Meet Timothy Cardinal Dolan, New York’s Newest Comedian
By Vinnie Nauheimer
Speaking at a diocesan convocation on public policy last week freshly minted cardinal; Timothy Dolan made his New York debut as a comedian. The critics all agree that the funniest line of the night was, “If you want an authoritative voice, go to the bishops. They’re the ones that speak for the truths of the faith.” The line was uttered with such solemnity that one almost forgot it was a comedy sketch. It immediately brought the house down and left them rolling in the aisles from belly laughter. Which bishop should we go to for the truth Timothy Dolan? Should we go to Bishop Keith Symons or Bishop Anthony J O’Connell both of who resigned because they themselves were sexual abusers? How about Bishop Raymond Lahey who was caught bringing child pornography into Canada on his computer? What about Bishop Patrick Ziemann who was caught, in his car, getting oral sex from a priest forced to wear a pager so he could be summoned when the bishop had an urge. Perhaps we should consult Bishop Roger Vangheluwe who sexually abused two of his nephews. Okay, enough with the bishops, this could turn into a litany.
Maybe Dolan meant that we go to a higher level of authoritative voice, like that of a cardinal. Edward Cardinal Egan appointed a known abuser in 2002 to St. Benedict’s, a parish with an elementary school, the priest was subsequently defrocked. According to the Bronx Press Review, a parishioner, called Cardinal Egan insane, did Egan speak for truth? In Chicago we have Cardinal George whose faux pas’ are legendary. The most recent involved Fr. McCormack, a known abuser from his days in the seminary, but Cardinal George refused to remove him. This despite Cardinal George being a signatory and to the Charter for Protection of Children produced in Dallas in 2002. I’m sure he speaks for the truth. Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles is another stellar truth teller who spent untold dollars fighting survivors with his adamant refusal to release records of sexually abusing priests. Who would look to anyone but him for the truth? Maybe we should ask for the truth from Philadelphia’s recently deceased Cardinal Anthony J. Bevilacqua who ordered aides to shred a 1994 memo that identified 35 Archdiocese of Philadelphia priests suspected of sexually abusing children? Now there was an authoritative voice that speaks the truths of the faith!
Certainly, we can look to the infallible pope for the truth. The fact that none of the above were ever fired speaks volumes about the amount of truth the pope is willing to part with.
So let’s repeat that line. “If you want an authoritative voice, go to the bishops. They’re the ones that speak for the truths of the faith.” With lines like that, Dolan proved himself a first rate comic, but good comedians need more than one good line to make a performance, and Dolan met the call. The NY Times Reported on March 4, this line from the same performance, “I don’t recall a right to marriage.” In his jocular fashion Cardinal Dolan went on to say that every day someone finds another right. Well he ought to know, the Roman Catholic Church leads the way in finding new rights. They have the right to hide sexually abusing priests, they have the right to destroy evidence, they have the right to shuffle sexually abusing priests from parish to parish, diocese to diocese and in some cases country to country, talk about inventing rights! But more than that; let’s talk about inventing the right to the wholesale destruction of the lives of children without the expectation of consequence.
On a roll, the newly minted prince of Catholic comedy was greeted with peals of laughter when, straight faced, he told the audience, “It’s not about contraception and it’s not about women’s health, it’s about an unwarranted, unprecedented intrusion into a church’s ability…” The audience didn’t know which part of that statement was funnier, the “it’s not about women” or it’s “all about government intrusion into church affairs.” Of course, his hilarious line about, “Fat, balding, Irish bishops,” was in reference to the unwarranted, unprecedented intrusion into Irish governance by the Vatican when it issued a memo to Irish bishops saying that they didn’t have to obey Irish law! Therefore, the fat, balding Irish bishops didn’t turn in criminal priests who were raping, sodomizing and molesting Irish children therefore allowing the abuse to continue. The discovery of this memo warranted an unprecedented public reprimand of the Vatican by Enda Kenny Prime Minister of Ireland. To emphasize the point, Dolan said, “I hate to tell you that the days of the fat, balding, Irish bishops are over,”
For the sake of our children let’s hope he’s right!
Finn Should be Finn ished!
By Vinnie Nauheimer 10/25/11
Once again with great solemnity, a bishop, Finn of Kansas City, has stood at the pulpit and read from the voluminous sacred text written in the “Vatican Book of Excuses.” The church, like most suffering from an addiction, has thousands of excuses for pandering to despicable human beings wearing collars who ravage children for nothing more than their own pleasure. The trigger for opening the Book of Excuses is getting caught: allowing the indefensible (the sexual abuse of children) to continue.
Bishop Finn has gotten caught allowing the indefensible to continue. A grand jury has turned in the indictment and so we shine the current spotlight on him. Just because you put a silk tutu on a slug does not mean you have a prima ballerina. The same is true of bishops. Just because you put gold vestments on a man, anoint him with oil and recite a few well chosen words doesn’t mean you have either a holy man or a man who works for the best interests of Christianity. All Catholics have been taught to believe that bishops are special men who are spiritual descendants of the apostles. However, our experience tells us that what we’ve been taught to believe can’t possibly be reconciled with the actions we’ve seen. Jesus was anything but a hypocrite. After those who would abuse children, his harshest words in the Gospels were for hypocrites. He says this about hypocrites:
Matt: 15:7-9: You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophecy of you, when he said: This people honors me with their lips, But their heart is far from me;
Matthew 23: 25-28: Woe to you, you hypocrites! for you are like whitewashed graves, which appear beautiful on the outside, but are full of death and corruption. In the same way, you outwardly appear righteous, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness…
Is there anything in Bishop Finn’s actions concerning Fr. Ratigan that would give him the appearance of being a hypocrite? Perhaps the following?
1. In 2002 before the world, Pope John Paul II declared: there can be no place in the priesthood for anyone who would abuse a child.
2. From the 2005 Preamble of the Dallas Charter for the protection of children agreed to by the bishops of the United States and revised in 2011: “We make our own the words of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II: that the sexual abuse of young people is “by every standard wrong and rightly considered a crime by society; it is also an appalling sin in the eyes of God” (Address to the Cardinals of the United States and Conference Officers, April 23, 2002).”
3. The Kansas City Star article dated October 6, 2011 stated: “A $10 million settlement was reached in 2008 that included 19 nonmonetary commitments, such as establishing victims’ advocacy programs, immediately reporting any abuse or suspicion of abuse to law enforcement authorities, and defrocking several priests who had been accused of abuse.”
4. In 2008 while in Australia at the World Youth Day, Pope Benedict XVI uttered these words: “These misdeeds, which constitute so grave a betrayal of trust, deserve unequivocal condemnation… “I ask all of you to support and assist your bishops, and to work together with them in combating this evil. Victims should receive compassion and care, and those responsible for these evils must be brought to justice.”
In addition to the charge of breaking civil law, we have a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church who has seemingly disobeyed the direct commands of two popes. Acted contrary to the pledge of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishop’s, Dallas Charter and his own pledge to survivors as part of a legal settlement to immediately report any abuse or suspicions of abuse to law enforcement officials. What can be said about a man that behaves in this manner? Are these suitable credentials for any man we would want to call bishop? Behavior like this makes a laughing stock out of the word bishop both within the church and without the church. Is this a follower of Jesus or one of the hypocrites that Jesus warned us about?
Bishops take a vow of obedience to the Pope; they swear fealty to Christ and his teachings, and are supposed to be men of their word. Timothy tells us in, 1Timothy 3: 1-5, that these are the attributes of a good bishop:
“This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)”
If a man cannot put an immediate end to the sick, vile and degenerate behavior of priests like Ratigan, how can we expect him to take care of the church of God? We can’t! If we can’t hold a bishop blameless, how can we expect him to take care of the church of God? We can’t! If a bishop refuses to listen to the words of two successive Vicars of Christ on earth, can we account him blameless? No! If a bishop can’t adhere to the Dallas Charter promulgated by fellow bishops, and if he can’t abide by his own legal promise to the courts, how in God’s name can we expect him to take care of God’s church? The answer is too obvious!
As bad as the above transgressions may be, there is one worse: a total absence of humanity! For a long time, many have tried without success to understand how and why any man worthy of the name bishop would not do their utmost to protect the most vulnerable of our treasures, children, from sexual predation. There has to be a name for the cold-hearted, amoral, lack of humanity that will not put an immediate stop to the violation of children upon discovering it. Until a better name is found, we will have to use the only name we know that sums up the worldwide group of men who have the dubious distinction of continuously turning their backs on the rape, sodomization, molestation and violation of children: the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church.
I wrote this a couple of years ago and maybe I was ahead of my time, but I think your readers should have a chance to read this because it outlines the reasons why the Vatican should be charged as an international purveyor of child abuse.
This will bring a better understanding of the suit and it certainly supports the reasons for filing it.
By Vinnie Nauheimer 7/19/08
Have you ever felt like the boy who yelled, “The Emperor has no clothes?” Did you ever scream to yourself, “Damn, this is wrong!”? Have you ever seen something so clear and vividly that you wondered, “How come everyone doesn’t see this?” If the same thing happens time and time again, in city after city, in state after state, and in country after country, why do we fail to call it what it is? If the act is a criminal act, perpetrated by members of the same organization, and covered up by the management of said organization, why can’t we just call it organized international crime?
We label those dealing in cocaine, the South American Drug Cartels. We label terrorists with cells in multiple counties with names like Al Queda. There is the Golden Triangle that supplies heroin toSoutheast Asiaand there is the Illicit Drug Trade that refers to the heroin coming out ofAfghanistan. All encompassing multinational criminal enterprises have names like the Mafia, Triad, Cosa Nostra, Yakuza etc. Even stand up institutions like banks have been referred to as Money Launderers. So why haven’t we labeled and pursued the Catholic Church for their worldwide sexual abuse of children?
The crime of clerical sexual abuse committed by Catholic priests has been publicly documented in the following countries around the globe: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Columbia, Croatia, Czech Republic, England, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Mexico, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Philippines, Poland, Slovenia, South Africa, Trinidad and Tobago, United States and Venezuela.1 This should put an end to the fallacious argument used by the last pope that clergy sexual abuse was strictly an American phenomenon. Sexual abuse reported in 28 countries can hardly be called an American problem
The United States, because of its size does deserve a special note. Clergy abuse by Catholic priests has been documented in all of 50 of its states. Most of these states, because of land mass and population, could be a country within itself. Several states in theU.S.have more documented cases of sexual abuse by Catholic priests than most other countries. Does that mean it is a solely a problem in theUnited Statesas JPII stated? No, it just means that the size and population of the U.S. offered more opportunity.
Why, with its priests committing the same crime (the sexual abuse of children) on a global scale, hasn’t the Roman Catholic Church been named as an international sponsor of child abuse? Why when the hierarchy of the RCC has been compounding sex crimes by aiding and abetting these criminals, hasn’t the hierarchy of the RCC been named as an international criminal organization? The priests committing the rape, sodomization and molestation of children are all members of the religious organization known as the Roman Catholic Church. Before becoming priests these men must all go through a rigorous and lengthy indoctrination period. The guidelines established for their seminary formation come from the hierarchy and the leadership inRome. The Catholic Church sustains its candidates for the priesthood while they go through their training. The RCC will not ordain them as priests unless they have completed their training. Only Rome may defrock a priest once they’ve been ordained. Therefore, the criminals who have raped, sodomized and molested children are duly trained and ordained priests of the Catholic Church, which is headquartered in the city/state known as the Vatican. These same criminals, who commit vile acts against children, are the responsibility of the RCC headquartered in the Vatican.
If they weren’t, why does the hierarchy of the RCC go out of their way to protect these criminals by silencing victims, shifting predator priests from parish to parish, state to state and country to country? The hierarchy is nothing more than the layers of management between priests and the pope called bishops and cardinals. If management is protecting criminals, what does that make the manager and what does that make the hierarchy?
A criminal organization!
Further proof of the international scope of these criminal activities comes to us in the form of a secret instruction sent to all bishops around the world in 1962. It also cites an 1867 document as seen below. The operative word here is secret. One of the hallmarks of any organized criminal element is their fanatical obsession with secrecy. Why do criminals obsess over secrecy; because it is the key to their ability to operate freely. Mobsters with high public profiles usually wind up with a bullet in their head. Dictators don’t disclose the location of killing fields, Bank heists are never advertised in the local paper. Drug dealers don’t hold press conferences to announce the arrival of drug shipments. Pedophiles don’t wear neon signs proclaiming their proclivity, and the RCC will do everything in their power to keep child sex abuse and the abuser a secret. The instruction Crimen Sollicitationis gives an unprecedented view into the Catholic Church’s obsession with secrecy. If nothing else, Crimen Sollicitationis shows how the Church has conspired to keep crimes against children a secret for well over a century as seen in this excerpt from the English translation,
11. Because, however, what is treated in these cases has to have a greater degree of care and observance so that those same matters be pursued in a most secretive way, and, after they have been defined and given over to execution, they are to be restrained by a perpetual silence (Instruction of the Holy Office, February 20, 1867, n. 14), each and everyone pertaining to the tribunal in any way or admitted to knowledge of the matters because of their office, is to observe the strictest ++7++ secret, which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office, in all matters and with all persons, under the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae,2
The penalty for breaking secrets (talking) about a priest involved in the sexual abuse of a child is the worst punishment that could be meted out upon a believer of Catholic Doctrine. Their history is replete with examples of people who have chosen to die rather than forfeit their salvation.
This 1962 instruction, called Crimen Sollicitationis, was signed by the Pope John XXIII. According to Fr. Tom Doyle, noted Canon Lawyer and survivor advocate, it is very similar to an instruction issued in 1922. The 1962 instruction was reaffirmed in 2001 under the signature of the current pope who at the time was the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.3 Why one has to ask, is it necessary to say the same thing three times in less than a century? The logical conclusion is that it has been a long recognized problem
Even though the name Crimen Sollicitationis refers to the crime of soliciting in the confessional, the section marked Title V deals with the sexual abuse of children. Title V of Crimens Sollicitationis is subtitled: “The Worst Crime” as seen from this excerpt:
The Worst Crime
73. To have the worst crime, for the penal effects, one must do the equivalent of the following: any obscene, external act, gravely sinful, perpetrated in any way by a cleric or attempted by him with youths of either sex or with brute animals (bestiality).
74. Against accused clerics for these crimes, if they are exempt religious, and unless there takes place at the same time the crime of solicitation, even the regular superior can proceed, according to the holy canons and their proper constitutions, either in an administrative or a judicial manner. However, they must communicate the judicial decision pronounced as well as the administrative decision in the more serious cases to the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office.4
The wording of Title V is extremely important as it confirms theVatican’s own knowledge and acceptance of the fact that the sexual abuse of children, regardless of sex, is a crime. TheVaticandid not use the words evil, sinful, offensive, lapse of judgment, moment of weakness or illness. They used the word “crime” which is the only word that can adequately describe the act of a priest preying on a child for his own sexual gratification. Therefore, by stating that “the sexual abuse of children is a crime,” theVaticantacitly acknowledges before God and man that priests who commit the crime of having sex with children, are in fact criminals! They also demand that these criminal acts be reported to their international headquarters, the Vatican.
Criminals commit crimes. Sex with children is a crime under both Canon and Civil Law. Therefore, there can be no doubt that priests who commit the crime of sexual abuse with children are criminals! Ipso facto, those who protect these criminals are themselves guilty of aiding and abetting criminals. TheVaticanhas known for centuries that the sexual abuse of children is a criminal offense. In that, they are in total agreement with the secular law of just about every country on earth.
Not only is the sexual abuse of children considered a crime by the Vatican, but to add emphasis to the matter, the Vaticanchose to label it “The Worst Crime.” Of all the adjectives that are available to describe a crime, the Vatican chose to call the sexual abuse of children “The Worst.” What does that make the men who allow these sexual predators ply their trade unabated? What does this do to the commonly used hierarchal defense, “I didn’t know?” What does it say about the hundreds of bishops in 28 known countries around the world who failed to live up to theVatican’s standards? What does it say about a Vatican that tolerated these failures?
Crimen Sollicitationis directs the bishops to prosecute crimes of child sexual abuse? Failing to do so makes them all scofflaws! They scoffed at every indecency perpetrated on the bodies of children around the world. Neither bishops nor theVaticancan claim ignorance of the law anymore! Whether it was an internal or external law, they failed to prosecute the rapists, sodomizers and molesters in their midst; by their own account, the criminal element.
Therefore, I accuse!
Due to the global ongoing sexual abuse and cover-up by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, it is safe to assume that the only part of Crimen Sollicitationis that was adhered to was the demand for secrecy. Up until 2002 almost every settlement involving sexual abuse by a priest came with an enforceable gag order on the victim. The victims were silenced while most offending priests were moved to new hunting grounds.
The logical question to ask is, “Cui Bono” who benefits? Who benefits from the silence? It could be argued that the priest and his accuser benefit from the silence. However, since there were no remedies for the care, compensation or treatment of the victim, it is hard to see how victims benefited from Crimen instruction. There has never been any proof whatsoever of rampant false charges being brought against innocent priests. Therefore innocent priests haven’t benefited. So who are the chief beneficiaries of the document Crimen Sollicitationis? The sexually abusive priest and the Roman Catholic Church are the only beneficiaries.
Therefore, I accuse!
Lest Crimen sidetrack us, the salient points are: 1. The document was sent from the International Headquarters. 2. The document was sent out globally. 3. The document was sent in secrecy. 4. The document demanded secrecy. 5. The penalty for violating secrecy is the harshest penalty the church can mete out: excommunication. 7. It labels the sexual abuse of children as “The Worst Crime” thereby admitting to the world theVatican’s complete understanding of the vile nature of the act of sexually abusing children.
By their own hand they are condemned.
In the 28 countries we know about, the rape, sodomization, and molestation of children are publicly documented. Why then hasn’t Interpol gotten involved? Interpol states that the protection of children is one of their primary goals. This is the first paragraph taken from Interpol’s page on children:
Crimes against children
Children are the most vulnerable individuals in our society; they are also the most precious commodity that the world has and have a right to be protected from all forms of abuse. INTERPOL as an organization is also committed to eradicating the sexual abuse of children and has passed several resolutions making crimes against children one of International policing top priorities.5
They tell us that, not preventing, but eradicating (wiping out) sexual abuse is one of their top priorities. How can the sexual abuse of children be a top priority when the chief global culprit, the Roman Catholic Church has not been formerly accused by either the UN or Interpol?
The evidence is abundant for any who would make even a cursory examination of the facts. The Dallas Morning News did an entire series on the international scope of both clergy sexual abuse and its cover-up. Central to the series was the theme of hierarchy moving predator priests internationally in order to save them from being tried for crimes committed or to provide new hunting grounds or both.6
The facts accuse!
The need to protect children around the world is a global priority of United Nations. The U.N. through its UNICEF organization has put together “The Convention on the Rights of the Child.” Here are articles nineteen and thirty-four from that convention, which address the sexual abuse of children.
1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.
States Parties undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. For these purposes, States Parties shall in particular take all appropriate national, bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent:
(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.7
I accuse the RCC of violating the Convention on the Rights of the Child!
The Holy See, which could be a member of the United Nations by virtue of the fact that theVaticanis a city-state, has elected not to become a member of the UN. Rather it has been granted the nomenclature of permanent observer. This means that they enjoy the full rights of every sovereign member except the right to vote. In this way they can lobby for whatever they desire and not have to go on record as voting for or against any issue.
They chose to not to support “The Convention on the Rights of the Child.” The Holy See declared that “the application of the Convention should be compatible in practice with the particular nature of the Vatican City State and of the sources of its objective law.” in a statement issued when they declined to be a signatory. To date, all members but two have ratified the Convention.8
The United Nations through Interpol, its international police agency, and UNICEF, their children’s agency recognize the need to police and prevent the sexual abuse of children throughout the world. They state this is a top priority. The Convention on the Rights of the Child, which has been widely accepted by governments around the world, seeks to end the sexual abuse of children. Why then have the UN, UNICEF, and Interpol chosen to totally ignore the most public, international series of sex crimes and cover-ups against children running from the twentieth into the twenty-first century?
Having established that the sexual abuse of children is accepted by the RCC as being a criminal act, it follows that aiding and abetting criminals is also a crime. The international criminal activity of aiding and abetting sexual predators by the RCC is well documented. The award winning newspaper The Dallas Morning News did an excellent series of articles dealing with the international flight of pedophile priests to escape prosecution entitled Runaway Priests. The following are excerpts from some of their articles as listed on the website Bishop-accountability.org.
Dr. Navarro-Valls (chief spokesperson for the pope) previously declined to comment on The News’ investigation, which found more than 200 accused priests, brothers and other Catholic workers hiding across international borders and living in unsuspecting communities, often with the church’s support. About 30 of the men were wanted by law enforcement in another country.9
Where is Interpol? Where is the outcry from UNICEF?
Bishop Thomas V. Daily of the Diocese of Brooklyn, in an exchange of correspondence with a Venezuelan bishop in 1991 about allegations against Father Diaz, praised the priest’s work in his diocese even as a 60-count indictment was pending against him inQueenson child sexual abuse charges. Later that year, after pleading guilty to three counts of sexual abuse in the case, Father Diaz was deported toVenezuela, where the pattern of victimizing young boys continued unabated.
And so it went throughout Father Diaz’s ministry. Moving from country to country, from parish to parish, from victim to victim, he was often held unaccountable by church officials and was treated delicately by some law enforcement authorities, the interviews and documents show.10
How can the above be anything but an international criminal conspiracy?
His order, the Salesians of Don Bosco, has long moved priests accused of sexual abuse from country to country, away from law enforcement and victims. Indeed, it is how many others in the Catholic Church have dealt with the problem a yearlong Dallas Morning News investigation has found.11
The crimes committed by the hierarchy of the RCC against the children of the world have been documented many times in many countries. In each country fromPoland, toIreland, to theUnited Statesaround and down toAustralia, the story is the same. Priests who commit criminal acts of sexual abuse against children are shuffled from country to country with no regard for either local or international law. These priests are shuffled by a complicit hierarchy who are guilty of aiding and abetting criminals. Once transferred, these priests are free to prey upon a fresh population of unsuspecting families who revere the priest as god’s representative on earth.
In 2002 Pope John Paul II stated before the world, “There is no room in the priesthood for those who sexually abuse children.”12 But nothing was done; priests were still being shuffled and names of priestly perpetrators are still a closely guarded secret. In April of 2008, while on the plane over to the United States, Benedict XVI said, “I am deeply ashamed”13 while referring to the Clergy Sex Abuse Scandal. OnJuly 19, 2008, inAustralia, he said,
“I ask all of you to support and assist your bishops, and to work together with them in combating this evil. Victims should receive compassion and care, and those responsible for these evils must be brought to justice.”14
“AND THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE EVILS MUST BE BROUGHT TO JUSTICE!” Strong words from the pope! The pope is an honorable man; bishops and cardinals are all honorable men and they speak well. Yet nothing was said about revoking Crimen Sollicitationis. Did he forget that as Cardinal Ratzinger in 2001, he reaffirmed its validity? He can say one thing publicly, but as long as he still binds everyone with knowledge of clergy abuse to the absolute law of secrecy under the chapter 11, “ a secret of the Holy Office,15” the pope is only mouthing words. As long as Cardinals, Law, Mahony, George, Egan and Llevada remain in office, he is only mouthing words. As long as bishops, and the leaders of religious orders who shuffled pedophiles from country to country remain in the priesthood, the pope is only mouthing words. The pope is the only one who can start bringing those responsible for these evils to justice!
It is time to put an end to the global scourge of clerical child abuse and put these criminal priests behind bars along with the members of the hierarchy who have purposefully aided them. (It seems that Pope Benedict agrees with me.) These crimes are a violation of God’s law, Church law, Civil law, and International law. (all covered in this treatise) As proven in theUnited States, the only thing that will change the way the RCC harbors their criminals is a courtroom. Interpol must aid in the capture of these international child abusing fugitives and the U.N. must bring charges against theVaticanin theWorld Court. Only the credible threat of listing theVaticanas a criminal organization, making them stand trial for the abuse of tens of thousands of children and covering-up for thousands of priests will force the much needed changes while making the world a safer place for children. Interpol and the UN had every right to get involved in the clergy abuse scandal because it violates their conventions. Now both the UN and Interpol have an invitation to get involved straight from the pope’s mouth. Pope Benedict XVI has just asked for “aid and assistance” followed up by “those responsible for these evils must be brought to justice.” The Vicar of Christ on earth is asking for help in bringing to justice to those who committed and helped in crimes of sexual abuse against children. What greater invitation can be made?
Note 1. To any lawyers who may represent or have represented survivors of sexual abuse. Crimen Sollicitationis means “crime of solicitation” which refers to crimes of the confessional. Reading this text is extremely difficult because everything up until Title V is about soliciting in the confessional. Title V paragraph 72 states: “Those things that have been stated concerning the crime of solicitation up to this point are also valid, changing only those things necessary to be changed by their very nature, for the worst crime,” Take Crimen Sollicitationis (English version) and put it in a Word document. Then do a find/replace with find Solicitation and replace it with child abuse. You will be amazed at how it clarifies the document giving you a clearer understanding of what Crimen Sollicitationis says about the clergy abuse of children.
Author’s note: I have had a number of people tell me that I am wrong about Crimens and it only has to do with cases of violation of the confessional. My response to them has always been, “When was the last time you saw a four legged animal go to confession?” Child abuse and bestiality are both mentioned under title five. Animals don’t go to confession and therefore the bonds of secrecy apply to child abuse as well as bestiality as outlined in Title V, “The Worst Crime” Therefore this is a willful doctrine encouraging silence about abuse.
2. http://www.priestsofdarkness.com/crimen.pdf July 10, 2008
3. The 1922 Instruction and the 1962 Instruction “Crimen Sollicitationis,” Promulgated by theVatican: Thomas Doyle, O.P., J.C.D.June 30, 2008
4. http://www.priestsofdarkness.com/crimen.pdf July 10, 2008
5. http://www.interpol.int/Public/Children/Default.asp July 11, 2008
6. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/longterm/stories/Runaway_priests_hiding_in_plain_sight.5ee1e9be.html, July 11, 2008
7. http://www.interpol.int/Public/Children/Conventions/unConvCR.asp July 12, 2008
8. http://www.unicef.org/pon95/chil0008.html July 12, 2008
12. http://www.poynterextra.org/extra/abusetracker/2002_04_21_archive.htm July 18, 2008
14. http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=2&ContentID=85771 July 19, 2008
15. http://www.priestsofdarkness.com/crimen.pdf July 10, 2008
A Declaration of Independence from Current Hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church.
By Vinnie Nauheimer
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for the people to dissolve the religious bands which have connected them with Rome, and to assume among the gifts of the God, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Jesus and the church entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men and women are created equal and can serve the Lord, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, the pursuit of Happiness, Justice and Unmolested Children.-That to secure these rights, Religions are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from God and the consent of the followers, -That whenever any Form of Religion becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish the ruling hierarchy, and to institute new hierarchy, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect the practice of the Principles of their Religion and the Safety and Happiness of their Children. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Religions long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer at the hands of Rome, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of, sexual abuses, lies, hypocrisy, denial and blame shifting, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such a vile hierarchy, and to provide new Guards for their future security and that of their children.-Such has been the patient sufferance of the Catholic Laity; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former hierarchal structure. The history of the present hierarchy is a history of repeated injuries, deceptions and hypocrisies all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over the Catholic Laity. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
- Whereas priests and bishops of the Roman Catholic Church have been found guilty of raping, sodomizing and molesting minors around the world.
- Whereas the hierarchy of the RCC has known of these criminal acts for decades and made every effort conceivable to hide these acts from the public.
- Whereas the hierarchy of the RCC has used every means at their disposal to silence and defame those who complained about these criminal acts against children.
- Whereas the hierarchy of the RCC did nothing to protect children and rid themselves of the priests responsible for these criminal acts until force to by an enraged public.
- Whereas the hierarchy of the RCC by their refusal to act has brought great shame, humiliation and scandal to the people of the Roman Catholic Church.
- Whereas the hierarchy of the RCC has consistently refused to take the responsibility for their failings in causing this scandal.
- Whereas the hierarchy has continuously foisted ludicrous excuses including but not limited to blaming survivors, the media, lawyers, psychologists and psychiatrists, Vatican II, the Sexual Revolution, etc. upon the laity.
- Whereas the hierarchy of the RCC has put themselves above the words of Jesus Christ.
- Whereas the hierarchy of the RCC has ignored the words of Scripture.
- Whereas the hierarchy of the RCC has ignored the precepts of Canon Law
- Whereas the hierarchy of the RCC has ignored the precepts of the Catechism.
- Whereas the hierarchy of the RCC have put themselves above Civil Law.
- Whereas the hierarchy of the RCC has ignored that which is the most wholesome and necessary for the good of the Eucharistic Body.
- Whereas the hierarchy of the RCC has silenced and ostracized religious men and women who have criticized their sinful and criminal behavior.
- Whereas the hierarchy of the RCC has established a double standard insofar as they have laicized offending priests, but have not laicized one offending bishop.
- Whereas the hierarchy of the RCC has deliberately withheld information from civil authorities and hidden from view the depository of their Records regarding sexually abusing priests and bishops.
- Whereas the hierarchy of the RCC, for the sole purpose of fatiguing survivors into compliance, has dragged court cases on for years with despicable measures hoping the truth would disappear.
- Whereas the hierarchy of the RCC has dissolved parish councils for opposing church closings and fired consultants they have hired when the answers weren’t to their liking thereby flaunting their power and ignoring the rights of the faithful.
- Whereas the hierarchy of the RCC by both their omissions and commissions have caused untold numbers of Catholics to leave the church.
In every stage of these our Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. Princes of the church whose character is thus marked by every act which may define Tyrants, is unfit to be the ruler of the church whose principles were established by Jesus Christ.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our hierarchy. We have warned them many times to of both their refusal and the refusal of Rome to extend protections to our children, families and beliefs. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our anger and the abuse of our children. We have appealed to their sense of justice, religious conviction and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common God and Savior to disavow these transgressions, which, would inevitably interrupt our spiritual health and welfare. The local bishops too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, as told to us by Jesus Christ separate the wheat from the chafe understanding that He spoke to us in these words.
“Be on your guard against false prophets; they come to you looking like sheep on the outside, but on the inside they are really like wild wolves. You will know them by what they do. Thorn bushes do not bear grapes, and briers do not bear figs. A healthy tree bears good fruit, but a poor tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a poor tree cannot bear good fruit. And any tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know the false prophets by what they do” (Matthew 7.15-20)
We, therefore, the Catholics of the World, know what we have to do. Appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of the Roman Catholic Religion, solemnly publish and declare, That the laity by God’s Right ought to be Free and Independent of the tyranny, sexual abuse and oppression foisted upon them by the current hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church; that the Laity be Absolved from all Allegiance to Rome, and that all Religious connection between the Laity and current hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent thinking Catholics, we have full Power to keep our faith, our children safe, to ordain those who are deemed worthy regardless of sex or sexual persuasion, to elect our own bishops, to rescind that right when a bishop fails in his obligations and to do all other Acts and Things which independent Catholic thinkers should do in their effort to give honor and glory to God. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Souls and our sacred Honor.
John Jay Study Equates Hierarchy’s Mentality to that of Abusing Priests
By Vinnie Nauheimer
Did the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops unwittingly expose a direct link between their actions and those of sexually abusing priests with the John Jay Study? The recently released John Jay report The Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010 indicates that they have. The study, has received a lot of press over what wasn’t said, however, we may need to pay more attention to what was said. The study, which the USCCB commissioned, clearly demonstrates the behavior of the hierarchy when dealing with abusive priests is as fundamentally flawed as that of abusive priests!
In an effort to explain how abusers can continue to abuse, the researchers delve into the techniques employed by an abuser to rationalize his heinous crime thereby allowing him to continue abusing. When reading these techniques, one fact jumps out at the reader, “These are the same tactics the hierarchy has used.” If the reader happens to be a survivor, he or she says, “They did these things to me and in doing so re-victimized me!” It is astonishing that none of the researchers either recognized or pointed out how the behaviors of bishops and abusers mirror each other. This information is critical to understanding just how sick the mentality of the hierarchy was when dealing with victims. Neutralization techniques also explains how and why bishops could live with their actions after permitting the rape, sodomization and molestation of children by putting abusing priests back on the street and how they could re-victimize those survivors who summoned the strength to complain.
The techniques of neutralization are not something made up by the researchers at John Jay. They are accepted ideas upon which many books have been written and studies done. According to Wikipedia: “Techniques of neutralization are a theoretical series of methods by which those who commit illegitimate acts temporarily neutralize certain values within themselves which would normally prohibit them from carrying out such acts, such as morality, obligation to abide by the law, and so on. In simpler terms, it is a psychological method for people to turn off ‘inner protests’ when they do, or are about to do something wrong.” As applied here, it allowed the bishops to cast off the mantles of both humanity and Christianity.
This is the relevant passage from the John Jay Study quoting Sykes and Matza, two well known researchers in this field:
One factor that is consistent with nearly all sexual abusers is the adoption of techniques of neutralization,” which alleviate feelings of guilt and shame, thus enabling offenders to commit the acts of abuse. Sykes and Matza list five primary neutralization techniques: the denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial of the victim, condemnation of the condemners, and appeal to higher loyalties.1
For ease of understanding, the five techniques of neutralization will be listed as they appear above. Below each technique are annotated clear cut examples citing how each technique was used by the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church against survivors of clerical abuse who had the audacity to speak out. Several of these techniques are addressed within the pages of the John Jay Study have been attributed to the hierarchy. However, they were identified as errors in judgment made by the hierarchy and not their true name, Neutralization Techniques.
Any neutralization technique admitted to in the John Jay Study is in bold and italicized. Underneath these examples may appear clarifications of just how harshly the example was used in real life. This list could go on ad nauseum, but for brevity’s sake, only a few examples are used under each technique to prove the point.
Denial of Responsibility
• Diocesan leaders attempted to deflect personal liability for retaining abusers by relying on therapists’ recommendations or by employing legalistic arguments about the status of priests.2
Nothing is more obscene than the repeated legal machinations used by bishops in their denial of their responsibility for the criminal actions of the priests under their jurisdiction.
Cardinal Egan Archbishop of New York, while bishop of the archdiocese of Bridgeport, CT presented this argument to the courts: The archdiocese was not responsible because priests were independent contractors and not employees of the diocese.3
A similar argument was put forth that stated the sexual abuse of minors was part of the priest’s job description and therefore the diocese was not responsible for his actions. This same argument was later used by the Vatican to defend itself.4
• The response of diocesan officials to civil litigation by victims was often vigorous and perceived as aggressive and intimidating.5
The following is a list of the vigorous, aggressive and intimidated devices used against victims and their families who spoke out: Blaming rape victims for their own recklessness, Hiring private investigators to track down incriminating evidence, Suing victims for slander, Suing minor victims’ parents for failing to watch over them, Intimidating witnesses, Concealing evidence, Stonewalling court proceedings and Denying knowledge of abuse — unless the victims can prove otherwise.6
Persisting in his efforts to make the complaint, he faced a series of responses from diocesan officials: “You must be mistaken; you’re the only one; you’re going to ruin this priest’s life; you’re lying; why now after all these years? Their first response was denial; the second, you’re the only one; if they didn’t work, then obfuscation. Last was the appeal to guilt: It’s your fault; you seduced Father. You’ll ruin his life.”7
Denying the Victim
The hierarchy became incredibly astute at denying the victim with a plethora of well thought out strategies. As the abuse scandal grew, they honed these skills until a victim of clergy abuse who complained had about as much of a chance of being heard as a sparrow in the midst of a tornado.
Tactics were employed that insured victims and their families were run around in circles, sometimes for months or years.
• Diocesan leaders rarely provided information to local civil authorities and sometimes made concerted efforts to prevent reports of sexual abuse by priests from reaching law enforcement, even before the statute of limitation expired.8
• Diocesan officials tried to keep their files devoid of incriminating evidence. The exercise of the episcopal prerogative to maintain “secret archives” was at odds with the advice of counsel and the guidelines of the Five Principles.9
With Cardinal Mahony getting ready to retire from the Roman Catholic Los Angeles Archdiocese, his eminence is pulling some strange, ill-conceived moves again, now refusing to maintain an updated list of sexually abusive priests on the archdiocese’s web site.10
In California, a bishop reprimanded a priest for writing a letter of apology to an 11-year-old girl he had molested. After a transfer to a rural parish and a promotion to pastor, the priest was accused of abusing three victims at his new assignment, including a 3-year-old girl. The diocese’s lawyer sought to deflect responsibility from Church leaders, stating that a psychiatric evaluation of the priest, who admitted abusing 25 children, did not “render any diagnosis of pedophilia.”11
B. Archdiocese leaders employed deliberate strategies to conceal known abuse.
In the face of crimes they knew were being committed by their priests, Church leaders could have reported them to police. They could have removed the child molesters from ministry, and stopped the sexual abuse of minors by Archdiocesan clerics. Instead, they consistently chose to conceal the abuse rather than to end it. They chose to protect themselves from scandal and liability rather than protect children from the priests’ crimes.12
Roughly two-thirds of the top U.S. Catholic leaders have allowed priests accused of sexual abuse to keep working, a practice that spans decades and continues today, a three-month Dallas Morning News review shows.13
Appealing to a Higher Authority
The case files are filled with victims who were told that by going public they would hurt the church; to belabor the point is a waste of time.
Who better to use as an example appealing to a higher authority than that of Pope John Paul II? In 2002 he called the American bishops to Rome and made this proclamation about Clergy Abuse. He called it “Mysterium Iniquitatis” or in laymen’s terms, “the mystery of evil” thereby shifting the blame from priests to the second most powerful entity in the world, Satan. Not only did he appeal to a higher authority, but he denied any fault of their own.
In the world according to Father Benedict Groeschel, the Catholic Church’s sexual abuse scandal is largely the stuff of fiction. Reporters “doing the work of Satan” are driven to lie, the New York priest says, because they hate the church’s moral teachings.14
“I told my mom that he had hugged me in a very uncomfortable way and that he had kissed me in his bedroom on his bed and that I was lying down.” She said her stepfather contacted another priest, who reported the matter to Monsignor Dennis Dorney, vicar general of the Tulsa Diocese. “They advised us so many times over and over again, ‘Don’t say anything until he is gone, because it would hurt the church.’ “15
The case files are filled with victims who were told that by going public they would hurt the church; to belabor the point is a waste of time.
Minimization of Harm
• Diocesan leaders failed to understand the importance of direct contact with victims, thereby giving the impression that they felt no personal responsibility for the harm sustained by victims.16
• The bishops did whatever they felt like doing and whatever they could to avoid tarnishing their image.17
Father Rogers was never punished or held to account for his unchecked sexual predations or the devastation they caused. He was permitted to retire in 1995, his “good name” intact. The message clearly communicated by the Archdiocese’s actions — to victims and abusers alike — was that it would protect the reputation of its priests at all costs. This twisted sense of priorities was not lost on Fr. Rogers. In 2002, according to a Philadelphia Inquirer article, Fr. Rogers admitted to having sexual relations with Russell but minimized its significance and questioned the importance of the disclosure. Father Rogers said that the abuse “may have happened but it was not as prolonged as he says it was … Naturally, he was young and I was older, so I should have known better. I don’t know why it has to come out now … It will just ruin my reputation.”18
To this day, bishops are still doing this. No greater example can be given then the John Jay Study itself; paid for by the bishops to exonerate the bishops. As noted in the first paragraph in this section, they paint a nice picture that says, “Bishops gave the impression” when in fact, they never gave a damn about the victims. Of the 300 bishops in the United States there has only been one advocate of survivors, Bishop Gumbleton and he only became an advocate after he retired.
Of the 300 plus cardinals around the world, there is not one who can be called an advocate for victims.
Perhaps the most notable minimization of victims is the lack of the use of the word crime. Crime is omitted from the Title. Sexual abuse of minors is a crime and it was a crime prior to the Sexual Revolution. A far more accurate title would have been The Causes and Context of the Crime of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010. Yet even this minimizes the harm done. The words “sexual abuse” are a very soft term that makes the rape, sodomization and molestation of children more palatable because sexual abuse is a catchall. It keeps the readers guessing. Which sounds better, 1,000 children were raped by priests or 1,000 children were sexually abused by priests?
The second play on words was to reduce the impact of the word pedophile. To this extent, the ephebophile word was created. A word, that the studies authors are quick to point out, is not in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). So why use it? The ephebophile is someone who has rapes, sodomizes or molests post pubescent children over thirteen, but under eighteen. The church wanted to create confusion, doubt and minimize the harm. By their standards, a priest sodomizing a fifteen year old is not as shocking as a priest sodomizing a ten-year-old. If a priest has anal sex with a fifteen-year-old, according to the church, that is a homosexual relationship and not “statutory rape” as it should be called. The hierarchy and their minions are adept linguists who are well practiced in the art of neutralization techniques and verbiage.
Condemning the Condemners
• The response of diocesan officials to civil litigation by victims was often vigorous and perceived as aggressive and intimidating18.
Persisting in his efforts to make the complaint, he faced a series of responses from diocesan officials: “You must be mistaken; you’re the only one; you’re going to ruin this priest’s life; you’re lying; why now after all these years? Their first response was denial; the second, you’re the only one; if they didn’t work, then obfuscation. Last was the appeal to guilt: It’s your fault; you seduced Father. You’ll ruin his life.”19
Roman Catholic Bishop Bernando Álvarez said “There are 13 year old adolescents who are under age and who are perfectly in agreement with, and what’s more wanting it, and if you are careless they will even provoke you,” he said.20
A Roman Catholic bishop in Mexico has sparked outrage by suggesting eroticism on television and internet pornography were to blame for child sex abuse by priests. He also claimed sex education in schools was making it more difficult for priests to remain celibate. Bishop Felipe Arizmendi was speaking before the Pope arrived in Malta where he is meeting victims of abuse by Catholic priests.21
Boston’s beleaguered Cardinal Bernard Law is now making his yearly fund-raising appeal to the city’s 2 million Catholics. He needs $16 million for the chancery’s overhead–and won’t get it. His approval rating sank to a new low last week when he asserted in court papers that Gregory Ford was responsible for his own alleged abuse, through “negligence,” despite being 6 when it began.22
Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga, in a May interview with the Italian-Catholic publication 30 Giorni, claimed Jews influenced the media to exploit the current controversy regarding sexual abuse by Catholic priests in order to divert attention from the Israeli-Palestinian crisis.23
The Holy See press office director under John Paul II, Dr. Joaquin Navarro-Valls, has today criticized the media for “a raging phobia” against the Church over pedophilia while ignoring the problem in the rest of society which he says is widespread.24
Fr Anthony Charanghat, director, Catholic Communication Centre. “You must also understand that the global porn industry is responsible for blowing these reports out of proportion. They have been trying to demonise the Catholic clergy, since the Church has been fighting them,” he added.25
Some still complain, although privately, that the entire crisis, the Long Lent of 2002, was manufactured by the media and motivated by anti-Catholicism. There is only some truth in that. Without the media there would have been no felt crisis. There is a generous measure of anti-Catholicism in the media, as elsewhere, but without the deeper crisis of the infidelity and negligence of bishops, the media could not have produced the public and, consequently, episcopal sense of crisis. The scandal was in the chanceries, parishes, and seminaries before it was on the front page or television news.26
The Superiority Complex
Although it is alluded to in a paragraph the John Jay Study it bears mention because it adds another dimension to understanding the deplorable behavior of the bishops.
• Relative advantage—the perceived degree of relative advantage over the status quo. Rogers notes the significance of “social prestige factors” concerning this attribute. As it pertains to the sexual abuse crisis, this factor may have affected the way bishops weighed concern for victims against their expectation of institutionally damaging publicity.27
If one considers their victim less than, it is easier to justify inhumane treatment of them. Slave owners consider slaves their property. It took an 16th century edict from the Vatican to declare that Native Americans had souls. Hitler considered Jew and others “Mud People” so as to justify their destruction. The superiority complex of the hierarchy is legendary and because of it, it that much easier for them ignore the crimes of their priests, deny the claims of victims and allow priests to rape, sodomize and molest at will. Nowhere is this false ideology of Divine Right more clearly stated than in Vehementer Nos an encyclical promulgated by Pius X in 1906.28
Consider here what a pope had to say about the superiority of the clergy.
“It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of persons, the Pastors and the flock, those who occupy a rank in the different degrees of the hierarchy and the multitude of the faithful. So distinct are these categories that with the pastoral body only rests the necessary right and authority for promoting the end of the society and directing all its members towards that end; the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors.”28
This passage written about the sexual abuse scandal several years ago by then-director of the Conference of Major Superiors of Men (Notice the word Superiors), Fr. Ted Keating picks up on the point.
“The days of the pass or station house adjustment for Father or Brother by the Irish cop or prosecutor are over. Either we will learn to become more comfortable in the gaze of the rude and scoffing multitude (depending on our attitude) or we will be dragged kicking and screaming into a new future for religion and religious life”
There are two things to note in this statement. The first is the unequivocal admission by Fr. Keating that priests, who committed crimes, were not arrested by police. The second is Keating’s use of the term “the rude and scoffing multitude” when referring to the laity. It smacks of arrogance and superiority while mimicking Pious X’s statement on superiority of the clergy.
1. The above examples provide a concrete link between the mentality of the abusing priests and the bishops who protected them. The hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has an abusive mentality when it comes to the victims of clergy abuse. To say otherwise is to spit in the face of reason.
2. The bishop’s abusive mentality is well documented and follows the same line of warped reasoning that allows all perpetrators of despicable acts against children to live with themselves their actions and their crimes.
3. The twisted mentality of the hierarchy is not limited to bishops and cardinals in the United States. The tactics employed by the US bishops are the same ones used by the worldwide hierarchy. It is indicative of mentality deeply ingrained in the culture of the Catholic Hierarchy.
4. John Jay tries to create the appearance of a them (abusing priests) versus us (bishops) situation where the offending priests are the bad guys and the bishops are the good guys. This is not the case at all. The number of credibly accused bishops is on par with the percentage of abusing priests as evidenced by the list of abusers on bishopaccountability.org. The only difference is that not one bishop has ever been defrocked. Let us not forget that most of the bishops currently in power were in the seminary during time period measured by John Jay.
5. The sexuality of bishops was never called into question. Bishops are human beings and therefore have a sexuality be it hetero, homo or bi sexuality. The study treats them as asexual only looking at the sexual norms of seminarians and priests. John Jay is not the only one to avoid mentioning bishops. In his twenty-four page response to the John Jay Study, John Jay 2011 Study on Sexual Abuse: a Critical Analysis, William Donohue, an ardent Catholic conservative and lays the blame for the sexual abuse scandal clearly at the feet of homosexual priests. He never mentions the word bishop and homosexual in the same sentence. He too holds that the bishops are above it all in his dissertation.
Donohue ends his dissertation on homosexuality as the root cause of the clergy abuse scandal with the following: “There is no way that priests who are faithful to the precepts of the Church’s teachings on sexual ethics could possibly live a life of sexual recklessness. Only by jettisoning the teachings—casting celibacy and chastity as anachronistic—could they do so.”29
This will end by saying: There is no way that a pope, cardinals or bishops who are faithful to the precepts of the Church’s teachings on sexual ethics could possibly have allowed criminal sexual abuse by priests to flourish. Only by jettisoning their faith, the teachings of Jesus, Holy Scripture, Canon Law and the Catechism could the bishops have done it. In other words, they had to adopt the mentality of an abuser and whole-heartedly endorse the techniques of neutralization while becoming heretics in the process to deal with victims seeking justice.
For further discussion see: According to Aquinas, There Are Heretics in the Vatican.30
1. John Jay College Research Team The Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010 Retrieved May 23, 2011 from http://www.usccb.org/mr/causes-and-context-of-sexual-abuse-of-minors-by-catholic-priests-in-the-united-states-1950-2010.pdf
2. Ibid pg. 89
3. http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/16/nyregion/egan-is-leaving-unfinished-work-on-abuse-victims-say.html?pagewanted=4May 30, 2011
4. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0628/Supreme-Court-allows-sex-abuse-case-to-proceed-against-the-VaticanMay 30, 2011
5. John Jay College Research Team The Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010 Retrieved May 23, 2011 from http://www.usccb.org/mr/causes-and-context-of-sexual-abuse-of-minors-by-catholic-priests-in-the-united-states-1950-2010.pdf
6. http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/top/features/documents/01780639.htm May 30, 2011
7. John Jay College Research Team The Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010 Retrieved May 23, 2011 from http://www.usccb.org/mr/causes-and-context-of-sexual-abuse-of-minors-by-catholic-priests-in-the-united-states-1950-2010.pdf
8. Ibid pg. 89
9. Ibid pg. 89
10. http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2010/09/cardinal_roger_mahohy_predator.php May 30, 2011
11. http://www.catholicsexabuse.com/THE_PHILADELPHIA_GRAND_JURY_REPORT/ Section_III__Overview_of_the_CoverUp_by_Archdiocese_Officials May 30, 2011
12. John Jay College Research Team The Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010 Retrieved May 23, 2011 from http://www.usccb.org/mr/causes-and-context-of-sexual-abuse-of-minors-by-catholic-priests-in-the-united-states-1950-2010.pdf
13.http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spe/2002/bishops/stories/041702dnrelbg. 852d3201.html May 30, 2011 14 .http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spe/2002/bishops/stories/041702dnrelbg. 852d3201.html May 30, 2011 15 .http://www.bishopaccountability.org/news3/2002_07_31_Branstetter_Bishop Admits_Kenneth_Lewis_4.htm May 30, 2011 16. John Jay College Research Team The Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010 Retrieved May 23, 2011 from http://www.usccb.org/mr/causes-and-context-of-sexual-abuse-of-minors-by-catholic-priests-in-the-united-states-1950-2010.pdf
17. Ibid pg. 90
18. Ibid pg. 89
19. Ibid pg 90
20. http://madmikesamerica.com/2010/04/tenerife-catholic-bishop-blames-child-abuse-on-the-children/ May 30, 2011
21. http://thecornfieldonline.com/index.php?topic=19504.0;wap2May 30, 2011
22. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-85590510.htmlMay 30, 2011
23. http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASInt_13/4135_13.aspMay 30, 2011
24. http://www.ncregister.com/blog/navarro-valls_on_the_abuse_crisis#ixzz1Nm08iQi4 May 30, 2011
25. http://www.mid-day.com/news/2010/mar/310310-mumbai-catholics-reaction-vatican-paedophilia-scandals.htm May 30, 2011
26. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/02/scandal-time-iii-43May 30, 2011
28. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_11021906_vehementer-nos_en.htmlMay 30, 2011
29. Donohue, W. John Jay 2011 Study on Sexual Abuse: a Critical Analysis, May 30, 2011
30. Nauheimer, V. According to Aquinas’ Definition, There are Heretics in the Vatican. http://reform-network.net/?p=6431
Op-EdMay 23, 2011
The John Jay Report Ignores History While Focusing on the Wrong Culture!
By Vinnie Nauheimer
There are lies, damned lies and statisticians as the old saw states. After reading the noxious claims of the recent John Jay report attributing the sexual abuse scandal of the Roman Catholic Church to the social norms of the Sixties and Seventies, we have to revise the old saw. The new one states, “There are liars, damned liars, statisticians and then the Roman Catholic Church!” Their crimes also belong to all those who aid and abet them in their attempt to cover up and trivialize the sexual abuse of children. Shame on you John Jay College; for you have sullied the good name of John Jay, a man whose life was devoted to seeking justice; and for what, thirty pieces of silver?
Those who are not familiar with Roman Catholic Church history are doomed to believe the lies the current hierarchy has just paid to produce. The Roman Catholic Church is desperately trying to convince the world that the clergy only began abusing children during the sexual revolution of the late nineteen sixties! Ad absurdum has never been better defined. Squealer, Orwell’s Animal Farm propagandist pig must be squealing with delight. The despicable, shameful, centuries long, and well documented history of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, flies in the face of the John Jay Excuse.
The first fallacy presented by John Jay is using the Sexual Revolution as an excuse for deviant sexual behavior. For the vast majority, the new sexual freedom referred to by John Jay, did not include sex with children. Hetero and Homo sexual liaisons became casual and open while for heterosexual liaisons, the pill, shattered the old norms. Was there a minority element from that era that encouraged sex with children? The unfortunate answer is yes. There was a small group allied to the homosexual activist groups of the era who wanted to eliminate the “age of consent.” These people were opportunists who saw the sexual revolution as a chance to legitimize their criminal acts. As gay rights groups became more mainstream, those professing to believe that having sex with children was okay, became so marginalized that they eventually formed their own splinter group called NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association.1 One of the earliest proponents of NAMBLA was the notorious Fr. Paul Shanley of Boston infamy who was tried and convicted of rape. Though the John Jay Excuse confirms a number of priests decided to follow the NAMBLA path and engage in sex with children, they fail to explain why. Why were so many priests experimenting with deviancy by going after children when the rest of the adult world was engaging in hetero and homo sexual sex?
Perhaps the answer lies in the history of the Roman Catholic Church. A history, though invisible to John Jay researchers, is obvious to any interested party who can type and use the Internet. Let’s start with the controversial document called Crimen Sollicitationis. This is perhaps the most damning and yet at the same time the most marginalized proof of the Vatican’s knowledge of the pedophilia problem among its clergy. The fact that the importance of this document has been so trivialized is nothing more than a testimony to the power of the Vatican spin machine. They have succeeded in making the world believe that the document pertains only to acts of solicitation committed in the confessional.
Title V of Crimens Sollicitationis is subtitled: “The Worst Crime” as seen from this excerpt:
The Worst Crime
73. To have the worst crime, for the penal effects, one must do the equivalent of the following: any obscene, external act, gravely sinful, perpetrated in any way by a cleric or attempted by him with youths of either sex or with brute animals (bestiality).
74. Against accused clerics for these crimes, if they are exempt religious, and unless there takes place at the same time the crime of solicitation, even the regular superior can proceed, according to the holy canons and their proper constitutions, either in an administrative or a judicial manner. However, they must communicate the judicial decision pronounced as well as the administrative decision in the more serious cases to the Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office.2
For those who state that this document only applies to the act of soliciting in the confessional, I ask only one question, “When was the last time anyone saw a four legged sheep enter a confessional?” Perhaps the John Jay crew can study that problem.
The wording of Title V is extremely important as it confirms the Vatican’s own knowledge and acceptance of the fact that the sexual abuse of children, regardless of sex, is a crime. The Vatican did not use the words evil, sinful, offensive, lapse of judgment, moment of weakness or illness. They used the words “worst crime” which is the only word that can adequately describe the act of a priest preying on a child for his own sexual gratification. The John Jay Excuse must have missed this tidbit. A careful and meticulous organization like the Catholic Church is not going to call an act criminal and create a punishment for said act if they weren’t aware of its existence. Laws are written to protect people from crimes that are known and the church knew about these crimes. Laws against cyber crime weren’t written fifty years ago because it didn’t exist then, however, Crimens was.
Crimens was sent out in 1962 under the reign of John XXIII, which unfortunately for the John Jay Excuse was prior to the sexual revolution. Fr. Tom Doyle tells us in his 2008 essay: “THE 1922 INSTRUCTION AND THE 1962 INSTRUCTION“CRIMEN SOLLICITATIONIS,” PROMULGATED BY THE VATICAN” the following:
Crimen sollicitationis is essentially a set of procedural norms for processing cases of accusations against priests for soliciting sex while in the act of sacramental confession. Solicitation is an especially heinous canonical crime and one which results in severe penalties for those found guilty. This document on solicitation was preceded by one issued on June 9, 1922 by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office. It was signed by the prefect, Cardinal Merry del Val, and was approved by Pope Pius XI. Like the 1962 document, it was issued in strict secrecy and its content was never published in the official publication of the Holy See, the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.3
We now know that the problem existed back in the 1920’s, Here is another quote that comes to us from the “Roaring Twenties” courtesy of the then Superior General of the Irish Christian Brothers, Patrick Hennessy: “The fondling of boys, the laying our hands upon them, is contrary to the rules of modesty and is decidedly dangerous” The good Superior General seems to have had a distinct knack for understatement while at the same time a full understanding of the abuse that was taking place within the ranks of the Irish Christian Brothers. However, if the John Jay crew knew this history, in line with their latest findings, they’d attribute it to the lack of morality that characterized the Roaring Twenties.
Had the researchers at John Jay known 17th century church history, they might have excused pedophilia because it was the “Age of Discovery!”
From Karen Liebreich’s book Fallen Order: “One of his recruits in particular, Father Stephano Cherubini, was to prove a disaster. Cherubini was dogged throughout his career by allegations of inappropriate behaviour with pupils, but his powerful family ties and connections with the Inquisition made Calasanz wary of expelling him. Instead, he invented that staple of the Catholic church in subsequent centuries when faced with paedophile priests – he promoted him, writing to the priest he charged with clearing this up: “I want you to know that your reverence’s sole aim is to cover up this great shame in order that it does not come to the notice of our superiors”4
Going back a little farther in history, we come across St. Peter Damian in the 11th century.
St. Peter Damian’s Letter 31, the Book of Gomorrah (Liber Gomorrhianus), Randy Engel says it is “the most extensive treatment and condemnation by any Church Father of clerical pederasty and homosexual practices.  His manly discourse on the vice of sodomy in general and clerical homosexuality and pederasty in particular, is written in a plain and forthright style that makes it quite readable and easy to understand.”5
Pierre J. Prayer translated Peter Damian’s work and in his introduction, he makes this comment: “One of his consistent themes was an attack on the sexual immorality of the clergy and the laxness of the superiors who refused to take a strong hand against it.”6
We can take away two things from this book. 1. The problem of sexual immorality had to be so widespread that Damian deemed it necessary to write this treatise in a time when writing was a tedious job done with quill and ink on very expensive paper. 2. If the Church Fathers of the time had disagreed with Peter Damian, his treatise on the sexual immorality of the clergy would have never survived and he would never have attained sainthood. Surely, the John Jay crew would attribute this outburst of pedophilia in the Middle Ages to a carryover from the centuries spent groping in the Dark Ages.
The buck stops as the church enters the fourth century because that is when the church as we know it coalesced. So from the fourth century, we give you the Council of Elvira:
From the Council of Elvira 306: There were a host of Canons that came out of this Ecumenical Council. These are but a few that speak to the subject of sexual abuse.
18. Bishops, presbyters, and deacons, once they have taken their place in the ministry, shall not be given communion even at the time of death if they are guilty of sexual immorality. Such scandal is a serious offense.
71. Those who sexually abuse boys may not commune even when death approaches.7
As mentioned above, laws are not written to address crimes that are unknown. They are written to address the crimes of the day. John Jay researchers would probably say that the sexual abuse of children in the Fourth Century was obviously a classic symptom of a civilization entering the Dark Ages.
On page 118 of the report, the John Jay crew says the following about the history of the clergy abuse scandal. “The “crisis” of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests is a historical problem. Data from multiple sources show that incidence of abuse behavior was highest between the mid-1960s and the mid-1980s.”8 The only words that can be construed as being accurate are “Historical Problem.” What the John Jay researchers need to learn is the true meaning of the words “Historical Problem.” If they did, then they would understand that the clergy abuse crisis was not an aberration caused by a change in social norms, but it is actually a function of a deeply embedded culture within the Catholic Church. Having been tolerated for such a long period of time, it cannot be otherwise.
May 3, 2011
Another Day of Infamy at the Vatican
By Vinnie Nauheimer
Is the Catholic Church so starved for saints that they have to rush the process through to canonize John Paul II? There was a time when the church canonized children who gave their lives in defense of their innocence. Now, they rush to canonize a man who did nothing to stop priests and bishops who stole that innocence from children. Has the moral compass of the Roman Catholic Church swung that far around? Sadly, the obvious answer is a definitive yes.
How must the sainted children who gave up their lives protecting their virtue feel as they look down from heaven at the impending sacrilege of canonizing Pope John Paul II? Children like St. Agnes of Rome who at age 12 or 13 was ordered to sacrifice to pagan gods and lose her virginity by rape. She declined and paid the ultimate price. Then there is St. Belina, A peasant girl who died in defense of her virginity when threatened with rape by the feudal lord of her district. The most famous of all children saints is Saint Maria Goretti. A farm hand tried to rape the girl who fought, yelled that it was a sin, and was stabbed fourteen times for refusing to sin and went so far as to protect her virginity with her life. Does it strike anyone how terribly wrong this is? How anyone could place John Paul II in the company of these children is both incomprehensible and the height of hypocrisy.
Incomprehensible is the fact that a New Hampshire legislator referred to a Catholic Bishop, John McCormack, as a “pedophile pimp” and the world knew immediately what he meant by that comment. The bishop had the unmitigated gall to pretend to be concerned about society’s most vulnerable! For those who are not familiar with Bishop McCormack, he worked for the notorious Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston infamy and has been steeped in accusations regarding covering up and moving offending priests to new parishes without warning the parishioners of the danger they posed.
Benedict XVI has beatified the pope who whisked Cardinal Law out of Boston. According to some accounts, Law left Boston just hours before he was to be subpoenaed to answer for his dismal failure to protect the children of Catholic families in the Boston Archdiocese. After Law tendered his resignation, John Paul II appointed Law to a post in Rome. Not any position, but John Paul II put the disgraced Cardinal Bernard Law in charge of the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore, with the title of Archpriest. This was a sacrilegious act of the highest order on the part of John Paul II. Pulling the protector of sexually abusing priests out of Boston to evade civil law is one thing, but to name that same man to oversee the largest Basilica in Rome dedicated to Mary, the Mother of God, is affront to all that is holy.
Sainted children who died protecting their innocence pray for the soul of John Paul II for he does not deserve to be on the same platform with you.
The blasphemy of that appointment by John Paul II is compounded when one takes into account the special relationship that Mary, Mother of God has with children. Mary’s visitations on Earth have mostly been to children. She is the Mother of God and therefore in the eyes of the church: mother to the children of the church. When one considers the vile nature of sexual abuse of children, it is not difficult to imagine the pain and agony inflicted on the mothers of victims. The Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore was twice defiled by John Paul II. Once for placing vermin like Cardinal Law in the position of caretaker and twice for the insult because all Mary stands for is repudiated by the presence of Cardinal Law in the basilica dedicated to her holy motherhood.
One could wish that this was the only grievous error of John Paul II, but sadly, it is not. The list of his accommodations to those who have abused children is lengthy. Who can forget his incredulous statement about clergy abuse in 2002 when instead of ridding the church of priests who abused children, he called it a mystery of evil, mysterium iniquitatis thereby laying the blame on the evil in the world (Satan) and failing to recognize the evil within his own church. A scapegoat was offered which was homosexual priests, however the homosexual priests accounted for neither the abuse to females nor pedophilia. More importantly, it never addressed why bishops had forsaken Scripture, Canon Law and the Catechism by covering up for abusing priests and allowing them to remain in the priesthood.
Along with the above statement, Pope John Paul II wrote, “People need to know that there is no room in the priesthood and religious life for those who would harm the young.” By any standard this was an excellent condemnation. Sadly, the statement turned out to be mere words that never had the weight of the office put behind them. In fact, these words turned out to be a monstrous hypocrisy as the appointment of Cardinal Law just a few months later would prove.
Then there is the equally infamous case of Fr. Marcial Maciel and his Legionaries of Christ which predated the appointment of Cardinal Law. John Paul II consistently refused to acknowledge the mounting accusations against Fr. Maciel. Those accusations have now been verified and the body of evidence uncovered has become proof positive of the warped, insidious and demonic nature of Fr. Maciel. How ironic that once the Vatican looked for collaborating evidence of the accusations made in the 1990’s, when JP II was pope, that they found it plus more than they bargained for.
Is this the stuff that saints are made of?
Nobody is denying the good that John Paul II did. The lives of most men are made up of good and bad things. In the end, we all hope that the good we’ve done outweighs the bad. However, one thing is conclusive: John Paul II’s response to the rape, sodomization and molestation of children around the world by priests, bishops and religious was abysmal. The most vulnerable population of the church, the children, were sacrificed for the sake of the reputation of the church. This was a grievous omission that should disqualify him from the process of sainthood.
His error was compounded by appointing Cardinal Law to preside the largest basilica in Rome dedicated to the Blessed Mother. Does that make JP II an evil man? No, but maybe it speaks to what he really was: A man with all strengths and weaknesses of man.
Does it make him a saint? Not by the standards of the sainted children who gave their lives for their beliefs. In an irony that boggles the imagination, the man who did not have the courage, convictions or will to rid the church of either child abusing priests or those who protected them is to be elevated to a level equal to the sainted children who forfeited their lives rather than be violated. Compared to them, John Paul II’s measure comes up short.
An opinion on Straight talk about the Catholic Church by William Donohue
By Vinnie Nauheimer
One of the sad truths that history teaches us is that hand in hand with a great evil comes the great spinmeister. Whether the Minister of Propaganda is drawn into the vortex of evil or is intrinsically evil himself can be debated like the chicken and the egg. The answer is irrelevant, but the fact that they feed the evil and are responsible for the perpetuation of evil will always be relevant.
The twentieth century has given us two extraordinary spinmeisters: Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, and Squealer the Pig in George Orwell’s Classic book “Animal Farm.” The first part of the twenty-first century has given us, in my opinion, another: William Donohue, the president of the Catholic League.
Mr. Donohue recently published a brilliant PR piece in the form of a paid advertisement in the NY Times. This is right out of Goebbels’ playbook, “Goebbels’ Principles of Propaganda” Number 6: “To be perceived, propaganda must evoke the interest of an audience and must be transmitted through an attention-getting communications medium.” thus the paid advertisement in the NY Times. Subterfuge, distortions, omissions and denial were intricately woven to portray the church as the object victim in what is now considered the Global Clergy Abuse Scandal. Such a fine piece of work cannot and should not go unnoticed. Mr. Donohue is indeed a master manipulator of language.
Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, knew the importance of a scapegoat. Hitler is reported to have said of Goebbels that his success was due to both his mastery of language and intellect. Mr. Donohue has both these qualities as does Squealer in Animal Farm. Goebbels chose for his scapegoat the Jews and subsequently through the force of language and sheer intellect, led an entire nation to believe that the source of their problems were the Jews. Although Donohue mentions the clergy abuse problem among Rabbis, he was careful not to go too far for fear of being branded anti-Semitic.
Goebblel’s eighteenth dictum in his principles of propaganda is as follows: “Propaganda must facilitate the displacement of aggression by specifying the targets for hatred.” The scapegoat selected by Donohue is none other than the pariah of the Catholic Church, Homosexuals! Notice how the clever Donohue never uses the words homosexual priests together in the entire length of his essay! (see dictum 18 above) Notice how deftly Donohue omits the preposterous presumption that there would ever be homosexual priests in an organization that considers homosexual acts to be depraved. (http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/ 0407sbs.asp ) Blame without an in depth examination is the trademark of a great spin doctor. Throw it out, let it stick to the wall and then move on. Donohue defines the clergy abuse scandal as a homosexual problem. The beauty of ignoring the relevance of homosexual priests is that it avoids embarrassing questions such as: Why does a church so profoundly anti-gay ordain so many gay priests?, Why upon discovering the homosexual acts with minors, did it actively protect these priests and what do theses actions say about the sexuality of the hierarchy? Donohue believes he has found his true calling. He is single handedly shielding his church from the homosexual horde that seeks to undermine his church and those that promote them.
Consider the outlandish proposition that the victims are not children! In this case Mr. Donohue makes a blanket statement that would make both Goebbels and Squealer turn green with envy. “let’s get it straight—they weren’t children and they weren’t raped” This statement is made with authority. It is confusing and meant to confuse, which was the hallmark of Squealer. The spinmeister speaks as if he is the first and last word on what constitutes a child; speaking from authority is a benchmark of a great spin doctor. Without saying what they were, he implies that the abused weren’t children. Notice how the propaganda leaves out ages. The readers say to themselves well if they weren’t children, they must have been older. Does older mean its okay? Does it make a difference if a child was ten, thirteen or fifteen when they were assaulted by their priest? Though the former may be termed a child and the latter an adolescent among those who utilize psychobabble (Spinmeisters) to make the act more palatable to their audience, does the rape, sodomization or molestation make the crime any less heinous? A good propagandist knows it does and employs the tactic every chance they get.
Goebbels seventh law part d.: states that the propaganda must be boomerang proof. Donohue does a masterful job of omitting young girls from the equation by insisting the clergy abuse scandal is all about homosexuality. By minimizing the number and nature of crimes against female minors he makes his argument about homosexuals boomerang proof. Quoting numbers such as over 80% of the abuse cases were of a homosexual nature he sets the parameters of clergy abuse. Once this is ingrained in the readers head, they will completely ignore the fact that the Vatican itself states that worldwide 30% of the cases of sexual abuse by priests is of a heterosexual nature and 10% is other. Donohue skips by this so fast that one never has the time to ponder either what the 10% other is or the fact that thirty percent plus ten percent equals forty percent so it is mathematically impossible to have over 80% of the sexual abuse be of a homosexual nature. Like Squealer and Goebbels, he knows that if he is ever called on it in the future, he can say he included the numbers, but in true fashion, he expects no one to call him on his numbers and if somebody did, he would dismiss them with the wave of a hand.
Who could possibly deny the brilliance of framing his argument as a dalliance among priests? A mere touch, a palpable touch nevertheless. “Minimization of the act” is the operative mandate. The acts of raping, sodomizing and molesting minors are considered felony crimes in most countries, Donohue never goes there. He avoids the criminal aspect like the plague for it would not do well to have anyone associate the Catholic Church with criminal activity or see the words criminal priest in a sentence. Like Squealer, Donohue utilizes his command of language to justify the unjustifiable acts of priests who abused children and the hierarchy who covered up these acts. He has the traits of a lap dog and a pit bull: blind allegiance to his church and the tenacity to never let go. Bringing in teachers and other organizations says to the public: yes, we have a few problems, but there are other groups such as the schools, other religions, etc that have problems too. “Its not only our problem” is another minimization tactic that is hard to rebuff. To his credit, Donohue cleverly avoids the global scale of Roman Catholic Clergy Abuse because it serves no purpose to let people know that there are credibly abused priests in over thirty countries around the world. Schools aren’t global and don’t move priests, bishops and cardinals around the world at will so Donohue localizes the issue to minimize it.
One cannot overrate the need for minimization of clergy abuse. A church that professes to be the one true church, whose priests are chosen by God, whose pope is the spiritual descendant of Christ and whose stated mission is to speak for the poor and vulnerable simply cannot either be associated with or guilty of sexual abuse. Donohue knows this and it is in this framework he tirelessly expends his energy.
In the neighborhood where I grew up, we had an expression when someone was trying to con us. It was, “Stop pulling my chain!” In the spirit of that expression, I nominate William Donohue for the “Pull It Sir Award.” for his first rate propaganda. This BOOH is for you!
Children Carry Their Crosses
”With Holy Week 2011 approaching, Children Carry Their Crosses will remind everyone that there’s still unfinished business.” Vinnie
link to view Vinnie’s abuse collection: HERE
Causes of the Unfathomable Clerical Silence on Clergy Sex Abuse
By Vinnie Nauheimer © all rights reserved
Edmund Burke said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” Living proof of this quote comes from the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church. The act of raping, sodomizing and molesting children is intrinsically evil. Yet the clergy, as a whole, has remained incredibly silent about these deplorable crimes. In doing so, the evil of sexual abuse has triumphed at all levels of the clergy. There is no better quote to describe the excruciating pain caused by the global silence of the priesthood, bishops and cardinals regarding the vile sexual crimes committed against children. Or is there?
“Show me the leaders and I will show you the troops,” speaks volumes too!
There are one-hundred eighty-five cardinals. Not a single cardinal has ever publicly spoken out about the pope’s woefully inept handling of the clergy abuse scandal. Neither a cardinal nor a pope has ever removed a bishop from office for their sexual abuse of minors or for protecting priests who have sexually abused minors. This is a travesty of justice as well as a mockery of Jesus Christ and his teachings. Not one cardinal out of one-hundred-eighty-five cardinals can be called a survivor’s advocate. This fact alone confirms all-encompassing grip of evil on the higher echelons of the church. The triumph of evil is crystal clear at the cardinal level of the Roman Catholic Church.
Worldwide there are roughly five thousand bishops. Out of the five thousand bishops, there are only two bishops who are vocal critics of the Roman Catholic Church’s handling of the clergy abuse scandal. Both are retired, Bishop Gumbleton of Detroit and Bishop Geoffrey Robinson of Australia. Not only are they critics, but both are advocates for victims of clergy abuse. They have both been banned from speaking in many dioceses as well as suffering numerous other indignities at the hands of cardinals and their fellow bishops. Robinson said the following about clergy abuse, “Sexual abuse is all about power and sex, so to counter abuse, we must be free to ask serious questions about power and sex in the institution of the church. Without this freedom, we would be attempting to respond to abuse while handcuffed and blindfolded.” Noteworthy also is the Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin. Not only has he apologized to survivors, but he also demanded the resignations of several bishops steeped in the clergy abuse scandal. Recently, two of the bishops who sent their resignations to Rome had them refused by the pope making the Archbishop look the fool. At the bishop level, evil has triumphed as the troops mimic their leaders. Two retired bishops and one active out of five thousand is an infinitesimal percentage; once again evil triumphs.
However, there is an area of clergy abuse where we can find a larger percentage among bishops. According to BishopAccountability.org in the United States, there are seventeen bishops credibly accused of sexual abuse. Seventeen out of 425 active and retired bishops totals four percent. That number only speaks to the bishops in the United States! Is it any wonder why silence is golden when it comes to bishops in the United States? Not one has ever been laicized and that includes the notorious Bishop Ziemann who was arrested for having oral sex performed on him, in his car, by a priest who wore a pager in order to be summoned by the bishop for sex. Who protected this bishop? None other than Cardinal Levada, the man appointed by the pope to fill his old position as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith. Once again evil triumphs!
Show me the leaders and I will show you the troops.
The number of priests worldwide is just over four-hundred-thousand. Of these four hundred thousand priests there are only a handful of well known outspoken priests who are survivor advocates. Frs. Tom Doyle and Bob Hoatson are the best known both in the United States and globally. Being overly generous, let’s say there are in fact a hundred vocal priests worldwide. One hundred priests is a miniscule fraction of one percent of the four hundred thousand priests: .00025 to be exact. Sadly, these are the troops.
Any human being with even a thread of humanity understands that the rape, sodomization and molestation of children by clergy or anyone are inherently evil acts. Despite the heinous nature of these crimes, despite the outcry from the victims, despite the outcry from Grand Juries and Special Inquiries, there remains a deafening silence among ninety-nine point nine percent of the Roman Catholic Clergy. There has been a great deal of speculation about the cause or causes of this white collar silence. We will look at three of these causes and the arguments supporting them. They are: The Superiority Complex, The Wet Monkey Mentality and a complete and utter Lack of Faith.
The Superiority Complex
Medieval Kings operated on the principle of Divine Right, which is defined as: “the doctrine that kings derive their right to rule directly from God and are not accountable to their subjects; rebellion is the worst of political crimes.” Other definitions add this phrase, “any attempt to depose a monarch or to restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God.” Welcome to the centuries old philosophy of the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. Nowhere is this false ideology of Divine Right more clearly stated than in Vehementer Nos an encyclical promulgated by Pious X in 1905.
“It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of persons, the Pastors and the flock, those who occupy a rank in the different degrees of the hierarchy and the multitude of the faithful. So distinct are these categories that with the pastoral body only rests the necessary right and authority for promoting the end of the society and directing all its members towards that end; the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors.”
However, Pious X was not alone in his assumption that priests are on a higher level than the laity. Consider the arrogance of this name: Conference of Major Superiors of Men. Who but arrogant, self-serving, elitists would give themselves a name that proclaims them superiors of men? Not to worry, Mother Superior has her organization too, The Conference of Major Superiors of Women Religious. These groups are made up of all the “Superiors” of the various groups of orders that comprise the religious community other than diocesan priests. One might ask this reasonable question, “Does using the word superior in their title really make them feel superior?” The answer is clear in this passage written about the sexual abuse scandal several years ago by then director of the Conference of Major Superiors of Men, Fr. Ted Keating.
“The days of the pass or station house adjustment for Father or Brother by the Irish cop or prosecutor are over. Either we will learn to become more comfortable in the gaze of the rude and scoffing multitude (depending on our attitude) or we will be dragged kicking and screaming into a new future for religion and religious life”
There are two things to note in this statement. The first is the unequivocal admission by Fr. Keating that priests, who committed crimes, were not arrested by police. The second is Keating’s use of the term “the rude and scoffing multitude.” Using these words to describe the laity is his tacit acknowledgement of Pious X’s statement on superiority. This too is an admission that there are those in the priesthood who believe they are superior to mere mortals. This is the height of arrogance and one has to wonder how the laity would react to knowing they were referred to as the “the rude and scoffing multitude.” The director of the Conference of the Major Superiors of Men has demonstrated by his words that their superiority complex is real.
The irony of the superiority over the rude and scoffing multitude is that is that the believer of this warped philosophy looses touch with his humanity. This one sentence “the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock,” explains the utter contempt heaped upon victims of clergy abuse and their families by priests, bishops, cardinals, and yes, even popes. This attitude made it easy to transfer sexual felons from one parish to another with because they had contempt for children. This attitude made it easy for bishops to lie to authorities because civil authorities were beneath them. This ingrained cultural flaw allowed them to withhold evidence from the courts. Slavery can not exist unless one group believes they are superior to another group. The act of believing superiority then makes it okay and even easy to use those “less than” however they see fit and tr;font-size:mediumeat with utter contempt anyone who would question their decisions. Welcome to the philosophy that has perpetuated clergy sexual abuse over the years.
This fallacious thinking along with the culture that perpetuates it must cease. It will when people realize, of their own accord, that God made them in his image and likeness: Intelligent beings capable of loving, thinking and creating. We were not created to be a “docile flock” led around by our noses by those who purport to speak for God, but who reject his teachings every time the teachings either interfere with or threaten their money and power.
The Wet Monkey Mentality
This theory is often used to describe outdated cultural practices, customs or traditions and the experiment was carried out like this.
Inside a cage containing five monkeys, a banana was hung from the ceiling and a set of stairs was put under the banana. When one of the monkeys tried to go up the stairs towards the banana the remaining monkeys were sprayed with ice water.
Then another monkey went for the banana with same result: the other monkeys were sprayed with ice cold water. After a while when any monkey tried to climb the stairs, the remaining monkeys prevented him from going to the banana by beating him.
Once this behavior was established, the cold water was stopped and still any monkey going for the banana was beaten by the other monkeys. The one monkey was removed from the cage and replaced with a new one. The new monkey upon seeing the banana wants to climb the stairs and eat it. To his shock, the rest of the monkeys attack him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs he will be assaulted.
Each of the five original monkeys were removed one at a time and replaced with a new one. As the newcomer went to the stairs he was attacked. The previous newcomer then took part in the punishment of the next newcomer with as much enthusiasm as the original monkeys. Every time the newest monkey touched the stairs he was viciously attacked.
When all of the original monkeys had been replaced, the new ones having never been punished with ice water continued to beat up any newcomer that went for the banana. Also after receiving a beating for going for the banana, they became active participants in beating up any subsequent monkey introduced to the cage that went for the banana. No monkey ever again got a banana because as soon as he approached the stairs, he was set upon. Why? Because as far as they knew, that was the way it had always been done in there.
If you substitute truth for the banana, this theory could account for the almost universal silence by the vast majority of the clergy on the subject of the clergy abuse scandal. Speak the truth in public and you were viciously beaten. Could this theory explain the incredible lack of support for clergy abuse survivors by all but a miniscule number of clergy? Yes! Does the Wet Monkey Mentality account for the personal attacks on the person of Fr. Tom Doyle, the first outspoken advocate of clergy abuse survivors, who was accused of heresy, fired from his job as an Air Force Chaplain and declared persona non-grata by any number of fellow priests and bishops? Yes! Can it explain why a Pennsylvania bishop went through extraordinary machinations to find the nun behind the non-de-plume Sr. Immaculata; whose letters to the editor chastising bishops and cardinals were carried in newspapers around the United States. Does it account for the terrible things said about and done to Bishop Thomas Gumbleton, when after retiring; he spoke out against the church and condemned its role in the cover-up of the clergy abuse scandal? Does it account for Bishop Geoffrey Robinson being forbidden from speaking in any Catholic Church or on any Catholic Church property by bishops and cardinals across the United States?
Unfortunately, the Wet Monkey Mentality explains all of these actions taken by the church against these few and those unnamed who dared to challenge the prevailing norms by speaking the truth about the clerical sexual abuse of children in the Catholic Church. These stand-up clergy members were pounded by those with the monkey mentality as a lesson for the rest of the worldwide clergy.
Loss of Faith
Some twenty years ago, while attending a meeting, a young woman told this story. “I have two constant companions, I call them my pets. One is called fear and the other is called faith whichever one I feed is the one that grows.” I never saw her again, but I have survived and thrived remembering her words and while looking at causes for deafening silence of good men about such an evil issue as child abuse her words came back to me yet again. The silence of the clergy is due to their lack of faith in God. The clergy of the Roman Catholic Church is feeding their fear and not their faith! They fear scandal as if scandal could hurt God. Scandal can only hurt men. They fear being found out for the despicable acts they’ve committed, witnessed and concealed; they fear for their material possessions, their power, their wealth and their false superiority.
If priests, bishops and cardinals had unquestioning faith in God, they would not be afraid to speak out against the evil that has triumphed because of their silence. They would not be afraid of losing their jobs, their pensions, their cushy parish, their shot at purple or red buttons and the biggest prize of all, the white hat. In other words, they would lose their fear of naming evil whether that evil is called bishop, cardinal or pope. Their faith would sustain them if they would just feed it. Fear has frozen the voices of the good men in the priesthood because they have lost their faith in the God. A crash course in the Acts of the Apostles might help the remaining good members of the clergy, who wish to serve God and not their superiors, to find their tongues. We can all pray that the Holy Spirit will once again ignite the flame of faith in Jesus and his teachings.
Only men steeped in fear can keep silent about the travesty of justice and the horrors of sexual abuse that are and have occurred in the Roman Catholic Church. It is impossible to believe that out of five thousand bishops worldwide that there are none who remember who they represent. Equally implausible is that there are none who are not appalled by the actions of their fellow bishops, cardinals and the pope relative to the sexual abuse of children by clergy members. The same can be said for the four-hundred-thousand priests. There must be more than a handful who want to drive these despoilers of children and those who protect them from the church.
Those in power have brought the church to the brink of collapse; the triumph of evil. Those that have remained silent have encouraged it! Now is the time to oppose it! Get some gumption from your boss; the one who died on the cross. Let he who has ears hear!
According to Aquinas’ definition, there are heretics in the Vatican
By Vinnie Nauheimer © All rights reserved
The unmitigated gall along with the exasperating temerity of the Vatican and the pope is nowhere more evident than in the slap in the face that the pope has just delivered to the global survivor community. Just when you thought they couldn’t sink any lower than equating the ordination of women with the raping, sodomizing and molesting children; they do this. The mentality that pulled Cardinal Law out of harm’s way and rewarded him for covering up criminal acts and the criminals who committed them is flourishing in Rome.
In the first place, the ruling elite of the Vatican along with the pope have lost all their integrity if one supposes that they had any in the first place. Acting holy and deliberately disobeying Sacred Scripture, which is the Word of God, and also the Catechism and Canon Law which are the teaching elements of the Magisterium are the acts of heretics according to St. Thomas Aquinas.
Compounding their crimes against man and God, they tried to convince the world that ordaining a woman is as grave a scandal to the Body of Christ as the raping of a child by a priest. On top of that, the pope reinstates two bishops who allowed children to be abused because they were spineless as well as being unfaithful to the teachings of Christ. The hypocrisy of the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church knows no bounds. In 2009 the pope said, “Victims should receive compassion and care, and those responsible for these evils must be brought to justice.” The pope cannot reconcile any of his words with his deeds. His lies and hypocrisy have brought untold scandal down upon the church. The English language does not have words to describe such an unprecedented display of contempt for Jesus Christ, his people and scripture. The only two words that come even close to describing this bald-faced act of duplicity are Mysterium Iniquitus.
The job of the Magisterium (the pope and all the bishops) is teaching or interpreting Sacred Scripture. It puts Sacred Scripture on the top after which come all else. For example, if there were a conflict between what Jesus said and what and what a bishop says some five hundred years later, the quoted words of Jesus takes precedent. The Catechism tells us the following in Para. 86: “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant.” Direct quotes by Jesus on the single subject child abuse are found in all three of the Synoptic Gospels. Jesus himself tells us how the well being of children is of profound importance to him, but the hierarchy hasn’t listened.
Here are the direct quotes from Jesus condemning the sexual abuse of minors:
Matthew 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Mark 9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
Luke 17:2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
Matthew 18:10:Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.
Matthew 18:14: In the same way your Father in heaven is not willing that any of these little ones should be lost.
Matthew, Mark and Luke also quote Jesus as saying: “But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.”
The importance of these tracts must be put in perspective. The well regarded concept of the Virgin Birth is in the narrative form which does not carry the same weight as a direct quote from Jesus. Also, it is only found in two of the Gospels whereas admonitions against defiling children are found in all three of the Synoptic Gospels. Jesus stated multiple times that no one should prevent children from coming to him. Yet the hierarchy has steadfastly refused to heed Him.
What does this mean? It means that if the hierarchy had put just half the belief into the words of Jesus concerning child abuse, as they did to the concept of the Virginal Birth, there would be neither the clergy abuse scandal we have today nor those in previous eras of church history. Next is the gravity of their sins. The current hierarchy right up to the pope has knowingly moved pedophile priests around and then covered up for these monsters in direct violation of Sacred Scripture. The perverted culture of the Vatican is and has been responsible for the rape, sodomization and molestation of children. There has been an ongoing, well documented denial of the words of Jesus. In plain English, they have committed gross acts of heresy by refusing to adhere to Sacred Scripture.
Aquinas defines heresy as: “a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas.” He further states: “Heresy comes from restricting belief to certain points of Christ’s doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics.” Aquinas says this of the heretics motives: “The impelling motives are many: intellectual pride or exaggerated reliance on one’s own insight; the illusions of religious zeal; the allurements of political or ecclesiastical power; the ties of material interests and personal status; and perhaps others more dishonourable”
If Aquinas were alive today, he would have no problem condemning the current hierarchy for the heretics they are. The hierarchy, men who profess faith in Christ, have created their own dogma which says, “We make decisions for Christ and we will totally ignore anything He has said which will cause us to forfeit our jobs, riches or the priests who make our jobs, power and riches possible.” In order to maintain the allurements of ecclesiastical power, not one bishop has ever been laicized in connection with the clergy abuse scandal. That includes both bishops who have personally abused children as well as bishops who have protected the perverted priests who preyed on children. Now, two bishops that have resigned over their involvement with clergy abuse have been reinstated. Every member of the hierarchy has maintained both their personal wealth and power despite numerous transgressions a la Cardinal Law who was whisked out of Boston to insure he maintained both his power and opulence. In short, they have corrupted the Sacred Scripture, thrown our children to the wolves and for what, to maintain the status quo!
However, this heresy does not stop with Sacred Scripture. The heretics have and continue to ignore both the Catechism and Canon Law making their heresy complete. The following paragraphs are from the Catechism:
2326 Scandal is a grave offense when by deed or omission it deliberately leads others to sin gravely.
2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. “Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!”
2353 Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young. (Emphasis mine)
2389 Connected to incest is any sexual abuse perpetrated by adults on children or adolescents entrusted to their care. The offense is compounded by the scandalous harm done to the physical and moral integrity of the young, who will remain scarred by it all their lives; and the violation of responsibility for their upbringing.
The acts of raping, sodomizing and molesting children, allowing them to continue and then covering them up can safely be assumed to be manifestly a grave scandal. The Catechism specifically points out the evils of adults having sex with children. Strike two, the hierarchy has turned their backs on Sacred Scripture and the Catechism.
What’s next? Next is Canon Law.
The current hierarchy has denied, by their failure to remove bishops, Canon Law applies to them too. As Aquinas points out, they’re simply ignoring this truth because of material interests and personal status
Can. 212 1, Priests and Bishops are also bound by this obedience, in fact more so since they are responsible for passing on to the faithful genuine Catholic teaching. In other words, a Bishop or Priest who dissents from Church teachings is not to be obeyed in that matter, rather all must obey the Magisterium at all times, as Vatican II states.
All along the Canons have applied to every priest, bishop, and cardinal around the world, which includes the pope. The hierarchy is quick to throw out the many comparisons of relative guilt. Why are you picking on us, we’re only human? We’re no worse than other religions; the public schools are infested with pedophiles, etc. etc. Sacred Scripture along with their own Catechism spells out why they need to be held more accountable than others. Can. 2121: “in fact more so since they are responsible for passing on to the faithful genuine Catholic teaching.”
Can. 1369 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.
By their adamant refusal to justly punish any bishop for their part in the Clergy Abuse Scandal, the hierarchy has gravely harmed public morals, excited hatred of and contempt for the Church along with making it a laughing stock of the world. The hierarchy by their omissions (remaining silent) and their commission (Hiding and shuffling offending priests) promoted evil. The church did nothing about the rape, sodomization and molestation of children until they were forced into action and then only did a grudgingly pittance.
Can. 1389 § 1 A person who abuses ecclesiastical power or an office, is to be punished according to the gravity of the act or the omission, not excluding by deprivation of the office, unless a penalty for that abuse is already established by law or precept.
§ 2 A person who, through culpable negligence, unlawfully and with harm to another, performs or omits and act of ecclesiastical power or ministry or office, is to be punished with a just penalty.
Hard evidence of hierarchal culpable negligence has come out across the globe for the past two decades. Ecclesiastical power has been misused all over the globe and in no place more than the Vatican in their concerted effort to thwart justice. Turning their back on Canon Law completes the blatant refutation of the Magisterium, which is nothing more than heresy.
Is it a sin to call a pope, cardinal bishop or priest a heretic? No, Sacred Scripture, the Catechism and Canon Law call them heretics. The three are there for the world to read; no interpretation necessary because the language is clear. Each one supports the other back to the words of Jesus Christ. No bishop, cardinal or pope can deny or refute them without committing a larger heresy. The hierarchy would have the laity believe that they are above it all, but their own laws tell us different. Most members of the human race don’t need church law to reaffirm what they already know which is: The rape, sodomization and molestation of children is morally repugnant and intrinsically evil. Those who have both covered up these acts and protected the perpetrators are equally guilty.
Can. 748 §1 All are bound to seek the truth in matters which concern God and his Church; when they have found it, then by divine law they have the right to embrace and keep it.
The truth is here from the mouth of Jesus, church law and church history. All three tell us the first two have been totally ignored to the detriment of children and the church. The heresies speak for themselves. Aquinas tells us they are “a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas.” Aquinas is only mirroring the words of Jesus who said.
Matt.15: 7-9 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.”
We can’t deny the teachings of Jesus, but we can certainly deny the authority of those who have ignored and trampled upon his teachings.