Thursday, December 29, 2011

Barry County prosecutor wants his ‘fair share’

Barry County prosecutor wants his ‘fair share’


Barry County prosecutor wants his ‘fair share’
by Sandra Ponsetto

Staff Writer

Barry County prosecutor Tom Evans is the only department head so far to appeal Barry County’s proposed 2012 budget. During a rambling appeal to the Barry County Board of Commissioners Tuesday, he repeatedly said his office wanted its “fair share.” Evans asked the Barry County Board of Commissioners to increase the prosecutor office budget by $44,493 from the D4 Incentive money that the county receives from the state.

“I don’t exactly have a new revenue stream for the county of Barry, but I have a stream I would like to have directed into our office, to about the tune of 45,000 bucks,” said Evans. “In our 4D budget, we basically have incentive payments, and the county receives about 89 grand, almost 90 grand, of those per year ... We only once tried to tap into those and then we realized, somebody else wanted the money; and we were doing pretty good at the time so we said, ‘Okay,’ but now we are not. Now we are reduced to looking at a very, very grim year.

“So, we’d like to tap into about $44,493 of the 4D Incentive Fund ... We just want our share of that,” he said. “It’s not going to direct any more monies to Barry. Our performance in this area has been very good. The ... prosecuting attorney function for paternity establishment percentage is 98.7 — well above the state average. So, we get an earning percentage from 100 percent. The prosecutor’s function in support order percentage is also way above the state average, and we get an earnings percentage from 100 percent. So, we’ve done well. We’ve really done well in those areas.

“Maybe we’ve been a Prima Donna in saying, ‘Okay, we’ve done well. We’ve spent well,’ said Evans. “Well, maybe we need to bill better. Folks may say, we came here a couple of years ago and you said, ‘Well, you got 24 grand, for 4D’s grant.’ We never got the 24 grand. Well, there’s two things to that: Number one is, not our fault. We did calculations, the state is the ones that said, ‘You should get 24 grand.’ They invited us to make calculations based on administrative staff and attorney work ... A couple of months in, they said, ‘This is just for attorney work.’ That’s not our fault; but, what is our fault is maybe we could do a more effective job of billing them. And, my suggestion, proposal, to this board is bill us or budget us for the $44,493 in the 4D. Bill us for 24 thousand in the 4D and look at this next quarter; if we don’t get your 11 grand in 4D, if we don’t get your six grand in 4D, then amend the budget as appropriate. I certainly won’t have any problems with that.”

Evans said his office has always been fiscally responsible from a spending standpoint but needs to be more aggressive about billing.

“Why can’t we amend the budget the other way? If you bring in these extra revenues; next year we can amend it the other way,” said Board Chairman Craig Stolsonburg. “Everybody else has come to us with a reduced budget. I guess I don’t understand why ...”

“Well, I have. I have too. Okay?” said Evans. “I have too. And, sure, that would be fine if this board wants to say, ‘One time Tommy came in here and said, ‘I got 24 grand coming in,’ and never made it to 24 grand.’ Why don’t we say, ‘Well, you show us the money and we’ll adjust the budget.’ That would be fine, too.”

Stolsonburg said the proposal sounded reasonable, and the board could consider amending the budget later when Evans could, “show them the money.”

“I hope that happens,” said Board Trustee Robert Houtman. “All these types funds, including what the court generates or even the diverted inmates fund that is generated by the court, and by the sheriff, and secondary road patrol, which is sent from the state, all goes to the general fund. So, it is a net zero sum gain as to whether or not the budget changes ... even if it shows up later, we adjust it to show we have more revenues but that means those revenues flow through to a particular department like yours, or the courts, or anywhere else. The 4D money we get flows through ... It’s all general fund revenue.”

“Yeah, and you guys got to decide where you are going to put the general fund revenue,” said Evans. “And we’ve never — outside of the one payment when I first discovered this — we’ve never asked for any of it to be diverted into our direction; but, it should be.”

“I don’t understand why this is coming at the 11th hour,” said Stolsonburg. “Why, when you initially had your budget packet from the administrator, didn’t you come up with it then or when we talked about the final numbers for the budget ... Can you answer that?”

“Absolutely,” said Evans. “When we discovered we were entitled to funding from this source, we took a payment and then we realized that other people needed it more than us. Then, I forgot about it until our last visit here and started thinking of ways to fund our office.”

“The fact remains that won’t necessarily fund your office,” said Houtman. “It goes to the general fund. Pam’s [Jarvis, county clerk] fees don’t fund her office and Dar’s [Leaf, sheriff] tickets don’t fund his office. They go to the general fund and the board spreads them.”

“You know what?” said Evans. “The money is going to go on an interesting journey, I’m sure. I don’t know a lot about things ... I know whenever I ask for my 11 thousand, the Friend of the Court pops up in the air, so I think I know where the money is going right now, and we’d just like to get our cut.”

Board Vice President Ben Geiger asked Evans if he had a plan in place if the board rejected his appeal.

“I thought you received my plan. But, yes, we do,” said Evans. “We submitted a timely budget with a $41,000 cut.”

Board Trustee Howard Gibson asked if Evans would reduce his staff if his appeal was denied.

“No, absolutely not. I thought I made that point abundantly clear,” said Evans.

County Administrator Michael Brown explained the 4D Incentive funds does not change the general fund.

“If Tom doesn’t take a cut, somebody else does,” he said. “We have to figure out where that $45,000 is going to be addressed. Who is going to have to take that initial $45,000 cut because there isn’t that additional money? It is just redistributing funds we already get.”

“If I didn’t make this abundantly clear, this does not result in more money for the county, it is just asking for our fair share of the function that we perform,” said Evans.

Barry County Friend of the Court and Trial Court Administrator Bob Nida explained in later interview that the 4D money is a federal incentive administered by the State of Michigan to support the collection of child support.

“The money goes into the general fund, but it has to be used for 4D services, which is for the purpose of the collection of child support,” he said.

“The Friend of the Court has a proposed total budget of $914,000 and qualifies to receive approximately $550,000 in federal cooperative reimbursement money, which is also administered through the state,” Nida said. “With the 4D Incentive, they take $88,000 away; so there is $462,000 left for any 4D service. Based on 97 percent, we would get roughly $295,000 almost $296,000. Those are rough numbers, they could change.”

Nida said the Friend of the Court provides three of the five 4D functions — collecting of current support, arrearages, and it accounts for how many dollars are spent for every dollar collected in child support. The percentages for each of the five, including the two administered by the prosecutor’s office, determines how much federal incentive money the county receives through the state.

“There is nothing that prohibits the prosecutor from receiving 4D Incentive funds but there are only two counties in the state — Kalamazoo and Chippewa — that do it because it causes a lot of accounting headaches: the money can only go toward 4D services; the county has to show how it was distributed and used; and departments lose one reimbursement dollar for every 4D dollar received, ” he said.

Nida said that while he has no doubt that Evans’ office does an excellent job and earns the 4D Incentive dollars, the Friend of the Court has traditionally received the funds because it has the easiest mechanism in place for accounting for how the funds are used. The county still gets all the money, and it is still used for 4D services.

The county board did not take action Tuesday on Evans’ request.

The board will hold a public hearing and recommend the approval and adoption of the proposed 2012 budget, General Appropriations Act and millage after the hearing during its regular meeting at 9 a.m. Tuesday, Oct. 25.

In other business, the board approved the following:

• A resolution to authorize the redemption of Series 1998 Fair Lake Bonds for Barry Township through the Southwest Barry County Sewer and Water Authority. The Barry Township Board requested the county to redeem $390,000 in outstanding bonds so it can obtain its own bonds at a lower interest rate.

• A policy regarding the refund of fees paid for the recording of instruments necessary to transfer title or interests in real estate from the county, or agency thereof, to a public body, when such interests are acquired by the county on behalf of the public body as part of a contract between the two entities for the financing of a public improvement for the body pursuant to state law.

• A resolution to honor Historic Charlton Park secretary and bookkeeper Linda Ferris upon her retirement.

• The purchase of new recording and imaging software from Tyler Technologies for the register of deeds, abstract office, and the county clerk’s vital records, for a cost of $159,250 plus annual support fee, with funds to be paid from the register of deeds automation fund. The software would allow many applications and payments to be made online.

• An increase in petty cash for the register of deeds office from $50 to $100.

• Approved the 2011-12 Child Care Fund plan and budget as presented by Nida. The budget must be approved by the county and submitted to the Michigan Department of Human Services before Oct. 1.

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

STOP STATE CHILD ABDUCTIONS! SUPPORT GODBOLDOS TUES. NOV. 1 12 NOON Lincoln Juvenile Hall 1025 E. Canfield

STOP STATE CHILD ABDUCTIONS! SUPPORT GODBOLDOS TUES. NOV. 1 12 NOON Lincoln Juvenile Hall 1025 E. Canfield

STOP STATE CHILD ABDUCTIONS! SUPPORT GODBOLDOS TUES. NOV. 1 12 NOON Lincoln Juvenile Hall 1025 E. Canfield

PrintFriendly

Maryanne Godboldo, with supporters, speaks to Occupy Detroit General Assembly Oct. 20

BATTLE NOT OVER FOR MARYANNE, ARIANA AND FAMILY: CHILD STILL UNDER DHS SUPERVISION, KYM WORTHY APPEALS DISMISSAL CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST MOTHER

By Diane Bukowski

Oct. 31, 2011

Detroit–Supporters of Maryanne Godboldo and all families who have had their children taken illegally by the state’s Child Protective Services plan to rally outside the “Lincoln Juvenile Hall of Justice” Tues. Nov. 1 at 12 noon to demand an end to state-sponsored abductions.

The Hall is located at 1024 E. Canfield at the 1-75 service drive, between Mack and Warren..

During a meeting at the Occupy Detroit general assembly Oct. 20, Godboldo, Debbie Williams, whose grandchildren were taken, and others addressed the gathering to ask for support for their cause. Although Black poor families in particular face the abduction of children into foster care, for the profit of the state and non-profit child “welfare” agencies, the policies affect poor families of all races, and sometimes even families of means.

(Click on http://voiceofdetroit.net/2011/08/30/9604/, http://voiceofdetroit.net/2011/10/09/%e2%80%9ci-want-my-mother-to-come-home-espinoza-trial-continues-oct-14-10-a-m/, and http://voiceofdetroit.net/2011/08/17/detroit-father-of-5-pursues-federal-civil-rights-suit-against-mia-wenk-dhs-judges-agencies-for-removal-of-children/ for earlier VOD stories on the Godboldo, Espinoza, and Brent cases.)

Godboldo called on Occupy Detroit to take up the urgent issue.

“People in Detroit are not only losing their jobs, their homes, their cars and their utilities every day, they are also losing their children,” Godboldo said. The assembly supported her cause almost unanimously.

According to Godboldo, despite the fact that Wayne County Family Court Judge Lynn Pierce ruled recently that her daughter Ariana can come home, the family is still under the supervision of the Department of Human Services CPS division, and faces another hearing in front of Pierce Dec. 12.

Godboldo won a significant victory when 36th District Court Judge Ronald Giles dismissed all criminal charges against her related to her March stand-off with a Detroit police Special Response team comprised of officers with assault weapons, tanks and helicopters. Giles ruled that the police had no legal right to take Ariana from her. However, Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy recently appealed the criminal case, according to Godboldo’s attorney Allison Folmar.

Families who are being thrown off public assistance benefits this month as a result of a DHS ruling are especially vulnerable to having their children taken. Gov. Rick Snyder and DHS Director Maura Corrigan recently held a ceremony and press conference featuring 300 new workers assigned to the CPS unit.

For more information, go to http://justice4maryanne.com/, http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Justice-for-Maryanne-Godboldo/178678602179610., justice4maryanne@gmail.com,

Phone: 313 867 4841 P.O Box: P.O. Box 20924 Ferndale, MI 48220-9998

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

The Real Reason Why Gadaffi Was Killed & Why We're In Libya

ARE YOU FULLY AWARE ABOUT IMMUNITY AND WHO IS ABOVE THE LAW?

PROSECUTORS – prosecutor is afforded absolute immunity even when lying to secure the detention of a witness.

In Adams v. Hanson, 6th Cir., No. 09-2045, 8/30/11, the court ruled the prosecutor was entitled to absolute immunity even though she had misrepresented to the court that a witness was refusing to testify. LaTasha Adams had been subpoenaed to testify at a preliminary examination of a criminal defendant, the father of Adams’ child. After prosecutor Karen Hanson informed the court ex parte and off the record that Adams was refusing to testify, the court ordered Adams held. Adams was detained for 12 days during the preliminary hearing, after which she testified. Adams then filed a 42 U.S.C. §1983 lawsuit against Hanson, claiming that she had been unlawfully detained following Hanson’s false and misleading representations to the court regarding Adams’ availability as a witness. Though the district court granted Hanson's motion for summary judgment on the ground of absolute immunity, Adams appealed. She argued that the prosecutor was acting in an administrative rather than a prosecutorial role or, in the alternative, was acting as a complaining witness. The Sixth Circuit ruled that a prosecutor is entitled to absolute immunity from liability in civil rights actions only for conduct “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process,” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976), and that “occur[s] in the course of his role as an advocate for the State,” Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993). The court determined that appearing in court in support of a warrant application, presenting evidence at a hearing, or preparing for either the initiation of judicial proceedings or trial is advocative Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335, 58 (2009). In Odd v. Malone, 538 F.3d 202, 434 (3d Cir. 2008) the court held that prosecutors are not entitled to absolute immunity in civil rights actions arising from their failure to notify judges of changes in the status of cases for which the judges had issued bench warrants to detain material witnesses. That court held that prosecutors were acting in an administrative capacity when they failed to keep judges abreast of the events relevant to the continued validity of the witnesses' detentions. The plaintiff in that case conceded that the prosecutor was acting in her prosecutorial capacity when she secured the material witness warrant, but the court cautioned that “policy considerations underlying prosecutorial immunity counsel against recognizing absolute immunity” in material-witness cases. Writing for the court, Judge Karen Nelson Moore, opined, “when making statements at a preliminary examination about the availability of a witness, Hanson functioned as an advocate for the State of Michigan and performed acts intimately associated with the judicial process.” Accordingly, she is entitled to absolute immunity. As the issuance of either a material-witness warrant or a contempt order is unquestionably a judicial act, a prosecutor's statements to the court regarding the availability of a witness are “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process,” the opinion states.

Saturday, October 22, 2011

Justice for Maryanne Godboldo

Maryanne Godboldo has been fighting for the right to raise her daughter without the use of Risperadal almost 7 months. She has prevailed in two major proceedings. However, Ariana is still technically a ward of the state. Legal fees are still an issue. Please forward.

Sunday, October 30th 2011 5-9pm
HUSTLE 4 MARYANNE FUNDRAISER - $10 donation

Compas Center for Music and Performing Arts
8701 W. Vernor at Lawndale
Springwells Exit off Fisher I-75
313.867.4841
justice4maryanne.com

Featuring: D.J. and Dance Instructor Fast Freddy
(COME ALONE OR BRING A PARTNER)
Dance to Music for Hustle, Ballroom and Chicago Steppin’
*Support our sister as she seeks to clear her good name!*
All proceeds go towards legal fees for Maryanne Godboldo.

soft drinks for sale, no alcohol please
I know some people are not local and have asked for an online donation source. Thank you everyone for your support. You can go to http://justice4maryanne.bbnow.org/donate.php to donate securely through paypal
justice4maryanne.bbnow.org

Sunday, October 9, 2011

Catholic sexual abuse scandal in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Catholic sexual abuse scandal in the United States refers to a series of lawsuits, criminal prosecutions, and scandals related to sexual abuse committed by Catholic priests and members of religious orders, that first rose to widespread public attention in the last two decades of the 20th century.

While the issue of child sexual abuse in the U.S. by Roman Catholic priests was first publicized nationally in 1985 when a Louisiana priest pled guilty to 11 counts of molestation of boys, and [1] again brought to national attention when a number of books on the topic were published in the 1990s,[2]

it was not until early 2002 that the Boston Globe coverage of a series of criminal prosecutions of five Roman Catholic priests thrust the issue of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests into the national limelight.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] The coverage of these cases encouraged other victims to come forward with their allegations of abuse resulting in more lawsuits and criminal cases.[12]

As it became clear that there was truth to many of the allegations and that there was a pattern of cover-up in a number of large dioceses across the United States, the issue exploded into a nationwide scandal, creating a crisis for the Catholic Church in the United States. Allegations in the United States also encouraged victims in other nations to come forward, rapidly creating a global crisis for the Church.

Ultimately, it became clear that, over several decades in the 20th century, priests and lay members of religious orders in the Catholic Church had sexually abused minors on a scale such that the accusations reached into the thousands.[13] A major aggravating factor was the actions of Catholic bishops to keep these crimes secret and to reassign the accused to other parishes in positions where they had continued unsupervised contact with youth.

Many of the accused priests were forced to resign or were defrocked. In addition, several bishops who had participated in the cover-up were also forced to resign or retire.[14] The dioceses in which the crimes were committed found it necessary to make financial settlements with the victims totaling in the hundreds of millions of dollars.[12]

Contents

[hide]

[edit] Scope and nature of the problem

Allegations of sexual abuse by priests were widespread, occurring in cities across the country, including Boston, Chicago, Honolulu, Los Angeles, Orange County, Palm Beach, Philadelphia and Portland, as well as in dioceses across Europe.

In 2008, the Church asserted that the scandal was a very serious problem, but at the same time, estimated that it was "probably caused by 'no more than 1 per cent' (or about 5,000) of the around 410,000 Roman Catholic priests worldwide.[15] The overwhelming majority (approximately 80%) of reported cases of sexual abuse of minors occurred in the United States.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops commissioned the John Jay College of Criminal Justice to conduct a comprehensive study based on surveys completed by the Roman Catholic dioceses in the United States. The product of the study, titled the John Jay Report indicated that some 11,000 allegations had been made against 4,392 priests in the USA. This number constituted approximately 4% of the priests who had served during the period covered by the survey (1950–2002).[16]

[edit] Actions of the Catholic hierarchy

Historically, the Church has typically addressed sexual abuse as an internal matter. Abusive priests were sanctioned under canon law and received treatment from specialized Catholic service agencies, with relatively few of the offending priests becoming involved in the criminal justice system.

[edit] Abusers moved to different locations

The Church was widely criticized when it was discovered that some bishops knew about the crimes committed, but reassigned the accused instead of seeking to have them permanently removed from the priesthood.[12][17] In defense of this practice, some have pointed out that public school administrators acted in a similar manner when dealing with teachers accused of sexual misconduct,[18] as did the Boy Scouts of America.[19]

Some bishops have been heavily criticized for moving offending priests from parish to parish, where they still had personal contact with children, rather than seeking to have them permanently removed from the priesthood. Instead of reporting the incidents to police, many dioceses directed the offending priests to seek psychological treatment and assessment.

In response to these allegations, defenders of the Church's actions have suggested that in re-assigning priests after treatment, bishops were acting on the best medical advice then available, a policy also followed by the US public school system when dealing with accused teachers. Some bishops and psychiatrists have asserted that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that people could be cured of such behavior through counseling.[17][20] Many of the abusive priests had received counseling before being reassigned.[21][22] Critics have questioned whether bishops are necessarily able to form accurate judgments on a priest's recovery.[citation needed] The priests were allowed to resume their previous duties with children only when the bishop was advised by the treating psychologists or psychiatrists that it was safe for them to resume their duties.[citation needed]

[edit] Failure to report alleged criminal acts to police

From a legal perspective, the most serious criticism aside from the incidents of child sexual abuse themselves was by the bishops, who failed to report accusations to the police. In response to the failure to report abuse to the police, lawmakers have changed the law to make reporting of abuse to police compulsory. An example of this can be found in Massachusetts, USA.[23]

[edit] Handling of evidence

William McMurry, a Louisville, Kentucky lawyer, filed suit against the Vatican[24] in June 2004 on behalf of three men alleging abuse as far back as 1928, accusing Church leaders of organizing a cover-up of cases of sexual abuse of children. In November, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals in Cincinnati denied the Vatican's claim of sovereign immunity and allowed the case to proceed. The Vatican initially stated that it did not plan to appeal the ruling.

[edit] Awareness of the problem

Some date the current sexual abuse scandal to an article published in the National Catholic Reporter in 1985.[25] After that, the scandal remained at the fringes of public attention but did not become a focus of national attention until the mid-1990s when a number of books were published on the topic.[2] The topic became the focus of intense scrutiny and debate after the Boston Globe published a series of articles covering cases of sexual abuse.

In 2002, criminal charges were brought against five Roman Catholic priests in the Boston area of the United States, (John Geoghan, John Hanlon, Paul Shanley, Robert V. Gale and Jesuit priest James Talbot) which ultimately resulted in the conviction and sentencing of each to prison.[26] The ongoing coverage of these cases by the Boston Globe thrust the issue of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests into the national limelight.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][27] The coverage of these cases encouraged other victims to come forward with their allegations of abuse resulting in more lawsuits and criminal cases.[12]

[edit] Prosecution by civil authorities

Civil authorities continued their own investigations and prosecutions.

[edit] Response of the Church

Although many cases could not be prosecuted because the statute of limitations in civil law, the Church's canon law allows for prosecution of many of those cases.[citation needed]

The Catholic Church responded to the scandal at three levels: the diocesan level, the episcopal conference level and the Vatican. Responses to the scandal proceeded at all three levels in parallel with the higher levels becoming progressively more involved as the gravity of the problem became more apparent.

Before the Boston Globe coverage of the sexual abuse scandal in the Boston archdiocese, handling of sexual abuse allegations was largely left up to the discretion of individual bishops. After the number of allegations exploded following the Globe's series of articles, U.S. bishops felt compelled to formulate a coordinated response at the episcopal conference level.

Although the Vatican did not respond immediately to the series of articles published by the Boston Globe in 2002, it has been reported that Vatican officials were, in fact, monitoring the situation in the U.S. closely.[28] Over time, it became more apparent that the problem warranted greater Vatican involvement.

[edit] Diocesan responses to the problem

The response to allegations of sexual abuse in a diocese was largely left to the bishop or archbishop. Many of the accused priests were forced to resign or were defrocked. In addition, several bishops who had participated in the cover-up were also forced to resign or retire.[14]

The dioceses in which abuse was committed or in which abuse allegations were settled out of court found it necessary to make financial settlements with the victims totaling over $1.5 billion as of March 2006.[29] The number and size of these settlements made it necessary for the dioceses to reduce their ordinary operating expenses by closing churches and schools. In many instances, dioceses were forced to declare bankruptcy as a result of the settlements.

[edit] Initial response of the Vatican

On April 30, 2001, John Paul II issued a letter stating that "a sin against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue by a cleric with a minor under 18 years of age is to be considered a grave sin, or 'delictum gravius.'"[30]

John F. Allen Jr., Vatican correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter, has commented that many American Catholics saw the Vatican’s initial silence on the Boston Globe stories as showing a lack of concern or awareness about the issue. However, Allen said that he doesn't know anyone in the Roman Curia who was not horrified "by the revelations that came out of the Globe and elsewhere" or that "would defend Cardinal Law’s handling of the cases in Boston" or "would defend the rather shocking lack of oversight that revealed itself [although] they might have different analyses of what should have happened to him".[28] Allen described the Vatican's perspective as being somewhat skeptical of the media handling of the scandal. In addition, he asserted that the Vatican viewed American cultural attitudes toward sexuality as being somewhat hysterical as well as exhibiting a lack of understanding of the Catholic Church.

No one [in the Vatican] thinks the sexual abuse of kids is unique to the States, but they do think that the reporting on it is uniquely American, fueled by anti-Catholicism and shyster lawyers hustling to tap the deep pockets of the church. And that thinking is tied to the larger perception about American culture, which is that there is a hysteria when it comes to anything sexual, and an incomprehension of the Catholic Church. What that means is that Vatican officials are slower to make the kinds of public statements that most American Catholics want, and when they do make them they are tentative and halfhearted. It's not that they don't feel bad for the victims, but they think the clamor for them to apologize is fed by other factors that they don't want to capitulate to.[28]

In April 2002, Pope John Paul II called to Rome the U.S. cardinals, plus the president and vice president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The pope asserted that "there is no place in the priesthood or religious life for those who would harm the young." The meeting's participants drew up a final statement, which called for a set of national standards for dealing with sexual abuse of minors by priests and new procedures for dismissing from the clerical state those found guilty of that crime.

[edit] Relations between the Vatican and American Catholics

According to John Allen Jr., Vatican correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter, cultural differences between the Vatican and American Catholics complicated the process of formulating a comprehensive response to the sexual abuse scandal. Allen asserted that the sexual abuse crisis illustrated that "there is a lot about the American culture and the American Church that puzzles people in the Vatican, and there is much about the Vatican that puzzles Americans and English speakers generally."[28]

[edit] Response of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops

As the breadth and depth of the scandals became apparent in dioceses across the United States, it became apparent to the American bishops that a joint response was warranted at the episcopal conference level. John F. Allen Jr. characterized the reaction of the USCCB as calling for “swift, sure and final punishment for priests who are guilty of this kind of misconduct.” In contrast to this, Allen characterized the Vatican's primary concern as wanting to make sure “that everyone’s rights are respected, including the rights of accused clergy" and wanting to affirm that it is not acceptable to "remedy the injustice of sexual abuse with the injustice of railroading priests who may or may not be guilty.”[28]

According to Catholic News Service by 2008, the U.S. church had trained 5.8 million children to recognize and report abuse. It had run criminal checks on 1.53 million volunteers and employees, 162,700 educators, 51,000 clerics and 4,955 candidates for ordination. It had trained 1.8 million clergy, employees and volunteers in creating a safe environment for children.[31]

[edit] Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People

In June 2002, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) unanimously promulgated a Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People. The charter committed the Catholic Church in the U.S. to the goal of providing a "safe environment" for all children and youth participating in activities sponsored by the Church. To accomplish this, the U.S. bishops pledged to establish uniform procedures for handling sex-abuse allegations against lay teachers in Catholic schools, parish staff members, coaches and other people who represent the Church to young people.[32][33]

The thrust of the charter was the adoption of a "zero tolerance" policy for sexual abuse.[34][35] The USCCB instituted reforms to prevent future abuse by requiring background checks for Church employees.[32] They now require dioceses faced with an allegation to alert the authorities, conduct an investigation and remove the accused from duty.[32][36]

An audit of the Charter was completed in 2010. [37]

[edit] Essential Norms

In June 2002, to ensure that each diocese/eparchy in the United States had "procedures in place to respond promptly to allegations of sexual abuse of minors", the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops also decreed "Essential Norms for Diocesan/Eparchial Policies Dealing with Allegations of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Priest or Deacons". These Essential Norms were revised by the USCCB in November 2002 to incorporate changes proposed by a commission of four bishops from the Holy See and four bishops from the United States which met in Rome in October 2002.[38][39]

Having received the recognition of the Apostolic See on December 8, 2002, and having been legitimately promulgated by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops on December 12, 2002, these norms constitute particular law for all the dioceses/eparchies of the United States effective March 1, 2003. These norms are complementary to the universal law of the Church, which has traditionally considered the abuse of minors a grave delict and punishes the offender with penalties, not excluding laicization if the case so warrants.[40][41][42][43][44]

[edit] Response of the laity

A study conducted by CARA in 2007 found that, although many Catholics are unaware of the specific steps that the church as taken, when informed of them, large majorities approve these actions. 78 percent strongly approved of reporting allegations of sexual abuse by clergy to civil authorities and cooperating in civil investigations. 76 percent strongly approved of removing from ministry people credibly accused of sexual abuse of a minor.[citation needed]


[edit] John Jay study

In June 2002 the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops met in Dallas and approved the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People. The Charter created a National Review Board, which was assigned responsibility to commission a descriptive study, with the full cooperation of the dioceses/eparchies, of the nature and scope of the problem of sexual abuse of minors by clergy. The National Review Board engaged the John Jay College of Criminal Justice of the City University of New York to conduct a study analyzing allegations of sexual abuse in Catholic dioceses in United States. The time period covered by the John Jay study began in 1950 and ended in 2002. The product of the study was a report to the National Review Board titled "The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States" and commonly referred to as the "John Jay Report".

[edit] Prevalence of the problem

The John Jay report indicated that some 11,000 allegations had been made against 4,392 priests in the USA. This number constituted approximately 4% of the 110,000 priests who had served during the period covered by the survey (1950–2002).[16] The report found that, over the 52-year period covered by the study, "the problem was indeed widespread and affected more than 95 percent of the dioceses and approximately 60 percent of religious communities."[45]

In 2008, the Church asserted that the scandal was a very serious problem but, at the same time, estimated that it was "probably caused by 'no more than 1 per cent' (or 5,000) of the over 500,000 Roman Catholic priests worldwide.[citation needed]

The John Jay report has been updated through 2010.[46]

[edit] Global extent

Although allegations of clergy sexual abuse have surfaced in several countries around the world, there have been no comprehensive studies which compare the relative incidence of sexual abuse in different areas. However, there is a general perception that the issue has been most prominent in the United States, and then in Australia, Canada and Ireland.[47]

In 2007, there were 408,024 priests in the world.[48]

[edit] Number of allegations

The number of alleged abuses increased in the 1960s, peaked in the 1970s, declined in the 1980s and by the 1990s had returned to the levels of the 1950s.[29]

Of the 11,000 allegations reported by bishops in the John Jay study, 3300 were not investigated because the allegations were made after the accused priest had died. 6700 allegations were substantiated, leaving 1000 which could not be substantiated.

According to the John Jay report, one-third of the accusations were made in the years 2002-3. Another third of the allegations were reported between 1993 and 2001.[29]

[edit] Profile of the alleged abuses

The John Jay study found that, "Like in the general population, child sex abuse in the Catholic Church appears to be committed by men close to the children they allegedly abuse." According to the study, "many (abusers) appear to use grooming tactics to entice children into complying with the abuse, and the abuse occurs in the home of the alleged abuser or victim." The study characterized these enticements as actions such as buying the minor gifts, letting the victim drive a car and taking youths to sporting events. The most frequent context for abuse was a social event and many priests socialized with the families of victims. Abuses occurred in a variety of places with the most common being the residence of the priest.[45]

The John Jay report catalogued more than twenty types of sexual abuse ranging from verbal harassment to penile penetration. It said that most of the abusers engaged in multiple types of abuses. According to the report, only 9 percent of the accused performed acts limited to improper touching over the victim's clothes. Slightly more than 27 percent of the allegations involved a cleric performing oral sex and 25 percent involved penile penetration or attempted penile penetration, reported the study. Most of the allegations involved touching over or under clothing.

The study said sexual abuse "includes contacts or interactions between a child and an adult when the child is being used as an object of sexual gratification for the adult." The report categorized allegations of sexual abuse even if the allegation did not involve force or genital or physical contact.[45]

[edit] Profile of the victims

The John Jay report found that 81% of the victims were male. 22% of victims were younger than age 10, 51% were between the ages of 11 and 14, and 27% were between the ages 15 and 17 years.[29][45]

[edit] Profile of the abusers

Half the priests were 35 years of age or younger at the time of the first instance of alleged abuse. Fewer than 7 percent of the priests were reported to have experienced physical, sexual or emotional abuse as children. Although 19 percent of the accused priests had alcohol or substance abuse problems, only 9 percent used drugs or alcohol during the alleged instances of abuse. Almost 70 percent of the abusive priests were ordained before 1970, after attending pre-Vatican II seminaries or seminaries that had had little time to adapt to the reforms of Vatican II.[29]

Of the priests who were accused of sexual abuse, 59% were accused of a single allegation. 41% of the priests were the subject of more than one allegation. Just under 3% of the priests were the subject of ten or more allegations. The 149 priests who had more than 10 allegations against them accounted for 2,960 of the total number of allegations.[29]

[edit] 2003 Vatican Conference on Sexual Abuse

In April 2003, the Pontifical Academy for Life organized a three-day conference, entitled "Abuse of Children and Young People by Catholic Priests and Religious", where eight non-Catholic psychiatric experts were invited to speak to near all Vatican dicasteries' representatives. The panel of experts identified the following factors contributing to the sexual abuse problem:[49]

  • Failure by the hierarchy to grasp the seriousness of the problem.
  • Overemphasis on the need to avoid a scandal.
  • Use of unqualified treatment centers.
  • Misguided willingness to forgive.
  • Insufficient accountability.

[edit] Diocesan awareness of the problem

In response to criticism that the Catholic hierarchy should have acted more quickly and decisively to remove priests accused of sexual misconduct, contemporary bishops have responded that the hierarchy was unaware until recent years of the danger in shuffling priests from one parish to another and in concealing the priests' problems from those they served. For example, Cardinal Roger Mahony of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, said: "We have said repeatedly that ... our understanding of this problem and the way it's dealt with today evolved, and that in those years ago, decades ago, people didn't realize how serious this was, and so, rather than pulling people out of ministry directly and fully, they were moved."[50]

[edit] Diocesan response to allegations of sexual abuse

Some bishops have been heavily criticized for moving offending priests from parish to parish, where they still had personal contact with children, rather than seeking to have them permanently removed from the priesthood by defrocking. The Church was widely criticized when it was discovered that some bishops knew about some of the alleged crimes committed, but reassigned the accused instead of seeking to have them permanently removed from the priesthood.[12][17]

In defense of this practice, some have pointed out that public school administrators engaged in a similar manner when dealing with accused teachers,[18] as did the Boy Scouts of America.[19]

Instead of reporting the incidents to police, many dioceses directed the offending priests to seek psychological treatment and assessment. According to the John Jay report, nearly 40 percent of priests alleged to have committed sexual abuse participated in treatment programs. The more allegations a priest had, the more likely he was to participate in treatment.[29] From a legal perspective, the most serious criticism aside from the incidents of child sexual abuse themselves was by the bishops, who failed to report accusations to the police. In response to the failure to report abuse to the police, lawmakers have changed the law to make reporting of abuse to police compulsory. In 2002, Massachusetts passed a law requiring religious officials to report the abuse of children.[51]

In response to these allegations, defenders of the Church's actions have suggested that in re-assigning priests after treatment, bishops were acting on the best medical advice then available, a policy also followed by the US public school system when dealing with accused teachers. Some bishops and psychiatrists have asserted that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that people could be cured of such behavior through counseling.[17][20] Many of the abusive priests had received counseling before being reassigned.[21][22] Critics have questioned whether bishops are necessarily able to form accurate judgments on a priest's recovery.[citation needed] The priests were allowed to resume their previous duties with children only when the bishop was advised by the treating psychologists or psychiatrists that it was safe for them to resume their duties.[citation needed]

According to the John Jay study, 3 percent of all priests against whom allegations were made were convicted and about 2 percent received prison sentences."[45]

[edit] Media coverage and public opinion

Differing perspectives and misconceptions contributed to negative public opinion in the U.S. towards the what was perceived as the failure of the Catholic hierarchy to respond adequately to allegations of sexual abuse and the seemingly sluggish response of the Vatican to the unfolding scandal. Some sources argue that the negative public opinion was fueled in part by statements made to the media by various parties with differing agendas including lawyers for those suing the Church for damages resulting the alleged sexual abuse. As the public furor over the scandal grew, some members of the Catholic Church began to see an anti-Catholic agenda behind some of these pronouncements.

Criticism of media coverage by Catholics and others centred on an excessive focus being placed on Catholic incidences of abuse. Such voices argue that equal or greater levels of child sexual abuse in other religious groups or in secular contexts such as the US public school system have been either ignored or given minimal coverage by mainstream media.[52][53] Commentator Tom Hoopes wrote:

during the first half of 2002, the 61 largest newspapers in California ran nearly 2,000 stories about sexual abuse in Catholic institutions, mostly concerning past allegations. During the same period, those newspapers ran four stories about the federal government’s discovery of the much larger — and ongoing — abuse scandal in public schools.[54]

Anglican writer Philip Jenkins supported many of these arguments stating that media coverage of the abuse story had become "..a gross efflorescence of anti-catholic rhetoric."[55]

[edit] Response of the Vatican

Sections: #Pope Benedict's apology, #Response of Pope Benedict

In 2003, Pope John Paul II stated that "there is no place in the priesthood and religious life for those who would harm the young".[56]

In addition, Pope Benedict XVI has apologized for the sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clergy and pledged that pedophiles would not be allowed to become priests in the Catholic Church.

[edit] Impact on the church

[edit] Compensation payouts

According to Donald Cozzens, "by the end of the mid 1990s, it was estimated that ...more than half a billion dollars had been paid in jury awards, settlements and legal fees." This figure grew to about one billion dollars by 2002.[57] Roman Catholics spent $615 million on sex abuse cases in 2007.[58]

In 2002, one attorney reported total earnings of $60 million from suing the church.[59]

For some of the payments loans of up to $500 million were extended to four American dioceses in 2005-07 by Allied Irish Banks (AIB), based in the Republic of Ireland. By chance Peter Sutherland had been chairman of AIB in 1989-93, and was Consulter of the Extraordinary Section of the Administration of the Patrimony of the Holy See from December 2006. AIB had to be nationalised during the 2008–2011 Irish financial crisis. According to the Irish Daily Mail in 2011, the loans are being serviced and repaid ".. from an unknown source".[60]

Date Diocese Bishop Payment Number of recipients Comments
1997 Diocese of Dallas
$31 million[61]

June 2003 Archdiocese of Louisville
$25.7 million[62] 240
September 2003 Archdiocese of Boston
$85 million[63] 552
September 2004 Diocese of Tucson
$22.2 million
Filed for bankruptcy
December 2004 Diocese of Spokane, Washington
$48 million[64]
Payment agreement was part of bankruptcy proceeding
January 2005 Diocese of Orange Ted Brown $100 million 87
October 2006 Diocese of Davenport


Filed for bankruptcy
December 2006 Diocese of Phoenix
$100,000[65] 1
December 2006 Archdiocese of Los Angeles Roger Mahony $60 million[66] 45
January 2007 Diocese of Charleston
$12 million

July 2007 Archdiocese of Los Angeles
$660 million

January 2007 Diocese of Charleston
$12 million[67]

September 2007 Diocese of San Diego Robert Brom $198.1 million[68] 144
March 2008 Diocese of Fairbanks Donald Kettler
130 Filed for bankruptcy
May 2008 Diocese of Sacramento
$100,000[69] 1 Jesuits paid settlement to William Green who alleged he was raped and molested from age 7-11 by twin brother priests Fr. Arthur Falvey of Sacramento, and Fr. Mark Falvey.
July 2008 Archdiocese of Denver Charles Chaput $5.5 million[70] 18 Resolved through mediation
October 2009 Diocese of Wilmington W. Francis Malooly
131 Filed for bankruptcy

[edit] Bankruptcies

  • Citing monetary concerns arising from impending trials on sex abuse claims, the Archdiocese of Portland (Oregon) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on July 6, 2004, hours before two abuse trials were set to begin, becoming the first Roman Catholic diocese to file for bankruptcy. If granted, bankruptcy would mean pending and future lawsuits would be settled in federal bankruptcy court. The archdiocese had settled more than one hundred previous claims for a sum of over $53 million. The filing seeks to protect parish assets, school money and trust funds from abuse victims; the archdiocese's contention is that parish assets are not the archdiocese's assets. Plaintiffs in the cases against the archdiocese have argued that the Catholic Church is a single entity, and that the Vatican should be liable for any damages awarded in judgment of pending sexual abuse cases.
  • In December, 2004, the Diocese of Spokane, Washington agreed to pay at least $48 million as compensation to those abused by priests as part of its bankruptcy filing. This payout has to be agreed upon by victims and another judge.[64]
  • The Diocese of Tucson filed for bankruptcy in September 2004. The diocese reached an agreement with its victims, which the bankruptcy judge approved June 11, 2005, specifying terms that included allowing the diocese reorganization to continue in return for a $22.2 million settlement.[71]
  • On February 27, 2007, the Diocese of San Diego filed for Chapter 11 protection, hours before the first of about 150 lawsuits was due to be heard. San Diego became the largest diocese to postpone its legal problems in this way.[74] The bankruptcy was missed November 16, 2007, on a motion by the Diocese after a settlement of $198 million was reached with 144 claimants.
  • On March 7, 2008, the Diocese of Fairbanks filed for bankruptcy after the failure of negotiations to settle 130 civil suits filed by Alaska natives who claimed to be abused by priests, and other church employees, beginning in the 1950s.[75]
  • On October 18, 2008, the Diocese of Wilmington filed for bankruptcy as the first of some eight lawsuits (of more than 100 potential) was scheduled to go to trial the next day.[76][77][78]
  • On January 4, 2011, the Archdiocese of Milwaukee announced that it would be filing for bankruptcy. The church was facing more than 23 lawsuits, and attempts to reach a mediated settlement with victims failed in December 2010. This came two days before the Bishop was scheduled to be deposed about these cases, and after the church had refused to release the names or personnel records of the accused priests. The opposing attorney said that the bankruptcy filing was an attempt to delay turning over church records on the cases. The Milwaukee archdiocese has already paid out over $29 million to settle 200 cases over the last 20 years. They said that these additional cases would cause hefty legal fees that the dioceses could not afford. The diocese has assets of about $98.4 million, but $90 million of that is restricted for specific uses.[79]

[edit] Resignations

Eight US Roman Catholic prelates have resigned since 1990 because of their alleged involvement in sex scandals; seven cases involved the abuse of minors. Two other bishops, Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston and Bishop Manuel Moreno of Tucson, Arizona, resigned over their mishandling of abusive clergy.

In 2002, the Diocese of Manchester signed an agreement with the state's attorney general, acknowledging that past diocesan failures to protect minors from abusive priests were possible grounds for the diocese as an institution to be convicted under the state's child endangerment statute. On February 10, 2003, a special grand jury in Long Island published a report saying, "The history of the Diocese of Rockville Centre demonstrates that as an institution they are incapable of properly handling issues relating to the sexual abuse of children by priests."

Bernard Francis Law, Cardinal and Archbishop of Boston, Massachusetts, United States resigned after Church documents were revealed which suggested he had covered up sexual abuse committed by priests in his archdiocese.[80] For example, John Geoghan was shifted from one parish to another although Cardinal Law had often been informed of his abuse. In December 1984 auxiliary Bishop John M. D’Arcy wrote to Cardinal Law complaining about the reassignment of Geoghan to another Boston-area parish because of his “history of homosexual involvement with young boys."[81]

[edit] Church actions in dealing with sex abuse scandal

In recent years, the Catholic Church has implemented policies promoting disclosure of cases of abuse, and sexual offenders among the clergy have increasingly been directed toward external agencies.

[edit] Effect of scandal on the Catholic Church

[edit] Closing of schools and parishes

The multi-million dollar payouts to victims has had a significant impact on the finances of many dioceses. Many of them have had to close schools and parishes in order to raise the funds to make these payments.[original research?]

[edit] Continued allegations

[clarification needed]

While the Church in the United States claims to have addressed the issue, others maintain the only change is the Church has hardened its defenses while allowing abuse to continue. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops convened a meeting in Dallas on June 12, 2002 to address the sex abuse scandal.[82]

In 2005, Dr. Kathleen McChesney of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said that the crisis is not yet over because thousands of victims across the country are still reporting the abuse. She said: "In 2004, at least 1,092 allegations of sexual abuse were made against at least 756 Catholic priests and deacons in the United States. Most of the alleged incidents occurred between 1965 and 1974. What is over is the denial that this problem exists, and what is over is the reluctance of the Church to deal openly with the public about the nature and extent of the problem."[83]

In 2010, the Associated Press reported that the number of allegations, victims, offending clergy dropped in 2009 to their lowest point since data started being collected in 2004. Dioceses and their insurers paid $104 million in settlement fees, attorney fees and other costs, down from $376 million in 2008.[84]

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ "Pedophile ex-priest Gilbert Gauthe out of Texas jail". Retrieved April 26, 2010.
  2. ^ a b "What percentage of priests abuse, and whom do they victimize?".
  3. ^ "Abuse in the Catholic Church". Retrieved March 21, 2009.
  4. ^ a b Saunderslawyers.com. Retrieved March 21, 2009.
  5. ^ a b PBS.org. Retrieved March 21, 2009.
  6. ^ a b Springerlink.com. Retrieved March 21, 2009.
  7. ^ a b PEP-web.org. Retrieved March 21, 2009.
  8. ^ a b NPR.org. Retrieved March 21, 2009.
  9. ^ a b Highbeam.com. Retrieved March 21, 2009.
  10. ^ a b Archive.newsmax.com. Retrieved March 21, 2009.
  11. ^ a b Multiline.com.au. Retrieved March 212, 2009.
  12. ^ a b c d e Bruni, A Gospel of Shame (2002), p. 336
  13. ^ "The Long Scandal: A History of Abuse". Retrieved May 8, 2010.
  14. ^ a b Newman, Andy (2006-08-31). "A Choice for New York Priests in Abuse Cases". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-03-13.
  15. ^ Owen, Richard (2008-01-07). "Pope calls for continuous prayer to rid priesthood of paedophilia". Times Online UK edition (London: Times Newspapers Ltd). Retrieved 2008-03-31.
  16. ^ a b "A Report on the Crisis in the Catholic Church in the United States". National Review Board. February 27, 2004.
  17. ^ a b c d Steinfels, A People Adrift (2003). pp. 40–6
  18. ^ a b Irvine, Martha; Tanner, Robert (October 21, 2007). "Sexual Misconduct Plagues US Schools". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2008-04-12.
  19. ^ a b Scout's Honor: Sexual Abuse in America's Most Trusted Institution, Patrick Boyle, 1995
  20. ^ a b Filteau, Jerry (2004). "Report says clergy sexual abuse brought 'smoke of Satan' into church". Catholic News Service. Retrieved 2008-03-10.
  21. ^ a b Terry, Karen et al. (2004). "John Jay Report". John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Retrieved 2008-02-09.
  22. ^ a b Frawley-ODea, Perversion of Power: Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church (2007), p. 4
  23. ^ Chapter 107 of the Acts of 2002: An act requiring certain religious officials to report abuse of children. Retrieved 21 April 2008.
  24. ^ Lawyers Louisville Kentucky, News on Clergy Sexual Abuse Case against Archdiocese of Louisville Kentucky, William McMurry Lawyers
  25. ^ Flynn, Tom. "Priest Sex Abuse: Two Questioned Assumptions".
  26. ^ Lambert, Lane. "Defrocked Quincy priest who raped altar boy released from prison - Quincy, MA". The Patriot Ledger. Retrieved 2010-05-06.
  27. ^ Dartcenter.org. Retrieved March 21, 2009.
  28. ^ a b c d e "SCU Conference on the Crisis". Connections 4 (=4). December 2003.
  29. ^ a b c d e f g Reese, Thomas J. (2004-03-22). "Facts, Myths and Questions". America. Retrieved 2009-07-29.
  30. ^ Gallagher, Delia. "Vatican Study on Sex Abuse". Zenit.
  31. ^ Catholic News Service (December 19, 2008-January 1, 2009). "We dare not become complacent on abuse, says U.S. bishops' new child protection head. Florida Catholic.
  32. ^ a b c United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (2005). "Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People". United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Retrieved 2007-10-08.
  33. ^ "Scandals in the church: The Bishops' Decisions; The Bishops' Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People". The New York Times. 2002-06-15. Retrieved 2008-02-12.
  34. ^ Beliefnet.com. Retrieved February 14, 2009.
  35. ^ Boston.com. Retrieved February 14, 2009.
  36. ^ "Scandals in the church: The Bishops' Decisions; The Bishops' Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People". The New York Times. 2002-06-15. Retrieved 2008-02-12.
  37. ^ United States Conference of Catholic Bishops: Implementation of the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People March 2011
  38. ^ "(Bishops) - Essential Norms for Diocesan/Eparchial Policies Dealing with Allegations of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Priests or Deacons". USCCB. Retrieved 2010-05-06.
  39. ^ State.il.us
  40. ^ "Child protection". Romaniancatholic.org. Retrieved 2010-05-06.
  41. ^ "Bishops' Norms: Commentary And Evaluation". Bc.edu. Retrieved 2010-05-06.[dead link]
  42. ^ USCCB.org
  43. ^ "5-721 Cover.indd" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-05-06.
  44. ^ "Revised essential Norms - side by side.doc" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-05-06.
  45. ^ a b c d e Bono, Agostino. "John Jay Study Reveals Extent of Abuse Problem".
  46. ^ John Jay College Research Team. "The Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950-2010". John Jay College Research Team. Retrieved 2011.
  47. ^ Paulson, Michael (2002-04-08). "World doesn't share US view of scandal". The Boston Globe. Retrieved 2009-07-28.
  48. ^ "Frequently Requested Catholic Church Statistics". Georgetown.edu. 2010-04-07.
  49. ^ "Internal survey of child sexual abuse by Roman Catholic clergy". Religioustolerance.org. Retrieved 2010-05-06.
  50. ^ Roberts, Tom (2009-03-20). "Bishops were warned of abusive priests". Retrieved 2009-07-29.
  51. ^ "Chapter 107 of the Acts of 2002: AN ACT REQUIRING CERTAIN RELIGIOUS OFFICIALS TO REPORT ABUSE OF CHILDREN". Retrieved 21 April 2008.
  52. ^ "Not the Catholic Church? MSM Mum About Huge L.A. School Sex Abuse Scandal". 2008-05-19. Retrieved 2009-08-01.
  53. ^ "Media Bias". 2008-10-07. Retrieved 2009-08-01.
  54. ^ "Has Media Ignored Sex Abuse In School?". CBS News. 2006-08-24. Retrieved 2009-08-01.
  55. ^ Jenkins, Philip, The New Anti-Catholicism - the Last Acceptable Prejudice, Oxford University Press, 2004, pp. 133-57
  56. ^ Walsh, John Paul II: A Light for the World (2003), p. 62
  57. ^ Cozzens, Donald B. (2000). The changing face of the priesthood: A reflection on the priest's crisis of soul. Liturgical Press. p. 125. ISBN 0814625045.
  58. ^ DHADM.com
  59. ^ Slevin, Peter (19 April 2010). "He's the Vatican's persistent pursuer". Washington, DCC: Washington Pose. pp. C8.
  60. ^ Irish Daily Mail, 22 August 2011, page 2
  61. ^ Bishop Accountability
  62. ^ Lawyers Louisville Kentucky, News on Clergy Sexual Abuse Case against Archdiocese of Louisville Kentucky, William McMurry Lawyers
  63. ^ Boston archdiocese agrees to pay a record $85 million to victims of abuse - US News and World Report
  64. ^ a b "US Church offers abuse settlement". BBC News. January 5, 2007. Retrieved April 28, 2010.
  65. ^ "Catholic Diocese of Phoenix Settles Sex-Abuse Claim" Associated Press, Arizona Daily Star, December 27, 2006]
  66. ^ "LA diocese settles abuse claims". BBC News. December 1, 2006. Retrieved April 28, 2010.
  67. ^ Catholic.org[dead link]
  68. ^ Signonsandiego.com
  69. ^ Sacbee.com
  70. ^ "Archdiocese of Denver Settles Majority of Sex Abuse Claims for $5.5 Million" Catholic News Agency, July 1, 2008.
  71. ^ Tucson Diocese emerges from Chapter 11 protection
  72. ^ "Iowa Diocese Files For Bankruptcy". CBS News. October 10, 2006.
  73. ^ Radio Iowa: Judge throws out Iowa City Regina priest suit
  74. ^ SignOnSanDiego.com > News > Metro - S.D. Catholic diocese files for bankruptcy
  75. ^ Catholicnewsagency.com
  76. ^ Catholicnewsagency.com
  77. ^ "Filing Halts Abuse Trial". Baltimore Sun. 2009-10-20. Retrieved 2010-05-06.
  78. ^ Urbina, Ian (October 20, 2009). "Delaware Diocese Files for Bankruptcy in Wake of Abuse Suits". The New York Times. Retrieved April 28, 2010.
  79. ^ Ramde, Dinesh (January 4, 2011). "Milwaukee archdiocese to seek bankruptcy protection in wake of pending sexual-abuse lawsuits". Minneapolis StarTribune. Retrieved January 5, 2011.
  80. ^ News/Features |
  81. ^ America's Worst Bishops - Beliefnet.com
  82. ^ Egerton, Brooks; Dunklin, Reese (June 12, 2002). "Two-thirds of bishops let accused priests work". Dallas Morning News: p. 1A.
  83. ^ United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, "Statement of Dr. Kathleen McChesney" accessed 31 Mar 2010.
  84. ^ "Catholic sex abuse claims tapering". Melbourne, Florida: Florida Today. 24 March 2010. pp. 2A.
  85. ^ "Bishop Accountability". Bishop Accountability. Retrieved 2010-05-06.

[edit] Further reading

  • Groeschel, F. Benedict, From Scandal to Hope (OSV, 2002)
  • Jenkins, Philip, Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis (Oxford University Press, 2001). ISBN 0-19-514597-6.
  • Lobdell, William, "Missionary's Dark Legacy; Two remote Alaska villages are still reeling from a Catholic volunteer's sojourn three decades ago, when he allegedly molested nearly every Eskimo boy in the parishes. The accusers, now men, are scarred emotionally and struggle to cope. They are seeking justice," Los Angeles Times, Nov 19, 2005, p. A.1
  • Ranan, David, Double Cross: The Code of the Catholic Church (Theo Press Ltd., 2007) ISBN 978-0-95541-330-8.

[edit] External links

General

United States