Singer Lauryn Hill Blasts Church at Vatican Concert

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - American singer Lauryn Hill, from a stage used by the Pope, shocked Catholic officials at a concert by telling them to "repent" and alluding to sexual abuse of children by U.S. priests.

The broadside came during the recording Saturday night of a Christmas concert attended by top Vatican cardinals, bishops and many elite of Italian society, witnesses said.

"God has been a witness to the corruption of his leadership, of the exploitation and abuses ... by the clergy," she said.

more...
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=peopleNews&storyID=3988830

...Frank Sinatra's ghost will threaten to "kick her ass"?

A cardinal telling Africans that condoms are basically useless, creating a "useless barrier" that the "spermatazoon" (yes, that was the term) can "easily pass through". Saw the quote in Newspeak a few months ago.

I think deep down the Vatican *wants* Africans to die of AIDS.

A smashing bit of forthrightness! The perfect medicine.

To those who are making the pointless case that this was neither the time nor place, let us remember Auden's advice:

"Private faces in public places
Are wiser and nicer
Than public faces in private places"

no class

to do that there.Guess she thought she had a captive audience and would make a splash.

and the girl is the coward?

she obviously was invited there - if she wanted to do it, why didn't she just go there and do it before - I'm sure she really gives a squat about abused children - why not before now?

of good manners. :eyes:

Your side of this debate is untenable. What would you have her do? If she were to have a private audience with the Pope, his office could just deny it all later, saying she must have "misunderstood."

has many forums she could do it in - just thought she would grab a little attention and it will work so maybe she's proud of herself and if that makes her feel good - well, why not?

The broadside came during the recording Saturday night of a Christmas concert attended by top Vatican cardinals, bishops and many elite of Italian society, witnesses said.

This is the audience that needed to hear it, that's why. When else are they going to get to hear it? From our bishops? From our ambassador? From the president? Not bloodly likely. They were just going to go on with their merry lives as usual, blissfully uninterrupted, thinking the abuse issue is not something that affects them directly.

As for her using the shock value as a ratings boost, well I think the alternate press conference that didn't happen would have been better for that. You are just proving the point that she took a great risk to do this.

How very apropos to do it in the celebration of the life of the man who always spoke for those who had no voice.

:-)

It just goes to show that the truth is always dangerous.

You need to wake up.

Just because you obviously support the church without question doesn't mean everyone else in the world does too.

Some people care when children are raped, even if you don't.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You know as much about Lauren Hill's motivation as I do about yours.

Sorry if I was out of line, but so were you, in my opinion.

or perfect place to level criticism where it belongs. Might as well say it at the source.

I go to Mass every Sunday, however I support Miss Hill 100%!
They truly haven't been critized nearly enough for this scandal.

to sodomize children and set up NAMBLA?

What class?

and talk and chat and chat about the priests who have gotten killed over this. Not all priests abuse children - why didn't she go to Falwell's Church or Pat Robertson's - because it wouldn't make as much of a splash. She just shouldn't have done it.

has gone out of it's way to keep the abuse issue at arms length, saying it's only a problem in certain countries. It's intellectually and emotionally dishonest.

Sorry if you don't like it. But The Vatican is human like the rest of us and not above hearing a little truth when warranted.

the truth and I'm sure they know the truth but this isn't right and no, I don't like it, but I guess a lot of people think it's okay and that's okay too

it definitely has not been "right" for the Vatican to turn a blind eye and ear to child-rape for centuries. I think it was right as rain and I will support Lauryn Hill by buying her CDs.

could have benefited from similar statements if they had been made during the Holocaust. But no- apparently, everyone was looking for the right time and place, so of course it never happened at all.

Get my point? Good.

Just how much do you know about Lauryn HIll?

that is what I meant and who knows, they certainly agree on this.

Our Lord entered the tmeple to confront the moneychangers...
What would you have Him do...start an e-petition and choose appropriate smilies on DU?
:eyes:
Heaven forbid, Catholics getting lectured...

She should have refused the invitation and had a little press concert to say why.

Lecture the Catholics all you want.. doing it the way she did will not get her message across. It was a great way to get the attention and shock she wanted. However, her point will be lost in the method.

I thought it got the point across quite well. Seems like someone got the message anyway.

The same ones who didn't want Jesus to heal on the Sabbath.

...and any time from the first abuse to the last is the perfect time to speak out. It takes a lot of "class" to sexually assault children.

because the holy see has not taken the gravity of the sexual abuses by priets in the US and around the world seriously enough to institue real change in how they treat with abusers in their midst... they need something to shock them into the 21st century and sitting around chanting and sniffing frankincense isn't what's needed.

The pope can always issue a Bull against her, excommunicate her from the church, deny her entry to heaven, rendering her soul a lost wanderer in purgatory, except purgatory doesn't exist but as an "indulgence" the church invented to extort money from people before Martin Luther tacked his thesis to the church in Wittenburg in the 16th century.

nt

I know what she said is right - I agree with the fact that the Church didn't respond as quickly and accurately as they should have.

My point is a charity Christmas concert where children were also present may have not been the best format.

True Catholics are appalled by all this and do want justice. It's our job to keep the faith as we believe it alive and get the scum out and accountable. There is more going on behind the scenes to try and rectify this than most people know. I am involved with a local priest and group in my area trying to work on helping those affected, and righting the wrongs in this mess. I hardly condone what those guilty have done here and I believe all those guilty should be punished severely.


Perhaps my 'no class' comment implied I disagreed with her.

good for Lauryn! :thumbsup:

... beautiful timing, excellent execution! Could not have been more of a class act on behalf of the victims of this "church."

Right in their face, too. It's about time that someone had the courage to take them on and to call them for the blatant hypocrisy and the vile and evil secrecy that surrounds the child abuse issue which has been part and parcel of Holy Mother Church for so very, very long.

It's all about these merchants who peddle these religions - magical thinking superstitions at best - in the first place. Ignorance for sale to the intellectually weak and gullible.

Kudos, Ms. Hill.

This is class! I wish everyone would stand up against authorities and question them more often. Jesus would be proud of her. Real daughter of man!

She did a very gutsy move listento this
"I did not come here to celebrate the birth of Christ with you but to ask you why you are not in mourning for his death inside this place"
That is so true esp since the catholic church has recently condemed africans with aids and women have always been a target for the catholic church. :yourock:

i think that she is a million times as classy as the catholic church because it has protected child molesting priests

who advocate a death sentence to Africans and pedophiia, worldwide.

Prophetic not by foretelling, but by truthtelling. A prophet is also one who can speak fearlessly to earthly power, with profound moral insight.

An audience of "top Vatican cardinals, bishops and many elite of Italian society"? I can't think of a better crowd to hear such a call to repentance.

You people who call this a cowardly act, or say she did it just for attention, I wonder how you would have tut-tutted at Jesus visiting the temple and overturning the tables of the moneychangers.

is the right time to criticise the Church (and it's not just the CAtholic hierarchy that are guilty of this) for protecting peadophiles and putting their rights and the reputation of the church above and beyond the protection of children.

If you rape a child - no sympathy

If you protect a child rapist and send him away to molest yet more children - No Sympathy

what a courageous lady.

can ANYBODY defend the church regarding the plague of pedophile priests that they have excused and overlooked???

Americans are hated around the world.Ugly,arrogant,condescending,holier than thou(in this case holier than the 1800 years of the Catholic church).If you have a problem with the American catholic church say it in America,not in the Vatican,at a charity event.What were the Italians thinking inviting this 90's throwback anyway?

the catholic church lets see child molesting priests (not just in america) protecting them promoting intolerance towards gays waging a constant battle on women and condeming how many south africans afflicted with aids

it's only the American churches that have this problem?????????

and it's only "American arrogance" that causes the disgust at the church???????????

I'm NOT American - never even been there - and this makes me sick to my stomach and I can GUARANTEE that there are men in the Vatican today who heard of the abuse and not only did nothing but helped the abuser

Explains it away anyway you if like - it was and is UNFORGIVEABLE for members of the clergy (Not limited to Catholics) to rape children or allow others to rape children

HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH AMERICAN ARROGANCE

they aren't listening, yo.

you bet!!

Author of that article kind of missed the point, when he writes "American singer Lauryn Hill, from a stage used by the Pope, shocked Catholic officials at a concert by telling them to "repent" and alluding to sexual abuse of children by U.S. priests..."
Your comment is arrogant because it seems you don't know that children are abused not only by American church and that sexual abuse of children is only one of many abuses/sins of the clergy.
Laurin Hill said, "God has been a witness to the corruption of his leadership, of the exploitation and abuses ... by the clergy." Hill told the crowd to seek blessings "from God not men" and said she did "not believe in representatives of God on earth."
She was pointing to the worst abuse/sin in the Christ-ian sense - hypocrisy. Jesus was harder on the hypocrites than on any other group. His words in Matthew are considered by many to be the harshest language He ever used:

"But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in."

The US Catholic Church is not a separate arm of the Roman Catholic church. Rome is the address of the US's Vicar of Christ. They take their directives from Rome and the bishop of Rome, who is the Pope. Two seperate policies do not exist for the administration of the US Catholic Church. Therefore, it's a waste of time to expend your energy in the US when policy is made in Rome.

Maybe it's time that the US Catholic Church break away and become seperate from Rome so as to demonstrate, govern and administer with a 21st century paradigm, and not a 2000 year old superstitiousness that keeps them locked in a silly fear.

And who says she's a throwback? Apparently, she's big business in Europe or she wouldn't have been asked. Besides, the Euro spends really nicely, too. The theatre of the world is larger than the stage of the US.

What a woman!

As she did, is a challenge to the Catholic church to get their act together. By having her criticize them in such a public arena, in front of so many who could--and would--report her words and issues, she put herself in the unenviable position of confronting the liars who try to make the world think of them as anything but. Now, the Vatican and other of the Catholic leaders must answer the charges, and must do so publicly instead of hiding behind their skirts as they've done for the past 2 thousand years.

Let's face it: this is one of those things which we see in another area: the mis-administration of GWB. If someone were able, through one of those so-called "free speech zones," to publicly confront GWB and Dickhead Cheney in such a manner, and if the chimp's handlers weren't present, it would make the GWB supporters in the world understand exactly what liberals and Democrats have know since Day One of this farcical regime--that the chimp is a useless piece of crap that needs to be deposed quickly--and loudly.

the problem was with individual clergy members, not the Church itself.
Show me any proof that the Church, meaning the institution, tolerates abuse.
It doesn't.
And the one document that some pulled out from the 1960s dealt with the confessional and had nothing to do with child abuse.

This act just makes Lauryn Hill look like an ass.
She could have did things in a more appropriate way.

I am positive Lauryn Hill is no saint.

you have to realize that 1/4 of the electorate in this country is Catholic, making it the largest voting bloc in the country, beside gender.

Lauryn Hill has always been an idiot. Siding with idiots only makes you look like an idiot.

"Lauryn Hill has always been an idiot"....hmmm. And that's based on???

the church covering up the abuse of children. People don't like the truth. The only thing they hate more than the truth is the person who says it.

that is a definate no no. Do not do that, wimmin. It is not your place to bring to the forefront, the hypocrisy of the patriarches, the hierophants, who look upon you as a second class citizen--you know, the descendants of EVE who comitted that horrible sin that propelled the entire human race into sin. LOL

These cassocked men--if that is what youwant to call them, are bent upon establishing their patriarchal power over wimmin.

They are bloviators who abuse children. Or who have covered up that egregious crime in order to preserve the sanctity of the patriarchal power. Let some wimmin in there--you can be sure that your children will not be sexually abused.

Fishguy- Realize it is Catholics who have suffered the most at the hands of many priests. This is not an anti-Catholic movement.

And the press has reported extensively about the lack of European sensitivity about this problem.

had abused kids in his parishes for 30 years. The Boston Archdiosese knew about it and moved him from parish to parish. And Gegen wasn't the only one.

Abuse of kids by individuals is one thing. Taking an entire institution to cover it up, for years, takes the backing of the organization's heirarchy.

And is isn't just a US problem. It's happened in Ireland, as well. And God only knows where else.

The Church (i.e. Rome)has had this problem for years and chose not to do the right thing.

edit: calling us anti-Catholic for pointing it out does neither the victims, nor the Church, nor God an good whatsoever. If you're Catholic, do yourself and the Church a favor. Get informed.

is full of criminals?
Remember ABSCAM? If I got the acronym right....
This is the same rationale that some of you are using.

I could go through a whole list of Democrats that have committed crimes and state that the Democratic Party tolerates criminal behavior. Does it? Well, it seems by many people's logic on here about the Catholic Church it does. Many in the Democratic establishment have known that some individual Democrats were committing crimes over the years and did nothing. So, can we assume the Democratic party is just a bunch of criminals.

Using Lauryn Hill's logic, it makes plain sense.

Where is the proof that the Church, meaning it as a whole, new about it? Nowhere.
Or did just individual clergy know about it in select areas?

Anyhow, Lauryn Hill has always been an idiot.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

that bigoted old manwho doesnot want me a queer the same rights the man who does not want me a woman to have control over my body

stripper that I see fit.
I really wish he would say it would be okay for me to do it, but is he?
Do I say he is wrong because he does not allow me to boink strippers?

Seems like you have a problem with one or two issues of the Catholic Church and are making into the Church as a whole.

It the lack of compassion i have trouble with wheter it be for women who feel they are not ready to be a mother or for the south africans or for us queers.You cant be truly compassionate without bbeing compassionate for all

Seriously, is this some type of automatic response that you have?
If any disagrees with you about anything, they are anti-homosexual?
My response is just as asinine as your response.

Homophobe. He disagree with me. He must be a homophobe.
Talk about stupidity.

The Church doesn't say that going around getting drunk all of the time is okay
Does that make me an anti-alcoholic?


Talk about irrelevant arguments.

when you alluded that homosexuality isnt "right"
the catholic church says that homosexual marriage is wrong so yeah it is anti gay and anti woman when it says we shouldnt make our own choices

Boinking strippers being one of them.
If they would only say that is right.

Darn the Church.

gay marriage and my right to choose with "boinking strippers" !!!

stuck in your eyes. You don't know anything about me or what I do in my community.

It may surprise you to know that I readily admit I'm not perfect. But silence equals assent. And I do not agree with the way the RC Church has handled this problem.

Look, it pains me deeply to have to hold other xtians accountable for terrible misdeeds. As for the Pope and Mother Theresa, they're humans like the rest of us. No more, no less.

Read all about it in The Boston Globe:

http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/

Did the Pope ever say these crimes were OK?
Never.
Did the Vatican?
Never.
Did the American Catholic Bishops?
Never.

And don't even compare yourself to the Pope and Mother Teresa.

isolated cases, sad to say.

Have you seen the interactive map at The Boston Globe? I dare you to read it and absorb what it has to say.

http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/map/


Boston has just been the noisiest case lately. Long before Boston came to light I believe there was a similar problem in Arizona. And the aforementioned Ireland. But nobody was listening then.

Not comparing myself to anyone, merely pointing out we are all equal before the Lord.

Yours in Christ,
Supernova,
Ordained Elder, Presbyterian Church USA

Less than 2%.
Most populations have at least a five percent deviant rate in them.

why did the Church choose to cover it up rather than deal with it? That's the problem.

And the CHURCH has dealt with it.

If the CHURCH were to cover something up, that means the Bishops would have to meet, agree, send it to the Cardinals in Rome and ultimately be approved by the Pope.
That never happened.

That is the only way the CHURCH could agree to it.

And the CHURCH has dealt with it.

I sincerely hope for the sake of catholics world wide this is true. But only time will tell if no further allegations come to light.

I still support Lauryn Hill. She did the right thing.

in dealing with this issue, they are saying it's ok.

You obviously know nothing about their lives to even compare yourself to them.

Again, it was not the CHURCH. It was individual clergy of the Church.

Did you read my Jim Traficant analogy?

Whenever you fight Nazism and Communism and win and give up everything you have to work with the most wretched poor on the face of the earth, then we might compare you to them.

Trafficant is now in jail, where he should be.

I no specific beef with the Catholic church, but this problem they have must be dealt with at the heirarchical level, otherwise it will just continue.

I guess you think it's ok for priests who abuse to be moved from parish to parish before word of their sins gets out. I certainly don't.

Again, we are all equal before God. Comparisons to the Pope and Mother Teresa do nothing for me. They're just people in my book.

Edit: We're all humans traveling on this blue marble together. All 6 billion of us.

You or I have not done the things that the Pope and Mother Teresa have done. To say you are really "equal" to them is egotistical.

YOu can only speak for yourself in relation to John Paul and MT.

Are you catholic? What are doing to help heal your church?

on the same level as the Pope or Mother Teresa.

Or could I be wrong?
Were you one of the major players in the collapse of one of the most brutal systems of government in history and/or did you help the most wretched poor on earth?
Forgive me if I am wrong, but I would say your answer is a no.

Did you hug a kid?

Did you tell your spouse/mate you loved him/her?

Did you smell the roses in the garden?

I'm not explaining myself to you. God knows what I do.

Stick to the topic. Otherwise you're just showing us what weak debating skills you have.

Analogies serve practical purposes in debates.

Does the Democratic Party tolerate criminals?
Or do individual Democrats tolerate criminals?
Does the Roman Catholic Church tolerate criminals?
Do individual clergy tolerate criminals?

tolerate going to war on false pretenses? Oh, I guess it does.

Suddenly the GOP is brought into this debate.

What was that about weak debating skills?

I don't disagree with you about the GOP, that is a another whole thread of which I am sure we can more than agree upon.

It certainly tolerated the abuse of South africans plauged with aids the abuse of women and our rights and all of us queer folk and our rights so i am glad she did what she did and if i , a bisexualwoman, was in the same position as Ms.Hill i would have done the same

You are no Mother Teresa and never will be.
That is the true representation of the Catholic Church, as well as countless Catholic saints throughout history, not a few derenaged priests.

Are you kidding? Proof that the Catholic Church not only tolerated the abuse of children by its priests, but actively covered up their crimes and enabled these predators to continue abusing children by moving them from parish to parish? For Christ's sake, the Boston Globe has an entire page devoted to links to articles on how the Boston Archdiocese covered up for the child predator John Geoghan for
34 years:

http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/extras/coverups_archive.htm

But feel free to continue defending child rapists and their enablers in the Catholic Church.

Did the American Bishops get together and decide abuse is okay? No
Did they pass the resolution onto the Cardinals at the Vatican? No
Did the Pope approve it? No

That is the only way the "Church" could approve it.

If that does not happen, the Church can not approve it.

Look,

The fact is some Archdioceses did have this problem, and they looked the other way for years. How exactly is this helping God?

mysogynsists homophobes facilitators for aids in south affrica

Simple way to solve the problem.

is your refusal to understand the scope of the problem.

If there is Boston, there are most likely others we will never know about. A shame really. But feel free to keep denying it. Whatever gets you through this life.

Enough people in the church hierarchy knew what was happening - they approved the removal of an accused peadophile to a new area with new victims - enough were complicit for me to be quite happy saying "the church" in the same way that a decision by the management at my work would be deemed a XXX company decision.

The Jim Traficant line is a total furphy - other Democrat's weren't giving him the access codes to other peoples bank accounts when they KNEW he was a thieving con artist. Then there's the fact that one was stealing and corruption the other is RAPING A CHILD they are NOT morally equivalent

And Fishguy - if I ever start to act like that twisted old bigot Mother Theresa - see below - then I want someone to shoot me and before you start YES I have a problem with the Catholic Church (and ALL the other churches too) but for some reason it's perfectly acceptable for THEM to have a problem with me (had sex before married, living in sin, use contraception etc etc etc) but if I (god forbid) have a problem with them then I'm the bigot??

I know plenty about Mother Theresa's life - first of all she lived in poverty because JESUS "told" her to not because it was a moral position she came to herself; second she wasn't a fan of communism not because of any intellectual or philosophical differences but because they were atheists which in her mind was akin to Satan himself. A few other favorite Mother Theresda snippets:

* she christened life long Hindu's without their consent on their deathbeds

* Socialised with brutal dictators like Papa Doc Duvalier

* refused the sick painkillers because being in pain is "jesus kissing you"

* Had literally MILLIONS in donations yet refused to bring her hospices up to anything like hygenic standards because Jesus loved the suffering, wouldn't even buy a linen washer and diseased bed coverings were "trample" washed by nuns

As opposed to the work I (and MANY people I know)have done in the welfare field for years - I did that because I beleived it was the right thing to do - I also do it without the CONSTANT praise, without a million dollar bank account and without some deity telling me to

As for her and ol' popey being "the major players in the collapse of one of the most brutal systems of government in history " now I've stopped laughing I can address this - it was neither the Pope nor Mother Theresa who brought down communism (to which I assume you refer) but the old Pope certainly helped out the Nazi's - but as they were good christian murderers I guess that's OK

and incidently fishguy, as long as you were MARRIED to the stripper and were attempting to conceive a child the church would be OK with you "boinking strippers" (although this obsession of yours is a wee bit worrying - all that religious repression I guess) however if I were to fall in love with and committ to a monogomous relationship with another woman THAT would be a problem for them

As for this being an attack on Catholics - think of it this way, when I type on DU a few people see it when the Pope makes constant pronouncements about un-procreative sex and contraception (attacking ME and my way of life) millions listen to him - so when he stops attacking me (and my gay and lesbian friends) I'll stop having a go back

Lets address some issues here with facts as opposed to opinion. This thread is getting to hot by people making statements based on what they read in the Newspaper, for some background I decided to give some background on the Catholic Church and the abuse cases. I included some Web Sites at the bottom of this paper including the web site of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests (SNAP).

First the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is descended from how the late Western Roman Empire was formed, with a strong influence from the Germanic concept of fief. The key here is that while the Pope select the Bishops, who he selects is limited (Often to natives of that country or other restrictions depending on tradition. For example the US College of Bishops provides a list of people whenever a Bishopry opens up and the Pope must pick one of the persons on the list. In Iraq, the Chaldean Catholic Church recently lost their Bishop and the clerics were to meet a elect a new Bishop who would than be approved by the Pope. These are traditions within these dioceses and countries ).

Furthermore from the Middle Age concept of Fief, comes the concept that once a Diocese is given to a Bishop, it is his for life (i.e. CAN NOT BE REMOVED BY THE POPE). Now, this does not mean the Pope does not have some power over the Bishops. The Catholic Church also inherited from Rome a Judicial System (Which demands evidence of Wrong doing, not just mere accusations) . The Bishops must obey Church Law, but if they disobey all that the Pope can do is reverse any decision of the Bishop, the Bishop stays Bishop. Thus you can have a situation where a Bishops makes decisions, those decisions are reversed but he keeps on making the same decisions (Through this is less of the problem than it appears, most Bishops want to be promoted and that mean being on the good side of the Pope, so most obey).

The only way the Pope can remove a Bishop is through promotion. Thus you have had Bishops in the past, promoted to positions in the Vatican just to remove them from their diocese. For example in the late 1960s Bishop White of Pittsburgh used some money to help some Drug addicts buy Drugs. This was found out and hit the Newspaper, it hurt donations. Bishop White was promoted to be head of the Vatican Library just to get him, out of Pittsburgh.

Now you may wonder why the Bishops were not just promoted to a stop in the Vatican in the Pedophile Cases. The problem is that if you look at the cases, most of the Cases are from the 1970s and 1980s (the Statute of Limitations has expired on earlier cases). In the early 1980s a bad case hit (I believe Louisiana but I can not find the Case right now). After this case the Church did up date its rules but the cases coming up today pre-dates these changes. Further Changes have occurred since 1990, but the incidents of the 1980s and 1990s are still in the court system..

Remember we are talking of young children, the Statute of Limitation does not start to run till their can sue in their own name (Generally age 18, but may be 21 in some states). The Statute of Limitations for most things today is four years (The Uniform Commercial Code adopted this in the mid-1950s and most states have adopted it for more than just what is covered by the UCC, but other states have much longer and shorter statutory periods, varies from state to State). A further factor is litigation can last 3-4 years including appeals. My point here is the acts you are hearing of today may have occurred 20 years ago, and that is NOT unusual in these cases. Thus, the Church may have adopted strict new rules (and the Church has adopted such strict rules) but we are still seeing the effect of the lack enforcement done 15-20 years ago.

Now how did the Catholic Church get into this mess? First you must understand Pedophiles. Most such incidents occur within families, something like 80-90% of all sexual abuse of Children are done by members of their own families. Disgusting but true (Through statistics are hard to come by, families tend to cover these incidents up). The Catholic Church has a higher rate of such cases given it is viewed as more like part of one’s extended Family as opposed to a business, but even the cases within the Church pales besides what happens in families. That is NOT an excuse for the Church, I am just pointing out the sad facts of these types of Cases.

A further complications in these types of cases is trying to prove them. You generally have two people saying opposite things, the victim saying the Priest did it, and the Priest denying the charge. How do you prove it one way or another? Given that FALSE charges of abuse have been made by people who disliked certain Priests how do you protect BOTH children and the Priests? Evidence would be nice, but generally when the allegations is made it is days, weeks, months or even years later. No physical evidence exists do to the time delay (if any physical evidence ever did exist, you can have molestation without any outward physical evidence of the sexual assault). This is complicated by the Church’s concern for Due Process. When some rules were first proposed to deal with pedophile cases some Vatican Officials expressed objections to these changes given the lack of Due Process to the accused (i.e. the priest accused on the abuse). The church prides itself of always following its own law and demanding evidence of a wrong before punishment can be imposed. For example, Martin Luther was not excommunicated for his posting of his 99 things wrong with the Church, but his Subsequent actions over the next 10 years that showed he no longer was acting within the Catholic Church. The Church demands proof of wrong doing, even when it was running the Inquisition, proof of heresy had to be shown (unlike the Witch Trials run at the same time period in Protestant countries, where evidence was NOT needed, just accusations). The Catholic Church prides itself on its demand for Due Process an all cases. In cases of Pedophiles this has caused some problems for the person being accused (i.e. the Priest) is the person entitled to Due Process. The Victim is the Accuser, and in most systems of Due Process the Burden of Proof is on the Accuser NOT the accused. When they is NO third party witnesses and no physical evidence, how does the Accuser carries the burden of Proof? In most such cases the problem is what happen. Did the Priest abuse the Victim or is the Victim story without basis of fact? She says, he says, a problem within in legal system.

There is two ways to solve this problem, first is establish checks to make sure the priests have very little time to abuse any children they come in contact with. Prior to about 1970 the Nuns provided this check, they had no place better to be than in the Church so the Priests had very little time independent of the nuns to be with children. The number of woman who took vocations dropped drastically after WWII, so the number of Nuns started to drop after about 1960. This check thus disappeared and the Church did not adopt a similar check until after the recent pedophile cases.

The second method is to separate the parties and see if allegation followed the Priest. If it did not than the Bishop could say the Priest’s denial must have been true (I use to do Children and Youth and they have been cases where a molester did stop so this is NOT entirely true, so I can not say the Victim lied, but based on no subsequent accusations I must lien to the Priest).

On the other hand if the accusations followed the Priest the Bishop should have removed him from his parish and make sure he NEVER be in contact with children agin and such a finding should be in the Priest’s personal record. This policy would protect children from being harmed by that priest. It does NOT address harm the abuser has already done, but the first step should be to prevent FURTHER harm. To have punishment you still must prove such abuse occurred and as I pointed out above, hard to do. If it can be proved, than the Priest should have been disciplined and turned over to state authorities. The problem is such abuse is HARD to prove, but that does not mean the Church can not protect children. The Church can still protect Children even if no evidence of abuse, by setting up systems that detects possible abusers and separating them from children.

Given the nature of this crime (and its difficulty to prove) the courts have NOT held any Bishops liable for just one incident by one priest of such abuse. The Church has been hammered for NOT doing the above. i.e. protecting OTHER children from the abuse that the church new or should have known was being done by a Priest. One way the Bishops show their lack of proper supervision of their priest was instead of moving an accused priest once and if another accusation occurs to remove him and to keep the priest away from Children, the Bishops kept moving such priests again and again. This is what the Bishops are having to pay for, failing to properly supervise their priests to make sure that any priests who has a history of such accusations would be kept away from children. Simply put the Bishops were sued for failing to protect their flock when the Bishops knew or Should have known of the history of accusations against a certain Priest.

Now, the church has issued statements about the abuse, and have apologized for it (Through not to the level of issuing an individual apology nor did the church claim the church was at fault instead of individual Bishops and Priests). The Church has also adopted procedures to make sure such abusive Priests are brought to the attention of the Bishop and handled in a way to protect the Priest’s Due process Rights AND keep them away from Children.

Given what the Church has done over the last 10-15 years (and the Court Cases that prompted those changes) I see these cases slowly disappearing from the News. Acts of Pedophiles will still occur (such acts occur in ANY organization as large as the Church), but the church will make every effort to remove any priests from any positions that may give them the opportunity to abuse children based even on one accusation of abuse.

The Church will not rely on reports that such people can be “cured” (a problem that existed more prior to the 1960s than in the 1970s and 1980s) but practice the policy of prevention, making priests understand their duty to report such incidents, for the Bishops to ACT on any complaint of such incidents (including any complaints from lay people and even third parties) AND to make sure the first priority will be to protect children as opposed to the Priests.


Vatican’s 2001 Rules on Pedophile cases:
http://www.skeptictank.org/gen4/gen02339.htm

Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests
http://www.snapnetwork.org/

A pro-Catholic paper on this subject:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0534.html

http://www.americancatholic.org/News/ClergySexAbuse/

Canon Law:
http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/canon/

Information on Church Hierarchy:
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/

you are atacking the religon of over a billion people

I think you may be mistaken. But maybe I missed something. Could explain what in this post is "atacking the religon of over a billion people?"

with Prince Georgie Karl Rove john asscroft tom delay dick cheney all sittin in the front row wouldnt youspeak out against the autrocities comitted by them.And if you werent would you criticize them for it or would you applaud them for doing what their victims cant - confronting them n the same room calling them to be accountable