il settimo papa.
Se si stava parlando la verità, il Santo Padre Francesco, quindi non sarebbe possibile avere nominato Juan Barros Madrid, Vescovo di Osorno, Cile. Non ottenere il suggerimento, il Papa Francesco, che il giorno in cui Barros è stato installato come Vescovo, tra polizia e centinaia di parrocchiani, vestito di nero di lutto denunciato Barros, che tutti sapevano che Barros aveva fatto e invece di sostenere lui, non si dovrebbe mai avere in lui un Vescovo?
Se si sta parlando verità Papa Francesco, quindi perché si ignora l Arcivescovo Chomali? Sappiamo, in un’intervista pubblicata 26 marzo, l’Arcivescovo di Concepcion descritti i dettagli di un incontro che ha avuto con Papa Francesco il 6 marzo. “Arcivescovo Chomali ha spiegato che egli donò al Papa Francesco “documenti con informazioni dettagliate sulle conseguenze della nomina aveva fatto. Tutta la documentazione che ho citato a lui, sia attraverso la nunziatura apostolica o l’ambasciata cilena presso la Santa Sede. È stato molto aggiornato sul Vescovo Barros” situazione, e di fatto a pochi giorni prima aveva parlato con lui. Con fermezza e convinzione mi disse che aveva analizzato tutti i dati relativi al passato e che non vi era alcuna ragione obiettiva che il Vescovo Barros non deve essere installato come vescovo diocesano.”
No, Papa Francesco, non dire la verità, per la le azioni parlano più delle parole. Si parla un buon PR parlare, ma le altre parole e azioni non corrispondono con il PR che vi inviamo. Sì, il Santo Padre Francesco, sono di fatto, chiamando a due facce, bugiardo e ciarlatano. Dico la verità quando dico questo. Qualcosa voi e il resto del pedofilo, non può iniziare anche a fare.
Lei, Santo Padre Francesco, mi fanno schifo insieme a tutti i pedofili Pimp Papi, Cardinali, Vescovi e Arcivescovi. Per voi sono come tutti loro, che sono un degenerato in mio libro, si sono responsabili per gli stupri, torture, schiavitù, abusi e altri crimini contro i bambini, come tutto il resto. Lei, Santo Padre Francesco, sono santo uomo di Dio, e non è neanche un rappresentante di Gesù Cristo sulla terra. Si sono ammalati e ritorto, è una, come un criminale come tutto il resto dei colleghi pedofili sfruttatori.
Si, il Santo Padre Francesco sono una delle più basse forme di vita sul pianeta. Anche il contenuto di un dependance è più di quanto voi, e merita molto di più rispetto al boot. Proteggi il tuo culto dei pedofili pedofili e sfruttatori, come il resto di loro.
Non è santo uomo di Dio, voi, insieme a Papa Benedetto XVI, emerito, O i seguenti Cardinali: Adam Maida, Agostino Vallini, Angelo Scola, Angelo Sodano, Anthony Bevilacqua, Bernard Law, Dominik Duka, Donald Wuerl, Franc Rode, Francis George, Francisco Javier Errazurtz Ossa, George Pell, Humberto Mederios, John Cody, John Krol, Joseph Bernardin, Juan Cipriani, Justin Rigali, Keith O’Brien, Leonardo Sandri, Marc Ouellet, Norberto Rivera, Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga, Partick O’Malley, Peter Turkson, Raymond Burke, Richard Cushing, Roger Mahony, Sean Brady, Silvio Oddi, Tarcisio Bertone, Thomas Winning, Timothy Dolan, Vinko Puljic, Wilfred Fox Napier, William Levada, Hans Hermann Groer, Dario Castrillon Hoyos, Francis Spellman, Francisco Javier Errazuriz Ossa, Ricardo Ezzati Andrello, Luis Antonio Tagle, Eduardo Martínez Somalo, Desmond Connell, E molti altr; Gli Arcivescovi: Andre Richard, Anthony Sablan, Charles J Chaput, Denis Hart, Diarmuid Martin, Ernest Leger, Frank Little, Gerhard Ludwig Muller, Harry Flynn, Jerome Hanus, Jerome Listecki, John Charles McQuaid, John Clay Neinstedt, John Meyers, John Roach, Jose Horacio Gomez, Josef Wesolowski, Luciano Storero, Mario Conti, Peter Gerety, Peter Sartain, Pio Laghi, Rembert Weakland, Ricardo Ezzati Andrello, Robert Carlson, Silvano Tomasi, Theodore McCarrick, Valery Vienneau, William Cousins, Urban J. Vehr, Blase Cupich, Paul Richard Gallagher, José Luis Mollaghan, Francisco Javier Martínez, E molti altr; E i seguenti vescovi: A.J. Quinn, Andrew Cozzens, Anthony O’Connell, Antonio Sarto, Bill Wright, Carl Mengeling, Christopher Foster, David M O’Connell, David Zubik, Donald Kettler, Edward Cullen, Eugene Laroque, Gabino Miranda, George H. Guilfoyle, George Leo Thomas, Gerard Frey, Henry Kennedy, Howard Hubbard, James Garland, James Hoeppner, James Kavanagh, James Murray, James Timlin, John B McCormack, John Doerfler, John Magee, Joseph Cistone, Joseph Devine, Joseph Imesch, Joseph V Adamec, Kieran Thomas Conry, Kenneth Povish, Laurence Glenn, Leo Clarke, Louis E. Gelineau, Marco Antonio Ordenes, Michael Bransfield, Michael Jarrell, Michael John Brown, Michael Malone, Patrick Cooney, Patrick Cotter, Peter Conners, Raphael Michael Fliss, Raymond Lahey, Richard Sklba, Robert C. Evans, Robert E. Mulvee, Robert Finn, Robert Rose, Rogello Livieres, Seamus Hegarty, Thomas Curry, Thomas Daily, Thomas J. Tobin, Vincent Leonard, William Lynn, Wilton Gregory, Wojeciech Polak, Pierre Pican, Willie Walsh, William Murphy, Daniel Patrick Reilly, Ronald Mulkearns, Juan Barros Madrid, Gabino Miranda Melgarejo, Arturo Mandin Bastes, Jozef De Kesel, Rogelio Livieres, Christopher Coyne, Ronald Gainer, John Doerfler, Brendan Comiskey, Donal Murray, Jim Moriarty, Raphoe Philip Boyce, Dermot O’ Mahony, Edward Daly, Seamus Hegarty, Eamon Casey, Joseph Duffy, Daniel A. Cronin, E molti altr……… Voi tutti colpevoli di crimini contro l’umanità e per i bambini di tutto il mondo.
Lei, Santo Padre Francesco, Papa Emerito Benedetto XVI, tutti i suddetti Cardinali, Vescovi e Arcivescovi, colpevoli, davanti al vostro Dio e Gesù Cristo, che voi proclamate a seguire, da rappresentanti di questa terra, attraverso la Chiesa Cattolica Romana, di efferati crimini contro i bambini di tutto il mondo.
Lei, Santo Padre Francesco ci chiede di perdonare. Perché mai si dovrebbe? Perché qualcuno dovrebbe perdonare voi o la vostra chiesa e ciò che tutti voi avete fatto?
NESSUNO DI VOI SONO VERAMENTE PENTITO DI TUTTI I CRIMINI E I MALI VOI E LA VOSTRA CHIESA HA FATTO CONTRO DI NOI!!!!QUINDI, NON SI PUÒ, E NEPPURE IL PROPRIO DIO E GESÙ CRISTO perdona, A MENO CHE L’UTENTE VERAMENTE E sinceramente pentiti DI TUTTO QUESTO MALE CHE AVETE FATTO PER I BAMBINI, NEL CORSO DEI SECOLI DI QUELLO CHE AVETE FATTO PER LORO. PER ESSERE perdonato, così fate anche voi DEVONO PENTIRSI, VISTO CHE NON L’HANNO FATTO, NON HA DIRITTO DI CHIEDERE A CHI DI NOI NON PERDONO…..LE VITTIME CHE HANNO ATTRAVERSATO QUESTO ORRORE, NÉ IL SUO DIO E GESÙ CHE TUTTI PROCLAMANO DI ESSERE RAPPRESENTANTI DI!!!
Papa Francesco, proclamare di rappresentare sulla terra, come Vicario di Cristo, allora la sua parola vale molto di più a voi e il resto del Cardinali, Arcivescovi e Vescovi, ancor più di quanto non vale anche per il resto di noi. Per VOI si suppone di essere santi uomini di dio, e i responsabili di ciò che si proclamano l’unica vera chiesa di Gesù Cristo.
Beh, quella di annunciare a rappresentare, Papa Francesco, Gesù ha detto nella bibbia, il libro CHE tutti proclamano di essere la vera parola del vero Dio, il seguente:Marco 9:42:42 “chiunque scandalizzerà uno di questi piccoli che credono, sarebbe stato meglio per lui, con una pesante macina appesa al collo, era stato gettato in mare. E in Luca 17, 1-2: 1 Egli disse ai suoi discepoli: “è inevitabile che gli ostacoli, ma guai a colui per colpa del quale avviene lo scandalo! 2 “sarebbe meglio per lui che gli si metta una macina appesa al collo e venga gettato nel mare, piuttosto che uno di questi piccoli.
Sembra che, il Santo Padre Francesco, che voi e il resto del pedofilo papponi dovrebbe investire in una società che rende forte e robusta corda e fa un sacco di macine in pietra. Se io fossi in te? Vorrei iniziare a unire le corde intorno al collo e collegamento a macine e trovare una grande porzione di mare per lanciare i vostri corpi. Che deve essere molto meglio di avere a che fare con quelli che si proclamano di rappresentare Gesù Cristo è per le vostre anime una volta davanti a lui a mio parere.
In chiusura il Papa Francesco, perché noi che sono state violentate, torturate, brutalizzata, ridotto in schiavitù, e distrutti dalla vostra chiesa e la sua i pedofili e i tossicodipendenti, hanno il coraggio di dire apertamente contro tutti i crimini commessi contro di noi e chiedere giustizia, siamo bollati come bigotti, odiatori, e peggio ancora. Ci è stato detto, ancora una volta, perché non osiamo parlare, che tutti noi siamo legati per l’inferno.
Molti di noi hanno già fatto il nostro tempo all’inferno se Papa Francesco. I nostri dolori e le sofferenze, i nostri incubi, i nostri orrori ci hanno inviato all’inferno e non pochi di noi sono venuti dall’altra parte, molto più forte, che le vittime si erano una volta. Ci sono attualmente I SUPERSTITI.
Sebbene alcuni di noi non ha, il nostro dolore e sofferenza, orrore e proseguire il trattamento del male contro di noi, la Chiesa Cattolica Romana, alcuni di essi a soffiare le cervella, o farsi impiccare, o suicidio in altri modi.
E alcuni sono ancora nascosti nell’ombra, ha paura di uscire e parlare, circa i crimini commessi contro di loro, per i sacerdoti, fratelli, suore e sorelle e tutti gli altri della vostra chiesa. Chi ancora tace, perché avete paura, si temono gli stupratori e la mente le torture cui sono stati posti da loro, mentre essi erano violentate e brutalizzata, realizzare questo Papa Francesco!!!
Abbiamo il forte superstiti sono MOLTI. Noi non abbiamo paura, né la chiesa, né i Cardinali, gli Arcivescovi e Vescovi. Noi non abbiamo paura del pew lucidatrici, che insultano e offendono e ci minacciano. Noi non abbiamo paura Bill Donohue della Lega Cattolica o chiunque altro si attacca.
Dobbiamo insistere e parlare, che si terrà a tutti voi i vostri crimini. Avremo occasione di parlare ed esporre ovunque andiamo, quando siamo chiamati a farlo. Ci batteremo per le vittime, che sono ancora, ancora troppo aver paura di parlare. Dobbiamo difenderli, noi, contro di voi e gli altri dirigenti e tutti coloro che attaccano e difendono la chiesa per tutti i crimini commessi contro di noi.
Continueremo a chiedere giustizia. Continueremo a chiedere l’arresto e l’azione penale nei confronti di tutti e di ciascuno di voi, che coperto questi crimini contro di noi, che protetto e difeso i pedofili, gli autori di noi, e vinceremo contro di voi tutti. Non si può pensare, si potrebbe pensare che la Chiesa Cattolica Romana è intoccabile, che non si possono fare tutti i crimini contro l’umanità e per i bambini di tutto il mondo.
In un certo senso, si potrebbe essere giusto, che non c’è giustizia sistema sarà in grado di farci pagare per i crimini, ma che è, di fatto cambiando e credo che presto le Nazioni Unite possano far sentire la loro voce e sarà perseguibile da parte loro.
Ma poi, un giorno, si dovrà stare davanti al giudice ULTIMO, quelli che tutti proclamano a seguire e rappresentare su questo piano di esistenza. E credo che quando si? Sono sicuro che lei aveva legato una enorme macina intorno al collo e gettato voi stessi nel profondo del mare, rispetto al pene si affaccia davanti al giudice si chiama Dio e Gesù Cristo.
CREDO, che vi mostrerà più misericordia, inviando direttamente al 9° livello di Dante Inferno, a tutti voi in noi, i sopravvissuti del male, il codice di procedura penale culto della pedofilia, preti pedofili, le Suore e tutti abusivi il parrocchiano Pew Lucidatrici della Chiesa Cattolica Romana