Where's the Media? L.A. Att'y Declares Many Abuse Accusations Against Catholic Priests Are 'Entirely False'

By Dave Pierre | January 02, 2011 | 21:02

A A

In a stunning ten-page declaration recently submitted to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, veteran attorney Donald H. Steier stated that his investigations into claims of sexual abuse by Catholic priests have uncovered vast fraud and that his probes have revealed that many accusations are completely false.

Counselor Steier has played a role in over one hundred investigations involving Catholic clergy in Los Angeles.In his missive Mr. Steier relayed, "One retired F.B.I. agent who worked with me to investigate many claims in the Clergy Cases told me, in his opinion, about ONE-HALF of the claims made in the Clergy Cases were either entirely false or so greatly exaggerated that the truth would not have supported a prosecutable claim for childhood sexual abuse" (capital letters are his).

Mr. Steier also added, "In several cases my investigation has provided objective information that could not be reconciled with the truthfulness of the subjective allegations. In other words, in many cases objective facts showed that accusations were false."

Mr. Steier's declaration is a stunner. He is as experienced as anyone in studying the claims of abuse against Catholic clergy in the Los Angeles area. Also among Steier's eye-opening statements:

"I have had accused priest clients take polygraph examinations performed by very experienced former law enforcement experts, including from L.A.P.D., the Sheriff Department, and F.B.I. In many cases the examinations showed my clients' denial of wrongdoing was 'truthful,' and in those cases I offered in writing to the accuser to undergo a similar polygraph examination at my expense. In every case the accuser refused to have his veracity tested by that investigative tool, which is routinely used by intelligence agencies."
"I am aware of several plaintiffs who testified that they realized that they had been abused only after learning that some other person - sometimes a relative - had received a financial settlement from the Archdiocese or another Catholic institution."
"In my investigation of many cases, I have seen the stories of some accusers change significantly over time, sometimes altering years, locations, and what activity was alleged - in every case, the changes seemed to have enabled or enhanced claims against my clients, or drastically increased alleged damages."
"I am aware that false memories can also be planted or created by various psychological processes, including by therapists who might be characterized as 'sexual victim advocates,' if not outright charlatans."
"Most of the approximately seven hundred psychiatric 'Certificates of Merit' filed in these Clergy Cases, as required by [California] Code of Civil Procedure § 340.1, were signed by the same therapist." (!) (Note: A "Certificate of Merit" from "a licensed mental health practitioner" is required in California before filing an abuse lawsuit.)

Steier signed and submitted the declaration "under penalty of perjury" November 30, 2010. Los Angeles County Superior Court officially filed it at 11 a.m. on December 15, 2010. (Images of Steier's declaration: pages 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10.)

Steier also took aim at the outspoken advocacy group SNAP (Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests):

They maintain an interactive Internet website with a user 'Forum' and 'Message Board,' among other features, where people can share detailed information between alleged victims pertaining to identity of specific alleged perpetrators, their alleged 'modus operandi,' and other details of alleged molestation. In effect, a person who wanted to make a false claim of sexual abuse by a priest could go to that website and find a 'blueprint' of factual allegations to make that would coincide with allegations made by other people. Law enforcement also uses the S.N.A.P. website to attempt to locate new victims and allegations against Catholic priests.

Needless to say, SNAP had a fit at the sight of Steier's declaration. In a frantic press statement dated December 13, 2010, SNAP derided Steier's declaration as a "legal maneuver" that was "among the most outrageous and hurtful ever made by a church defense lawyer." In addition to claiming it will file a complaint with the California Bar Association, it demanded that Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony "denounce Steier's claims and to disclose how much archdiocesan money has been paid to Steier." (Gee, the last time I checked, SNAP steadfastly refused to divulge how much of its income is derived from the number of lawyers with whom it closely collaborates!)

Yet there is a glaring absence from SNAP's statement. The organization does not refute nor deny any of the specific claims made by Steier. It simply labels them as "outrageous" and "hurtful." That is hardly a blow to the explosive declaration aired by the veteran attorney.

Yes, Catholic priests terribly abused minors, and bishops failed to stop the harm. That's an undeniable truth. There are few crimes that revolt more than sexual abuse. The abuse of minors is a dark episode that the Church will forever have to live with.

Yet major media outlets have largely ignored a major element to the entire Catholic abuse scandal narrative.

Here is Wall Street Journal writer Dorothy Rabinowitz:

"People have to come to understand that there is a large scam going on with personal injury attorneys, and what began as a serious effort has now expanded to become a huge money-making proposition."

Surprise: Ms. Rabinowitz made her remark in 2005. Since then, the Church has doled out an additional $1 billion in settlements.

Will 2011 be the year that the media finally begins to take a closer look at many of the claims being made? What about the suspicious relationships between SNAP, lawyers, and many in the media? (Vincent Carroll at the Denver Post is a rare voice of acknowledgement: "[F]raudulent or highly dubious accusations are more common than is acknowledged in coverage of the church scandals — although they should not be surprising, given the monumental settlements various dioceses have paid out over the years" (Oct. 10, 2010).)

Stay tuned.

-- Dave Pierre is the author of the heralded book, Double Standard: Abuse Scandals and the Attack on the Catholic Church and the author of TheMediaReport.com.

Dave Pierre's blog
Login to post comments

Comments

Simple answer

Submitted by jdlybrand on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 9:08pm.

It doesn't fit the template.

"What a revoltin' development this is!"

Chester Riley

Double standard template

Submitted by MadRat on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 12:26pm.

It's worse than you think. Not a week goes by that some teacher isn't arrested for having sex with a student. Why don't we hear about this in the news, as often as it happens? Is it because teachers tend to be liberal and Catholic priest tend to be conservative? Is it because teachers have a much better labor union than priests? Maybe it's because the news is at war with Catholicism.

What!?

Submitted by MidAmerica on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 9:19pm.

People will actually lie to get money?

The "media" is bent on

Submitted by rbosque on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 9:33pm.

The "media" is bent on attacking the Church, which means they are anything but "media".

"It may be true that you can't fool all the people all the time, but you can fool enough of them to rule a large country"......Will Durant

"Mud-ia"?

Submitted by Chris Norman on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 9:51pm.

"Mud-ia"?

Let's make the 2012 campaign: "The War on Error"

They Are Busy

Submitted by BW222 on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 9:43pm.

MSM is busy trying to arrange a Muslim Cosby Show and burying any negative stories about Islam (murder of 21 Copts, etc.)

BW222

Deja Vu

Submitted by Chris Norman on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 10:10pm.

This smacks of the daycare center "abuse" cases of the late 1970s and early 1980s. A few cases that were legitimate grew into a mass hysteria of ginned up charges. It also reminds me of the "recovered memory" parental "abuse" cases of the late 80s/early 90s when there were psychiatrists and psychologists who "specialized" in making troubled people "recover" their "buried memories" of "sexual abuse" by their now elderly parents when they were children. They ruined lives and families.

I worked with a woman who accused her elderly parents of having belonged to a satanic sex cult when she was a girl - after her psychologist encouraged her "memories" of it through hyponosis. She actually said that this cult included the judge who heard her complaint and dismissed it. Later, she recanted her charges.

I knew, when all this sexual abuse charges in the Church came out, that while there were some legitimate cases, it would also bring out the people who either wanted money or wanted something to blame for all their adult problems.

The media is always happy to oblige in helping along stories like these - especially when it can do harm to religious organizations and their people.

Let's make the 2012 campaign: "The War on Error"

It is sad

Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 10:20pm.

I believe any abuse by priests deserves media attention. The thing is most of the cases are decades old and the msm had a responsibility to report both sides

Shawn, I guess that's my

Submitted by Chris Norman on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 10:35pm.

Shawn, I guess that's my problem with all of this - these cases are "decades old" and while I'm sure that many of them probably did occur, the very age of the accusations make them hard to defend against. I'm afraid that while I believe that the Church did hush these cases up, stonewall, and moved some of these child abusers to new parishes where they could continue their sick activities, the Church is now paying out billions and tacitly admitting the guilt of priests who are either dead or too old to defend themselves. Like with many cases like these, the charge becomes the verdict. I'm a lapsed Catholic, but there's something about a lot of these cases that make me, in the gut, feel skeptical.

Let's make the 2012 campaign: "The War on Error"

Chris I think I see both sides on this

Submitted by shawn. on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 11:05pm.

The msm turns a blind eye to any possibility of any claim of innocence of these Priest, however there are some Catholics that do not focus on he abuse itself, but only complain about media bias and believed it should only be an internal matter.

Shawn, If any of these

Submitted by Chris Norman on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 11:56pm.

Shawn,

If any of these cases are proven against individual priests or a deliberate hiding of the guilty by church officials, then, by all means, it should be a matter of public prosecution. However, that's why this whole thing is such a mess - that and the fact this involves a religious institution. I don't know exactly how all these cases are being handled, but it seems to be that individual prosecutions are being minimized in an attempt reach timely settlements by the Church and the accusers. It's a good question - do the accusers want to see the priests publicly prosecuted or do they want restitution instead and now? In other words should these cases be criminal or civil? I don't know enogh to even argue the point.

Let's make the 2012 campaign: "The War on Error"

Shawn, 1) The MSM is

Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 1:09am.

Shawn,

1) The MSM is biased! why would I want a biased, corrupt, anti-Catholic, anti-Christian organization reporting and investigation a Christian/Catholic organization? Do you not see the conflict of interest?

2) The abuse need to be taken care off. The Pope has apologized, the Church has apologized, publicly. The Church has done many things and changed policies for this never to happen again. But to most anti-Catholics, a few, Conservative and Liberal, on this site are still not content. They cherish at the thought that the Church is further damage. They don't care about the truth, they don't care about anything else, but the Church and Catholics getting hurt.

3) The media is 100% ignorant about Catholicism, Catholic teaching, just like 99.9% of those on here and in public who attack her. When you have the media talking about defrocking a priest, instead of liacizing a priest, you know the media is completely clueless.

4) As I have said countless of times. If those who attack the Church truly cared about the abused who were abused by less than .05% of priests, they would go against the public school system in America, the Teacher's Unions, city and State governments who do nothing, but shuffler around and protect teachers who abuse children. The double standard is beyond pathetic.

5) If we had a moral and ethical media. An informed public, who was fair, I would have zero problem with this playing out in public. But that is not the case. Why would I want as an investigator and a judge individuals who are corrupt, biased, poorly informed, anti-Catholic, etc?

Those who attack the Church do not care about the Truth or the abused. They only care about hurting the Church and doing everything within their power to delegitimize the Roman Catholic Church. To them, the ends justify the means. They will slander, stereotype, make things up, speak in half-truths.

Question:

Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 10:40pm.

I'm not Catholic, and I never followed these accusations closely; of the number of allagations of sexual abuse of children, does anyone know the percentage of hetero- vs. homosexual cases?

BK, As soon as someone asks

Submitted by Chris Norman on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 10:51pm.

BK,

As soon as someone asks that question or intimates that there is an element of homosexuality in these alleged cases, someone is always quick to say that homosexuality isn't a factor in sexual abuse of young men by priests. Apparently, sexual abuse totally trumps homosexuality and renders it "irrelevant" - not even a factor to be considered or discussed. At least, that's the PC line I've always gotten in discussions with critics of the Church - usually, by the way, liberals, (both in secular and Catholic politics)..

Let's make the 2012 campaign: "The War on Error"

BK as soon as someone asks

Submitted by Albert Nygren on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 11:06pm.

I totally agree. Most of the Catholic clergy abuse of children was of boys and the abusers were obviously homosexual or they would have abused girls. During the Bishops Conferences the fact that the abusers were mostly homosexual was discussed a lot. There was much difference of opinion whether a man who was a homosexual should be admitted to a Catholic seminary to become a priest.

A few of the bishops said they would no longer allow a man who was homosexual to their seminaries but most of the Bishops would still allow them to go their seminaries and become priests. A few Bishops said that they would admit a man who was homosexual to their seminary but only if they passed psychological assessment to see that nothing else was wrong with them.

The homosexual lobby is very powerful in this country, especially with Liberals and it is no secret that most Catholics and Catholic Priests are Liberals. The Liberals just don't get it, but then they don't understand anything else either. I must say that I am an anomaly, I am a Bible believing Conservative, Roman Catholic. I love the Catholic Church and hate that there are some problems in the Church because in the main, it is wonderful.

Albert, I brought this up

Submitted by Chris Norman on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 11:35pm.

Albert,

I brought this up in a family discussion (my liberal brother and sister-in-law are practicing Catholics, who are, nonetheless, very critical of Church policies). I had read somewhere an opinion that the seed of abuse cases lay in the aftermath of Vatican II when it was decided to discourage questioning a candidate for the priesthood about their sexuality (don't ask, don't tell?) in a misguided attempt to bolster the dwindling numbers of new priests. The writer said that this allowed many young men into the priesthood who were sexually confliicted and had sought an "escape" in a chaste calling. Only later did this cause problems as the vow of chastity was trumped by repressed homosexuality. I didn't know if this was a relevant point of view or not, I just put it out for discussion and was quickly told, in no uncertain terms, that homosexuality played absolutely no role in pedophilia. They could be right or they could be wrong - I'm not sure if it's not just a PC answer.

Let's make the 2012 campaign: "The War on Error"

Let's call it what it is

Submitted by Tom Paine on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 11:12pm.

The biggest problem is that the Church has to confront is that of the homosexual clergy. Look at the demographics of the "pedophelia" crisis. While true cases of pedophelia involve pre pubescent children, the vast majority of clergy abuse cases were of male post pubescent teenagers. If the demographics were the same except the victims were female, do you suppose the media would have referred to it as Pedophelia? No, it would have been properly classified as heterosexual rape. What is dfferent other than the protection the media give to the gay lobby.

Tom the media will never

Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 11:22pm.

Tom the media will never blame the homosexual priests of pedophilia because they insist there is no link between the two. Me, I'm not so sure...

Proud member of the 53%!

Chris

Submitted by bkeyser on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 11:12pm.

Yeah, that sounds like a misdirection argument to me. Either it's sexual abuse or it's some other kind of abuse where sexuality isn't the driving factor -and I'm okay with that explanation so long as someone can describe the abuses as non-sexual in nature. I've just never heard them described that way.

What I don't understand is that if there is some correlation between homosexuality and celibacy, or some other aspect that is relatively unique to Catholic priests. Or, if homosexuality is determined either at birth or very early in life -as so many attest- than why are so many drawn to the Catholic Church? It's kind of similar to the argument over DADT: generally speaking, the homosexual mindset -or at least agenda- is diametrically opposed to that of military service, and you would think equally opposed to the anti-gay teachings of the Church.

Again, I'm no expert on any of these subjects, but I'm still confused as to why orientation isn't addressed relative to the abuse issue. Unless the truth paints homosexuals in a disproportionate unflattering light; then I can see why it's ignored by the media and, frankly, the Church.

BK, I'm not certain either.

Submitted by Chris Norman on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 11:22pm.

BK,

I'm not certain either. See my reply to Albert above.

Let's make the 2012 campaign: "The War on Error"

comment to bkeyser

Submitted by lotr on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 1:58pm.

There is not any correlation between celibacy and homosexuality. We do not hear of such problems with, say, Buddhist monks who are also celibate, nor did we hear of these problems during the "golden age" of the American Catholic priesthood (~1900-1970). Priests, prior to Vatican II, were by and large characterized as very masculine, athletic men, even typically stereotyped as being kick-ass amateur fighters (e.g., "The Exorcist" and "M.A.S.H."). They typically gained respect and established trust with altar boys through physical, athletic activies and/or participating in sporting events, this then attacting new vocations.

Although the liberal media seeks to brainwash the public that celibacy is somehow the problem, this is manifestly false on all counts (and even by suggesting it, they have just admitted that homosexuality is, by and large, a learned behavior, not an innate organic behavior). If celibacy itself were the problem, then assuming the typical demographic of 3% homosexual, 97% heterosexual, the distribution of abuse cases should be approximately 97% to 3% female to female victims. Instead, we have the opposite.

No, clearly a change happened around 1970, just following Vatican II, the "sexual revolution" and the rise of radical feminism, whereby the types of men who sought to become priests shifted from the strong, masculine types to weak, effeminate ones. These "effeminate" men may not have been openly gay when they went into seminaries, and perhaps they were trying to "run away" from a "demon" of not being "alpha-male," but it appears that the celibacy requirement then exacerbated the problem when they, by virtue of their vocation, were put into isolated situations, in a confidential, supervisory, trustful role, with teenaged boys (very young, but sexually mature, men).

Lotr, Something no one

Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 3:16pm.

Lotr,

Something no one talks about is that during the Vietnam War there were a lot of anti-war individuals and leftist radicals that went into the priesthood. This would give them an automatic excuse not to go to war when drafted. Countless of lefties went into the priesthood, into Catholic seminars in order to avoid the draft. do some research on this.

Also, what those who attack the Church do not admit, is that the bishops who shuffled the priests around were considered very liberal and lax in their Cahtolic teaching.

Thanks Chris, Lotr and Liberallies

Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 3:40pm.

and Albert, Tom and Rad.

As I mentioned above, I'm not a Catholic and know little about the religion (though I was raised Lutheran, so you'd think I'd be a little more knowledgable...). I wasn't aware of the Vatican II, or the shift to a more liberal acceptance policy for Catholic priests. That does seem to explain a lot.

One more question: Is there a voice from the gay community speaking out in defense of Catholic priests, or have gays in general just turned a blind eye to this issue?

Bkeyser, I don't think

Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 3:51pm.

Bkeyser,

I don't think Vatican II laxed the entrance into seminars. Seminars, do to a declining number of priests believed that quanity would equal quality. We know better today. There are some priests and bishops who have become very laxed and gone against the teachigns of the Church. But this is quickly changing today with the Vatican appointing Bishops who are much more Conservative.

There are already cases all over the USA/Europe where "Catholic" hospitals have run into Bishops who have pulled the Catholic name from the hospitals because these perform abortions, contraceptive procedures, give contraceptives. Hospitals who stand in contradiction to Roman Catholic teachings. One of the bigger cases was actually highlited here on NB.

I know homosexuals who are devout Roman Catholics who do not sleep around and have sex with no one. They know that they must be celebete despite their homosexual leanings. I don't think there is a well-known voice in the gay community speaking in favor of the Church, but there are homosexuals who do stand by the Church and Her teachings.

addendum

Submitted by lotr on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 9:16pm.

One thing that I (now glaringly) forgot to mention is that the trend I described has since, generally speaking, been reversed, especially in certain dioceses where orthodox Catholicism reigns supreme. The new young priests that we see today are very often "old school," but again, I can only speak for such dioceses. I can only see this trend continuing as the old Latin Mass has been restored to general practice by Pope Benedict XVI -- this is significant since it was introduction of the Novus Ordo Mass that reduced and transformed the role of the priest (in theory it wasn't supposed to, but it in practice it did) to a more passive, softer and less significant role. One thing that is certain: Celibacy is not easy for any "functional" man. Therefore, there has to be a very persuasive, indeed, "divinely inspired," incentive for vowing to it, and for renouncing a wife and family. The old Mass, IMO, was more conducive to this (e.g., the old Latin Mass, like the Eastern Orthodox Divine Liturrgy, does not allow for "altar girls"). I'm not necessarily criticising Vatican II, or even the good intentions for revising the ancient Mass, but I am pointing out what I believe are very significant factors behind what has happened in the years since Vatican II and the "sexual revolution."

Regarding the gay community, by and large they've turned a blind eye to this, perhaps out of being misinformed by the media about it being a "pedophilia" problem, or perhaps on purpose.

lotr, I could be mistaken,

Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 11:49pm.

lotr,

I could be mistaken, but I believe that there was no Dogma that occurred during Vatican II, correct? I think a lot of the changes from Vatican II were more procedural, accepting the vencular mass, as well as telling the laity that they did not need to be priests, nuns, individuals of religious orders in order to reach Heaven, correct? I think the biggest point from Vatican II was just this, that ordinary men and women, through their daily and mundane tasks and lives can and must reach Heaven through these. Humanae Vitae was also a big part of Vatican II. I could be wrong.

I think the biggest factor that has affected the Church is that it became very laxed on who it admitted into the seminaries. The shortage of priests, which were are no longer facing, hurt the Church in more ways than one. Also, there were many Bishops who were appointed before John Paul II who were very, very, extremely Liberal in their Catholic teachigns and practices. This allowed for very, extremely Liberals to be appointed as head of churches around the world.

Look into the history of the communist doing everything in their power to infiltrated the church, this is a historical fact. Also into the fact that extremely Liberal men, in order to avoid the draft, flooded the seminaries, another historical fact.

Overall, I do agree with you, that the relaxing of Church's traditions and allowing the venecular masses had a secondary affect, a laxing of many of the Church's teachings.

Liberallies

Submitted by lotr on Tue, 01/04/2011 - 2:33pm.

Yes, you are absolutely correct about Vatican II. It was not a "dogmatic council," but rather a "pastoral council." It's intention was for the Church to engage the modern world. It's been said in traditionalist circles that the Council was "hijacked" by liberal bishops from Europe. Don't know whether I believe that or not, but no doubt there was no changes in any Catholic dogmas whatsoever, and instead only reaffirmations of dogmas.

So, what came out of Vatican II? I think it's fair to say that the most significant development was the mandate that the ancient Mass be "revised," one of the intentions being to foster more active participation from the faithful (note, however, that well before that time the popes had all exhorted the faithful to "participate" in the Mass, albeit in a silent manner, by "following along" the priest in a missal). This mandate resulted in very large changes to the Mass. When I've used the term "Latin Mass" it's more to empasize its Romanesque origin, not the language it was spoken in -- a better term would be "Tridentine Mass" -- you can look this up on the internet to see just how "different" it was from the modern Mass. The change to vernacular was really only a small part of the "revision."

Anyhow, I go on about this because the primary function of the priest traditionally has been in his capacity to adminster sacraments, most importantly the Sacrifice of the Mass. The new Mass brought a reduction of the perceived role of the priest from the one who offered sacrifice to God in the person of Christ to one more of a "facilitator," "dinner host," "welcoming committee," "emcee," etc. While this may have not been the intention in theory, it certainly happened in practice, especially in certain dioceses where liberal innovations were taken with the new Mass, where churches were "gutted" and "modernized," etc. I thus honestly believe this was a big factor.

However, the other factors you mentioned also no doubt played a role. Seminaries under liberal bishops did become far more lax, and I've even read that they actively opposed men who were deemed too "rigid" (i.e., strong and orthodox), while bringing in the more "tolerant" (i.e., effeminate and politically liberal) types. I also agree that there have been hostile forces such as communism, as well as the effort to escape the draft.

Not so much a link between

Submitted by Foxfier on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 6:15pm.

Not so much a link between celibacy and homosexuality as authority over minors being attractive to abusers, and Priests being male. (Sadly, male homosexual abuse is more common-- no idea why. Guys like sex a lot, I guess.)

From the old books I've read, the standard scandal was heterosexual and fully adult-- there's just something about the Church that makes you expect more.

There's a blog called Interested Participant that has a lot of similar stories; they even have a section called "Women with Issues" or something like that that includes a lot of child abuse by women, since that issue doesn't get a lot of attention.

Clergy abuse allegations

Submitted by Albert Nygren on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 10:50pm.

If what Mr. Steier says is true then this must be investigated by the legal authorities and the media must be made to print retractions. I say if this is true because while the media is generally anti-Catholic (in fact anti-Christian) and has biased reporting, it is also true that because Mr. Steier was employed by the Catholic Church, his word is suspect also.

There is another reason to be suspect of the truth of Mr. Steier's claims. I am a Roman Catholic and I have had many years of experience working as a Registered Nurse on psychiatric units in hospitals. After the news of the high amount of clergy abuse of children came to light, the leaders of the Catholic Church were in great psychological denial of what had been going on and blamed the accusations on a media that was lying.

I watched the first 3 Catholic Bishops Conferences after the scandles became known and only a few of the bishops took responsibility for what the priests and what the Bishops had done that was both illegal and highly sinful. It wasn't until the 2nd conference that the Bishops were willing to admit that mayby they had made a mistake by hiding the abuse and moving the guilty priests to other parishs. Even at the 3rd Conference, the Bishops refused to acknowledge that any Bishop had commited a sin by what they had done, they had only made a "mistake".

Don't get me wrong, I love the Catholic Church but the people in it are not perfect by a long shot. Also I heard and read from credible sources, that there is just as much clergy sexual abuse of children in the Protestent churches as in the Catholic Church but that the media doesn't report it. That is no excuse for Catholic clergy sexually abusing children but it does provide a prospective.

Agreed that many cases did,

Submitted by Chris Norman on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 11:07pm.

Agreed that many cases did, in fact, happen and perhaps this attorney is biased (however he would risk severe penalties if he is lying). However, without going through the cases, case by case, wouldn't you agree that. in all probability, there is a likelihood that not every one of these cases is legitimate? That it is a human folly to pile on when there is money to be made? Or a human sadness to seek a reason for a troubled life? I just can't buy into the notion that just because a charge is made that it is always truthful.

Let's make the 2012 campaign: "The War on Error"

And herein lies a major part of the problem.

Submitted by Rhymes With Right on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 11:18pm.

There is a presumption of guilt in these cases, based merely upon accusation.

I spent several years in the seminary during the early 1990s. While I was a seminarian, several priest I was acquainted with were accused of abuse. Of those accused, all but one was driven from active ministry -- and that one was repeatedly investigated on the same accustions.

Let's look at the cases.

Fr. A and Fr. B were certainly guilty. The sheer number of accusers and the nature of the accusations made it qute clear that "where there was smoke there was fire."

Fr. C was accused of incidents that had allegedly happened a quarter century before. The allegations themselves virtually defied credibility. He took lie detecter tests and passed, and was evaluated by several psychologists who found it highly unlikely that he had committed the acts he was accused of. Unfortunately, he could not account for his whereabouts on specific days a quarter century earlier -- therefore the diocese removed him from active ministry.

Fr. D was accused by a mentally unstable woman in his parish of having abused her son. Fr. D denied the accusation -- as did the alleged victim, now an adult. The state police found no credible evidence of misconduct. The accusation, which played out publicly in the local press, divided the parish, and Fr. D. requested reassignment to anothe part of the diocese. SNAP appeared on the doorstep of the new parish every Sunday for three months, carrying signs condemning Fr. D as a pedophile, despite his having been cleared. Fr. D then had a nervous breakdown, and requested a leave of absence from ministry. Over 15 years later, he remains on leave due to a diocesan decision not to place him in a parish because of concerns about SNAP.

Fr. E had been accused of inappropriately touching a young man at the diocesan summer camp hile helping him put on a Native America costume that included a loincloth. Fr. E personally called CPS to report the allegation, and the investigation (which included interviews with Fr. E, the accuser, and other young men present at the time of the alleged incident determined that the allegation was unfounded. When the accusations involving Frs. A, B, C, and D came to light, Fr. E. was suspended by the diocese, reinvestigated by CPS, investigated by the state police, and ultimately cleared again. Seven years later, Fr. E was suspended and investigated again by the diocese due to the new norms adopted by the bishops' conference ta trequired all old accusations be reexamined -- despite 2 CPS investigations and 1 law enforcement investigation determining that the accusation was unfounded. Fr. E was ultimately cleared again -- but when he dies one can be certain his obituary will be headlined "Priest twice suspended on abuse charged dies".

Of these five priests, only one received anything approaching due process -- and only because he had been accused of abuse contemproaneously and had taken actions to ensure that he was investigated throughly -- and even then he was repreatedly subjected to new investigations and is still somewhat suspect in the eyes of some. While two were certainly guilty, the two remaining accused priests were either required to prove a negative by the diocese or not permitted to be proven innocent by activists who needed him to be guilty to keep their narrative of clergy abuse alive.

Blogging at rhymeswithright.mu.nu

Wow. What a very sad mess.

Submitted by Chris Norman on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 11:33pm.

Wow. What a very sad mess. Even when tarred wrongly, the tar is still next to impossible to wash off.

My heart goes out to the kids who were abused and my anger towards those who abused them, but also my heart goes out to the priests wrongly accused and my anger towards those who wrongly accused them deliberately.

Let's make the 2012 campaign: "The War on Error"

Speculation

Submitted by KC Mulville on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 11:17pm.

This is a website about the media, so let me offer this reflection about how the media handles speculation:

When it doesn't concern a media favorite, they report the speculations as fact.
When the speculation is about media favorites, they don't report it, or they bury it as fast as possible.

The basic problem is that we don't know. This is the kind of crime that occurs in secret, complicated by the fact that the victims are usually in no position to understand the crime or to defend themselves. None (that I know) of these cases involve a priest forcibly raping someone. In every case, the victim was maneuvered into believing that the priest was acting morally, but that to report the behavior would be a sin, or some distortion like that. It was as much a psychological attack as it was physical.

I know that I want to believe, as a Catholic (and ex-Jesuit) that these pedophilia cases were all fictions. But I know they weren't, and denying sin is not what the church is supposed to do. On the other hand, it is equally wrong to wallow in self-abuse.

I don't know the real answer, so I have to take a prudent skepticism. I suspect there is rampant fraud, but out of respect for the real victims, I don't want to leap to conclude that it was all a media conspiracy. That's really all I can do.

KC, It is a fine line,

Submitted by Chris Norman on Sun, 01/02/2011 - 11:42pm.

KC,

It is a fine line, isn't it? If one expresses skepticism about some of these charges, one risks coming across as dismissing the whole thing. I have tried to be careful in acknowledging that abuse did occur and those abuses were atrocities, but I also know that whenever cases like these come to light in any numbers, it sets off a runaway train of fraudulent and misguided charges that crush good people along with the bad.

Let's make the 2012 campaign: "The War on Error"

Agreed

Submitted by KC Mulville on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 9:57am.

It seems like easy money. Claim abuse, especially from priests who have other charges pending against them, and a good lawyer can reap a fortune.

I happen to know one priest who had charges against him, who vigorously denies it, and for whom it would be utterly out of character. And yet he was essentially removed from ministry, and has no way to defend himself. His fate is in the hands of a legal system that gives him no opportunity to speak. His reputation has been damaged, if not destroyed.

Now, of course, I'm not defending the bishops who simply shipped suspected abusers to a new hunting ground. But there is a good reason why bishops were so careful to protect priests from charges. A priest's entire life is built on reputation and trust, and yet the authority of the church that's embodied in its priests is a temptation that attracts all sorts of mischief. Priests are magnets for sinners, in every sense of the term.

And I will offer one side comment. The stereotype of the "best" priest is the Barry Fitzgerald, Bing Crosby movie version. He's warm, he gets involved, he wears his compassion on his sleeve. But then you meet priests who seem personally cold and distant, even when you're spilling your guts out to him in confession. A lot of parishioners are put off by that inconsistency, and assume that these are just bad priests. Not so. As much as some people are wary and distrustful of priests, those priests are nervous and cautious about the people who come to them. They can't afford to trust everyone; indeed, these days, they have to distrust almost everyone. Imagine the lonely woman, somewhat attractive but psychologically needy, who goes to see the priest about her marriage. She wants some warmth from the priest, but the priest is on alert and keeps aloof ... which turns her need into bitterness. Priests deal with this stuff every day, and it isn't healthy.

I have always suspected this

Submitted by Richard B. on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 1:54am.

I have always suspected this about the abuse cases.. The posts about the Catholic church being forced to admit homosexuals into the ministry is correct, as is the fact that all the cases are priest/boy situations. The homosexual community and there minions want to separate homosexuals from pedophiles, but the fact remains that any homosexual male that abuses a young boy is a pedophile.

False alligations

Submitted by Michael McManus on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 5:33am.

Puzzled by some of the replys, It is well known every catholic priest can still cover up child rape, But no one says a thing about this, As for false alligations against priests, You will get some, But those who dfid abuse and that abuse was covered up shows, Some thing no catholic will deal with, That the church is not Christian, Two reasons for this comment , First Christ said any one who harms a child they should have a huge millstone hung round their necks and drowned in the depths of the sea , Second there is no were in the bible does it say a hurt child should forgive, So the church is teaching children lies

Puzzled by some of the

Submitted by Newsbusterbrown on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 9:20am.

Puzzled by some of the replys,

Not as much as I am concerning your own post.

“There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)

Tell me about it.

Submitted by ghidorah15 on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 4:16pm.

Shouldn't people know how to spell and use correct grammar and punctuation? Why post if you're not going to be intelligible?

Their---sorry about that

Submitted by Richard B. on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 1:55am.

Their---sorry about that

FBI WATCH MAKING CRUELTY VISIBLE

Submitted by msfreeh on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 2:27am.

Prosecutors move to dismiss charges against former Scout leader

January 3, 2007

NEW HAVEN, Conn. --Federal prosecutors have moved to dismiss charges against a retired FBI agent who was indicted on child sex charges dating back more than a decade when he was a Boy Scout leader, in response to the death of his accuser.

William Hutton, 63, of Killingworth, was arrested in February on charges he enticed a member of his Scout troop to Maine for the purpose of sexual activity in 1994 and 1995.

3rd read

Edward Rodgers was in charge of investigating cases of Child Abuse at the FBI

THE DENVER POST - Voice of the Rocky Mountain Empire
May 17, 1990
Sisters win sex lawsuit vs. dad $2.3 million given for years of abuse
By Howard Prankratz
Denver Post Legal Affairs Writer

Two daughters of former state and federal law enforcement official Edward Rodgers were awarded $2.319,400 yesterday, after a Denver judge and jury found that the women suffered years of abuse at the hands of their father.

The award to Sharon Simone, 45, and Susan Hammond, 44, followed testimony of Rodgers’ four daughters in person or through depositions, describing repeated physical abuse and sexual assaults by their father from 1944 through 1965.

Rodgers, 72, who became a child abuse expert after retiring from the FBI and joining the colorado Springs DA’s office, failed to appear for the trial. But in a deposition taken in March, Rodgers denied ever hitting or sexually abusing his children.

4th read

FBI Agent Pleads Guilty to Child Abuse

Tuesday February 17, 2004 11:46 PM

By JOHN SOLOMON

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The former chief internal watchdog at the FBI has pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting a 6-year-old girl and has admitted he had a history of molesting other children before he joined the bureau for what became a two-decade career.

John H. Conditt Jr., 53, who retired in 2001, was sentenced last week to 12 years in prison in Tarrant County court in Fort Worth, Texas, after he admitted he molested the daughter of two FBI agents after he retired. He acknowledged molesting at least two other girls before he began his law enforcement career, his lawyer said.

5th read

Monday August 8, 2005 Longtime FBI agent sentenced to prison on child porn count

By JOHN MILLER

Associated Press Writer

BOISE, Idaho (AP) A longtime FBI agent who helped arrest mountain-man Claude Dallas and was involved in a deadly 1984 siege involving white supremacists in Washington state is going to prison for 12 months after pleading guilty to possession of child pornography.

William Buie, 64, of Boise, most recently worked as an investigator for the Idaho attorney general's office.

6th read

February 22, 2007

SPOTSYLVANIA, Va. A F.B.I. analyst has been sentenced to seven years in prison for having sex with a young girl in Spotsylvania County.
Forty-four-year-old Anthony John Lesko entered an Alford plea yesterday in Spotsylvania County Circuit Court to nine counts of felony indecent liberties upon a child. An Alford plea means Lesko doesn't admit guilt but believes there is enough evidence for a conviction.
Authorities say Lesko engaged in a sex act with her nine times, beginning when she was nine years old.
According to the plea, Lesko said he was a victim in the case. He said the girl initiated the contact.

7th read

FBI Agent Accused Of Masturbating In Public

May 25, 2007 09:02 PM
FBI Agent Accused Of Masturbating In Public

Posted by, Marissa Pasquet KOLD News 13 News Editor

FBI Special Agent Ryan Seese, 34, is facing sex offense charges after a cleaning woman said she found him masturbating in a women's lavatory on campus, according to a University of Arizona police spokesman.

8th read
FBI agent arrested on child sexual assault charge

Associated Press - January 15, 2008 6:14 PM ET

PUEBLO, Colo. (AP) - An FBI agent is under arrest in Pueblo for investigation of sexual assault on a child by someone in a position of trust.

Authorities say 53-year-old David Allan Johnson is being held in the Pueblo County jail today on a $100,000 bail.

9th read

Former Great Falls FBI agent sentenced on child sex charges

Jan 23, 2008

A man from Great Falls who's accused of sexually assaulting five underage girls will be spending the next 10 years behind bars.

Stanley Perkins, 64, changed his plea to guilty after police began investigating him for child molestation in August 2006.

The former educator, who also served two years as an FBI agent, was sentenced on one count of felony sexual assault.

Easy to make the priest scandels go away.

Submitted by stunned on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 12:18pm.

We would never hear about another priest scandel if the Church just went along and made abortion a sacrament and allowed women to become priests. Oh well we will just have to continue to read about this "outrage" until the Church is brought down.

tired of liberal lies

Stunned, Well said! While

Submitted by Liberallies on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 3:31pm.

Stunned,

Well said!

While the media does report a minute amount of teachers who abuse their students, they do not make the big deal they make out of the much smaller amount of priests who have abused children.

The media doesn't make a big deal about the Teacher's Union and city/state governments who have shuffled teachers around in order to protect them when allegations of child abuse come to light.

AND when it is a teacher who is a female the one that is caught abusing a child, you hear too many in the media defending her. Here in Chicago there were a couple of radio stations defending a female teacher. I will never forget how they would take on callers who were outraged at the radio stations stance. The radio personalities would tell the callers that it is the dream of every 14, 15, 16 year old to be abused by their hot female teacher.

this guy..................

Submitted by Patriot II on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 12:29pm.

couldn't be a catholic could he? naaah....never....no....uh uh.....

So Catholic's can't be

Submitted by Radical1979 on Mon, 01/03/2011 - 12:36pm.

So Catholic's can't be unbiased? Does that mean we can't have African-American prosecutors when an African American is on trial? Or that Japanese Americans shouldn't have fought in the Pacific in WWII?

Proud member of the 53%!