Another Lying Catholic Fuck Gets Caught

[Minimalist]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/us/car...TE&ei=5043

Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan of New York authorized payments of as much as $20,000 to sexually abusive priests as an incentive for them to agree to dismissal from the priesthood when he was the archbishop of Milwaukee.

Questioned at the time about the news that one particularly notorious pedophile cleric had been given a “payoff” to leave the priesthood, Cardinal Dolan, then the archbishop, responded that such an inference was “false, preposterous and unjust.”

This one's a fucking "cardinal" no less. Not too strong on that whole "no lying" thing.

[Angrboda]

Does anyone really need a billion dollar rocket?
Does anyone need a $60,000 car?
Does anyone need another president?
Or the sins of Swaggart parts 6, 7, 8 and 9?

Does anyone need yet another politician
Caught with his pants down and money sticking in his hole?

— Lou Reed, Strawman

[Panglossian]

Then they'll all go away, say they're sorry, and Jesus will love them again.
One can't help but wonder why there isn't more of an uproar about this...?

[The Heff]

Catholics and corruption are like ham and egg, they belong together.

[Reforged]

Its just not a suprise anymore. Seriously, everytime I read one of these stories I can't help but be reminded of the other thousand times this shits gone down and yawn alittle.
I mean, its not exactly a good sign that the story of a massive cover-up of pedophile priests has become so common and repetitive it fills me with the same feeling of boredom and distain I'd expect from the discovery that they're launching yet another series of Jersey Shore.
Can we just tell the clergy to fuck off already?

[Aiza]

Laurie Goodstein is a pretty terrible author, at least on Catholic issues anyway. The "false, preposterous and unjust" statement was wrt the Father Becker case, which our Laurie introduces toward the end as if it was a totally different person--the part about "charity" was actually part of the same statement. And it was false, preposterous and unjust because Father Becker had already been removed at the time, as anyone familiar with the Father Becker case already would know. (Which is why she probably kept him anonymous in the beginning of the article).

As for the rest--the Archdiocese gave money to accused priests in order to remove them from priesthood while skipping the long and costly trial. SNAP often complains that there's not enough money to pay the alleged victims or that the trials take too long, so....this seems like it saves a lot of money and gets accused priests out faster. I think its debatable if you should just wait through the whole trial on principle or get them out faster, but this seems exactly like the sort of thing SNAP should be supporting, given all their prior complaints. Cardinal Dolan took over the Archdiocese of Milwaukee from Archbishop Weakland of all people, so he had a big mess to clean up and he did so as quickly as possible. This is something thats done in secular environments as well, I can find a public schoolteacher who was paid that in order to get him out, so welp.

I love the timing of this article as well. Not suspicious at all.

[popeyespappy]

Is there any action a leader of the Catholic Church could take that you wouldn’t defend Aiza?

[Cinjin]

Who would jesus fuck??

[Aiza]

Is there any action a leader of the Catholic Church could take that you wouldn’t defend Aiza?

Oh please. I wouldn't defend the aforementioned Archbishop Weakland who sat on abuse cases for years before bringing them to the Vatican's attention (including the infamous Father Murphy case). I wouldn't support any bishop involved in any sort of coverup or those who were abusive themselves. These are the people who rightfully deserve condemnation.

But this? I mean, at best its sort of debatable. Technically speaking, any accused priests are guilty until proven innocent and removed from ministry immediately (so not a danger to kids) long before they are released from their vows. If you take the time and money you could go to ecclesiastical trial based on principle. But that means it takes longer and it means less money for victims, two things which SNAP in particular often complains about. So they did as many secular institutions do and paid to remove them faster.

I can see people agreeing or disagreeing (not sure where I stand), but I think we can all agree that Laurie Goodstein's reporting is awfully shady to say the least. It's a shame that most people who read the article won't be actually checking the sources.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

@Aiza


IF you REALLY want a balanced view, I refer you to 'The Case Of The Pope' by Geoffrey Robertson Qc, international jurist.

Roberston puts his finger on perhaps THE issue; to this day,the Church clearly believes Canon law trumps civil law. For centuries, the church has protected its clergy from civil authorities. It has been protecting pedophile priests since the second century,AS POLICY.




Review from The Guardian. The whole article is worth reading,but the (short) book is better.

The first child sex scandal in the Catholic church took place in AD153, long before there was a "gay culture" or Jewish journalists for bishops to blame it on. By the 1960s, the problem had become so dire that a cleric responsible for the care of "erring" priests wrote to the Vatican suggesting that it acquire a Caribbean island to put them on.

The Case of the Pope: Vatican Accountability for Human Rights Abuse
by Geoffrey Robertson QC
Buy it from the Guardian bookshop

Search the Guardian bookshop

What has made a bad situation worse, as the eminent QC Geoffrey Robertson argues in this coolly devastating inquiry, is canon law – the church's own arcane, highly secretive legal system, which deals with alleged child abusers in a dismayingly mild manner rather than handing them over to the police. Its "penalties" for raping children include such draconian measures as warnings, rebukes, extra prayers, counselling and a few months on retreat. It is even possible to interpret canon law as claiming that a valid defence for paedophile offences is paedophilia. Since child abusers are supposedly incapable of controlling their sexual urges, this can be used in their defence. It is rather like pleading not guilty to stealing from Tesco's on the grounds that one is a shoplifter. One blindingly simple reason for the huge amount of child abuse in the Catholic church (on one estimate, up to 9% of clerics are implicated) is that the perpetrators know they will almost certainly get away with it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/sep...-robertson
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------'
Tangent: There is another juicy little scandal waiting quietly in the wings,apparently peculiar to Ireland on such a scale;priest's 'wives' and children . An open secret and national shame in Catholic Ireland. So to is the way in which the issue is handled by the Church;by tacitly ignoring it.