The Catholic League and Suppression of the Press Today
From the Link: http://churchandstate.org.uk/2012/04/the-catholic-league-and-supression-of-the-press-today/
This chapter from 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), provides a survey of the Catholic League’s chilling effect on the American freedom of the press. The book is available at Kindle here, and is available to read for free here.
Chapter 15: The Catholic League and Suppression of the Press Today
The Catholic League was founded in 1973 by Jesuit priest Virgil Blum. William Donohue assumed leadership in July 1993.[260pp1] Since then, the membership has grown from 27,000 to 200,000.[260pp2] According to Donohue, the League has “won the support of all of the U.S. Cardinals and many of the Bishops as well…We are here to defend the Church from the scurrilous assaults that have been mounted against it, and we definitely need the support of the hierarchy if we are to get the job done.”[260pp3] Thus it can be considered an arm of the Church. It supplements or replaces priest-controlled organizations of the past described by Blanshard and Seldes. The League apparently has a single mission: suppression of all mainstream criticism of the Roman Catholic Church.
According to Donohue, it is fortunate that, “the Catholic Church is there to provide a heady antidote to today’s mindless ideas of freedom.”[260pp4] He is a strong advocate of the Church’s positions on restriction of the freedoms guaranteed by the American Constitution and condemned by popes for nearly two centuries, especially those regarding the press and speech. He informs us that: “the Catholic League is there to defend the Church against its adversaries.”[260pp4]
There are many recognizable principles governing the behavior of the League. One is revealed in a vicious 1994 attack against the New London newspaper, The Day, for an editorial critical of the Catholic Church: “What is truly ‘beyond understanding’ is not the Catholic Church’s position, it is the fact that a secular newspaper has the audacity to stick it’s nose in where it doesn’t belong. It is nobody’s business what the Catholic Church does.”[260pp5]
A second basic premise is the League’s commitment to canon 1369 of the Code of Canon Law: “A person is to be punished with a just penalty, who, at a public event or assembly, or in a published writing, or by otherwise using the means of social communication, utters blasphemy, or gravely harms public morals, or rails at or excites hatred of or contempt for religion or the Church.”[260pp6] Canon law is the law of the Catholic Church. All criticism of the pope or the Church is in violation of this law in one way or another. This chapter will make clear that the League follows this canon to the letter and demands that all others conform—or pay the price for their violation.
Another principle is aggressive action. Says Donohue, “I defy anyone to name a single organization that has more rabid members than the Catholic League. Our members are generous, loyal and extremely active. When we ask them to sign petitions, write to offending parties and the like, they respond with a vigor that is unparalleled…We aim to win. Obviously, we don’t win them all, but our record of victories is impressive.”[260pp7] To justify this stance, he identifies with Patrick Buchanan’s resistance to the “Culture War” against the Catholic Church: “We didn’t start this culture war against the Catholic Church, we simply want to stop it.”[260pp8]
Donohue also justifies the League’s aggressive behavior by claiming that it is culturally unacceptable for nonCatholics to criticize the Catholic Church. “Perhaps the most cogent remark of the day,” he asserts, “came from the former Mayor of New York, Ed Koch, who politely remarked that his mother always advised him not to speak ill of other religions. It is a lesson that apparently few have learned….Non-Catholics would do well to follow the advice of Ed Koch’s mom and just give it a rest. Their crankiness is wearing thin.”[260pp9] This cultural norm is widely accepted in America, to the enormous benefit of the Vatican. What role, one wonders, did the Catholic Church play in its adoption? Certainly, in the case of population growth control, its consequence has been catastrophic.
The Catholic League strongly discourages criticism of the Church, especially attacks by the press. Says Donohue, “It does no good complaining about Catholic bashing if all we do is wait until the other side strikes.”[260pp10] Prevention of such publications is of the essence. Yet Donohue is convinced that this is not censorship: “The press and the radio talk shows asked me if the Catholic League was engaging in censorship by responding the way we did. As always, I informed them that only the government has the power to censor anything.”[260pp11] This is patently untrue.
Another tenet enunciated by Donohue:
“I think it is a gross mistake to give elevation to fringe groups. Our basic rule of thumb is this: the more mainstream the source of anti-Catholicism, the more likely it is that the Catholic League will respond….The mainstream media, after all, have the credibility and influence that the fringe lacks, and they are therefore much more likely to do real damage.”[260pp12]
“When major universities, TV networks and government officials engage in Catholic-baiting, it is a far more dangerous situation than the venom that emanates from certifiably fringe organizations.”[260pp13]
“When an establishment newspaper such as the Sun-Sentinel [Fort Lauderdale] offends, it cannot be ignored.”[260pp14]
Donohue goes on to explain the Sun-Sentinel example. On February 9, 1995, it ran an ad, paid for by a Seventh Day Adventist group, which claimed that the Catholic Church is seeking to create a New World Order to take command of the world and that the Pope and the Catholic Church were in a league with Satan.
Accordingly, the Catholic League contacted the radio and television stations in the area, the opposition newspaper, and the nation’s major media outlets registering its outrage and its demands. We demanded nothing less than ‘an apology to Catholics and a pledge that no such ads will ever be accepted again.’ We added that ‘If this is not forthcoming, the Catholic League will launch a public ad campaign on its own, one that will directly target the Sun-Sentinel.’
“What exactly did we have in mind? We were prepared to take out ads in the opposition newspaper, registering our charge of anti-Catholic bigotry. We were prepared to pay for radio spots making our charge. We were prepared to buy billboard space along the majority arteries surrounding the Fort Lauderdale community. Why not? After all, …we are in a position to make such threats….This is the way it works: if the source of bigotry wants to deal with lousy publicity, it can elect to do so. Or it can come to its senses and knock it off. In the event the anti-Catholic bigots want to bite the bullet and stay the course, we’ll do everything we can within the law to make sure that they pay a very high price for doing so.”[260pp15] It goes without saying that anyone critical of the Vatican, or the hierarchy, or the Roman Catholic Church is, by definition, an anti-Catholic bigot—including Catholics themselves.
One final element makes clear the objective of the Catholic League—protection of the papacy against all criticism. Writes Donohue, “It is the conviction of the Catholic League that an attack on the Church is an attack on Catholics.”[260pp16] He offers no rationale to support this theory. Obviously, millions of liberal American Catholics would disagree outright, for it is they who have been attacking the Church.
Throughout American history, the job of combating anti-Catholicism fell to the clergy, and especially to the Archbishops. But times have changed….The type of anti-Catholicism that exists in American society today is fundamentally different from the genre that marked this country’s history from the outset. From colonial times to the election of John F. Kennedy as President of the United States, anti-Catholicism was vented against both individual Catholics and against the Catholic Church itself. But over the past 30 years, it has become evident that most of the Catholic-bashing centers on the institution of the Church…[260pp17]
The hierarchy cannot be effective against criticism of the institution because they are the institution. Thus, the hierarchy has had to call on the laity to protect the institution in this way. In 1971, the League’s founder pointed out, “If a group is to be politically effective, issues rather than institutions must be at stake.”[260pp18] In other words, the laity, if left to their own devices, will not defend the institution but they will defend their interests as individuals. Hence, the League has adopted this principle and has convinced its members that “an attack on the Church is an attack on Catholics.” In this way, the institution is successfully using individual lay Catholics to shield it from all criticism.
The Church and Its Image
The Catholic Church in America has good reason to be intensely concerned about its image and any criticism. Donohue cites a 1995 study, “Taking America’s Pulse,” undertaken by the National Conference (formerly known as the National Conference of Christians and Jews). Despite the almost complete suppression of all criticism of the Catholic Church in America, a majority of non-Catholic Americans (55%) believe that Catholics “want to impose their own ideas of morality on the larger society.” The survey also found that 38% of non-Catholics believe that Catholics are “narrow-minded because they are too much controlled by their Church.”[260pp19] Obviously, there is a highly receptive audience in this country for any justified criticisms of the Catholic Church. If the floodgates ever opened, it is unlikely that the Church would be able to close them again. Only too well understood by the hierarchy, and the Catholic League, this perhaps explains their unmitigated intolerance for criticism.
Methods of the League
Donohue has cited many of the methods used by the League, including some we have already mentioned. “We specialize in public embarrassment of public figures who have earned our wrath and that is why we are able to win so many battles: no person or organization wants to be publicly embarrassed, and that is why we specialize in doing exactly that…”[260pp20] Elsewhere he writes, “The threat of a lawsuit is the only language that some people understand. The specter of public humiliation is another weapon that must be used. Petitions and boycotts are helpful. The use of the bully pulpit—via the airwaves—is a most effective strategy. Press conferences can be used to enlighten or, alternatively, to embarrass.”[260pp21] “Ads taken out in prominent national newspapers are quite effective.”[260pp22]
The Catholic League’s Op-Ed page advertisement which appeared in the April 10, 1995 issue of The New York Times attacking Disney for its release of the excellent film, “Priest,” is a good example. This attack will be described more fully later. But on the Op-Ed page the following advertisement appears: “We’re leading a nationwide charge against Disney, making use of every legal means available—from boycotts to stockholder revolts—all designed to send a clear and unmistakable message to Michael Eisner, chairman of Disney.”[260pp23] This is only one of many staged or threatened stockholder revolts led by the League.
But probably the most effective means of suppressing criticism of the Catholic Church through the press is a constant “in your face” attack of local newspapers. In a 1995 report on the Massachusetts Chapter of the Catholic League, it is noted that the president and the executive director had been on the attack, “appearing in the media more than 600 times” in the previous five years.[260pp24] In a single state, 600 times in five years! It is no wonder that newspapers in Massachusetts are very reluctant to print any criticism of the Catholic Church, no matter how justified, given this constant barrage of punishment.
Intimidation of the media leadership and of our government by the League is achieved through the wide distribution of frequent news releases, its monthly newsletter and an annual report. In an article on the publication of its 1994 report, Donohue writes, “The purpose of the report is to educate the public and influence decision-makers in government, education and the media….The report is being distributed to all members of Congress, the White House…and to prominent members of the media and education.”[260pp25] From an article regarding the 1995 annual report: “It has been sent to every Bishop and congressman in the nation, as well as to influential persons in the media and other sectors of society.”[260pp26] In a February 1995 letter to the membership, Donohue announced that the 1994 report will be distributed to the press, noting “there will be little excuse left for media ignorance of Catholic-bashing.”[260pp27] Individual attacks are often announced through widely distributed press releases which are bound to capture the attention of members of the press.
Success of the League
The Catholic League has been remarkably successful in achieving its goals. Donohue rightfully gloats: “One of the major reasons why people are giving [donations] is the success the Catholic League has had.”[260pp28] As noted earlier, membership grew from 27,000 to 200,000 in the first two years after Donohue took control. He continues, “We have had a string of victories and we have also had an unprecedented degree of media coverage. We don’t win every fight but our overall record is quite good. Our presence on radio and TV, combined with coverage in newspapers and magazines—both religious and secular—is excellent.”[260pp29] “We’ve been featured on the television program ‘Entertainment Tonight’ and received front page coverage from national newspapers including the Wall Street Journal and The New York Times.”[260pp30] The number of apologies and promises it extracts from the nation’s newspapers, TV networks and stations and programs, radio stations, activist organizations, commercial establishments, educational institutions and governments is most impressive.
The suppression of all criticism of the Catholic Church and its hierarchy is the goal of the Catholic League. The visit of the pope to the U.S. in October 1995 was a major media event. Given all the gravely serious problems faced by the Church and the enormous amount of dissent by American Catholics, as well as the growing hostility from non-Catholics as a result of the Church’s interference in American policy making, one would expect wide coverage of these realities in the media during his visit. Instead, it was treated as a triumphant return.
The Catholic League believes that it played a major role in this great public relations success—and with good reason. In August 1994, it launched a campaign to intimidate the press in an astounding advance warning to media professionals preparing for the pope’s visit to New York in late October. A letter signed by Donohue announced a press conference to be held just prior to the pope’s visit that will present “10’s of thousands of petitions from active Catholics” that have been collected over the past year.[260pp31] The petition speaks for itself. What else but intimidation of the press is the intent of this campaign?
The November 1995 issue of the League’s journal, Catalyst, is headlined, “Media Treat Pope Fairly; Protesters Fail to Score.” Donohue writes, “By all accounts, the visit of Pope John Paul II to the United States was a smashing success. Media treatment of the papal visit was, with few exceptions, very fair. Protesters were few in number and without impact. From beginning to end, this papal visit proved to be the most triumphant of them all.”[260pp32] A month later he writes, “The relatively few cheap shots that were taken at the Pope by the media in October is testimony to a change in the culture.”[260pp33] And of course the desired “change in the culture” is the elimination of criticism of the pope and his hierarchy. The Catholic League is succeeding on a grand scale far beyond what all but a handful of Americans realize.
Intimidation Prevents Criticism
It is clear from Donohue’s own words that prevention of any criticism is the goal of the League and that intimidation is its means of achieving this end. In a fund-raising letter mailed in December of 1995, Donohue appeals for funds to hire more staff: “We could have done more….We could have tackled other issues, thereby adding to the number of people who will think twice before crossing Catholics again.”[260pp34] From the League’s 1995 Annual Report: “It is hoped that by …[attacking critics], potential offenders will think twice before launching their assaults on Roman Catholicism.”[260pp35] This statement also makes it clear that it is the protection of the institution that is the goal, not protection of individual Catholics.
It appears that the most aggressive and extensive attack in League history was one directed at Disney for its release of the movie, “Priest.” In an editorial, Donohue forthrightly says that the purpose of the intensive attack on Disney is the prevention of the production of such critical movies in the future: “Our sights were set on what might be coming down the road, not on what had already happened.”[260pp36]
The advice given by Ed Koch’s mother—do not speak ill of other religions—has been a national ethic for nearly all of this century. This ethic, inherent in our culture, has served to suppress nearly all criticism of the Catholic Church. As a result, until its political activities were unveiled with the implementation of the bishops’ Pastoral Plan for Pro-life Activities in 1975, the Church had been relatively immune from mainstream criticism. Because this ethic has served the Catholic Church so well, the Church may very well have played a major role in its inculcation into our culture. With its political activity becoming increasingly evident, critics are more than ever convinced of the need for public criticism of the Catholic Church.
However, this ethic does not protect the Church from dissent within its confines which has been growing since Vatican Council II in the 1960s, and most remarkably in recent years. The American media, to avoid flying in the face of American culture by ignoring this dearly held belief, have occasionally provided a forum for this protest. The dissenters have been a significant source of criticism. The Catholic League has not overlooked this problem—indeed, it takes it very seriously. All criticism is targeted from whatever source, including members of the Church.
For example, on January 22, 1995, CBS’s “60 Minutes” broadcast a segment by Mike Wallace on the Catholic dissident group Call to Action. The Catholic hierarchy did agree to appear but dictated terms that were unacceptable to CBS. Then, according to Donohue, the Catholic League sent two letters to executive producer Barry Lando and issued the following press release on January 25:
The entire Call to Action segment was, from beginning to end, an exercise in intellectual dishonesty and journalistic malpractice. The decision to give high profile to the Catholic Church’s radical fringe was pure politics, and nothing short of outrageous….Allowing extremists an uncontested opportunity to rail against the Catholic Church distorts the sentiments of most Catholics and provides succor for bigots. There is a difference between reporting dissent, and promoting it….’60 Minutes’ made clear its preference, extending to the disaffected a platform that they have never earned within the Catholic community….This is propaganda at work, not journalism.[260pp37]
This press release, of course, was received across America as a powerful warning to others to steer clear of Catholic dissidents. The Catholic League then launched a national postcard mailing campaign directed at Lando personally: “…we are angered over the way you continue to present the Catholic Church….We are tired of having our Church viewed from the perspective of the disaffected.”[260pp38]
In another example, the League attacked the October 5, 1995 edition of “NBC Nightly News” with Tom Brokaw for providing a platform for Catholics for a Free Choice and Dignity. The League’s press release included the following:
The media do a great disservice to Catholics and non-Catholics alike when Catholics for a Free Choice and Dignity are presented as though they were genuine voices in the Catholic community. The effect of such misrepresentation is to promote dissent rather than to record it. As such, it is irresponsible for the media to allow itself to become willing accomplices to public deception.[260pp39]
The continuous intimidation is bound to have its desired effect. The April 22, 1996 issue of theNew Republic magazine criticizes the League’s annual report as indicative of the League’s “paranoia.”[260pp40] The New Republic completely misses the point. One need only look at the language used in the League’s attacks. It is not defense. It is intimidating language. The report is an offensive weapon used to silence critics of the Catholic Church.
Specific Examples of the League’s Intimidation
The Catholic League focuses it attention on five types of institutions: media, activist organizations, commercial establishments, educational institutions and governments.[260pp41] Donohue attributes the League’s success, in part, to its ability to stay focused.[260pp42] The League’s 1994 and 1995 annual reports alone offer 350 examples of League attacks. The numerous stunning examples from which to choose make selection for presentation difficult. These were all reported during the period from July 1994 to June 1996.
Newsday—On June 1st and June 3, 1994, the Long Island daily, Newsday, published Bob Marlette cartoons which, according to the Catholic League, “raised pope bashing to a new level.”[260pp43] An apology from Newsday published in the form of a “Memo to Readers” failed to satisfy the Catholic League and a petition was distributed to Long Island pastors. On July 15, Donohue met with Newsday publisher Anthony Marro to discuss the paper’s coverage of Catholics. At the meeting, he presented 76 petitions signed by Long Island pastors expressing their concern for the way Catholics have been portrayed by the newspaper.[260pp44] This was not enough. On August 25, 1994, Donohue met with the editorial board ofNewsday on the newspaper’s coverage of Catholics. Donohue complained that the absence of practicing Catholics on the editorial board resulted in an insensitivity toward Catholics.[260pp45]
Philadelphia Inquirer—An article in the September 1994 issue of the League’s journal is headlined, “Cardinal Bevilacqua Scores Philadelphia Inquirer for Church Coverage, Declines Interview”. The Inquirer had requested an interview for a major story on the Archdiocese. The Cardinal refused: “I have declined your request for an interview due to your unfair and unbalanced coverage of the Archdiocese in the last year….This view is based on a review of Inquirer articles from May 1993 to May 1994. This review included 23 articles written about the Catholic Church. Of these 23 articles, eighteen were considered to be unfair and unbalanced. The unfairness and imbalance occurred in five areas including the selection of negative topics, a disregard for positive news, the use of unqualified experts, the use of negative language and a consistent omission of factual information…It is particularly frustrating to continue to read negative characterizations of the Roman Catholic Church with no regard for our role as the largest provider of social services in Southeastern Pennsylvania and our role as the most visible religious organization in the poorest areas of our city.”[260pp46] The Cardinal makes clear that he feels he should be permitted to dictate what is written about his church to the letter, revealing an arrogance that could never coexist with a free press. Furthermore, that he would bring up the provision of social services by the Church, fully knowing that these services the Church provides are almost entirely funded by local, state and federal tax monies, is deceptive.
Associated Press—On March 10, 1995, the Associated Press (AP), in a story on a court ruling upholding a law barring doctors from engaging in assisted suicide, disclosed that the federal appeals court judge was a Catholic. (The judge’s ruling was in line with his pope’s teaching on this matter.) Donohue took great offense to the AP’s identification of this judge as a Catholic and sent a letter to AP executives asking for a copy of the AP policy on the matter. The League also sent a related press release to other news outlets to inform them of this offense. Darrell Christian, AP’s Managing Editor wrote an apology. “The League is satisfied with AP’s quick response,” writes Donohue in the League’s Journal, “and expects that it will not have to call attention to such errors in the future.” Donohue’s message to the American press was loud and clear. It is not permissible for the press to identify public servants as Catholics when they uphold Catholic teachings in their public decision-making. If so, the League will come after them.[260pp47]
Disney—The May 1995 issue of Catalyst reports in an article, “Catholic League calls for a Boycott of Disney:” “The movie ‘Priest,’ produced by the BBC and released by Miramax, a subsidiary of the Walt Disney Company, provoked the Catholic League to lead a storm of protest against the film and Disney. The movie is arguably the most anti-Catholic movie ever made.”[260pp48] This attack on Disney represents the single greatest assault in the League’s history. In an editorial, Donohue writes: “In addition to joining a boycott of everything that has the Disney label on it, we are asking everyone to sell their Disney stock. It would also send a message if everyone mailed Disney chairman Michael Eisner some old Disney toys or videos. If every Catholic League member sent even one box to Mr. Eisner, it would make an indelible impression on him.”[260pp49]
The petition against Disney reads, “We, the undersigned, have a message to Disney: you bit off more than you can chew when you offended Catholics with the release of ‘Priest.’…We hope that everyone at Disney thinks twice before offending Catholics again. Sadly, appeals to your goodwill mean nothing anymore. That is why we are hitting you in the pocketbook….The Catholic League has already tarnished your image and we have pledged to blacken it a little more.”[260pp50]
The League placed an Op-Ed page advertisement in the April 10, 1995 issue of The New York Times titled “What’s Happening to Disney?” It includes the statement: “So what is the Catholic League doing about this? We are leading a nationwide charge against Disney, making use of every legal means available—from boycotts to stockholder revolts—all designed to send a clear and unmistakable message to Michael Eisner, chairman of Disney.”[260pp51]
But the attack did not end there. On May 2, 1995, a Catholic League member, a stockholder, asked shareholders to ratify at the November meeting of the Walt Disney Company a resolution that calls for the establishment of a religious advisory committee to insure that Disney does not produce another movie like this one.[260pp52] On April 29, the League picketed Disney’s largest retail outlet in New England. A press release read: “The Catholic League intends to make the American public aware of Disney’s contemptuous disregard of the sensibilities of 59 million Catholic Americans. It is Disney that is ultimately responsible for this travesty and it is Disney that will remain the focus of our protests.”[260pp53]
In the July-August 1995 issue of Catalyst, an article, “Disney Protests Continue,” reports that the League had asked the four U.S. Senators who owned Disney stock to sell it: “Mrs. Dole announced on June 2 that she was selling more than $15,000 worth of Disney stock.” It reports that the League picketed the Dedham Community Theater in Dedham, Massachusetts, over the decision of the theater owner to show the anti-Catholic movie “Priest.” The article also reports that numerous dioceses had sold their Disney stock and that “after nine weeks in theaters, the Hollywood Reporter’s Boxoffice ranked ‘Priest’ 34th out of the top 35 movies nationwide.”[260pp54] The January-February 1996 issue reported that upwards of 100,000 petitions were sent to Disney: “…because the movie was a flop at the box office, we do not expect to be greeted with Priest II anytime soon.”[260pp55]
The League’s campaign was not just directed to Disney but to the entire film industry and to the media in general. The message: if you place the Catholic Church in a negative light, you are going to pay.
Jane Pauley—In the June 13, 1995 airing of NBC’s “Dateline ,” Jane Pauley interviewed Scott O’Grady, the U.S. pilot who was rescued in Bosnia. Pauley commented “A devout Roman Catholic, O’Grady made his confirmation at age thirteen, and unlike many of his peers never left the Church.” The Catholic League was angered by this comment and Donohue wrote to Bob Wright, CEO of NBC, demanding that Pauley be fired immediately for this terrible offense. For maximum effect, Donohue released a statement explaining his actions to the press to insure that all got the message.[260pp56]
Bill Press—On July 16, 1995, KFI Radio [Los Angeles] talk show host Bill Press, a Roman Catholic, was critical of the pope and the Catholic Church. According to the September 1995 issue of the League’s Catalyst, “The Catholic League issued the following statement to the press on this matter: ‘The issue here is not simply the vile comments of Bill Press. The issue is the willingness of a respected radio station to keep him on payroll….The Catholic League does not want equal time to respond to Press, rather it wants him fired.’”[260pp57] By distributing this press release, the League was sending a message to everyone in the press—if you are critical of the pope or the Catholic Church, we are coming after you and your employer.
Liz Langley and the Orlando Weekly—Liz Langley wrote a light article about communion wafers in the August 10-16, 1995 edition. The League took great offense and issued a statement to the press that included the following: “The Langley piece is one of the most anti-Catholic articles to have appeared in some time….Accordingly, I will now mobilize a public relations offensive against the newspaper, using every tactic this side of the law to discredit the paper.”[260pp58] Donohue’s press release may have been meant to intimidate other reporters. Nearly a year after the incident, I talked with Editor Jeff Truesdell. Nothing ever came of the League’s threats. Of course, no one ever reported this to the thousands of reporters who read the press release from Donohue.
Fox-TV—In September 1995, Mother Teresa was used to make a comedic point in a promotional spot for the Fox-TV program, The Preston Episodes. The Catholic League complained to the Los Angeles Office of Fox and “an apology was extended and a pledge not to run the offensive spot again was made.”[260pp59]
Bravo Network-“Windows”—A program which aired on September 24, 1995 on the cable network Bravo, featured a dance routine involving a priest dealing with temptation from a nun. “The Catholic League registered its outrage to Bravo, the ‘Windows’ producer Thomas Grimm, and Texaco Performing Arts Showcase, which sponsored the program.”[260pp60] In December the League reported that Texaco had apologized for sponsoring this segment. Texaco also stated to Dr. Donohue that henceforth there would be a “screening procedure for the Texaco Performing Arts Showcase.”[260pp61]
New Britain Herald—Connecticut’s New Britain Herald published a syndicated cartoon which shows the three Magi going to visit the Baby Jesus. One of the shepherds says, “Wait…aren’t we just encouraging these teen-age pregnancies?” League members complained to the newspaper that this was anti-Catholic bigotry. The newspaper issued an apology on its editorial page.[260pp62]
Ann Landers—In an interview with Christopher Buckly in the December 4, 1995 edition of theNew Yorker, columnist Ann Landers criticized Pope John Paul II. “After first making a favorable comment about the Pope, Landers remarked, ‘Of course, he’s a Polack. They’re very antiwomen.’ …Landers later apologized for the crack about the Pope…The Catholic League sent its own comments to the New Yorker and further disseminated its views via a news release and radio interviews….(T)he Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has decided to drop Landers’ column beginning in 1996.”[260pp63]
ABC’s “The Naked Truth”—The League strongly attacked the January 10 edition of the ABC show “The Naked Truth.” The League’s letter to ABC included this threat: “We will contact the sponsors of the program and will alert our members to take action against them. Knowing our members, they won’t hesitate to do so.” This report, which appears in the March 1996 issue of Catalyst, listed the names, addresses and phone numbers of the eight sponsors of that show.[260pp64]
“Dave, Shelly & Chainsaw”-San Diego radio program—The April 1996 edition of Catalystreports on an attempt by the League’s San Diego Chapter to have the “Lash Wednesday” segment of the Dave, Shelly & Chainsaw program discontinued. The local chapter charged that the “humor” was “unacceptable” and the segment must be discontinued. But it failed. At that point the national office of the Catholic League got involved and placed an ad in the San Diego Union-Tribune “calling attention to this outrage.” This prompted media requests for interviews with the chapter president who appeared live on KGTV, the ABC affiliate. The tenor of this interview was “so controversial” that the station was pressured to invite him back a second time. “This time the television reporters were much more respectful.” The League asked its members nationwide to contact the radio station General Manager and the President of PAR Broadcasting Company to demand that this segment be discontinued, providing his address, phone and fax numbers.[260pp65]
PBS’ Frontline—On February 6, 1996, PBS aired a program called, “Murder on ‘Abortion Row’”. The two hour special was a serious look at the life of John Salvi, the person who killed two women and wounded five others working at an abortion clinic in 1994. Salvi is a devout Catholic and had planned to become a Catholic priest. The Catholic League was given an opportunity to preview the program. It immediately released a statement to the press attacking the documentary which began, “The Frontline program, “Murder on ‘Abortion Row,’” is nothing more than a front for Planned Parenthood and an irresponsible propaganda piece against Catholicism.”[260pp66]
Newsday—On March 12, 1996, the Long Island newspaper, Newsday, ran a headline which read, “Ex-Alter Boy on Trial.” The League protested. Donohue called the paper’s editor: “The content and tone of his remarks assured Donohue that this would not happen again.”[260pp67] Newsday subsequently published a League letter-to-the-editor which was very critical of the newspaper.
HBO—On May 6, 1996, Home Box Office aired “Priestly Sins: Sex and the Catholic Church.” The one hour special focused on the issue of sexual abuse in the priesthood. The League issued a lengthy news release which sharply attacked HBO: “The film is classic propaganda…HBO is not the first to float the idea that a ‘code of secrecy’ keeps the Church from revealing the truth about clergy sexual abuse: that honor extends to the Nazis and others. The Catholic League will call on all Catholics to boycott HBO…”[260pp68]
Sony—The June 1996 issue of Catalyst reported on the Sony movie, “The Last Supper”: “The movie, while not offensive to Catholics, nonetheless offended Catholics with its promotional material. The League…wrote a letter of protest to Sony Picture Releasing President, Jeffrey Blake. The response from Sony was decisive: ‘We have taken the unusual step of modifying our marketing campaign’….The League is satisfied with this modification.”[260pp69]
AP—On March 31, 1996, the Associated Press ran a story about a suburban Chicago man suspected of assassinating a Philadelphia policeman a quarter-century ago. The story, which was distributed to newspapers all over the country, mentioned that the accused was “23, a Catholic school-educated telephone repairman, when the shooting occurred.” The League sent a letter of protest to the president of AP and urged all of its members to do the same, providing his name and address to them.[260pp70]
QVC Shopping Network—Continental Cablevision in New England had conducted a survey of 32,000 subscribers and found that viewers preferred to drop the Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN), the Catholic cable network, in favor of the QVC Shopping Network. The New England Chapter of the Catholic League sharply opposed this change and Continental was muscled into continuing programming of EWTM.[260pp71]
Barneys New York—On December 9, 1994, the League successfully pressured Barneys of New York, an upscale clothing store, into removing an “offensive” nativity scene from its storefront window on Madison Avenue and 61st Street. Donohue informed Barneys that it had about four hours to contact the League, otherwise the media would be contacted. It didn’t take long before Simon Doonan, a senior vice president, called Donohue and extended an apology. However, Doonan flatly declined to do anything about the exhibit. Donohue then released a statement to the media that included the following comments: “Barneys New York and Christie’s have cooperated in promoting an insulting anti-Christian exhibit….Plainly put, this means that Barneys will respect the right of artists to show disrespect for the rights of Catholics. The Catholic League will disseminate this news to as wide an audience as possible. We do not accept Mr. Doonan’s apology: apologies unaccompanied by corrective action do not assuage.”[260pp72]
Catalyst went on to report: “Within hours of releasing this statement, the television cameras were in Dr. Donohue’s office. Just about every radio and television station in New York commented on the Barney exhibit….Barneys pulled the display from the window…giving the work back to the artist….In response to all of this, Barneys took out full page ads in The New York Times, New York Post and New York Daily News, apologizing for what had happened. The ads, together with the boycotts that were instituted, wound up costing Barneys hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost sales.”[260pp72] Now that’s success!
Hard Rock Casino and Hotel—The December 1995 issue of Catalyst reports: “When the Hard Rock Casino and Hotel opened last March in Las Vegas, it featured a restored carved gothic altar in one of its cocktail bars….The offensive use of the altar has been a source of criticism by many area Catholics.” The local bishop complained to the owner, Peter Morton, who said it would be removed. After seven months of inaction, the Catholic League got involved. The League outlined its strategy to the press: “…the time has now come to put public pressure on Mr. Morton. The Catholic League will contact the media in Las Vegas about this incident, and will alert the national media to it as well. We will also take out ads in the local newspapers, as well as the diocesan newspaper, requesting Catholics not to patronize the Hard Rock Casino and Hotel and to organize demonstrations in front of the establishment. We will also contact local Catholic organizations to organize phone trees and deliver their message straight to Mr. Morton. If more pressure is needed, we will bring it to bear, including a national boycott of all Hard Rock Cafes.”[260pp73]
The Catholic League followed through on its promise by taking out three ads in area newspapers.[260pp74] Hard Rock quickly responded saying it would remove the altar on November 30. The report ended, “The Catholic League will announce its next move once it finds out what happens on November 30.[260pp75]
An article in its January/February 1996 issue: “Victory is Always Sweet: Hard Rock Hotel Pulls Altar” reads: “After responding to pressure brought by the Catholic League, the Hard Rock Hotel…withdrew an offensive altar from its bar…By giving the incident publicity, both nationally as well as locally, the Catholic League was able to secure the support of many influential Catholics, some of whom put pressure on Hard Rock….It cost Hard Rock approximately a quarter million dollars to remove the altar… we won.”[260pp76]
William Paterson College—On July 5, 1994, Professor Vernon McClean, an instructor in the African-American and Caribbean studies department at William Paterson College at Wayne, New Jersey, opened the first session of his summer class, “Racism and Sexism in a Changing America,” by saying the pope is a racist. The League was contacted and it sent representatives to the college. “No one in any office would speak with us. They took great umbrage at our inquiry and were totally uncooperative. We received the same treatment from three different offices—we were either dismissed or treated as though we had no right to be questioning the incident. Following this lack of cooperation and response from the college, we issued a press release demanding an apology from the college and disciplinary action against Professor McLean. The New Jersey papers gave the issue thorough coverage and the New York radio and television media also took note.”[260pp77]
After the college completed its investigation, it made a public statement that “the College is satisfied that the matter has been resolved fully and completely.” The League, however was not satisfied. “Accordingly, the Catholic League called upon state officials to conduct a formal hearing on the campus of William Paterson College; Governor Christie Whitman, senior higher education officials and area legislators were contacted….But thus far she (Governor Whitman) has been mute….The Catholic League will not be satisfied until justice has been done. Our goal is not to simply chastise one college professor….We’re taking the long view on this one and it would behoove people like President Speert (Paterson College president) to do likewise.”[260pp77]
University of Michigan—The University of Michigan student newspaper, The Michigan Daily, ran a cartoon that mocked Newt Gingrich’s promotion of Boys Town and also related to the pedophilia problem in the Catholic priesthood. Donohue wrote a threatening letter to Dr. James Duderstadt, President of the University of Michigan: “Enclosed is a copy of a cartoon that was run in The Michigan Daily….Please be advised that as president of the nation’s largest Catholic civil rights organization, I am prepared to do what is necessary to rid your campus of the bigotry it presently entertains.”[260pp78]
The very next issue of Catalyst reads: “We are happy to report that an apology from the cartoonist and a conciliatory letter from Dr. Duderstadt have brought this issue to a close.”[260pp79]
The Population Institute—In a May 1995 fund-raising letter, Werner Fornos, president of The Population Institute, wrote the following: “The Vatican continues to undermine the advancements we’ve made in Cairo on issues of pregnancy prevention. The anti-contraceptive gestapo has vowed to double the number of its delegation (to the U.N.’s Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing) to 28 and to turn once more to weaken the cause of reproductive rights.” The July-August, 1995 issue of Catalyst describes the League’s response in an article, “Nazi Slur of Vatican Implicates Congressmen.”[260pp80]
In a news release, the Catholic League issued the following remarks: “The Population Institute proves once again that some of the anti-natalist forces are unquestionably anti-Catholic. Not content, or able, to debate the issues on their merits, these activists seek to defame the Holy See and thereby discredit its influence. Members of The Population Institute who share its politics, but not its bigotry, should make a clear and decisive break with the organization…. Accordingly, the Catholic League calls upon the following advisors to The Population Institute to resign immediately: Sen. Paul Simon, Sen. Daniel K. Inouye, Sen. Barbara Boxer, Rep. Jim Leach, Rep. Robert Torricelli and Rep. Sam Gejdenson. Not to resign would be to give tacit support to anti-Catholicism…The Catholic League [also] wrote to each Congressman involved in this scandal.”[260pp80]
The September 1995 issue of Catalyst reports: “Senator Daniel K. Inouye complied with the League’s request and resigned from the Population Institute. Senator Barbara Boxer of California put The Population Institute on notice, warning that any future examples of ‘inappropriate’ and ‘offensive’ fundraising letters would lead her ‘to reconsider’ her position with the organization. Congressman Robert Torricelli of New Jersey…warned The Population Institute to be more careful in how it phrases its letters.”[260pp81]
Anti-Defamation League—On December 1, 1995, the ADL notified the publisher, Hippocrene Books that it was granting a prestigious literary award to Richard Lukas for his book, Did the Children Cry? Hitler’s War Against Jewish and Polish Children. Lukas was to receive the literary award, plus a prize of $1,000 on January 23, 1996 at the ADL’s headquarters in New York. On January 10, the ADL’s Mark Edelman, wrote to the publisher stating that a mistake had been made; that subsequent review led to a decision to reverse the initial judgment. The May 1996 issue of Catalyst reports, “When the Catholic League learned of what had happened, it was incensed.” Donohue wrote a letter to Edelman: “For the record, I would like to know exactly why the book was selected for an award in the first place. Surely there are records of this evaluation. And I would also like to know why those reasons were found unpersuasive—and by whom—at a later date.”
The report continues: “The Catholic League…did not receive a response from the ADL until the matter was favorably resolved on March 18. But the good news did not come until considerable pressure had been brought to bear. Before the ADL reversed its decision not to give the award, the attorney for author Lukas had already warned the ADL that it would be sued. When the ADL made its announcement to reinstate the award to Lukas, it noted that it still had several problems with the book. The ADL said that ‘we believe the book underestimates the extent of Polish anti-Semitism before and after World War II. We believe also that, while there were heroic efforts of some Poles during this time, the book appears to vastly overestimate the number of Poles who were engaged in such courageous actions. Finally, the ADL believes the book presents a sanitized picture of Polish involvement with Jews during the War and overlooks authoritative points of view of many historians, including Polish historians.’ Though justice prevailed in the end, this marks a sad chapter in the ADL’s history….We hope that the ADL has learned an important lesson and that such ‘mistakes’ will be avoided in the future.”[260pp82]
The Clinton Administration—The October 1994 Catalyst headline reads “League Assails Clinton Administration for Bigotry.” This article reports: “In an unprecedented move, the Catholic League assailed the administration of a standing president for anti-Catholic bigotry. From the time President Clinton took office, it has become increasingly evident that his administration is insensitive at best, and downright hostile at worst, to Catholic interests. But the final straw occurred during the third weekend in August. Faith Mitchell, a spokeswoman for the State Department, charged that the Vatican’s disagreement over the Cairo conference on population and development ‘has to do with the fact that the conference is really calling for girls’ education and improving the status of women.’ That statement was so outrageous that one of our members…wrote a strong letter registering her concerns to President Clinton…and [this letter] was published as a Catholic League open letter to the President in the August 29th edition of The New York Times.”[260pp83]
This open letter, published as a half-page advertisement sponsored by the Catholic League, ran in all editions of The New York Times on August 29, 1994. It viciously attacks Faith Mitchell and requests President Clinton to retract and apologize for her statement.[260pp84]
In an article published in this issue, Donohue writes: “The anti-Catholic bigots in the Clinton administration got so exercised during the Cairo conference that Leon Panetta [who is Catholic], the White House Chief of Staff, acknowledged that there was a problem with Catholic-bashing and vowed to discipline anyone who continued to chide the Vatican.”[260pp85] Apparently, any criticism of the Vatican, no matter how just, is off limits.
Dr. Joycelyn Elders—In an editorial in the January-February issue of Catalyst, “We’ve Only Just Begun,” Donohue writes, “We have rolled into 1995 with a string of victories. Dr. Elders is gone…Dr. Joycelyn Elders is one for the books. The very first news release I issued when I took over as president of the Catholic League in July 1993 was in opposition to the nomination of Dr. Elders as Surgeon General…Through the month of August, we pressed hard to stop her nomination: we held a press conference at the National Press Club and wrote to all the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, but we ultimately fell short of our objective. What we did not do, however, was give up. We continued to criticize Dr. Elders whenever she made an irresponsible statement…”[260pp86]
An article in the same issue, “Elder’s Exit Applauded,” reads: “The Catholic League is delighted to see that one of the most outspoken anti-Catholic bigots in the Clinton administration has been axed. Joycelyn Elders was nominated to the office of Surgeon General by President Clinton in 1993 and confirmed later by the Senate. The Catholic League opposed her nomination and confirmation from the beginning. Her anti-Catholic statements…should have alone disqualified her from a position of national influence and authority…The Catholic League continued to speak out against her during her tenure as Surgeon General.”[260pp87]
This is but a very small sample of the attacks by the League over this two year period. It is unfortunate that space limits the number. These examples are presented almost entirely in the League’s own words. As one surveys its material, it becomes evident that all criticism of the Church or anything that places the Church in a negative light is deemed anti-Catholic, despicable and impermissible. The Church is simply above all criticism. The Catholic League obviously rejects America because it rejects what America stands for, including the freedoms of speech, expression and the press. This stand taken by the Catholic League is consistent with nearly two centuries of Catholic teaching on these matters and we should expect nothing different.
Intimidation, such as has been described in this chapter, by Catholic institutions over the past hundred years, has resulted in a populace woefully ignorant of the threat to American democracy and security posed by the Church. This intimidation has made it possible for the Church to go unchallenged.
How can Americans publicly discuss the obvious conflict between American national security-survival interests and Papal security-survival interests in this environment that the Catholic League now so effectively fosters? Obviously, it is not possible. Not only were the recommendations of the Rockefeller Commission and the NSSM 200 report never implemented, they were never publicly debated. Few Americans are even aware of NSSM 200 or this conflict in security interests. Intimidation by Catholic institutions has completely suppressed appropriate investigation of this conflict. Indeed, this intimidation has shut off the flow of the kinds of facts that resulted in these recommendations—facts of which all Americans should be fully aware. Without this vital information and discussion in a public forum, there can be no democratic solution to this conflict between the interests of the nation and of the Catholic Church—a dilemma well understood by the hierarchy.
[260pp1] Donohue W. We’ve Only Just Begun. Catalyst January-February 1995. p. 3.
[260pp2] Christian Coalition Conference a Success. Catalyst October 1995. p. 15.
[260pp3] Donohue W. A Banner Year for the Catholic League. Catalyst July-August 1994. p. 3.
[260pp4] Christian Coalition Conference a Success. Catalyst October 1995. p. 15.
[260pp5] Women’s Ordination Letter Draws Liberal Media Fire: Editorial Criticism of Papal Letter Earns Response. Catalyst July-August 1994. p. 8.
[260pp6] Sheridan A. Ignatian Society Petitions Cardinal Hickey to Remove Fr. Drinan’s Faculties. The Wanderer July 18, 1996. p. 1.
[260pp7] Donohue W. Our Members Make This a Special Christmas. Catalyst December 1995. p. 3.
[260pp9] Donohue W. The Vatican, Women and Non-Catholics. Catalyst July-August 1994. p. 7.
[260pp10] Letter sent to the Catholic League Membership signed by League President William Donohue. June 1995.
[260pp11] Donohue W. The Message From Florida Is: Bigots Beware. Catalyst April 1995. p. 3.
[260pp13] Donohue W. Catholic League’s 1994 Report on Anti-Catholicism. New York: Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. p. 2.
[260pp14] Donohue W. The Message From Florida Is: Bigots Beware. Catalyst April 1995. p. 3.
[260pp16] Donohue W. Catholic League’s 1994 Report on Anti-Catholicism. New York: Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. p. 2.
[260pp18] Blum VC. Public Policy Making: Why the Churches Strike Out. America March 6, 1971. p. 224.
[260pp19] Anti-Catholicism Nation’s Worst Prejudice. Catalyst July-August 1995. p. 13.
[260pp20] Donohue W. Our Members make This a Special Christmas. Catalyst December 1995. p. 3.
[260pp21] Donohue W. A Banner Year for the Catholic League. Catalyst July-August 1994. p. 3.
[260pp22] Letter sent to the Catholic League Membership signed by League President William Donohue. June 1995.
[260pp23] Catholic League Op-Ed page ad which appeared in the April 10, 1995 issue of the New York Times, “What’s Happening to Disney?” signed by William A. Donohue, President.
[260pp24] The Catholic Action League of Massachusetts Forms. The Wanderer October 8, 1995. p. 8.
[260pp25] Report On Anti-Catholicism Released. Catalyst April 1995. p. 1.
[260pp26] Report On Anti-Catholicism Released. Catalyst May 1996. p. 1.
[260pp27] Letter sent to the Catholic League Membership signed by League President William Donohue. February 1995.
[260pp28] Donohue W. A Banner Year for the Catholic League. Catalyst July-August 1994. p. 3.
[260pp30] Letter sent to the Catholic League Membership signed by League President William Donohue. September 1995.
[260pp31] Catholic League letter announcing a press conference signed by League President William Donohue. August 1994.
[260pp32] Media Treat Pope Fairly; Protesters Fail to Score. Catalyst November 1995. p. 1.
[260pp33] Donohue W. Our Members make This a Special Christmas. Catalyst December 1995. p. 3.
[260pp34] Catholic League fundraising letter signed by William Donohue mailed December 1995.
[260pp35] Donohue W. Catholic League’s 1995 Report on Anti-Catholicism. New York: Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. p. 4.
[260pp36] Donohue W. The Fallout Over “Priest.” Catalyst June 1995. p. 3.
[260pp37] “60 Minutes” Rigs Show Against Catholic Church. Catalyst March 1995. p. 1.
[260pp38] Give It To “60 Minutes”…. Catalyst March 1995. p. 4A.
[260pp39] Media Treat Pope Fairly; Protesters Fail to Score. Catalyst November 1995. p. 1.
[260pp40] We’re “Paranoid.” Catalyst June 1996. p. 1.
[260pp41] Report On Anti-Catholicism Released. Catalyst May 1996. p. 1.
[260pp42] Donohue W. Our Members make This a Special Christmas. Catalyst December 1995. p. 3.
[260pp43] Newsday’s Marlette Offends Twice in One Week. Catalyst July-August 1994. p. 8.
[260pp44] Meeting with Newsday Editor. Catalyst September 1994. p. 2.
[260pp45] Meeting with Newsday Editorial Board. Catalyst October 1994. p. 2.
[260pp46] Cardinal Bevilacqua Scores Philadelphia Inquirer For Church Coverage, Declines Interview. Catalyst September 1994. p. 6.
[260pp47] AP Responds to League Complaint. Catalyst May 1995. p. 1.
[260pp48] Catholic League Calls for Boycott of Disney. Catalyst May 1995. p. 1.
[260pp49] Donohue W. There’s Anger in the Land. Catalyst May 1995. p. 3.
[260pp50] Petition Against Disney. Catalyst May 1995. p. 5.
[260pp51] What’s Happening to Disney?, a Catholic League Op-Ed page ad which appeared in the April 10, 1995 issue of The New York Times. Catalyst May 1995. p. 12.
[260pp52] Disney Targeted By Resolution. Catalyst June 1995. p. 1.
[260pp53] League Pickets Disney. Catalyst June 1995. p. 14.
[260pp54] Disney Protests Continue. Catalyst July-August 1995. p. 4.
[260pp55] Disney Gets Present From Catholic League. Catalyst January-February 1996. p. 9.
[260pp56] Jane Pauley Shows Anti-Catholic Bias. Catalyst July-August 1995. p. 15.
[260pp57] KFI Radio (Los Angeles) Insults Catholics. Catalyst September 1995. p. 5.
[260pp58] Orlando Newspaper Insults Catholics. Catalyst October 1995. p. 6.
[260pp59] Media Wars on Catholicism: Fox Promo Withdrawn. Catalyst November 1995. p. 4.
[260pp60] Media Wars on Catholicism: Bravo Makes Obscene Show. Catalyst November 1995. p. 5.
[260pp61] Texaco Apologizes, Bravo Condescends. Catalyst December 1995. p. 13.
[260pp62] You Can Make a Difference. Catalyst December 1995. p. 2.
[260pp63] Ann (S)Landers Lashes Out at Pope and Polish People. Catalyst January-February 1996. p. 10.
[260pp64] ABC Show “The Naked Truth” Ridicules Catholicism. Catalyst March 1996. p. 4.
[260pp65] San Diego Radio Program Mocks Catholicism, Drawing League Response. Catalyst April 1996. p. 1.
[260pp66] PBS’ “Frontline” Exploits Catholicism in Abortion Program. Catalyst April 1996. p. 6.
[260pp67] Protest of Bias Yields Favorable Result. Catalyst May 1996. p. 13.
[260pp68] HBO Offers Tabloid Look at Catholic Church. Catalyst June 1996. p. 1.
[260pp69] League Protest of “The Last Supper” Pays Off. Catalyst June 1996. p. 4.
[260pp70] AP Red Flags Catholic Religion. Catalyst June 1996. p. 13.
[260pp71] New England Chapter Helps Save EWTN. Catalyst June 1996. p. 13.
[260pp72] League Pressures N.Y. Store To Remove Offensive Creche. Catalyst January-February 1995. p. 1.
[260pp73] Hard Rock Hotel in Las Vegas Offends Catholics. Catalyst December 1995. p. 4.
[260pp74] Why is the Hard Rock Hotel Offending Catholics? Catalyst December 1995. p. 5.
[260pp75] Hard Rock Hotel in Las Vegas Offends Catholics. Catalyst December 1995. p. 4.
[260pp76] Hard Rock Hotel Pulls Altar. Catalyst January-February 1996. p. 6.
[260pp77] Pope Defamed at New Jersey State College. Catalyst September 1994. p. 1.
[260pp78] University of Michigan Cartoon Draws Swift League Response. Catalyst March 1995. p. 11.
[260pp79] University of Michigan Cartoonist Apologizes. Catalyst April 1995. p. 2.
[260pp80] Nazi Slur of Vatican Implicates Congressmen. Catalyst July-August 1995. p. 1.
[260pp81] Senator Inouye Resigns From Population Institute After League Protest. Catalyst September 1995. p. 4.
[260pp82] Protest Stirs ADL to Restore Prize to Author. Catalyst May 1996. p. 6.
[260pp83] League Assails Clinton Administration for Bigotry. Catalyst October 1994. p. 1.
[260pp84] Open Letter To The President. This half-page ad sponsored by the Catholic League ran in all editions of The New York Times on August 29, 1994. Catalyst October 1994. p. 8.
[260pp85] Donohue W. The Holy See, Cairo and The Pundits. Catalyst October 1994. p. 11.
[260pp86] Donohue W. We’ve Only Just Begun. Catalyst January-February 1995. p. 3.
[260pp87] Elder’s Exit Applauded. Catalyst January-February 1995. p. 4.
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:
Enough is enough, time to march and demand the arrest and prosecution of ALL Pedophile Pimps of the Unholy Roman Catholic Cult
Enough is enough, time to march and demand the arrest and prosecution of ALL Pedophile Pimps of the Unholy Roman Catholic Cult
By Frank J LaFerriere
January 31, 2016
There comes a time when all good and decent human beings on the planet stands up as one voice and say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!
For far too long, the Unholy Roman Catholic Cult of Pedophile Pimps, Pedophile Priests and Nuns and the Parishioners who stand up and defend them, have gotten away with their CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY AND THE CHILDREN OF THE WORLD!!!
For far too long, we have given this disgusting, degenerate, evil, demonic cult, chance after chance, to clean up their acts, to put their Pedophile Pimps like all of the following, on trial for their parts in their crimes of covering up and protecting and defending their degenerate pedophiles and child abusers.
POPES: Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, Pope Francis
CARDINALS: Adam Maida, Agostino Vallini, Angelo Scola, Angelo Sodana, Bernard Francis Law, Dario Castrillon Hoyos, Dominik Duka, Donald Wuerl, Franc Rode, Francis George, Francisco Javier Errazuriz Ossa, George Pell, Godfried Danneels, Hans Hermann Groer, Humberto Mederios, John Cody, John Krol, John Wright, Joseph Bernardin, Juan Luis Cipriani, Justin Rigali, Keith O’Brien, Leonardo Sandri, Luis Antonio Tagle, Marc Oullet, Norberto Rivera, Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga, Patrick O’Malley, Peter Turkson, Pio Laghi, Raymond Burke, Ricardo Ezzati Andrello, Richard Cushing, Roger Mahony, Sean Brady, Sean O’Malley, Silvio Oddi, Tarcisio Bertone, Thomas Winning, Timothy Dolan, Vinko Puljic, Wilfred Fox Napier, William Levada…and many others.
ARCHBISHOPS: Andre Richard, Anthony Sablan, Blase Cupich, Charles J Chaput, Denis Hart, Desmond Connell, Diarmuid Martin, Edwin O’Brien, Ernest Leger, Francisco Xavier Martinez, Frank Little, Harry Flynn, Jerome Hanus, Jerome Listecki, John Charles McQuaid, John Clayton Nienstedt, John J Meyers, John Roach, Jose Horacio Gomez, Jose Luis Mollaghan, Luciano Storero, Mario Conti, Paul Richard Gallagher, Peter Gerety, Peter Sartain, Rembert Weakland, Robert Carlson, Silvano Tomasi, Theodore McCarrick, Valery Vienneau, William Edward Cousins…and many others.
BISHOPS: A.J. Quinn, Andrew Cozzens, Angel Simon Piorno, Anthony O’Connell, Antonio Sarto, Arturo Manadin Bastes, Bill Wright, Carl Mengeling, Christopher Coyne, Christopher Foster, David M O’Connell, David Zubik, Donald Kettler, Edward Cullen, Eugene Larocque, Gabino Miranda Melgarejo, George H Guilfoyle, George Leo Thomas, Gerard Frey, Giampaolo Crepaldi, Henry Kennedy, Howard Hubbard, James Garland, James Hoepner, James Kavanagh, James Murray, James Timlin, James Wall, John B McCormick, John Cunningham, John Doerfler, John Magee, Joseph Cistone, Joseph Devine, Joseph Imesch, Joseph McFadden, Joseph V Adamec, Jozef De Kesel, Juan Barros Madrid, Kenneth Povish, Kierran Thomas Conry, Laurence Glenn, Leo Clarke, Lorenzo Bellomi, Louis E Gellineau, Luis Guillermo Elchhorn, Marcelo Cuenca, Marco Antonio Ordenes, Maurice Schexnyader, Michael Bransfield, Michael J Sheridan, Michael Jarrell, Michael John Browne, Michael Malone, Partick Cooney, Peter A Libasci, Peter Conners, Pierre Pican, Raphael Michael Fliss, Raymond Lahey, Richard Malone, Richard Sklba, Robert Finn, Robert L Whelan, Robert Rose, Rogello Livieres, Roger Vangheluwe, Ronald Gainer, Ronald Mulkearns, Sanchez Sorondo, Seamus Hegarty, Terry Drainey, Thomas Curry, Thomas Dupre, Thomas J Tobin, Thomas V Daily, Timothy McDonnell, Vincent Leonard, William Lynn, William Murphy, Willie Walsh, Wilton Gregory, Wojciech Polak…and many more.
Each and every one of the individuals above, have overwhelming, clear and convincing evidence against them, that they protected their cult of pedophiles, by moving these dangerous predators, who brutalize, and rape, body, mind and soul, hundreds of thousands of children and teens throughout the world. They violated NUMEROUS International, Federal and State laws. As signatures of the United Nations Conventions Against Torture and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, they have thumbed their noses at these laws, again and again, believing that because they are the leaders of this cult, that they are above the law and no one can make them pay for their crimes.
In around 2002, the various Attorney Generals of the states, all gave the Roman Catholic Church a break. Instead of criminal prosecutions, they and the church agreed to clean up it’s acts, stop attacking the victims and make sure all of their pedophiles are no longer protected. Yet, the Roman Catholic Church have broken this agreements again and again and again and again. The states Attorney Generals who made these deals with the devils, should far by now realize, that the Roman Catholic Church did this to protect themselves from their leaders ending up in prison, that they NEVER had any intention of abiding by these agreements.
We can show, with overwhelming evidence and proof, that many predatory, perverted, pedophile priests are still raping children in the United States and in other countries and that in fact, their Cardinals, Bishops and Archbishops protected them and moved them around. Now we can show these dangerous pedophiles stomping grounds are in Central and South America. We can prove this, beyond any shadow of a doubt.
The following stories on my blog proves this:
We can show that Pope Francis, as usual of their Popes, only talks a talk. His actions belie his participation in the continued protection of the leaders who covered up these crimes, despite his words, in an address to the Bishops in Philadelphia when he stated:
“The crimes and sins of sexual abuse of minors cannot be kept secret any longer. I commit myself to the zealous watchfulness of the church to protect minors, and I promise that all those responsible will be held accountable.”
Yet, in the case of Archbishop Jozef Wesolowski, knowing that Wesolowski did in fact rape children in the Dominican Republic. Stating he was going to prosecute him, Francis brought him to the Vatican and left him his freedom, for over two years, without lifting one finger to prosecute him. It was only after the UN Committee Against Torture kept calling Francis out on this, that he decided to act, but interestingly enough, two days after Francis stated he was finally going to hold trial for Wesolowski, he was found dead in his room, rather convenient eh?
Francis has also elevated a known protector of pedophile priests, Juan Barros to the position of Bishop. Despite the fact that decent Bishops, priests and parishioners begged him not to do so. Francis elevated him anyway, even touching off a riot in Chile and now Barros has to walk around with armed guards.
That he absolutely refuses to abide by the demands, as signatures of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. That he is still protecting, contrary to his own vows and promises, Cardinals such as Bernard Law, George Pell, Justin Rigali and many other of these Pedophile Pimps at the Vatican under their sovereign immunity laws. He has NOT prosecuted any of the American Cardinals, such as Timothy Dolan, Roger Mahony, Donald Wuerl and far too many others, against whom there is again, overwhelming evidence they participated in not only the cover ups, but also attacks against the victims. Particularly using loudmouth, drunken, bully Bill Donohue of the Catholic League.
This can be shown with the following stories that are in my blog:
There should be NO Statute of Limitations against this crime of rape and abuse of children, nor should these criminals be able to also hide behind sovereign immunity laws, to get away with their crimes. To allow such laws, to where criminals who rape children, who destroy their lives, especially when it is done, by religious priests, pastors or ministers, or to have their crimes covered up and protected by their Popes, Cardinals, Bishops and Archbishops, is a slap in the face to ALL victims of the crimes of rape and abuse, especially when those crimes are perpetrated against children. It also makes the Justice system a joke.When victims and survivors finally have the guts and strength to speak out against the crimes committed against them, and the pain and suffering they went through, while hiding these crimes that were perpetrated against them, because the priest raping them, controlled them through the horror and fear of hell? That is an especially monstrous kind of evil. All victims and survivors deserve the right to justice, deserve a right to see those who harmed them, raped them and destroyed their lives, see those who committed these crimes against them, pay for those crimes. To do anything less, makes a mockery of the Justice system. We may as well just throw out all statutes and laws against the rapes and abuses of children, because in essence? That is what is already been done.
Then this churches habit, of attacking the victims, having their mouthpieces, branding them as liars, gold diggers, out looking for a payday from their church. Or with the likes of disgusting Bill Donohue, who actually said in the courtroom to my face, “If a 15 year old did not stop what was happening to him? Then that means he not only wanted it, he enjoyed it and he is a homosexual because of it.” Or all the other trash talk that Bill Donohue spews from his drunken mouth against us.
Or when we are called the seducers of our rapists.
Or when “Father” Richard Ross stated;””I don’t have much sympathy for people who somehow couldn’t stop whatever happened,” Richard Ross told the Joliet Herald-News. “I’ll take all of these people who were abused, and I’ll abuse them with a baseball bat. You can quote me on that.”
These are absolutely disgusting attacks against the victims. To take Ross’s and Donohue’s statements, just please explain to us, what would have happened to us, if we had punched our rapist priests? Why it would have been us who would have been charged and prosecuted, for assault and battery on a cleric. No one would have believed myself, if I had punched out “Father” Leon Gaulin, “Father” Joseph Desmond and the blond haired priest who spent that night raping me at St Thomas More parish in Durham NH. I had been brought there by a police officer because my father and I had gotten into a fight. I was a troubled youth already. Imagine if I had punched them all out? I would not have been believed that because I beat the snot out of them, that I was doing so because they were raping me. Especially in 1975. No one really knew about this massive problem in the cult of Pedophile Pimps and Priests yet. No, I would have been arrested and charged with assault and battery, prosecuted and thrown into YDC in Manchester, probably til I was 18.
All of this, the continued cover-ups and protection of pedophile priests, especially down in South and Central America, the continued protection of ALL the Pedophile Pimp Cardinals, Bishops and Archbishops, the continued denial of justice to the victims and survivors, hiding behind the statute of limitations and the sovereign immunity laws SCREAM that these must be dealt with, because the Church of Pedophiles refuse to seriously do so.
Yet, what can you expect, from a cult, where they ruled the world at one time and to even dare speak out, or disagree with them, got you an invitation to the Inquisitional Court, where you were tortured and put to death?
We can also show, these are a long running crime with this cult. The very words of one of those they declared a Saint, Peter Damian, echos throughout the centuries, when he stated in an admonition to the Cult 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.”
It is time, it is time for all good and decent human beings to take a stand. To march, to protest, to stand up to this continuing disgusting, demonic, evil behavior by those who dare proclaim how they are the protectors and defenders of children, especially with their stances on contraception and abortion, and then turn around and be responsible, for the brutal rapes, enslavement, beatings, tortures and murder of children, on a mass scale, for hundreds of years, against children. This is pure and sheer hypocrisy of its highest form.
The Industrial Homes, the Industrial Schools, the Magdalene and Good Shepherd Laundries, the Women’s and Children’s Homes, the Churches run High and Middle Schools, were actual places of pain, suffering, horror and nightmares, for many who as children and teens went to them. We can far prove that in all of these institutions, incredible crimes against children were perpetrated. The Church should be held accountable. They ALL, from Pope Francis, to Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, to each and every Cardinal, Bishop and Archbishop named above, should in fact, be treated just as we treated the Nazi leaders during the Nuremberg trials. Just because they happen to be the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church, should NOT allow them to get away with their incredible crimes against humanity and the children of the world.
They do not deserve one ounce of respect. They do not deserve one ounce of decency. They are literal scum in my eyes. Even worse than their proclaimed Satan. For they go around, proclaiming themselves the Holy Men of God, with the power to forgive sins, or not and send you straight to hell. They go around proclaiming how they are the leaders of the One True Church of Jesus Christ. Yet, they are nothing more than the worse sub-humans on the planet. These are NOT Holy Men of God. These are NOT the leaders of the church of Jesus Christ. These are evil, degenerate, psychotic, freaks, who deserve nothing more, than arrest, prosecution and upon conviction? The death penalty. For their crimes this is what is demanded. Far too many victims of their cult have committed suicide because not only of their rapes, but the continued brutalization against them perpetrated by this disgusting cult. They should in fact, be charged with First Degree Murder, for each and every victim, who blew their brains out, or hung themselves or killed themselves in other ways.
To see this Pope and the others, worshiped and adored, by their pew polishers, and having them call them the leaders of the church that their Christ founded? To even declare Pope John Paul II a Saint, when they damn well KNOW he covered up and turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the evils of Marciel Marcial and Hans Hermann Groer? Is disgusting to say the least. It is pure evil, to proclaim any of them holy. It is truly a slap in the face to the one they proclaim to follow, Jesus, who stated, it would be better for you to hang a millstone around your neck and throw yourself into the deepest of lakes than to harm a single hair on the head of a child. And they, NONE of them, deserve one ounce of forgiveness from ANY victim, for they have NOT repented of their crimes against us and continue to this day to commit crimes against children and teens in the same fashion.
It is also high time, that our United States Attorney General, our States Attorney Generals who made these compacts with the devils, stand up for the victims and prosecute them. It is time for the United Nation to get off their asses and prosecute the Popes, and others at the Vatican for their violations of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention Against Torture. To not do so, sends a message to them, that they can continue to commit these crimes and cover them up with impunity.
It is time to stop fearing the cult of Pedophiles. It is time to stop being afraid of them, for they are NOT gods, they are NOTHING but criminals, hiding behind their cult church to get away with their crimes. It is time to make them FEAR US, arrest them, prosecute them and upon conviction? Give them the death penalty. Anything less, would again, be a slap in the face to each and every victim, survivor, suicide victim and the justice system.
Frank J LaFerriere
January 31, 2016
Bill Pig Face Donohue of the Catholic League shoves his foot down his pig throat over the movie Spotlight
Bill Pig Face Donohue of the Catholic League shoves his foot down his pig throat over the movie Spotlight
Yuppers, got to hand it to Bill Pig Face Donohue, President of the Catholic League and Defender of the Degnerates of the Unholy Roman Catholic Church of Pedophile Pimps, Priests, Nuns and the Parishioners who bow down and suck their dicks in unholy love.
1. First posting on Spotlight from Pig Faces Posting on the Catholic League blog, titled
“SPOTLIGHT” EXAMINES ABUSE SCANDAL which then contains a link to a pdf file written by Donohue at the following link: SHINING THE LIGHT ON “SPOTLIGHT” Bill Donohue. Now Bilbo Dildo makes the following statement:
“In the Catholic League‘s 2002 Annual Report, I even defended the media. “The Boston Globe, the Boston Herald, and the New York Times covered the story with professionalism,” I wrote”
2. But Bilbo Dildo attacks the Boston Globe in a new posting BOSTON GLOBE REEKS OF BIAS on his Catholic League blog as follows:
“On the front page of the Metro Section in today’s Boston Globe, there is a story about the movie “Spotlight” that smacks of bias and gullibility; the former is driving the latter.”
He goes on to spew his typical bullshit defense of the Unholy Roman Catholic Cult of Pedophiles, as usual:
“Lisa Wangsness relies on Terence McKiernan of Bishop Accountability for her data. She writes that he told her that “the bishops could have agreed to make lists of abusive priests available nationwide.” Referring to him again, she writes that “More than 2,400 abusive priests nationwide have never been named.”
First, McKiernan is known for making up figures on the fly. A few years ago, after he told a sympathetic audience he was going to “stick it” to New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan, he accused him of “keeping the lid on 55 priests.” That is a lie. Several times I have personally challenged him to name the names and every time he runs.
Second, the term “abusive priests” is meaningless. Were they simply accused or was there a credible accusation made against them? Were the accusations substantiated or unsubstantiated? Was there a finding of guilt? Wangsness never tells us because it obviously doesn’t matter to her.
Third, what institution, including the Boston Globe, publishes the names of employees who have had an accusation made against them?
Fourth, how does McKiernan know there are 2,400 priests who have never been named? Did she ask him for verification?
Fifth, the figures for the Boston Archdiocese undercut the point that she and McKiernan are making. Indeed, there are more unsubstantiated accusations than there are findings of guilt.
Then the disgusting troglodyte Donohue, who couldn’t get laid even if he went into a women’s prison with a fistful of pardons, let along to the local pig farmer to be introduced to the farmers sows, Bilbo Dildo spews even more well worn bullshit from his well used outhouse piehole. From his Catholic League posting LOUSY JOURNALISM ON “SPOTLIGHT”
3. “Bill Donohue comments on the way journalists are handling “Spotlight”:
“Spotlight,” which opens today, is being heralded as an example of solid journalism, the kind of movie that should be shown in college journalism classes. Ironically, many journalists who are touting the movie are proving just how lousy they are at their craft.
Journalists for the following media outlets got their facts wrong:
New York Post; The Daily Commercial; Associated Press; Wall Street Journal; Boston Globe; National Catholic Reporter; Vanity Fair; Los Angeles Daily News; Christianity Today; RogerEbert.com; New Yorker; New York; Observer; Chicago Reader; timesofmalta.com; The Verge; baretnewswire.org; SLANT; Paste; avclub.com; filmcomment.
Whether through laziness or ignorance, all of these sources misrepresented the facts by saying the problem was pedophilia. As the John Jay College of Criminal Justice researchers pointed out, less than 5 percent of the molesting priests were pedophiles. They found that 81 percent of the victims were male and 78 percent of them were postpubescent. That means the abusers were homosexuals.
Not to admit this is an expression of journalistic malfeasance, the kind that ought to be discussed in the classroom.”
So here is the Pig Face, again, trashing the Boston Globe and others, he formerly defended as these news organizations for their professionalism in their reporting on the story, and now here he is trashing them for the same damn thing.
Of course, he then spews his typical bullshit about this being a homosexual and not a pedophile problem, using the John Jay College of Criminal Justice research, but totally ignores what the researchers said to his sorry ass way back in 2010:
“Whether through laziness or ignorance, all of these sources misrepresented the facts by saying the problem was pedophilia. As the John Jay College of Criminal Justice researchers pointed out, less than 5 percent of the molesting priests were pedophiles. They found that 81 percent of the victims were male and 78 percent of them were postpubescent. That means the abusers were homosexuals.”
But in an interview with Media Matters, Margaret Smith — a John Jay College criminologist who worked on the 2004 study — said that while Donohue “quoted the study’s data correctly,” he “drew an unwarranted conclusion” in asserting that most of the abusers were gay.
Explaining that it is an oversimplification to assume to that priests who abuse male victims are gay, Smith said: “The majority of the abusive acts were homosexual in nature. That participation in homosexual acts is not the same as sexual identity as a gay man.”
As an example, Smith pointed to the case of Marcial Maciel Degollado, a prominent Mexican priest who allegedly abused male children and also allegedly carried on affairs with multiple women. Smith noted that while Maciel allegedly abused boys, most people would not think of him as a gay man.
“What we are suggesting is that the idea of sexual identity be separated from the problem of sexual abuse,” said Margaret Smith, a researcher from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, which is conducting an independent study of sexual abuse in the priesthood from 1950 up to 2002. “At this point, we do not find a connection between homosexual identity and an increased likelihood of sexual abuse.”
Seems Bill Pig Face Donohue of the Catholic League will use the John Jay report to make his false assertions that this is a homosexual and not a pedophile problem, but ignore what the very researcher and other researchers on this problem of child rape, pedophiles and other sex crimes against children, said to him.
Bilbo Dildo…to be very honest with you? I do hope that after your next Christmas party, where you are getting all drunk? You get behind the wheel of your car and smash it into a tree or a bridge abutment or drive it off a bridge. You really just need to fucking die you punk assed, low life, piece of shit scumbag trodlodyte…and go burn in hell for all eternity, being gang-raped by the demons of hell.
A priest abuse victims/survivors Letter to Pope Francis, English Version, translation of Italian Letter
A priest abuse victims/survivors Letter to Pope Francis, English Version, translation of Italian Letter
This is the English translation of the blog posting La lettera di una vittima di abuso al sacerdote Papa Francesco in Italiano
Hey Pope Francis, how does it feel to proclaim yourself the representative of Jesus and God, while protecting all of your Pedophile Pimp Cardinals, Bishops and Archbishops who covered up the mass rapes and abuses of children? Do you think the one you claim to represent, Jesus would do the same thing? Do you think Pope Francis that Jesus would stand up and defend and protect those who did this? Do you think Jesus would call them Holy?
Your own Roman Catholic Catechism speaks of rape as follows: PART THREE: LIFE IN CHRIST; SECTION TWO: THE TEN COMMANDMENTS; CHAPTER TWO: “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF”; ARTICLE 6:THE SIXTH COMMANDMENT; Offenses against chastity: 2356 Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act. Graver still is the rape of children committed by parents (incest) or those responsible for the education of the children entrusted to them.
Do you believe, Pope Francis, that the rapes and tortures of hundreds of thousands of children throughout the world, perpetrated upon them by your own priests of your Roman Catholic Church, is in accordance with your teachings of your own Catechism, or the words of your Jesus?
Do you believe Pope Francis, that all the children and teens, who were raped, tortured, enslaved, brutalized, used as medical experiments including forced sterilization, in your Roman Catholic Institutions, like the Magdalene and Good Shepherd Laundries, the Industrial Homes such as Artane and Bindoon, the Women’s and Children’s Homes such as Taum and the First Nation Industrial Schools, was in keeping with the teachings of your Catechism and Jesus Christ?
You asked us not too long ago to accept your apologies and forgive you and your church for what was done to us. Yet how can we forgive you and your church? For to be forgiven, according to your bible and the teachings, you must truly repent of all your sins and crimes.
Yet how do those of us, whom were raped and had our souls stolen from us, whom committed suicide because of it, can give him forgiveness, or any of us so harmed, when he refuses to clean house of all the Cardinals, Bishops and Archbishops whom covered up these evil crimes and are still sitting in the positions that they are in?
How can Paul Anthony Carson, whom upon seeing the priest whom raped him walking down the street and then going home and hanging himself, being found by his parents, forgive him?
How can Emma Foster, whom was raped by Father Kevin O’Donnell, while at a primary school whom committed suicide because of it, forgive him?
How can Daniel Neill, whom committed suicide because of his rapist priest, Joseph Gallagher, forgive him?
How can the 30 boys raped at the St Alipius primary school, whom committed suicide forgive him for their rapes?
How can Lou Pirona, Bill Zeller, David M. Jarobe Jr,Kathleen McGonigle, Eric Patterson, Bobby Thompson, Paul Tafolla, Daniel Romney, Gilbert Rodriguez, Eduardo Ramon Boehland, or those whom for the bell was rung 170 times at Church of Our Savior on Wilshire Boulevard, whom committed suicide in the United States, or any of the other victims, throughout the world, who were raped, tortured, brutalized by your priests, brothers, nuns and sisters, of your church, who committed suicide, forgive you and your church Pope Francis?
They cannot, they are dead, rotting in their graves, because of not only their rapes by priests and brothers, of your Roman Catholic Church, but because of the continued attack against us victims and survivors, by your Church, by your Cardinals, Bishops and Archbishops, by such demented people like Bill Donohue of the Catholic League, and by those who sit in the pews of your Church. We have been branded as liars, gold diggers out looking for a payday from your church. We have been told because we did not punch our rapists in the face, while they were raping us, that means we not only wanted to be raped, we enjoyed being raped and are homosexuals because of it. Or that we seduced our rapist. Or how one of your priests, Father Richard Ross whom said he has no empathy for any victim who could not stop what was happening to them, and how he would like to take victims into a room and beat them with a baseball bat to show them what true pain and suffering is.
Why should we, or anyone forgive you Pope Francis and your church? Why should we or anyone forgive all of your Cardinals, like Timothy Dolan, Donald Wuerl, George Pell, Roger Mahony, Raymond Burke, Bernard Law, or any of your Archbishops and Bishops, who covered up and protected these degenerate rapists, torturers and abusers of children, who moved them from parish to parish, across state lines, and international country lines, to avoid detection, arrest and prosecution?
How can we, or why should we forgive you all, when you use your Church lawyers, to fight us every step of the way and deny us justice by using the statute of limitations to get our cases dismissed when we seek justice for the evil crimes committed against us, by your priests and others of your Roman Catholic Church? Or your Cardinals, Bishops and Archbishops, using Roman Catholics in our legislature, to fight tooth and nail any changes to the statute of limitations, or the opening of a window for victims to come forward and seek justice?
Cardinal Timothy Dolan, showed us all how this church truly feels towards us victims, especially when we seek justice for the crimes committed against us by your church. When New York passed the same sex marriage law, Cardinal Dolan cried about how he felt betrayed by the State of New York for doing so. Yet, in the same breath, he cried and said the following over New York wanting to change the ONE YEAR statute of limitations against child rape and abuse: He stated he wanted the one year statute of limitations against child rape to be kept because if the church gets sued, “The perpetrators don’t suffer. There’s no burden on them. What suffers are the services and the ministries of the apostolates that we’re doing now. Because where does the money come from? So the bishops of 30 years ago that allegedly may have reassigned abusers, they don’t suffer. They’re dead. So the people that suffer are those who are being served right now by the church. We feel that’s a terribly unjust burden.”
Notice that Pope Francis? Read his words and put yourself in the place of the victims. Not one word about our unjust burdens, not one word about our pain and suffering. Not one word about the evil horrors what we have had to suffer through in our lives, horrors that have provoked many of us, to commit suicide.
And, Cardinal Dolan lied in his statement. Most of those Cardinals, Bishops and Archbishops who covered up these crimes against children, are not dead, they are still alive, protected and defended at all costs by your church. Cardinal Bernard Law, George Pell, Timothy Dolan, Roger Mahony, Donald Wuerl, and many others, are in fact, still alive. They all participated in these cover ups, they all participated in the moving around dangerous pedophile priests, to avoid detection and arrest for their crimes against us.
You, Pope Francis, are also guilty of these same crimes. As in relation to Archbishop Jozef Wesolowski and others. You, Pope Francis, KNEW what Archbishop Wesolowski had done to the children in the Dominican Republic. You KNEW he was paying street children to have sex with him, and to take pornographic pictures of them. You, Pope Francis, had him brought to the Vatican in Rome, knowing that once you did? He was then protected under the sovereign immunity of the Vatican, that this would prevent his arrest and prosecution of him by the officials of the Dominican Republic
You, Pope Francis, KNEW he was a danger to children and others, yet YOU did not put him in a jail cell when you had him recalled to the Vatican. And while Wesolowski had his freedom, for over a year and a half, he continued his crimes against children. He continued to pay children for sex, he continued to take pornographic pictures and even videos of his criminal acts against children, and it has been proven that some of these children died a horrible death because of it.
A dossier accusing Wesolowski of sex abuse of minors was sent to Pope Francis “sometime in July” 2013 by Santo Domingo Cardinal Nicolás de Jesús López Rodríguez. The pope found the information credible enough to dismiss Wesolowski on August 21 via confidential letter. But the pope never reported Wesolowski to civil authorities nor made the information public.
All prelates should make credible allegations public as a warning to avoid contact with the accused. Also, any other victims should be encouraged to contact a law enforcement agency perhaps making the investigation easier, apprehension and prosecution more certain. The group, Survivors’ Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP), defines failure to take these steps as a “cover up.”
Wesolowski left the country before a local TV program broadcast an exposé on August 31. It was reported in January 2014 that Wesolowski “is now thought to be living in Rome and is protected from extradition by diplomatic immunity.” “For me it was a surprise to see Wesolowski walking along Via della Scrofa in Rome,” Santo Domingo Auxiliary Bishop Víctor Masalles tweeted on June 24, 2014.
Embarrassed, the Vatican announced on June 27 that Wesolowski had been laicized (defrocked) “in the past few days … Measures will be taken so he is in a precise restricted location, without any freedom of movement,” said Vatican spokesman, Fr. Federico Lombardi, without specifying how this would be accomplished. The press reported this as proof of the pope’s “zero tolerance” for child sex abuse.
November 22, 2014: Wesolowski was seen “walking quietly inside the Vatican City…in apparent freedom” and is presumed to still live there under house arrest. This proves to us that Fr. Federico Lombardi lied to us, as is usual with the Roman Catholic Church when it concerns their pedophiles.
Defrocking means a cleric is fired without being reported to the police. The most serious punishment available to the pope is excommunication. Pope Francis excommunicated an Australian priest for supporting women’s ordination and same sex marriage. He also excommunicated the leaders of the lay group, We Are Church, for celebrating mass in their home.
But, did you excommunicate Archbishop Jozef Wesolowski, Pope Francis? No you did not. It is apparent to us victims of your crimes of your church against us, that you find a priest saying women should be ordinated, and one who supports same sex marriage, or a lay group having mass in their homes, more worthy of excommunication, than a pedophile, who paid children for sex, raped them, or possessed over 100,000 child pornographic images and videos of child porno on their computer.
You, Pope Francis, have proven to us, the victims and those who fight for us, that you are just like the rest. That you will protect and defend those who rape children, instead of standing up to them, instead of standing up for the victims. That you will protect and defend the pedophiles and the pedophile pimps, like Pope Emeritus Bendict XVI and the Cardinals, Bishops and Archbishops who covered these crimes up, and it is business as usual on this matter. To deny us victims any rights to justice for the crimes committed against us by your church.
The UN Committee against Torture “found that the widespread sexual violence within the Catholic Church amounted to torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.” After Vatican officials were called to Geneva in May 2014 to respond to tough questions like why the pope believed his responsibility for protecting children against torture only applied on Vatican property, the committee issued its report.
The members “ordered the Vatican to hand over files containing details of clerical sexual abuse allegations to police forces around the world, … to use its authority over the Roman Catholic Church worldwide to ensure all allegations of clerical abuse are passed on to the secular authorities and to impose ‘meaningful sanctions’ on any Church officials who fail to do so.” With the exception of a couple of staged PR events, the pope has refused to take any of these measures.
The Vatican had issued an “Initial Report” preparatory to the hearing. “Nowhere in the Holy See’s [the name of the Church’s global government] Initial Report under the Convention does it make any mention of the widespread and systemic rape and sexual violence committed by Catholic clergy against hundreds of thousands of children and vulnerable adults around the world. There is no mention of acts that have resulted in an astonishing and incalculable amount of harm around the world – profound and lasting physical and mental suffering – with little to no accountability and access to redress …[T]he Vatican has consistently minimized the harm caused by the actions of the clergy, through both the direct acts of sexual violence and Church officials’ actions which follow, such as cover-ups and victim-blaming. … The Holy See’s Initial Report to this Committee is itself evidence of the minimization of these offenses and the resulting harm.
The Committee against Torture report came “after senior officials sought to distance the Vatican legally from the wider Church … saying priests were not legally tied to the Vatican but fell under national jurisdictions. But the committee insisted that officials of the Holy See – including the pope’s representatives around the world and their aides – have a responsibility to monitor the behavior of all under their ‘effective control.’”
The following faces and statement proves, Pope Francis, that you are just like the rest, when it comes time for standing up to the pedophiles, those who rape children, from your church. How you do not truly care one bit about the victims, but the defense and protection of your church and its pedophiles.
As archbishop of Buenos Aires, Jorge Mario Bergoglio “refused to meet with victims, and he stayed largely silent on the issue of clergy sex abuse, except to issue a surprising denial that he had ever handled an abusive priest. His only known action was to commission a behind-the-scenes report to judges that sought exoneration of a criminally convicted priest by impugning the credibility of the priest’s victims.”
Then, one month to the day after you were elected Pope, you appointed a group of Cardinals, referred to as your C9, to be your closest advisors. And who are some of the members of your C9 advisors?
Cardinal George Pell: As archbishop and creator of the “Melbourne Response,” a system “designed to control the victims and protect the Church … Pell intended to minimize the crimes, conceal the truth, manipulate and intimidate the victims. … Some relatives of abused children have called the cardinal a ‘sociopath.’” Pell personally knows hundreds of the people involved – the victims and their families as well as the abusers. … He was a very senior authority in the Catholic Church when the court cases began in the 1990s and the top Catholic figure in Australia until he went to Rome. … [H]e was the leader of a system that protected the guilty and failed innocent people. … [H]e was the man in charge during many years of this scandal. Therefore, he can be held accountable and responsible for it.”
Cardinal Francisco Javier Errazuriz Ossa: Errazuriz had made national headlines for protecting Fr. Fernando Karadima, the “worst scandal” of the Chilean Church. “Power is the true point of the case. The [sexual abuses against children] were not possible without a network of political, social and religious power working for 50 years,” stated political analyst Ascanio Cavallo, Dean of the Journalism School of the Adolfo Ibáñez University. Church officials were warned as early as 1984 about Karadima’s “improper conduct.” The first
known reports to reach Errazuriz were in 2003. In 2006, a priest appointed by Errázuriz to investigate the claims reported to the cardinal that he believed “the accusers to be credible.” According to court testimony in a 2011 civil complaint filed against Karadima, Church officials, including Errázuriz, tried to shame accusers into dropping claims, refused to meet with them and failed to carry out formal investigations for years. A judge dismissed the criminal case against Karadima in November 2011 because the statute of limitations had expired but also determined that the allegations were “truthful and reliable.
And, when you Pope Francis appointed Errázuriz to your C9 advisors, one of the victims stated that this appointment “a shame and a disgrace.” On September 15, 2013, Errázuriz said that the archdiocese had no responsibility for their “tremendous pain.”
Yes, Pope Francis, again, we have from the mouths of one of your own advisors, one who covered up for pedophile priests, that you, your church has no responsibility for their “tremendous pain.” But, Pope Francis, who does then bear the responsibility for the tremendous pain and suffering, the unjust burdens and the horror the victims of rape committed against them by the priests of the Roman Catholic Church? Is it the victims themselves? Because it sure seems like it when it comes to this Church of yours.
Then Pope Francis, when the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC)requested of you, for “detailed information on all cases of child sexual abuse committed by members of the clergy, brothers or nun” for the past fifteen years and set November 1 as a deadline for a reply. The questions were sent as preparation for a public hearing scheduled for January. What did you say and do about this request?
First, a little background. As one of the signatories to the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Church was fifteen years late in delivering a report describing whether it had acted to “protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence” as the convention requires. Additionally, the questionnaire sought to establish whether “perpetrators of sexual crimes” were allowed to remain in contact with children, what legal action was taken against them and whether reporting of suspected abuse was mandatory. It also included queries about support for victims, and any incidents where complainants were silenced.
And what was yours and the Vaticans response to this? You, Pope Francis and the Vatican warned that it might pull out of the Convention on the Rights of the Child if pushed too hard on the issue. In a report of its own posted on the UN website last October, the Holy See reminded the CRC of reservations on legal jurisdiction and other issues it made when it signed the global pact. It said any new “interpretation” would give it grounds “for terminating or withdrawing” from the treaty.
And then what did you do Pope Francis? On July 11, 2013, the pontiff enacted a civil law criminalizing leaks of Vatican information to the press and sexual violence against children, including child pornography. The crimes were punishable by up to eight and twelve years in prison, respectively. The law was applicable inside the Vatican City State and for employees of the Holy See in its extraterritorial properties including embassies.
How did you respond to the CRC request Pope Francis? On December 4 by your stating that it was not the practice of his government to “disclose information on specific cases unless requested to do so by another country as part of legal proceedings” and “that the Vatican can provide information only about known and alleged child sex crimes that have happened on Vatican property.”
Then Pope Francis, as an added slap to the faces of the victims, what did you do? On January 16, 2014, the day the CRC hearings were to begin in Geneva, you, Pope Francis again showed your contempt for your Church’s victims by celebrating mass, followed by a private meeting, with Cardinal Roger Mahony, archbishop emeritus of Los Angeles. The Washington Post (among others) had condemned Mahony for protecting known abusers, stating he’s “lucky not to be in prison” and that “his continued prominence reflects the culture of impunity in the Catholic Church a decade after its tolerance and complicity in the abuse of children was exposed.” After your private meeting with you, Mahony blogged “the topic of scandal never came up.”
The same day, Lombardi said the Church had developed “a series of initiatives and directives” that are “extremely helpful” to other communities. He also criticized the assumption that bishops or religious superiors act “as representatives or delegates of the Pope.” He said this belief is “utterly without foundation.” Rather, civil authorities in countries that have signed the UN convention are directly responsible for its implementation and for the enforcement of laws that protect children.
The UN panel asked Vatican representatives for responses to the questions they had sent in July. While the American media trumpeted a statement made by one of the Vatican officials that he “gets it,” the foreign press was not as fawning:
Germany’s Deutsche Welle: Vatican response ‘fails smell test for ordinary people’
Venezuela’s El Nacional: The Vatican at the UN today dodged providing detailed information on issues relating to sexual abuse of minors by clergy in a rhetorical exercise in which it attempts to demonstrate determination to prevent new offenses
Spain’s El Pais: The Vatican still does not take responsibility for sexual abuse
BishopAccountability.org noted four significant moments of the hearing:
1. For the first time, the Vatican had to admit publicly that it still does not require the reporting of child sex crimes to civil authorities. Nor does it take this step when priests are defrocked.
2. The Holy See still refused to provide the data requested on July 1.
3. The Vatican believes that it is the obligation of the individual perpetrator, not the Church, to compensate victims.
4. Religious orders, which comprise one third to one half of the world’s Catholic clerics, still are not being compelled by the Holy See to create abuse policies. (Pope Benedict XVI ordered the world’s bishops to do this in 2011. The order was widely ignored, even by the cardinal archbishop of Buenos Aires, Jorge Mario Bergoglio.)
Then, Pope Francis, we now show how your Vatican, yourself and other mouthpieces for your church, played the look the other way game of subterfuge and deception. Of blaming others, and saying hey, look at what they are doing, why are you picking on us?
Vatican delegate to the UN, Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, responded in an interview: “At the same time we have to keep in mind that even though there are so many millions, forty million cases of abuse a year regarding children, unfortunately some cases affect also Church personnel.” Tomasi also suggested that the UN committee may have been influenced by “Some NGOs that support homosexuality, same-sex marriage and other issues probably presented their own views and ended up reinforcing [the committee’s] line of thought in some way.”
And then you came out with this statement Pope Francis, KNOWING it was a lie, because your church has been anything BUT moving with transparency and responsibility. The only responsibility yourself, the Vatican and the Roman Catholic Church has far proven by your actions, is that you are to protect your church at all costs.
On March 5, 2014, you, Pope, stated that, as regards the sexual torture of children, “The statistics on the phenomenon of violence against children are shocking, but they also show clearly that the great majority of the abuses come from the family environment and from people who are close. The Catholic Church is perhaps the only public institution that moved with transparency and responsibility. No one else did as much. And yet,the Church is the only one being attacked.”
If your words Pope Francis and the rest were truth? Then such people like Cardinal Bernard Law, George Pell Timothy Dolan, Roger Mahony, Donald Wuerl and the others who covered up these crimes against children, who helped perpetuate these crimes against children, who protected the pedophiles over the children, would have been excommunicated and turned over to authorities for prosecution.
If your words Pope Francis were truth, then you would not have recalled Archbishop Jozef Wesolowski back to the Vatican, so he could be protected from the authorities in the Dominican Republic. You would have turned him over for prosecution for the crimes against children he committed there, instead of allowing him sovereign immunity by bringing him to the Vatican to be protected so.
If your words were truth, Pope Francis, then you would not have loaded your C9 advisory committee with known Pedophile Pimps, like George Pell and others, against whom, there is overwhelming evidence against them they participated in the cover ups of the rapes and abuses of children.
If your words were truth Pope Francis, then your church would NOT be denying victims of these crimes justice. Your church and the lawyers you buy would NOT be denying us victims justice by using the statute of limitations against us. Nor would they be fighting any changes to the statute of limitations, or the opening of a window for victims to come forward and seek justice for the crimes committed against us.
If your words were truth Pope Francis, you would NOT be allowing us victims, to be re-victimized, by the attacks done against us.
You would NOT be allowing Bill Donohue, of the Catholic League to attack us victims like he does, insulting us, denigrating us, defaming us. All the evil he has said against us victims, he is one who deserves excommunication. You, Pope Francis, would call Bill Donohue out, for his proclaiming how we victims are nothing but liars, gold diggers, out looking for a pay day from the church. For his comparing the horror, the terror, the pain and suffering of us victims, who were brutally raped, by your priests, not only of our bodies, but of our souls, our minds and our hearts, to his being slapped on the wrist by a nun when he acted out.
For his lying about one victim, proclaiming him as part of a drug gang murder, and how the police department covered it up, when the victim in fact, testified in a drug murder, putting his life at great risk in doing so. And because of Bill Donohue actions and words, that victim now is in fear of his life, having received death threats, and other threats as well as being beaten for his standing up and doing the right thing in testifying in a drug gang murder. The victim is now suing Bill Donohue and the Catholic League for defamation and other civil actions and yet, YOU Pope Francis has not ever stepped in and put a stop to Bill Donohue and his attacks against the victims of priest rape.
If you were speaking the truth Pope Francis, then when The United Nations Committees on the Rights of the Child and on Torture, requested the Holy See to abolish the pontifical secret for allegations of child sexual abuse, and to order through canon law mandatory reporting to the civil authority. Then in September of 2014, YOU would not have rejected that request and told them you did so on the grounds that mandatory reporting would interfere with the sovereignty of independent States. Mandatory reporting would only interfere with such sovereignty if a State law prohibited reporting of clergy sex abuse of children to the police. No such State exists.
But the Vatican … illustrates its very real intention to interfere in the sovereignty of independent States by prohibiting reporting once canonical proceedings start, even when the civil law requires reporting. …
The de facto privilege of clergy by the use of secrecy, rendering clergy immune to civil prosecution for child sex abuse, was set up in 1922 by Pope Pius XI, and was continued and expanded by five of his successors. Regrettably, it seems that you, Pope Francis have given every indication of adding yourself to the list as the seventh pope.
If you were speaking the truth, Pope Francis, then you would not have appointed Juan Barros Madrid as Bishop of Osorno, Chile. Did you not get the hint, Pope Francis, that on the day that Barros was installed as Bishop, amid riot police, and hundreds of parishioners,dressed in the black of mourning denounced Barros, that they all knew what Barros had done and instead of supporting him, you should never have made him a Bishop?
If you are speaking truth Pope Francis then why did you ignore Archbishop Chomali? We know, in an interview published March 26, the Archbishop of Concepcion disclosed the details of a meeting he had with Pope Francis on March 6. “Archbishop Chomali explained that he gave Pope Francis a ‘document with detailed information on the consequences of the appointment he had made. All the documentation that I cited came to him, whether through the nunciature or the Chilean embassy to the Holy See. He was very much up to date on Bishop Barros’ situation, and in fact a few days prior he had spoken with him. With firmness and much conviction he told me that he had analyzed all the past records and that there was no objective reason that Bishop Barros should not be installed as diocesan bishop.’”
No, Pope Francis, you do not speak the truth, for your actions speak much louder than words do. You talk a good PR talk, but your other words and actions do not match with the PR propaganda you are putting out. Yes, Pope Francis, I am in fact, calling you a two-faced, liar and charlatan. I speak the truth when I say this. Something you and the rest of your Pedophile Pimps, cannot even begin to do.
You, Pope Francis, disgust me along with all of your Pedophile Pimp Popes, Cardinals, Bishops and Archbishops. For you are just like them all, you are a degenerate in my book, you are just as responsible for the rapes, tortures, enslavement, abuses, and other crimes against children, as all the rest. You, Pope Francis, are NO Holy Man of God, nor are YOU a representative of Jesus Christ on earth. You are as sick and twisted, as much a pervert, as much a criminal as all the rest of your fellow Pedophile Pimps.
You, Pope Francis are one of the lowest forms of life on the planet. Even the contents of a well used outhouse has more use than you do, and deserves a lot more respect to boot. You protect your cult of Pedophiles and Pedophile Pimps, just like the rest of them.
You are no holy man of God, you, along with Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, or the following Cardinals: 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 and many others; the Archbishops: 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, and many, many others; and the following Bishops: 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, and many, many others. You all stand guilty of Crimes Against Humanity and the Children of the World.
You, Pope Francis, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, all of your above named Cardinals, Bishops and Archbishops, stand guilty, before your God and Jesus Christ, whom you proclaim to follow, to be representatives of on this Earth, through your Roman Catholic Church, of heinous crimes against children throughout the world.
You, Pope Francis ask us to forgive you. Why should we? Why should anyone forgive you, or your church and what you all have done to us?
NONE OF YOU HAVE TRULY REPENTED FOR ALL THE CRIMES AND EVILS YOU AND YOUR CHURCH HAS DONE AGAINST US!!!!THEREFOR, NEITHER CAN WE, NOR EVEN YOUR OWN GOD AND JESUS CHRIST FORGIVE YOU, UNLESS YOU TRULY AND HONESTLY REPENT OF ALL OF THIS EVIL YOU HAVE DONE TO CHILDREN, THROUGHOUT THE CENTURIES OF WHAT YOU HAVE DONE TO THEM. TO BE FORGIVEN YOU MUST ALL TRULY REPENT, SEEING YOU HAVE NOT DONE THAT, THEN YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO ASK ANYONE FOR FORGIVENESS…..NOT US VICTIMS WHO WENT THROUGH THIS HORROR, NOR YOUR GOD AND JESUS IN WHICH YOU ALL PROCLAIM TO BE REPRESENTATIVES OF!!!
Pope Francis, the one YOU proclaim to represent upon earth, as the Vicar of Christ, then his words apply much more to you and the rest of your Cardinals, Archbishops and Bishops, even more than it applies to the rest of us. For YOU are supposed to be holy men of god, and the leaders of what you proclaim the one true church of Jesus Christ.
Well the one YOU proclaim to represent, Pope Francis, Jesus said in the bible, the book YOU all proclaim to be the true word of the true God, the following: Mark 9:42: 42″Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe to stumble, it would be better for him if, with a heavy millstone hung around his neck, he had been cast into the sea. And in Luke 17: 1-2: 1He said to His disciples, “It is inevitable that stumbling blocks come, but woe to him through whom they come! 2″It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble.
It looks like, Pope Francis, that you and the rest of your Pedophile Pimps ought to invest in a company that makes strong, sturdy rope and does a lot of millstones. For if I were you? I would start tying ropes around your neck and attaching it to millstones and find a great portion of the sea to toss your bodies into. That has to be a whole lot better than having to deal with the ones you proclaim to represent, Jesus Christ is going to do to your souls once you get before him in my opinion.
In closing Pope Francis, because we who were raped, tortured, brutalized, enslaved, and destroyed by your church and its pedophiles and abusers, have the guts to stand up and speak out against all the crimes committed against us and demand justice, we are branded as bigots, haters, and even worse. We are told time and time again, because we dare speak out, that we are all bound for hell. That because we DARE insult you all, that we do not hold any respect for ones such as yourselves, that we are the ones who deserve to burn in hell.
Many of us have already done our time in hell though Pope Francis. Our pains and sufferings, our nightmares, our horrors have sent us into hell and quite a few of us have come out on the other side of it, much stronger, than the victims we once were. We are now STRONG SURVIVORS.
Though some of us did not make it, our pain and suffering and horror and the continued treatment of evil against us by your Roman Catholic Church, caused some of them to blow their brains out, or hang themselves, or commit suicide in other ways.
And some are still hiding in the shadows, too afraid to come out and speak, about the crimes committed against them, by the priests, brothers, nuns and sisters and all the others of your church. Who are still silent, because they fear you still, they fear their rapists and the mind tortures they were put through by them while they were being raped and brutalized, realize this Pope Francis!!!
We the strong survivors are MANY. We do NOT fear you, nor your church, nor your Cardinals, Bishops and Archbishops. We do not fear the pew polishers, who insult and denigrate and threaten us. We do not fear Bill Donohue of the Catholic League or anyone else who attacks us.
We will stand and speak out, we will hold you all to your crimes. We will speak out and expose them where ever we go and whenever we are called upon to do so. We will stand up for those victims, who are as yet, still too afraid to speak out. We will defend them, and ourselves, against you, your other leaders and all who attack us and defend your church for all of the crimes committed against us.
We WILL continue to demand justice. We WILL continue to demand the arrest and prosecution of each and every one of you who covered up these crimes against us, who protected and defended the pedophiles, the abusers of us, and we WILL win against you all. You may not think so, you may think that the Roman Catholic Church is untouchable, that no one can make you all pay for your Crimes Against Humanity and the Children of the World.
In a sense, you might be right, that no justice system will be able to make you pay for your crimes, but that is in fact changing and I believe that soon the United Nations will have their say and you will be prosecuted by them.
But then, one day, you will have to stand before the ULTIMATE JUDGE, the ones you all proclaim to follow and represent on this plane of existence. And I think when you do? You will surely wish you HAD tied a huge millstone around your neck and thrown yourselves into the deepest of seas, compared to the punishments YOU will be facing before the Judge you call God and Jesus Christ.
I believe, they will show you more mercy, by sending you straight to the 9th Level of Dante Inferno, than all of you have to us, the survivors of your evil, criminal cult of Pedophile Pimps, Pedophile Priests, Abusive Nuns and all the Parishioner Pew Polishers of your Roman Catholic Church.
FROM ONE WHO WENT FROM A SCARED VICTIM, TO A STRONG SURVIVOR.
FRANK J LAFERRIERE
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
THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
Convention on the Rights of the Child
Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 44/25 of 20 November 1989
entry into force 2 September 1990, in accordance with article 49
The States Parties to the present Convention,
Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Bearing in mind that the peoples of the United Nations have, in the Charter, reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights and in the dignity and worth of the human person, and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Recognizing that the United Nations has, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenants on Human Rights, proclaimed and agreed that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status,
Recalling that, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations has proclaimed that childhood is entitled to special care and assistance,
Convinced that the family, as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community,
Recognizing that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding,
Considering that the child should be fully prepared to live an individual life in society, and brought up in the spirit of the ideals proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, and in particular in the spirit of peace, dignity, tolerance, freedom, equality and solidarity,
Bearing in mind that the need to extend particular care to the child has been stated in the Geneva Declaration of the Rights of the Child of 1924 and in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child adopted by the General Assembly on 20 November 1959 and recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (in particular in articles 23 and 24), in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (in particular in article 10) and in the statutes and relevant instruments of specialized agencies and international organizations concerned with the welfare of children,
Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, “the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth”,
Recalling the provisions of the Declaration on Social and Legal Principles relating to the Protection and Welfare of Children, with Special Reference to Foster Placement and Adoption Nationally and Internationally; the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (The Beijing Rules); and the Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflict, Recognizing that, in all countries in the world, there are children living in exceptionally difficult conditions, and that such children need special consideration,
Taking due account of the importance of the traditions and cultural values of each people for the protection and harmonious development of the child, Recognizing the importance of international co-operation for improving the living conditions of children in every country, in particular in the developing countries,
Have agreed as follows:
For the purposes of the present Convention, a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.
1. States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child’s or his or her parent’s or legal guardian’s race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.
2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child’s parents, legal guardians, or family members.
1. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.
2. States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for him or her, and, to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures.
3. States Parties shall ensure that the institutions, services and facilities responsible for the care or protection of children shall conform with the standards established by competent authorities, particularly in the areas of safety, health, in the number and suitability of their staff, as well as competent supervision.
States Parties shall undertake all appropriate legislative, administrative, and other measures for the implementation of the rights recognized in the present Convention. With regard to economic, social and cultural rights, States Parties shall undertake such measures to the maximum extent of their available resources and, where needed, within the framework of international co-operation.
States Parties shall respect the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents or, where applicable, the members of the extended family or community as provided for by local custom, legal guardians or other persons legally responsible for the child, to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child, appropriate direction and guidance in the exercise by the child of the rights recognized in the present Convention.
1. States Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life.
2. States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.
1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.
2. States Parties shall ensure the implementation of these rights in accordance with their national law and their obligations under the relevant international instruments in this field, in particular where the child would otherwise be stateless.
1. States Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference.
2. Where a child is illegally deprived of some or all of the elements of his or her identity, States Parties shall provide appropriate assistance and protection, with a view to re-establishing speedily his or her identity.
1. States Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject to judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child. Such determination may be necessary in a particular case such as one involving abuse or neglect of the child by the parents, or one where the parents are living separately and a decision must be made as to the child’s place of residence.
2. In any proceedings pursuant to paragraph 1 of the present article, all interested parties shall be given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings and make their views known.
3. States Parties shall respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child’s best interests.
4. Where such separation results from any action initiated by a State Party, such as the detention, imprisonment, exile, deportation or death (including death arising from any cause while the person is in the custody of the State) of one or both parents or of the child, that State Party shall, upon request, provide the parents, the child or, if appropriate, another member of the family with the essential information concerning the whereabouts of the absent member(s) of the family unless the provision of the information would be detrimental to the well-being of the child. States Parties shall further ensure that the submission of such a request shall of itself entail no adverse consequences for the person(s) concerned.
1. In accordance with the obligation of States Parties under article 9, paragraph 1, applications by a child or his or her parents to enter or leave a State Party for the purpose of family reunification shall be dealt with by States Parties in a positive, humane and expeditious manner. States Parties shall further ensure that the submission of such a request shall entail no adverse consequences for the applicants and for the members of their family.
2. A child whose parents reside in different States shall have the right to maintain on a regular basis, save in exceptional circumstances personal relations and direct contacts with both parents. Towards that end and in accordance with the obligation of States Parties under article 9, paragraph 1, States Parties shall respect the right of the child and his or her parents to leave any country, including their own, and to enter their own country. The right to leave any country shall be subject only to such restrictions as are prescribed by law and which are necessary to protect the national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Convention.
1. States Parties shall take measures to combat the illicit transfer and non-return of children abroad.
2. To this end, States Parties shall promote the conclusion of bilateral or multilateral agreements or accession to existing agreements.
1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.
2. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law.
1. The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of the child’s choice.
2. The exercise of this right may be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; or
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.
1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
2. States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.
3. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
1. States Parties recognize the rights of the child to freedom of association and to freedom of peaceful assembly.
2. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of these rights other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
1. No child shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy, family, or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his or her honour and reputation.
2. The child has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
States Parties recognize the important function performed by the mass media and shall ensure that the child has access to information and material from a diversity of national and international sources, especially those aimed at the promotion of his or her social, spiritual and moral well-being and physical and mental health.
To this end, States Parties shall:
(a) Encourage the mass media to disseminate information and material of social and cultural benefit to the child and in accordance with the spirit of article 29;
(b) Encourage international co-operation in the production, exchange and dissemination of such information and material from a diversity of cultural, national and international sources;
(c) Encourage the production and dissemination of children’s books;
(d) Encourage the mass media to have particular regard to the linguistic needs of the child who belongs to a minority group or who is indigenous;
(e) Encourage the development of appropriate guidelines for the protection of the child from information and material injurious to his or her well-being, bearing in mind the provisions of articles 13 and 18.
1. States Parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child. Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. The best interests of the child will be their basic concern.
2. For the purpose of guaranteeing and promoting the rights set forth in the present Convention, States Parties shall render appropriate assistance to parents and legal guardians in the performance of their child-rearing responsibilities and shall ensure the development of institutions, facilities and services for the care of children.
3. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that children of working parents have the right to benefit from child-care services and facilities for which they are eligible.
1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.
2. Such protective measures should, as appropriate, include effective procedures for the establishment of social programmes to provide necessary support for the child and for those who have the care of the child, as well as for other forms of prevention and for identification, reporting, referral, investigation, treatment and follow-up of instances of child maltreatment described heretofore, and, as appropriate, for judicial involvement.
1. A child temporarily or permanently deprived of his or her family environment, or in whose own best interests cannot be allowed to remain in that environment, shall be entitled to special protection and assistance provided by the State.
2. States Parties shall in accordance with their national laws ensure alternative care for such a child.
3. Such care could include, inter alia, foster placement, kafalah of Islamic law, adoption or if necessary placement in suitable institutions for the care of children. When considering solutions, due regard shall be paid to the desirability of continuity in a child’s upbringing and to the child’s ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic background.
States Parties that recognize and/or permit the system of adoption shall ensure that the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration and they shall:
(a) Ensure that the adoption of a child is authorized only by competent authorities who determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures and on the basis of all pertinent and reliable information, that the adoption is permissible in view of the child’s status concerning parents, relatives and legal guardians and that, if required, the persons concerned have given their informed consent to the adoption on the basis of such counselling as may be necessary;
(b) Recognize that inter-country adoption may be considered as an alternative means of child’s care, if the child cannot be placed in a foster or an adoptive family or cannot in any suitable manner be cared for in the child’s country of origin;
(c) Ensure that the child concerned by inter-country adoption enjoys safeguards and standards equivalent to those existing in the case of national adoption;
(d) Take all appropriate measures to ensure that, in inter-country adoption, the placement does not result in improper financial gain for those involved in it;
(e) Promote, where appropriate, the objectives of the present article by concluding bilateral or multilateral arrangements or agreements, and endeavour, within this framework, to ensure that the placement of the child in another country is carried out by competent authorities or organs.
1. States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure that a child who is seeking refugee status or who is considered a refugee in accordance with applicable international or domestic law and procedures shall, whether unaccompanied or accompanied by his or her parents or by any other person, receive appropriate protection and humanitarian assistance in the enjoyment of applicable rights set forth in the present Convention and in other international human rights or humanitarian instruments to which the said States are Parties.
2. For this purpose, States Parties shall provide, as they consider appropriate, co-operation in any efforts by the United Nations and other competent intergovernmental organizations or non-governmental organizations co-operating with the United Nations to protect and assist such a child and to trace the parents or other members of the family of any refugee child in order to obtain information necessary for reunification with his or her family. In cases where no parents or other members of the family can be found, the child shall be accorded the same protection as any other child permanently or temporarily deprived of his or her family environment for any reason , as set forth in the present Convention.
1. States Parties recognize that a mentally or physically disabled child should enjoy a full and decent life, in conditions which ensure dignity, promote self-reliance and facilitate the child’s active participation in the community.
2. States Parties recognize the right of the disabled child to special care and shall encourage and ensure the extension, subject to available resources, to the eligible child and those responsible for his or her care, of assistance for which application is made and which is appropriate to the child’s condition and to the circumstances of the parents or others caring for the child.
3. Recognizing the special needs of a disabled child, assistance extended in accordance with paragraph 2 of the present article shall be provided free of charge, whenever possible, taking into account the financial resources of the parents or others caring for the child, and shall be designed to ensure that the disabled child has effective access to and receives education, training, health care services, rehabilitation services, preparation for employment and recreation opportunities in a manner conducive to the child’s achieving the fullest possible social integration and individual development, including his or her cultural and spiritual development
4. States Parties shall promote, in the spirit of international cooperation, the exchange of appropriate information in the field of preventive health care and of medical, psychological and functional treatment of disabled children, including dissemination of and access to information concerning methods of rehabilitation, education and vocational services, with the aim of enabling States Parties to improve their capabilities and skills and to widen their experience in these areas. In this regard, particular account shall be taken of the needs of developing countries.
1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health and to facilities for the treatment of illness and rehabilitation of health. States Parties shall strive to ensure that no child is deprived of his or her right of access to such health care services.
2. States Parties shall pursue full implementation of this right and, in particular, shall take appropriate measures:
(a) To diminish infant and child mortality;
(b) To ensure the provision of necessary medical assistance and health care to all children with emphasis on the development of primary health care;
(c) To combat disease and malnutrition, including within the framework of primary health care, through, inter alia, the application of readily available technology and through the provision of adequate nutritious foods and clean drinking-water, taking into consideration the dangers and risks of environmental pollution;
(d) To ensure appropriate pre-natal and post-natal health care for mothers;
(e) To ensure that all segments of society, in particular parents and children, are informed, have access to education and are supported in the use of basic knowledge of child health and nutrition, the advantages of breastfeeding, hygiene and environmental sanitation and the prevention of accidents;
(f) To develop preventive health care, guidance for parents and family planning education and services.
3. States Parties shall take all effective and appropriate measures with a view to abolishing traditional practices prejudicial to the health of children.
4. States Parties undertake to promote and encourage international co-operation with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the right recognized in the present article. In this regard, particular account shall be taken of the needs of developing countries.
States Parties recognize the right of a child who has been placed by the competent authorities for the purposes of care, protection or treatment of his or her physical or mental health, to a periodic review of the treatment provided to the child and all other circumstances relevant to his or her placement.
1. States Parties shall recognize for every child the right to benefit from social security, including social insurance, and shall take the necessary measures to achieve the full realization of this right in accordance with their national law.
2. The benefits should, where appropriate, be granted, taking into account the resources and the circumstances of the child and persons having responsibility for the maintenance of the child, as well as any other consideration relevant to an application for benefits made by or on behalf of the child.
1. States Parties recognize the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child’s physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development.
2. The parent(s) or others responsible for the child have the primary responsibility to secure, within their abilities and financial capacities, the conditions of living necessary for the child’s development.
3. States Parties, in accordance with national conditions and within their means, shall take appropriate measures to assist parents and others responsible for the child to implement this right and shall in case of need provide material assistance and support programmes, particularly with regard to nutrition, clothing and housing.
4. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to secure the recovery of maintenance for the child from the parents or other persons having financial responsibility for the child, both within the State Party and from abroad. In particular, where the person having financial responsibility for the child lives in a State different from that of the child, States Parties shall promote the accession to international agreements or the conclusion of such agreements, as well as the making of other appropriate arrangements.
1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to education, and with a view to achieving this right progressively and on the basis of equal opportunity, they shall, in particular:
(a) Make primary education compulsory and available free to all;
(b) Encourage the development of different forms of secondary education, including general and vocational education, make them available and accessible to every child, and take appropriate measures such as the introduction of free education and offering financial assistance in case of need;
(c) Make higher education accessible to all on the basis of capacity by every appropriate means;
(d) Make educational and vocational information and guidance available and accessible to all children;
(e) Take measures to encourage regular attendance at schools and the reduction of drop-out rates.
2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that school discipline is administered in a manner consistent with the child’s human dignity and in conformity with the present Convention.
3. States Parties shall promote and encourage international cooperation in matters relating to education, in particular with a view to contributing to the elimination of ignorance and illiteracy throughout the world and facilitating access to scientific and technical knowledge and modern teaching methods. In this regard, particular account shall be taken of the needs of developing countries.
1. States Parties agree that the education of the child shall be directed to:
(a) The development of the child’s personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential;
(b) The development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and for the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations;
(c) The development of respect for the child’s parents, his or her own cultural identity, language and values, for the national values of the country in which the child is living, the country from which he or she may originate, and for civilizations different from his or her own;
(d) The preparation of the child for responsible life in a free society, in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of sexes, and friendship among all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups and persons of indigenous origin;
(e) The development of respect for the natural environment.
2. No part of the present article or article 28 shall be construed so as to interfere with the liberty of individuals and bodies to establish and direct educational institutions, subject always to the observance of the principle set forth in paragraph 1 of the present article and to the requirements that the education given in such institutions shall conform to such minimum standards as may be laid down by the State.
In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities or persons of indigenous origin exist, a child belonging to such a minority or who is indigenous shall not be denied the right, in community with other members of his or her group, to enjoy his or her own culture, to profess and practise his or her own religion, or to use his or her own language.
1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to rest and leisure, to engage in play and recreational activities appropriate to the age of the child and to participate freely in cultural life and the arts.
2. States Parties shall respect and promote the right of the child to participate fully in cultural and artistic life and shall encourage the provision of appropriate and equal opportunities for cultural, artistic, recreational and leisure activity.
1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to be protected from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child’s education, or to be harmful to the child’s health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development.
2. States Parties shall take legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to ensure the implementation of the present article. To this end, and having regard to the relevant provisions of other international instruments, States Parties shall in particular:
(a) Provide for a minimum age or minimum ages for admission to employment;
(b) Provide for appropriate regulation of the hours and conditions of employment;
(c) Provide for appropriate penalties or other sanctions to ensure the effective enforcement of the present article.
States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislative, administrative, social and educational measures, to protect children from the illicit use of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances as defined in the relevant international treaties, and to prevent the use of children in the illicit production and trafficking of such substances.
States Parties undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. For these purposes, States Parties shall in particular take all appropriate national, bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent:
(a) The inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any unlawful sexual activity;
(b) The exploitative use of children in prostitution or other unlawful sexual practices;
(c) The exploitative use of children in pornographic performances and materials.
States Parties shall take all appropriate national, bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent the abduction of, the sale of or traffic in children for any purpose or in any form.
States Parties shall protect the child against all other forms of exploitation prejudicial to any aspects of the child’s welfare.
States Parties shall ensure that:
(a) No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age;
(b) No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily. The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time;
(c) Every child deprived of liberty shall be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, and in a manner which takes into account the needs of persons of his or her age. In particular, every child deprived of liberty shall be separated from adults unless it is considered in the child’s best interest not to do so and shall have the right to maintain contact with his or her family through correspondence and visits, save in exceptional circumstances;
(d) Every child deprived of his or her liberty shall have the right to prompt access to legal and other appropriate assistance, as well as the right to challenge the legality of the deprivation of his or her liberty before a court or other competent, independent and impartial authority, and to a prompt decision on any such action.
1. States Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for rules of international humanitarian law applicable to them in armed conflicts which are relevant to the child.
2. States Parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons who have not attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities.
3. States Parties shall refrain from recruiting any person who has not attained the age of fifteen years into their armed forces. In recruiting among those persons who have attained the age of fifteen years but who have not attained the age of eighteen years, States Parties shall endeavour to give priority to those who are oldest.
4. In accordance with their obligations under international humanitarian law to protect the civilian population in armed conflicts, States Parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure protection and care of children who are affected by an armed conflict.
States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to promote physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration of a child victim of: any form of neglect, exploitation, or abuse; torture or any other form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; or armed conflicts. Such recovery and reintegration shall take place in an environment which fosters the health, self-respect and dignity of the child.
1. States Parties recognize the right of every child alleged as, accused of, or recognized as having infringed the penal law to be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child’s sense of dignity and worth, which reinforces the child’s respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of others and which takes into account the child’s age and the desirability of promoting the child’s reintegration and the child’s assuming a constructive role in society.
2. To this end, and having regard to the relevant provisions of international instruments, States Parties shall, in particular, ensure that:
(a) No child shall be alleged as, be accused of, or recognized as having infringed the penal law by reason of acts or omissions that were not prohibited by national or international law at the time they were committed;
(b) Every child alleged as or accused of having infringed the penal law has at least the following guarantees:
(i) To be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law;
(ii) To be informed promptly and directly of the charges against him or her, and, if appropriate, through his or her parents or legal guardians, and to have legal or other appropriate assistance in the preparation and presentation of his or her defence;
(iii) To have the matter determined without delay by a competent, independent and impartial authority or judicial body in a fair hearing according to law, in the presence of legal or other appropriate assistance and, unless it is considered not to be in the best interest of the child, in particular, taking into account his or her age or situation, his or her parents or legal guardians;
(iv) Not to be compelled to give testimony or to confess guilt; to examine or have examined adverse witnesses and to obtain the participation and examination of witnesses on his or her behalf under conditions of equality;
(v) If considered to have infringed the penal law, to have this decision and any measures imposed in consequence thereof reviewed by a higher competent, independent and impartial authority or judicial body according to law;
(vi) To have the free assistance of an interpreter if the child cannot understand or speak the language used;
(vii) To have his or her privacy fully respected at all stages of the proceedings.
3. States Parties shall seek to promote the establishment of laws, procedures, authorities and institutions specifically applicable to children alleged as, accused of, or recognized as having infringed the penal law, and, in particular:
(a) The establishment of a minimum age below which children shall be presumed not to have the capacity to infringe the penal law;
(b) Whenever appropriate and desirable, measures for dealing with such children without resorting to judicial proceedings, providing that human rights and legal safeguards are fully respected. 4. A variety of dispositions, such as care, guidance and supervision orders; counselling; probation; foster care; education and vocational training programmes and other alternatives to institutional care shall be available to ensure that children are dealt with in a manner appropriate to their well-being and proportionate both to their circumstances and the offence.
Nothing in the present Convention shall affect any provisions which are more conducive to the realization of the rights of the child and which may be contained in:
(a) The law of a State party; or
(b) International law in force for that State.
States Parties undertake to make the principles and provisions of the Convention widely known, by appropriate and active means, to adults and children alike.
1. For the purpose of examining the progress made by States Parties in achieving the realization of the obligations undertaken in the present Convention, there shall be established a Committee on the Rights of the Child, which shall carry out the functions hereinafter provided.
2. The Committee shall consist of eighteen experts of high moral standing and recognized competence in the field covered by this Convention.1/ The members of the Committee shall be elected by States Parties from among their nationals and shall serve in their personal capacity, consideration being given to equitable geographical distribution, as well as to the principal legal systems.
3. The members of the Committee shall be elected by secret ballot from a list of persons nominated by States Parties. Each State Party may nominate one person from among its own nationals.
4. The initial election to the Committee shall be held no later than six months after the date of the entry into force of the present Convention and thereafter every second year. At least four months before the date of each election, the Secretary-General of the United Nations shall address a letter to States Parties inviting them to submit their nominations within two months. The Secretary-General shall subsequently prepare a list in alphabetical order of all persons thus nominated, indicating States Parties which have nominated them, and shall submit it to the States Parties to the present Convention.
5. The elections shall be held at meetings of States Parties convened by the Secretary-General at United Nations Headquarters. At those meetings, for which two thirds of States Parties shall constitute a quorum, the persons elected to the Committee shall be those who obtain the largest number of votes and an absolute majority of the votes of the representatives of States Parties present and voting.
6. The members of the Committee shall be elected for a term of four years. They shall be eligible for re-election if renominated. The term of five of the members elected at the first election shall expire at the end of two years; immediately after the first election, the names of these five members shall be chosen by lot by the Chairman of the meeting.
7. If a member of the Committee dies or resigns or declares that for any other cause he or she can no longer perform the duties of the Committee, the State Party which nominated the member shall appoint another expert from among its nationals to serve for the remainder of the term, subject to the approval of the Committee.
8. The Committee shall establish its own rules of procedure.
9. The Committee shall elect its officers for a period of two years.
10. The meetings of the Committee shall normally be held at United Nations Headquarters or at any other convenient place as determined by the Committee. The Committee shall normally meet annually. The duration of the meetings of the Committee shall be determined, and reviewed, if necessary, by a meeting of the States Parties to the present Convention, subject to the approval of the General Assembly.
11. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall provide the necessary staff and facilities for the effective performance of the functions of the Committee under the present Convention.
12. With the approval of the General Assembly, the members of the Committee established under the present Convention shall receive emoluments from United Nations resources on such terms and conditions as the Assembly may decide.
1. States Parties undertake to submit to the Committee, through the Secretary-General of the United Nations, reports on the measures they have adopted which give effect to the rights recognized herein and on the progress made on the enjoyment of those rights
(a) Within two years of the entry into force of the Convention for the State Party concerned;
(b) Thereafter every five years.
2. Reports made under the present article shall indicate factors and difficulties, if any, affecting the degree of fulfilment of the obligations under the present Convention. Reports shall also contain sufficient information to provide the Committee with a comprehensive understanding of the implementation of the Convention in the country concerned.
3. A State Party which has submitted a comprehensive initial report to the Committee need not, in its subsequent reports submitted in accordance with paragraph 1 (b) of the present article, repeat basic information previously provided.
4. The Committee may request from States Parties further information relevant to the implementation of the Convention.
5. The Committee shall submit to the General Assembly, through the Economic and Social Council, every two years, reports on its activities.
6. States Parties shall make their reports widely available to the public in their own countries.
In order to foster the effective implementation of the Convention and to encourage international co-operation in the field covered by the Convention:
(a) The specialized agencies, the United Nations Children’s Fund, and other United Nations organs shall be entitled to be represented at the consideration of the implementation of such provisions of the present Convention as fall within the scope of their mandate. The Committee may invite the specialized agencies, the United Nations Children’s Fund and other competent bodies as it may consider appropriate to provide expert advice on the implementation of the Convention in areas falling within the scope of their respective mandates. The Committee may invite the specialized agencies, the United Nations Children’s Fund, and other United Nations organs to submit reports on the implementation of the Convention in areas falling within the scope of their activities;
(b) The Committee shall transmit, as it may consider appropriate, to the specialized agencies, the United Nations Children’s Fund and other competent bodies, any reports from States Parties that contain a request, or indicate a need, for technical advice or assistance, along with the Committee’s observations and suggestions, if any, on these requests or indications;
(c) The Committee may recommend to the General Assembly to request the Secretary-General to undertake on its behalf studies on specific issues relating to the rights of the child;
(d) The Committee may make suggestions and general recommendations based on information received pursuant to articles 44 and 45 of the present Convention. Such suggestions and general recommendations shall be transmitted to any State Party concerned and reported to the General Assembly, together with comments, if any, from States Parties.
The present Convention shall be open for signature by all States.
The present Convention is subject to ratification. Instruments of ratification shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
The present Convention shall remain open for accession by any State. The instruments of accession shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
1. The present Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day following the date of deposit with the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the twentieth instrument of ratification or accession.
2. For each State ratifying or acceding to the Convention after the deposit of the twentieth instrument of ratification or accession, the Convention shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after the deposit by such State of its instrument of ratification or accession.
1. Any State Party may propose an amendment and file it with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The Secretary-General shall thereupon communicate the proposed amendment to States Parties, with a request that they indicate whether they favour a conference of States Parties for the purpose of considering and voting upon the proposals. In the event that, within four months from the date of such communication, at least one third of the States Parties favour such a conference, the Secretary-General shall convene the conference under the auspices of the United Nations. Any amendment adopted by a majority of States Parties present and voting at the conference shall be submitted to the General Assembly for approval.
2. An amendment adopted in accordance with paragraph 1 of the present article shall enter into force when it has been approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations and accepted by a two-thirds majority of States Parties.
3. When an amendment enters into force, it shall be binding on those States Parties which have accepted it, other States Parties still being bound by the provisions of the present Convention and any earlier amendments which they have accepted.
1. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall receive and circulate to all States the text of reservations made by States at the time of ratification or accession.
2. A reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the present Convention shall not be permitted.
3. Reservations may be withdrawn at any time by notification to that effect addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall then inform all States. Such notification shall take effect on the date on which it is received by the Secretary-General
A State Party may denounce the present Convention by written notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Denunciation becomes effective one year after the date of receipt of the notification by the Secretary-General.
The Secretary-General of the United Nations is designated as the depositary of the present Convention.
The original of the present Convention, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. In witness thereof the undersigned plenipotentiaries, being duly authorized thereto by their respective Governments, have signed the present Convention.
1/ The General Assembly, in its resolution 50/155 of 21 December 1995 , approved the amendment to article 43, paragraph 2, of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, replacing the word “ten” with the word “eighteen”. The amendment entered into force on 18 November 2002 when it had been accepted by a two-thirds majority of the States parties (128 out of 191).
Reflecting on the human cost of abuse and its prevention By Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.
Reflecting on the human cost of abuse and its prevention
EDITORS NOTE: In July 2012 when Archbishop Chaput’s investigation cleared one accused priest, SNAP reacted with sharp criticism of Chaput’s procedure, saying decisions were “held in secrecy for months or weeks until the archbishop and his public relations staffers deem it’s most advantageous to disclose them. Chaput continues to act recklessly and selfishly … with little or no regard for children’s safety.” At the same time, SNAP also called “again” on Archbishop Chaput to proceed to defrock Lynn after his conviction; and for “eliminating Pennsylvania’s archaic, arbitrary, predator-friendly statutes of limitations”. In January 2014, the archdiocese, prominently defended by Chaput, posted bail for Lynn. In April 2015 the state supreme court upheld the initial conviction and revoked Lynn’s bail. He was returned to serve the balance of his 3-to-6 year term. PLEASE read the Editors Notes following the end of the story.
The hypocrisy of Archbishop Charles J. Chaput in the following story is incredibly revealing.
Now from Archbishop Charles J. Chaput’s own hypocritical words:
Throughout the weeks of April, our Commonwealth, along with the rest of the country, has been focused on National Child Abuse Prevention and Awareness Month.
Here in Pennsylvania, our people have come through a very difficult decade on this issue. But the abuse problem is much wider than any one state, profession or demographic group. It cuts through every level of society. Child abuse is an ugly crime; abusing children sexually compounds the evil. Every year we see many thousands of cases of child sexual abuse across the country in a full range of institutions, public and private, religious and secular.
In response, Pennsylvania legislators have passed 20 new laws aimed at preventing child abuse and providing better support for survivors. In doing so, they’ve offered a model for the nation. We owe them our gratitude for their good work. And it’s important to stress that as a Catholic community, we too are committed — just as everyone should be — to ensuring safe environments for children and young people.
The Archdiocese of Philadelphia has a zero tolerance policy for clergy, lay employees and volunteers who engage in sexual misconduct with children. If an accusation of this nature is made, we take immediate action by reporting the matter to law enforcement and cooperating with authorities fully in the course of their work.
We’re committed to educating all those who work with children, as well as the children in our schools and parish religious education programs, so they can recognize signs of abuse and make a report.
As we come to the end of April, it’s worth highlighting some key archdiocesan statistics:
* More than 280 designated Safe Environment Coordinators are now working in our parishes, schools and youth ministries to ensure compliance with state laws and archdiocesan safety policies.
* More than 92,000 adults have received training to recognize, respond and report child abuse since 2003.
* Nearly 30,000 adults have received mandatory reporter training.
* More than 100,000 children have received age-appropriate abuse prevention education.
* The archdiocese has invested more than $2.4 million in education and training aimed at preventing and reporting sexual abuse since 2006.
In addition, the archdiocesan Victim Assistance Program offers compassionate and substantial assistance to individuals and families every year. During the 2013-14 fiscal year alone, the Church in Philadelphia dedicated more than $1.6 million to various modes of assistance including counseling, medication, and vocational support for survivors and their families.
To put it simply: The Philadelphia Catholic community is, and will remain, fully committed to helping survivors of childhood sexual abuse and their families heal, no matter who committed the crime against them or when the crime occurred.
Evil actions in the past can’t be erased and shouldn’t be forgotten. Over the decades sexual abuse has wounded hundreds of innocent lives, both within and outside the Church in Pennsylvania. But the sins of the past need not determine the present or future.
The Catholic Church in the Greater Philadelphia region is dedicated to protecting our young people and families from sexual predators and the suffering they cause — now and always.
EDITORS NOTE: The Archdiocese of Philadelphia did NOT dedicate itself to protecting young people from sexual predators, nor did they do anything about the suffering of the victims. This is extremely well documented.
Cardinals John Krol and Anthony Bevilacqua covered up for their pedophile priests.
Bishop Joseph Cistone also participated in the cover ups, including silencing a nun who tried to alert parishioners at St. Gabriels parish of an abusive priest. Cistone also covered up for other priests and showed himself he was more concerned with the public relations than the sexual abuse of children.
Bishop William Lynn, who was eventually convicted in his part for covering up for “Father” James J. Brennan among others. “According to a scathing grand jury report, Lynn, as secretary of clergy for the archdiocese, concealed the crimes of accused priests and put them in positions in which they could harm more children.
Lynn figured prominently in a scathing 2005 grand jury report that found 63 priests in the archdiocese had been credibly accused of child sexual assault over several decades while local church officials turned a blind eye..
Some of the pedophile priests they covered up for were:
1. “Father” John McDevitt, a religion teacher at Father Judge High School for Boys, abused Richard Green for six months in 1990 and 1991. At the time, the victim’s uncle, Cardinal John Joseph O’Conner served as Archbishop of New York.
2. “Father” Edward Avery, 69, known for his moonlighting work as a disc jockey, pleaded guilty to involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and conspiracy to endanger the welfare of a child. He was immediately sentenced to 2½ to five years in prison. The charges stem from Avery’s abuse of an altar boy at St. Jerome’s Parish in northeast Pennsylvania in 1999, when Avery was 57 and the boy 10. Avery was at St. Jerome’s despite a credible 1992 complaint that led him to undergo psychological testing at an archdiocesan-run psychiatric hospital, according to a 2005 grand jury report. He was pulled from his parish, put on a so-called “health leave” and then reassigned in 1993, the report said.”
3. “Father” James J. Brennan: Brennan is accused of the 1996 rape of a 14-year-old boy.
The Diocese of Allenstown PA had 22 pedophile priests: Thomas J. Bender, Luis A. Bonilla Margarito, Bernard A. Flanagan, Stephen Forish, Francis (Frank) J. Fromholzer, James F. Gaffney, Edward R. Graff, Richard Gulliani, Leo Houseknecht, William E. Jones, Michael S. Lawrence, James J. McHale, Francis J. McNelis, James J. Mihalak, Gabriel M. Patil, Joseph A. Rock, John Paul Sabas, William J. Shields, David Soderland, A. Gregory Uhrig, Andrew A. Ulincy, Ronald J. Yarrosh.
The Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown PA had 27 pedophile priests: Joseph J. Bender, Harold N. Biller, John J. Boyle, Martin A. Brady, James F. Bunn, Andrew Campbell, Thomas M. Carroll, Athanasius C. Cherry, Dennis E. Coleman, Alvin T. Downey, Elwood F. Figurelle, Joseph Gaborek, Bernard V. Grattan, Leonard Inman, Robert J. Kelly, George D. Koharchik, William Kovach, Thomas M. Lemmon, Anthony B. Little, Francis E. Luddy, Thomas K. Mabon, Joseph D. Maurizzo, Francis Mcaa, Martin D. McCamley, William A. Rosensteel, James F. Skupien, Joseph J. Strittmatter.
The Diocese of of Erie PA had 11 pedophile priests: Michael G. Barletta, Donald Bolton, Robert F. Bower, Chester J. Gawronski, H. Desmond McGee Jr., William F. Presley, Samuel B. Slocum, Thomas E. Smith, Daniel J. Taylor, and two un-named priests.
The Diocese of Greenburg PA had 6 pedophile priests: Dennis Dellamalva, Mark F. X. Gruber, Francis M. Lesniak, Gregory F. Premoshis, Roger A. Sinclair, Roger J. Trott.
The Diocese of Harrisburg PA had 7 pedophile priests: John G. Allen, John R. Bostwick Jr., Augustine Giella, David M. (H?) Luck, Guy D. Marsico, Joseph M. Pease, Patrick J. Shannon.
The Diocese of Philadelphia had 133 pedophile priests: Edward V. Avery, William G. Ayers, Phillip R. Barr, James J. Behan, Michael C. Bolesta, John F. Bowe, H. Cornell Bradley, Michael J. Bransfield, James J. Brennan, Robert L. Brennan, Leonard W. Broughan, Craig F. Brugger, James A. Brzyski, George B. Cadwallader, Raymond J. Cahill, Hugh P. Campbell, John A. Cannon, Paul A. Castellani, Pasquale R. Catullo, Gerard W. Chambers, Michael A. Chapman, Arthur B. Chappell, John A. Close, Richard J. Cochrane, James J. Collins, Michael F. Conroy, James J. Coonan, George A. Costigan, Nicholas V. Cudemo, John J. Delli Carpini, Edward M. DePaoli, Joseph L. DiGregorio, Richard D. Dolan, Michael J. Donofrio, John C. Dougherty, William J. Dougherty, Phillip J. Dowling, Peter J. Dunne, Ernest A. Durante, Thomas J. Durkin, James M. Dux, Charles F. Engelhardt, Francis S. Feret, Mark E. Fernandez, Leonard F. Furmanski, Robert W. Gaghan, Francis J. Gallagher, Joseph J. Gallagher, Joseph P. Gallagher, Stanley M. Gana, Stephen M. Garrity, Mark S. Gaspar, Joseph P. Gausch, Francis A. Giliberti, John E. Gillespie, Charles Ginn Jr., David W. Givey, Joseph M. Glatts, Thomas J. Grumm, David I. Hagen, Steven Harris, James T. Henry, Robert J. Hermley, Gerard J. Hoffman, Daniel J. Hoy, John F. Hummell, James M. Iannarella, Stanley Janowski, Richard G. Jones, William T. Joseph, William N. Killian, John Kline, Thomas M. Kohler, Matthew J. Kornacki, Albert T. Kostelnick, Edward P. Kuczynski, Dexter A. Lancetot, David T. Lawlor, Raymond O. Leneweaver, John R. Liggio, Joseph L. Logrip, Joseph E. Macanga, Nilo C. Martins, George J. Mazzota, Joseph F. McCafferty, Michael J. McCarthy, John F. McCole, Charles P. McColgan, Andrew D. McCormick, James J. McGinness III, Joseph M. McKenzie, Richard J. McLoughlin, Donald J. Mills, Joseph R. Monahan, John H. Mulholland, John J. Murray, Michael G. Murtha, Zachary Navit, Henry “Harry” J. Nawn, Charles Newman, John P. Paul, Stephen B. Perzan, Leonard Peterson, Terrance Pinkowski, Ted (Theodore) Podson, Robert Povish, Richard T. Powers, John D. Reardon, Francis P. Rogers, Thomas Rooney, Gerald J. Royer, Joseph F. Sabadish, William L. Santry, Martin J. Satchell, Charles J. Schaeflein, John P. Schmeer, Thomas F. Shea, David C. Sicoli, Charles J. Siegle, Edward J. Smith, Thomas J. Smith, DePaul Sobotka, Louis M. Steingraber, Michael W. Swierzy, Peter Talocci, Carmen F. Taraborelli, Joseph W. Thomas, Francis X. Trauger, Alyosius M. Vath, David E. Walls, Sylwester Wiejata, Thomas J. Wisniewiski.
The Diocese of Pittsburgh PA had 42 pedophile priests: Alvin J. Adams, Jerome Binder, Robert J. Castelucci, Mauro J. Cautela, Charles J. Chatt, Anthony J. Cipolla, M. Eric Diskin, Jason R. Dolan, Richard J. Dorsch, David F. Dzermejko, Ralph J. Esposito, John P. (Jack) Fitzgerald, Richard Ginder, James G. Ginder, James G. Graham, Bernard Joseph Hartman, William Charles Hildebrand, John (Jack) S. Hoehl, Edward G. Huff, Joseph G. Karabin, John Keegan, William Kiefer, James Kline, Henry R. Krawcyzk, John Lukasik, Julius F. May, William J. McCashin, Francis Meder, Ralph Mrvanitz, Lawrence O’Connell, George J. Parme, Francis Pucci, Edward Smith, James E. Somma Jr., Bartley A. Sorenson, Andrew J. Suran, Daniel J. Tisak, Alberta Veri (nun), John W. Wellinger, Joseph Wichmanowski, George Wilt, Robert G. Wolk, Richard “Sade” Zulu.
The Diocese of Scranton PA had 23 pedophile priests: Phillip A. Altavilla, Robert J. Brague, Francis Brennan, Robert N. Caparelli, Christopher Clay, J. Peter Crynes, Eric Ensey, Robert J. Gibson, Unkown First Name Hazzouri, Albert M. Liberatore Jr., James M McAuliffe, Neil P. McLaughlin, Russell E. Motsay, Father Ned, W. (William) Jeffery Paulish, Edward J. Shoback, Thomas P. Shoback, Thomas D. Skotek, Virgil Bradley Tetherow, Robert M. Timchak, Carlos Urrutigoity, Lawrence P. Weniger, Steven J. Wolpert.
Pope John Paul II and the Sex Abuse Case
The world is not ignorant about the presence of lecherous priests in the world but, who would have guessed that the Catholic Church also hosts a few of these perverts of the highest order. Among the most serious cases are the ones involving Cardinal Hans Hermann Groer an Austrian friend of the Pope. The Cardinal was accused of molesting over 2000 boys and young monks in his overall career span. Even then he sailed through the situation because there were no sanctions placed on him.
The next case was related to Marcial Maciel Degollado, the Mexican founder of the ‘Legion of Christ’. This person was accused of not only molesting young boys but fathering a number of children through innumerable women. The reason why Pope John Paul II was disapproved was for obstructing investigation in both these cases. In fact he had been criticized for promoting those individuals who had sex abuse cases pending against them.
Covering up of these cases have been considered to be worse than the crime itself. Cardinal Ratzinger under the auspices of Pope John Paul II had written a letter stating that all sex abuse cases in the Catholic Church be sent to his department and be subject to pontifical secrecy. He had also tried to persuade the Pope to bring them to book, but his opponents in the Vatican managed to block any further enquiry into the issue. In the words of the Present Pope Benedict XVI, ‘the other side had won’.
When the child abuse cases in the Catholic Church had first come to light, the Pope had an acceptable ‘bad apple’ explanation to provide. He said that even as priests some brothers are afflicted by sins that betray the grace of ordination. It is because of these few bad cases that the other brothers, who are conducting their office in the most virtuous manner, with honesty and integrity which sometimes result in heroic self sacrifice, are also tarnished. Although he showed his concern and sympathy to the victims and their families, he called upon the rest to embrace the ‘mysterium crucis’ and commit more fully to the search of holiness.
While H.H Groer was removed as Arch Bishop of Vienna in 1995, Pope Benedict finally managed to oust Maciel in 2006. Further investigations have proved that Maciel had sent pots of money to buy support in the Vatican.
One can give many reasons as to why Pope John Paul II had brushed all this rubbish under the Vatican carpet. It may be that he did not want the people in general to loose their faith on the Church, or it could also be that he believed that some (not all) of these cases were made to frame people in high Vatican offices. Whatever the excuse may be, people will question him for not dealing with these perverts in strict hands. History will show that it was actually Pope Benedict XVI and not Pope John Paul II who had initiated ‘purification’ of the Church.
‘Beautifully crafted’ 24” bronze statues of Pope John Paul II give out an aura of peace and tranquility. This collector’s item is also considered a very thoughtful gift for loved ones’
Bill Donohue, disgusting demon President of the Catholic League for the Defense of Roman Catholic Pedophiles and Criminals
Bill Donohue, disgusting demon President of the Catholic League for the Defense of Roman Catholic Pedophiles and Criminals
Bill Donohue, is basically a demon in the guise of a human being. He is pure and utterly evil and his evil knows no bounds.
This disgustingly evil piece of human dung, believes the following:
It is nobody’s business what the Catholic Church does.
Well yes Bilbo Dildo, it is EVERYONE’S business what the Unholy Roman Catholic Church of Pedophile Pimps, Pedophile Priests and Nuns, and psychos like YOU do. See we have every right to stand up to the evil of your cult of criminals. We have every right to stand up against the incredible amounts of Crimes against Humanity and the Children of the World perpetrated by this cult of criminals and disgustingly evil pedophile pimps and priests.
You state we would have to be Catholic to state anything about the church.
WELL GUESS WHAT BILLY BOB? I AM STILL CONSIDERED A ROMAN CATHOLIC. I HAVE NOT BEEN EXCOMMUNICATED, NOR HAVE I BEEN DISSOLVED FROM THE CHURCH. EVEN THOUGH I WAS RAPED BY THAT DISGUSTING FATHER LEON GAULIN AND OTHERS AT ST THOMAS MORE IN DURHAM NH, EVEN THOUGH I ATTACK YOUR DISGUSTING CULT OF CHILD RAPISTS, CHILD ABUSERS, CHILD MURDERERS AND CHILD ENSLAVERS, EVEN THOUGH I DEMAND THE ARREST AND TRIALS OF ALL CREDIBLY ACCUSED PEDOPHILE PIMP POPES, CARDINALS, BISHOPS AND ARCHBISHOPS FOR THEIR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY AND THE CHILDREN OF THE WORLD AND DEMAND THEIR EXECUTIONS UPON CONVICTION USING THE UNHOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCHES OWN TOOLS OF THE INQUISITIONS…SUCH AS THE JUDAS CHAIR AND POPES PEAR….I AM STILL CALLED A ROMAN CATHOLIC. AS THE RULES STATE, I AM STILL A ROMAN CATHOLIC, ACCORDING TO THIS DISGUSTING CULT, EVEN THOUGH I DO NOT WANT TO BE, BECAUSE OF MY BAPTISM AT ST CHARLES PARISH IN DOVER NEW HAMPSHIRE.
So Billy Bob Pig Face Donohue, whether YOU like it or not? I am still considered a Roman Catholic..and I got every freaking right to spew off about all the Crimes Against Humanity and the Children of the World that were destroyed by your disgusting child rapists and murderers.
Now Billy Bob, you tried to use intimidation and fear against me to shut me up. You paid off Dan Buteau, the prosecutor at Berlin Police Department, you paid off Judge Paul Desjardins of the Berlin District Court to prosecute me and convict me and sentence me to the max, to shut me up. Well Bilbo, bet you didn’t like it when we appealed it to the NH Superior Court and you again, paid off that prosecutor to not only add more charges, but seek to throw me in prison for a long time. Well that did not work either did it Bilbo Dildo? Nope, because now we are in the NH Supreme Court and I would challenge YOU to bribe them like you bribed the others.
Just like you paid off those two cunts to try to murder me eh billbo? Well that did not work either did it? I am still alive and breathing, kicking ass and taking names and still reporting on all your disgusting pedophile pimps and priests aren’t I?
See Bilbo Dildo, I have no fear. There is absolutely NOTHING you can do to me. You cannot take away anything, because I have nothing. You cannot put fear into me, because Gaulin and the rest drove all fear from me. I fear no one, and nothing Bilbo Dildo, I do NOT fear YOU….but I know YOU fear me.
I am going to be a terror to you Bilbo Dildo until the day you die, which will hopefully be soon. I hope in one of your drunken parties, you are driving home and you smash your car into a bridge abutment or a telephone pole and kill yourself. You deserve to die a horrible death Bilbo. Maybe you will get cancer of your outhouse piehole. That would be a beautiful example of Karma. That all the evil, all the disgusting crap you spewed from your nasty piehole, comes back and destroys you. I hope you do get cancer of the mouth and throat Bilbo Dildo and die a slow, painful death, because if anyone deserves it? It is you, you disgusting demon in human flesh.
You are done actually Bilbo. Hugh Hewitt and others are not going to destroy you. You deserve it you freak.
Enjoy your eternity in hell Bill. Being gang raped by the demons of hell.
I STAND FOR ALL THE VICTIMS OF THE UNHOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH OF PEDOPHILES. THAT IS POWER YOU COULD NEVER IMAGINE. I HAVE TENS OF THOUSANDS BEHIND ME BILL….AND THAT IS AN ARMY THAT IS GOING TO TAKE YOU AND THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH DOWN TO IT’S KNEES AND PAY FOR IT’S CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY AND THE CHILDREN OF THE WORLD.
I LEAVE YOU WITH THIS BILBO DILDO. PAY SPECIAL ATTENTION TO VERSE 15 BILLY BOB…AS IT REFERS TO YOUR SORRY SOUL. YOU WILL BURN IN HELL FOR YOU ARE IN FACT, TWICE AS FIT FOR HELL AS THOSE YOU DEFEND AND PROTECT.
Matthew 23 King James Version (KJV)
23 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2 Saying The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat:
3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,
6 And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,
7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.
8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!
17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?
18 And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.
19 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?
20 Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.
21 And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.
22 And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.
23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.
28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
38 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
39 For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.