Arrogant clericalism never assessed in John Jay Report

Karen Terry, principal investigator for the John Jay College report on the causes and context of clergy sexual abuse, speaks during a press conference at the headquarters of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in Washington May 18.

Commentary

In the last few days I have carefully read the entire 143-page John Jay report on the causes of clergy sex abuse in the United States and have again reviewed the executive summaries and conclusions of 17 of the 27 reports on clergy sexual abuse that have been published between 1989 and 2011.

Most of these are from official sources such as the U.S. grand juries, the three Irish reports (Ferns, Ryan, Murphy) or the two Canadian reports that resulted from the Mt. Cashel debacle of the eighties. Others are from Church sources such as the National Review Board Report of 2004, The Bernardin Report of 1992 or Church sponsored reports such as the Defenbaugh Report (Chicago, 2006) or the first John Jay Report from 2004. Most of the reports contained a section on causality. None of the reports said anything about the effect of the culture of the sixties or seventies as a factor of causality but every one of them pointed to the various kinds and levels of failure by the bishops as the essential cause of the phenomenon of sexual abuse of children and minors by clerics.

Some of the reports went into more detail about socio-cultural factors that had a causal effect but none of these factors included somehow shifting the blame to the “increased deviance of society during that time” as Karen Terry said in her statement released with the report. There was unanimity about the effect of culture, but it was not the culture outside the church but the culture within. Arthur Jones hit the nail squarely on the head in his NCR column on May 18 when he named arrogant clericalism as the culture that in many ways created the offending clerics and allowed the abuse to flourish.

There is a third source of information that perhaps provides the most accurate data on clergy sexual abuse in our era and that is the data obtained by victims’ attorneys in the six thousand plus civil and criminal cases from the U.S. alone. Add to this the information from similar cases in Canada, Ireland, Australia, the U.K. and several other European countries and you have a picture that is much different than that proposed in this latest John Jay report. The report refers to the sixties and seventies as the peak period with cases dwindling off after that period. This apparently fits in with what some of the cynics have called the “Woodstock Defense.”

The time lag in reporting is not to be explained by sociological data and its interpretation but by the emotional and psychological impact of sexual violation on a young victim. Most take a decade or more to find the security and courage to come forward. The victim support groups and plaintiffs’ attorneys here and abroad are seeing a significant increase in victims who were violated in the fifties and even the forties. As one of my astute friends remarked, these are the victims from the Big Band era so what does that constitute, the “Benny Goodman” defense?

Those who see the main conclusions from the Executive Summary as support for the bishops’ blame-shifting tactics are probably right. Yet these conclusions are only a part of the whole story and in some ways they are of minor relevance. The finding that the majority of cases occurred in the 1960s and 1970s can be quickly challenged. It is more accurate to say that the majority of cases reported in the post 2002 period involved abuse that took place in the period from the sixties to the eighties. Its way off base to assume that the majority of incidents of abuse happened during this period. Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald founded the Paraclete community in 1947 to provide help to priests with problems. From the beginning he was treating priests with psycho-sexual issues and in a letter to a bishop he said that 3 out of every 10 priests admitted were there because they had sexually molested minors.

Fr. Gerald wrote that letter in 1964. Unfortunately it is difficult if not impossible to do a study of abuse victims between the 30’s and the 50’s but Fr. Gerald’s information leaves no doubt that sexual abuse by priests was a significant phenomenon long before the free-wheeling 60’s and 70’s. The one constant that was present throughout the entire period from before the 60’s to the turn of the millennium has been the cover-up by the bishops and the disgraceful treatment of victims. The John Jay researchers were commissioned by the bishops to look into the reasons why priests molested and violated minors. They were not asked to figure out why this molestation and violation was allowed to happen. That would have been deadly for the bishops and they knew it.

Nevertheless the researchers could not avoid the blatant role played by the hierarchy. In this regard the report should not be written off as largely either irrelevant or enabling of the bishops’ never-ending campaign to avoid facing their responsibility square on. That’s why it’s important to read the whole report and not depend on the Executive Summary or Karen Terry’s statement or the statements of any of the bishops or church sponsored media outlets. Well into the body there is recognition of the real issues that have caused the anger and are the basis for the thousands of lawsuits and official reports. The section entitled “Mid-1990’s Diocesan Response” on pages 86-91contains a sobering antidote to the soft-peddling about priests who lost their way in the Woodstock Era. To their credit the research team included information critical of the bishops’ responses on several levels. A few quotes:

The failure of some diocesan leaders to take responsibility for the harms of the abuse by priests was egregious in some cases. (p. 89)

Parishioners were not told, or were misled about the reason for the abuser’s transfer (p. 89)

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 limitations expired. (p. 89)
Diocesan officials tried to keep their files devoid of incriminating evidence . (p. 89)

Diocesan leaders attempted to deflect personal liability for retaining abusers by relying on therapists’ recommendations or employing legalistic arguments about the status of priests. (p. 89)

Dioceses, the interviewee reported, would intimidate priests who brought charges against other priests; he reported that the law firm hired by the diocese wiretapped his phone and went through his trash. (p. 90).

The interviewee was a priest-victim who had come forward in 1991.

These citations do not represent exceptions. This was the operating procedure that was standard throughout the institutional Church until the public revelations that began in 1984 and reached a boiling point in 2002 caused widespread media attention, legal scrutiny and public outrage which in turn forced the bishops to change their tactics. The John Jay report refers to the organizational steps taken by the bishops in response to the “crisis” and points out that no other institution has undertaken a public study of sexual abuse and as a result there are no comparable data from other institutions (Executive Summary, p. 5).

A similar study of the institutional response itself would show that the organizational steps including the John Jay and other reports were the result of the intense pressure on the bishops from outside the clerical enclave to face the reality of the nightmare they had caused. It is true that some of these policies and procedures are very positive steps in the right direction. What cannot be ignored however is the harsh reality that the Catholic hierarchy from the top down will remain defensive, in futile search for the trust, respect and deference they once enjoyed but which now is a memory.

The report gave short shrift to mandatory celibacy and the all-male environment of the clerical world. This will feed right into the defenses of those who try to claim that the problems are all from outside influences. Yet the influence of mandatory celibacy and the sub-culture of which it is an integral part play a major role in the socialization and maturation processes of the men who will eventually violate minors. The clerical culture should have been the subject of the 1.8 million dollar venture because if looked at closely and honestly it would have yielded information that not only provided believable reasons for the abuse nightmare but valuable though radical steps to take to avoid similar travesties in the future. That would have been much too dangerous for the hierarchical establishment though, because without doubt, it would point to needed fundamental changes.

There will be a variety of levels of both praise and criticism of this document. Among the more valuable will be the critical responses of other academic professionals, especially sociologists, which will help place the document in a more realistic and relevant light.

The report was released along with statements by Karen Terry, the lead investigator, Diane Knight, chair of the National Review Board and Blase Cupich, chair of the Bishop’s Committee for the Protection of Children. The most disturbing sentence of all of the documents presented with the report is from Karen Terry’s statement: “The problem of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests in the United States is largely historical, and the bulk of cases occurred decades ago.” I am quite certain that Dr. Terry had no idea of how offensive this statement is to the thousands of victims who were abused decades ago and who still live with the intense pain that never goes away. These people aren’t “historical” they are now. What happened to them years or decades ago is still real and still destructive in their lives.

While the bishops and their defenders bask in the illusion that this report validates their standard defenses and their self-affirmation for the procedures and policies they have created to try to heal the wound, the reality of the “phenomenon of sexual abuse” is something this report will not be able to answer. What is important is not why the thousands of clerics went off the tracks and raped and violated tens of thousands of innocent children.

What is important is what the institutional Church has done, or to be more precise, not done, to help heal the thousands of victims who still live in isolation and pain. More than anything else these men and women have had their very souls violated and in the words of some, murdered. Rather than go to such great lengths to try to exonerate themselves the bishops could have done what they should have done…..try, at least, to begin to understand the profound depth of the spiritual wounds inflicted on these many men and women, once innocent and trusting boys and girls. Abandon the insincere promises, the endless efforts to hide the secrets and the debasing legal strategies to pound the victims into submission. Once the official Church figures out how to authentically respond to its victims, and actually does it, then and only then will this abominable disgrace start to slowly move towards being historical.

By Tom Doyle

Tom Doyle is a priest, canon lawyer, addictions therapist and long-time supporter of justice and compassion for clergy sex abuse victims. He is a co-author of the first report ever issued to the U.S. bishops on clergy sex abuse, in 1986.

The church blames society

The Sixties are one of the latest explanations offered for clerical sexual abuse. And like the rest, it doesn’t withstand scrutiny.

The counterculture caused stressed-out priests to sin. This is the banal and evasive conclusion of a five-year study, costing nearly $2 million, that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops commissioned to look into the causes and context of the sexual abuse of minors by the church’s clergy.

The study was prepared by researchers at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice of the City University of New York. One particular point stood out: “Social and cultural changes in the 1960s and 1970s manifested in increased levels of deviant behavior in the general society and also among priests of the Catholic Church in the United States.”

No single cause was found for the abuse, nor could it be predicted, the study maintained. If that sounds like absolution for church leadership, you are reading the report as intended.

So we’re to believe that priests were simply swept along with the rest of society as drug use increased, premarital sex became more acceptable, and divorce grew more common? Oh, the horrors of the Summer of Love!

May I point out that “deviant” behavior is a slippery category, and that loosened morality as to sex in general isn’t the same as the criminal act of sexually abusing a child? The report correlates the rise in sexual abuse of children by priests with rising crime and divorce rates – “deviant behavior” all – without establishing how they’re related, other than coincidence in time.

Damnable distortion

The problem is that child molestation by priests – and the systematic cover-up of their crimes by church hierarchy – has been exposed as a global phenomenon. How well does generalized “deviance” explain trends in sexual abuse in South Africa, Ireland, Germany, and other countries worldwide? Surely the divorce and crime rates didn’t play out in all these countries the same way they did in the United States.

The study also took pains to characterize the scourge of sexual abuse by priests as “historical” – which is to say, a thing that happened and is now mostly past. It notes a drop in reported abuse cases starting in the mid-1980s and credits new policies and practices put in place in churches and seminaries. If this is true, shouldn’t we be asking how important the societal deviance explanation is to begin with?

Moreover, it seems a little too pat to use reported cases of priestly abuse to draw conclusions for all time.

The most damnable aspect of the report – yes, that word was chosen carefully – is its efforts to distort the role of pedophilia.

The report defines prepubescent children – the targets of pedophiles – as being no more than 10 years old. By that standard, as the New York Times pointed out, the bishops can claim that fewer than 5 percent of sexual-predator priests were pedophiles, and that only 22 percent of the victims were prepubescent.

Tell that to a man who was molested as a 12-year-old altar boy.

A more accepted age cutoff is 13. Had the report used that age, the vast majority of the cases involving priests could be labeled pedophilia.

No excuses

To its credit, the bishops’ National Review Board, which oversaw the study, took pains to point out that “none of the information included in this report should be interpreted as making excuses for the terrible acts of abuse that occurred,” as one member wrote in her introduction. “There are no excuses.”

But they’ve come close to making them. Tweaking the data can’t hide the facts. Nor can attempts to find a broader sociocultural context explain away the institutional context of the church itself. Hierarchical authority in many dioceses provided cover for the “men of God” who committed these acts. And the church continues to struggle with its credibility as an honest broker, with both law enforcement and its own congregants, in rooting out priestly abuse.

A sin is a sin is a sin. Every Catholic knows that. The church makes much of its monopoly on theological and moral truth. For its faithful, there are no uncertain terms; they must take personal responsibility for their actions.

And yet, with this report, the U.S. bishops appear to be seeking scapegoats. And that doesn’t make for a very healing confession.

By Mary Sanchez

Don't Say I Didn't Warn You

Clergy sexual abuse doesn’t appear to be ending anytime in the near future. The problems stem from the “new guidelines” in themselves. While I believe every person in the public and private sectors of society should know, without doubt, what to do when they discover a child is being abused (call the cops), the Church’s reaction to another abuse scandal is the same as it’s always been… hide it, deny it, and lie about it. These new guidelines imposed by the Vatican in recent days is just another form of smoke and mirrors, in the hopes that parishioners will believe that Church leaders are taking a positive and proactive stand against those who abuse, when it’s more likely that these guidelines are just a way of convincing the world that something is being done, when many of us who have been abused by Catholic clergy, recognize that little is being done to protect children and much is being done to protect the Church. Let’s face it, all this hoopla about protecting kids with guidelines makes the Church look good in the eyes of those parishioners, who have been leaning away from the Church for some time, but now are drawn back into the realm of lies, because they really believe their Catholic leaders care. If they cared enough about the victims from yesterday, they’d offer me a cup of coffee, while I stand shivering in the freezing cold, alerting parishioners and the neighborhood of a know pedophile priest living in the rectory. If the Church really cared about protecting children, good and honest clergy would be standing right beside me in protest about those who would do evil while occupying the same position, looking all grand and holy.

“What about the good priests,” I’ve heard many ask. Well what about them? Where are they? The good priests I know have been removed from active ministry for speaking out for victims of abuse and trying to protect future children from being victimized. The few good priests, who have taken a stand to protect kids have all been ostracized from their own community. The few good men, who don’t need guidelines, but rather commonsense to put them in the direction of good and righteousness are probably just the type of men the Catholic Church should be protecting and accepting. Explain to me why good priests are expelled from their Church for doing the right thing?

During a protest in northern New Jersey this passed weekend, a man stopped in front of myself and a few protestors to ask a question. He went for zero to rage in a matter of milliseconds, and asked “Why don’t you protest the mosques and synagogues, to be inclusive in protecting kids from abuse, because it also happens outside of the Catholic Church?” He also told me that I don’t have the balls to protest at a mosque. Well he obviously didn’t know me right from the start. After I calmed him down and he gave me a chance to answer, I told him, “I protest in front of Catholic churches and schools and Archdiocese buildings, because I was abused by a Catholic priest. Besides, wouldn’t it look pretty strange if I stood in front of a mosque with a sign in my hand that reads I Was Abused by A Catholic Priest?” I told him that if he could prove to me that kids were being abused at a particular mosque or synagogue, and he would stand beside me and support the cause of protecting children, then I would be there. I gave him some contact information, but he’s yet to send me a message. I suppose maybe he changed his mind. Either way, it was not an entirely bad experience. Few, like that gentleman, are willing to hear another side of the story, rather than just screaming at us and insulting us. I have much respect for that man in the black BMW on Saturday, who was indeed angry, but willing to listen also. Some just need a little education.

Usually, when I do these protests, I hear it all. I’ve been told to go fuck myself, get a life, that I’m only doing this for money, and just a few weeks back an elderly woman called me a leech. I’ve been confronted by priests and parishioners and some have tried to bully me. Even a police officer last Saturday tried to keep me from exercising my First Amendment right of “free speech,” by ordering me not to talk to people. I guess he forgot to read the Bill of Rights in the 2^nd grade that grants me permission to express myself in a peaceful demonstration. Heck, if I’m advised by law enforcement to keep my mouth shut while disregarding the First Amendment, why doesn’t the Catholic Church come under the same scrutiny of ignorance to the First Amendment of their right to practice their religion? I ignored the 12 year-old-looking police officer.

Some parishioners got angry with us that day for protesting while their children were making their first communions. My answer, “Children are also abused on days when first communions take place. My abuser didn’t stop abusing me because it was Tuesday, or because it was around the holidays.” You’d think more people would be willing to respect us and listen to us, since we are usually at these events to protest an abusive priest who is still in their parish, and protect their children. Unfortunately, we are viewed as the enemy because we have taken a stand against evil and tyranny (another one of my Constitutional Rights).

Sometimes I wonder what has happened to my America. Where have my rights gone, when religious establishments lobby at my State’s legislature to oppose rights that would protect American citizens, but more importantly American children? Doesn’t anyone know that our Founding Fathers didn’t want religion within 10-square miles of government? Often times I can’t tell the difference between religion and politics, and since I’m educated in neither, I try staying away from both. I just know that my rights have been squashed by the Catholic Church, when they sent a known child abuser to the high school I was about to attend for my freshman year. I also know that my pleas for help from my own government have gone unanswered, when I continue to write letters to my American representatives without response. The Church makes it about money when they lobby our law makers to protect themselves against civil cases for failing to remove one of their own who abused a child. The Church makes it about money when their priests stand on a pulpit and fire away at those who are protesting outside by declaring we are the ones to blame for the closures of their churches and schools. Yet, parishioners still load the collection plate with a percentage of the family’s income, without hesitation of where that money is going and how it’s being spent. It’s not for the poor. Too bad though, because when you don’t heed my warnings, you’ll probably be standing next to me in the future when one of your children falls prey to such scum. Don’t say I didn’t warn you!

Don’t Say I Didn’t Warn You

Clergy sexual abuse doesn’t appear to be ending anytime in the near future. The problems stem from the “new guidelines” in themselves. While I believe every person in the public and private sectors of society should know, without doubt, what to do when they discover a child is being abused (call the cops), the Church’s reaction to another abuse scandal is the same as it’s always been… hide it, deny it, and lie about it. These new guidelines imposed by the Vatican in recent days is just another form of smoke and mirrors, in the hopes that parishioners will believe that Church leaders are taking a positive and proactive stand against those who abuse, when it’s more likely that these guidelines are just a way of convincing the world that something is being done, when many of us who have been abused by Catholic clergy, recognize that little is being done to protect children and much is being done to protect the Church. Let’s face it, all this hoopla about protecting kids with guidelines makes the Church look good in the eyes of those parishioners, who have been leaning away from the Church for some time, but now are drawn back into the realm of lies, because they really believe their Catholic leaders care. If they cared enough about the victims from yesterday, they’d offer me a cup of coffee, while I stand shivering in the freezing cold, alerting parishioners and the neighborhood of a know pedophile priest living in the rectory. If the Church really cared about protecting children, good and honest clergy would be standing right beside me in protest about those who would do evil while occupying the same position, looking all grand and holy.

“What about the good priests,” I’ve heard many ask. Well what about them? Where are they? The good priests I know have been removed from active ministry for speaking out for victims of abuse and trying to protect future children from being victimized. The few good priests, who have taken a stand to protect kids have all been ostracized from their own community. The few good men, who don’t need guidelines, but rather commonsense to put them in the direction of good and righteousness are probably just the type of men the Catholic Church should be protecting and accepting. Explain to me why good priests are expelled from their Church for doing the right thing?

During a protest in northern New Jersey this passed weekend, a man stopped in front of myself and a few protestors to ask a question. He went for zero to rage in a matter of milliseconds, and asked “Why don’t you protest the mosques and synagogues, to be inclusive in protecting kids from abuse, because it also happens outside of the Catholic Church?” He also told me that I don’t have the balls to protest at a mosque. Well he obviously didn’t know me right from the start. After I calmed him down and he gave me a chance to answer, I told him, “I protest in front of Catholic churches and schools and Archdiocese buildings, because I was abused by a Catholic priest. Besides, wouldn’t it look pretty strange if I stood in front of a mosque with a sign in my hand that reads I Was Abused by A Catholic Priest?” I told him that if he could prove to me that kids were being abused at a particular mosque or synagogue, and he would stand beside me and support the cause of protecting children, then I would be there. I gave him some contact information, but he’s yet to send me a message. I suppose maybe he changed his mind. Either way, it was not an entirely bad experience. Few, like that gentleman, are willing to hear another side of the story, rather than just screaming at us and insulting us. I have much respect for that man in the black BMW on Saturday, who was indeed angry, but willing to listen also. Some just need a little education.

Usually, when I do these protests, I hear it all. I’ve been told to go fuck myself, get a life, that I’m only doing this for money, and just a few weeks back an elderly woman called me a leech. I’ve been confronted by priests and parishioners and some have tried to bully me. Even a police officer last Saturday tried to keep me from exercising my First Amendment right of “free speech,” by ordering me not to talk to people. I guess he forgot to read the Bill of Rights in the 2^nd grade that grants me permission to express myself in a peaceful demonstration. Heck, if I’m advised by law enforcement to keep my mouth shut while disregarding the First Amendment, why doesn’t the Catholic Church come under the same scrutiny of ignorance to the First Amendment of their right to practice their religion? I ignored the 12 year-old-looking police officer.

Some parishioners got angry with us that day for protesting while their children were making their first communions. My answer, “Children are also abused on days when first communions take place. My abuser didn’t stop abusing me because it was Tuesday, or because it was around the holidays.” You’d think more people would be willing to respect us and listen to us, since we are usually at these events to protest an abusive priest who is still in their parish, and protect their children. Unfortunately, we are viewed as the enemy because we have taken a stand against evil and tyranny (another one of my Constitutional Rights).

Sometimes I wonder what has happened to my America. Where have my rights gone, when religious establishments lobby at my State’s legislature to oppose rights that would protect American citizens, but more importantly American children? Doesn’t anyone know that our Founding Fathers didn’t want religion within 10-square miles of government? Often times I can’t tell the difference between religion and politics, and since I’m educated in neither, I try staying away from both. I just know that my rights have been squashed by the Catholic Church, when they sent a known child abuser to the high school I was about to attend for my freshman year. I also know that my pleas for help from my own government have gone unanswered, when I continue to write letters to my American representatives without response. The Church makes it about money when they lobby our law makers to protect themselves against civil cases for failing to remove one of their own who abused a child. The Church makes it about money when their priests stand on a pulpit and fire away at those who are protesting outside by declaring we are the ones to blame for the closures of their churches and schools. Yet, parishioners still load the collection plate with a percentage of the family’s income, without hesitation of where that money is going and how it’s being spent. It’s not for the poor. Too bad though, because when you don’t heed my warnings, you’ll probably be standing next to me in the future when one of your children falls prey to such scum. Don’t say I didn’t warn you!

Vatican Urges New Rules on Abuse by Clergy

 The Vaticantold bishops worldwide on Monday to make fighting sexual abuse of minors by clerics a priority, telling them to create “clear and coordinated” procedures by next year and cooperate with law enforcement authorities when required.

The directives, detailed in a letter, are among the clearest to emerge from the Vatican since a sexual abuse scandal erupted in Europe last year. But the recommendations are not binding in church law and do not spell out any enforcement procedures or punishments for bishops who have been found to have violated church law.

The guidelines note that the sexual abuse of minors by clerics is not only an offense punishable by church law, but also “a crime prosecuted by civil law.”

Still, they play down the role of civilian review boards that have investigated abuse in Ireland, the United States and elsewhere — and that have often faulted bishops for not stopping abuse — noting that those boards “cannot substitute” for bishops’ ultimate authority in adjudicating abuse cases.

The letter’s emphasis on the power of bishops did not go over well with some victims’ advocates, who have said that the bishops themselves have contributed to the problem by being more concerned with protecting priests than with protecting children.

“There’s no enforcement here,” the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, a leading victims’ rights groups in the United States, said in a statement. “There are no penalties for bishops who don’t come up with guidelines or who violate their own guidelines.”

“Until that happens — until top church officials who hide and enable abuse are severely disciplined — top church officials will continue to hide and enable abuse,” the group said.

The Vatican said the letter, signed by its chief doctrinal officer, Cardinal William J. Levada, was essentially aimed at making bishops around the world more responsive — especially in countries where they had not routinely tackled the problem of sexual abuse of minors or had even dismissed it.

“The aim of the document is to provide a common denominator for principles that everyone can bear in mind in making appropriate directives,” the Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said Monday.

Father Lombardi said the Vatican could not issue universal requirements for mandatory reporting to civil authorities because it also operates in countries with repressive governments. “Each reality is different, culturally and from the point of view of different countries’ laws,” he said.

The letter states that bishops are required to investigate all claims and send all cases deemed “credible” to the Vatican for review. It says that bishops should also listen to victims, create “safe environment” programs for minors and properly screen seminarians.

In March 2010, a sexual abuse scandal swept the Roman Catholic Church in Europe, with scores of new victims coming forward. And new revelations have revealed weakness in even the toughest “zero-tolerance” norms put in place by the United States bishops in 2002, which recommend removing a priest from ministry while claims against him are investigated.

In February, a grand jury in Philadelphia indicted a church official on charges of child endangerment in connection with the transfer of priests accused of sexually abusing children, and it also indicted four men, including two priests and a former priest, on charges of raping or assaulting children.

The grand jury also said it had found “substantial” evidence of abuse by 37 other priests who remained in active ministry at the time of the investigation, and the archbishop of Philadelphia subsequently suspended 21 of them from ministry.

A review board made up of lay people accused the archbishop, Cardinal Justin Rigali, of failing to be “open and transparent” because the archdiocese screened the cases that the panel was allowed to examine.

In Ireland, a new report by civil authorities is expected this month, after two scathing government reports there in recent years showing extensive abusive and cover-ups by church officials.

The Vatican’s letter on Monday incorporated revisions made last year to the church’s procedures on prosecuting sexual abuse, including extending the use of fast-track procedures against priests and doubling the statute of limitations for disciplinary action against priests to 10 years from the victim’s 18th birthday.

It said that local bishops did not have to make their guidelines church law, as bishops in the United States have done, but could ask the Vatican for permission to do so.

Asked why it took the Vatican more than a year to issue guidelines that did not alter church law, Father Lombardi said the letter had to be vetted by multiple Vatican offices.

“Obviously, someone can say that at important and urgent moments it’s better to treat the issue quickly and swiftly, but if there are delicate and complex issues to consider, it’s good for there to be consensus,” he said

by Rachel Donadio, NY Times

Shallow Shepherds

Shoved into the shadows
Children only by name.
Deprived of everything beautiful.
Left alive, but not the same.
Shattered against the waves, a child left lost.
Innocence the cost.
Laughter taken away.
Responsibility not theirs they say.
Do they look in the mirror and see Gods?
To admit fault would be against the odds.
Free to take all they desire.
Casting children into the fire. 
Betrayal from those most trusted.
Those too proud to admit they’ve lusted.
Men through which God is supposed to be provided
Ripping children apart, their hearts divided.
What person that sees themselves as human
Would find a right to do that to another?
Superior to flesh, they have no brother.
Preying upon those smaller
And leaving nothing left.
Pretending nothing happened
Another Good Father’s theft.
Waiting to be told, never turning the monsters in themselves.
Downplaying, redirecting the blame.
Post-pubescence and gays, their justification and cause.
And the world skips to the beat of the insane.
Casting judgment to all around
‘Cept for perhaps a mouse.
Respectability shatters on the ground.
When they don’t protect their own house.
Claims of redirection, the problem is solved.
They made changes and turned the page.
But another case comes out, cover-up involved
Voices ignored, crying out with rage.
In their actions they ignore the cries,
But in their words they say they changed.
An institution swimming in lies.
Lets all dance to the beat of the deranged.
Turning their backs to the tears.
Ignoring the victims, the rejected.
Telling some victims to bite their tongues
So monsters can leave the Church respected.
A society that can’t see the difference between consent and rape.

A Church that claims to be the victim twists the truth.
They close the blinds and shut the drapes.
More love for the monsters than for the planet’s youth.
Men living on a planet that’s flat and doesn’t turn.
Masses listening to men that are hollow
Men that don’t know how to learn.
May they get their just due in death and feel the burn.

by Joshua Ray

Patrick Wall Interview on CNN

Secret Priest Files

Talkers & Doers

There’s two kinds of people in this world when you boil it all down. You’ve got your talkers and you’ve got your doers. Most people are just talkers. All they got is talk. But when all is said and done, it’s the doers who change this world and when they do that they change us and that’s why we never forget them.

So which one are you? Do you just talk about it? Or do you stand up and do something about it. Because believe you, me, all the rest of it is just coffeehouse bullshit! – Boondock Saint II, opening line.