|
4% of Catholic priesthood abused kids in their care
REUTERS , WASHINGTON
Sunday, Feb 29, 2004,Page 7
"It's always bad when a child is abused, but when the abuser wears a
collar, it's worse. Much of the blame ... must be placed on the higher-ups."
Robert Bennett, attorney on a panel probing child abuse
More than 10,600 children said they were molested by priests since 1950 in an
epidemic of child sexual abuse involving at least 4 percent of US Roman Catholic
clergy, two studies reported on Friday.
The reports' release brought an apology from Bishop Wilton Gregory, president of
the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, and complaints from victims that the
reports had focused on the abusers but not on the bishops who failed to stop
them.
One of the reports, written by researchers at the John Jay College of Criminal
Justice in New York, revealed that 10,667 children were allegedly abused by
4,392 priests from 1950 to 2002. But the report said the figures depend on
self-reporting by the bishops and were probably an undercount.
This study found reports of abuse peaked with the ordination class of 1970, from
which one in 10 priests was eventually accused of abuse.
Most victims were male, and of those, the largest single age group was boys from
11 to 14 years old. Alleged abuse ranged from touching, with or without
clothing, to oral sex and sexual intercourse.
Some US$572 million has been paid in damages to abuse victims, the report said.
But it noted that this did not include US$85 million paid by the Archdiocese of
Boston, where the sex-abuse scandal first grabbed headlines two years ago, and
that 14 percent of dioceses were not able to provide figures.
The finding that at least 4 percent of American Roman Catholic priests were
involved in child sexual abuse differs markedly from the figure of "less than 1
percent" offered in 2002 by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Vatican
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
The second report, a 145-page examination of the causes and context of the
priestly sexual abuse crisis, was crafted by a panel of prominent Catholics who
found systemic problems in the way candidates for the priesthood were chosen and
guided.
"It's always bad when a child is abused, but when the abuser wears a collar,
it's worse," said attorney Robert Bennett, a member of the panel. "Much of the
blame, unfortunately ... must be placed on the higher-ups."
The panel found two main factors contributing to priestly child sexual abuse,
Bennett said at a news conference: Dioceses failed to keep those "dysfunctional
and psycho-sexually immature men" out of the priesthood, and candidates for the
priesthood were ill-prepared for lives of celibacy in a highly sexualized age.
--
"Imagine the people who believe such things
and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally,
all the patient findings of thinking minds through
all the centuries since the Bible was written.
And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated,
the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us,
who would make themselves the guides and leaders of
us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs
on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and
homes. I personally resent it bitterly..."
-- Isaac Asimov,
|
| |
| |
Sphincter Therapy - God's Will
1000s of Catholic priesthood abused kids in their care
REUTERS , WASHINGTON
Sunday, Feb 29, 2004,Page 7
"It's always bad when a child is abused, but when the abuser
wears a collar, it's worse. Much of the blame ... must be placed on
the higher-ups."
Robert Bennett, attorney on a panel probing child abuse
More than 10,600 children said they were molested by priests since
1950 in an epidemic of child sexual abuse involving at least 4
percent of US Roman Catholic clergy, two studies reported on Friday.
The reports' release brought an apology from Bishop Wilton Gregory,
president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, and complaints
from victims that the reports had focused on the abusers but not on
the bishops who failed to stop them.
One of the reports, written by researchers at the John Jay College of
Criminal Justice in New York, revealed that 10,667 children were
allegedly abused by 4,392 priests from 1950 to 2002. But the report
said the figures depend on self-reporting by the bishops and were
probably an undercount.
This study found reports of abuse peaked with the ordination class of
1970, from which one in 10 priests was eventually accused of abuse.
Most victims were male, and of those, the largest single age group
was boys from 11 to 14 years old. Alleged abuse ranged from touching,
with or without clothing, to oral sex and sexual intercourse.
Some US$572 million has been paid in damages to abuse victims, the
report said. But it noted that this did not include US$85 million
paid by the Archdiocese of Boston, where the sex-abuse scandal first
grabbed headlines two years ago, and that 14 percent of dioceses were
not able to provide figures.
The finding that at least 4 percent of American Roman Catholic
priests were involved in child sexual abuse differs markedly from the
figure of "less than 1 percent" offered in 2002 by Cardinal Joseph
Ratzinger, head of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith.
The second report, a 145-page examination of the causes and context
of the priestly sexual abuse crisis, was crafted by a panel of
prominent Catholics who found systemic problems in the way candidates
for the priesthood were chosen and guided.
"It's always bad when a child is abused, but when the abuser wears a
collar, it's worse," said attorney Robert Bennett, a member of the
panel. "Much of the blame, unfortunately ... must be placed on the
higher-ups."
The panel found two main factors contributing to priestly child
sexual abuse, Bennett said at a news conference: Dioceses failed to
keep those "dysfunctional and psycho-sexually immature men" out of
the priesthood, and candidates for the priesthood were ill-prepared
for lives of celibacy in a highly sexualized age.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NAB
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged,
he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young
woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB
If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has
relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and
there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help
though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.
2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB
Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you out of your own house.
I will take your wives (plural) while you live to see it, and will give them to
your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have
done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all
Israel,
and with the sun looking down.'
Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord."
Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin:
you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed,
the child born to you must surely die." (The child dies seven days later.)
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NLT
Suppose you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God
hands them over to you and you take captives. And suppose you see
among the captives a beautiful woman, and you are attracted to her and
want to marry her. If this happens, you may take her to your home,
where she must shave her head, cut her fingernails, and change all
her clothes. Then she must remain in your home for a full month,
mourning for her father and mother. After that you may marry her.
But if you marry her and then decide you do not like her, you must
let her go free. You may not sell her or treat her as a slave,
for you have humiliated her.
|
| |
| |
Jack Nichols wrote:
I think Robert Bennett is just out for publicity -he has no
credibility when he awards a bogus claimant like Paula Jones.
Why doesn't he investigate serious issues like the murder of Laci
Peterson?
What's worse, the killing of one pregnant woman, or the systemic
anal rape and sodomy of 10,000s of children in the name of "god" ...?
Do support your answer, points will be given for logic and clarity.
Date: 2004-02-29 18:08:15
David Sween wrote:
The case against Scott Peterson has been aired in the National
Enquirer and it does not belong in any court room where Kangaroo
Justice does not prevail.
Mark Geragos does not need a defense to make it clear that it is not
plausible to legitimately convict a man who has been cleared by 24/7
scrutiny. The slanderous and spurious allegations which are now called
"the evidence" have been published in detail, in the National Enquirer
and if this disinformation is to be pawned off to an unsuspecting
jury, they need to be informed. And so, if the trial against Scott
Peterson is to be fair, the judge must instruct the jury accordingly;
"Members of the jury, I am supplying you with 10 issues of the
National Enquirer. The theories of nine of the issues have been
rejected by the prosecution because they made you all laugh. The
January 6, 2004 issue is indisputable because the National Enquirer
published a picture of Merlin the tracking dog, and THAT is what you
call INDISPUTABLE evidence. If, in your infinite wisdom, you determine
that the National Enquirer is a credible source, you must find guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt. If you think that the National Enquirer is
not credible, then Investigators like David Sween gets the last word."
This case is clearly over as far as the guilt or the innocence of
Scott Peterson is concerned.
The judge in the Laci Peterson murder trial was supposed to be Richard
Arnason, a retired Contra Costa County judge who was choseny by
California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George. Arnason is a
well known, criminal law expert with extensive death penalty case
experience and having served on the Superior Court of Contra Costa
County for 31 years, he would never tolerate the tactics of
prosecutors who are pretending to have a case against Scott Peterson.
Needless to say, the prosecutors had to shop around, to find a judge
who was willing to listen to a case that would have been thrown out a
long time ago, if a reasonable judge like Arnoson was not replaced.
Clearly, any Judge who determines that the National Enquirer had
showed probable cause that Scott Peterson had killed 27-year-old Laci,
who was nine months pregnant, and dumped her body in San Francisco
Bay, needs his head examined.
I know what I am talking about. In my experience, reasonable and fair
Judges are irresponsibly replaced when prosecutors understands the
weakness of their case.
Michael Cardoza, a criminal defense attorney in the San Francisco Bay
area, thought that both the prosecution and the defense would approve
of Arnason and every legal expert was shocked to hear he had been
replaced.
"He does what's right and he controls his courtroom," said Cardoza,
who tried a case before Arnason in 1998.
If the prosecution had a case, they would have accepted Arnason.
Instead, they made sure he was disqualified because they [try not to
laugh] claimed that an experienced and distinguished judge was biased
against them.
Mark Geragos is understandably frustrated and angered by the kangaroo
court that the prosecutors are seeking to construct for the sake of
lynching Scott Peterson. The prosecution selected judge is even
refusing to sequester the jury, and in this case, a jury that is not
sequestered is subject to the manipulation that the Skakel jury was
subjected to, when demagogues like Dominick Dunne dined within earshot
of the jurors that lynched Michael Skakel. Needless to say, this
prosecution is seeking an equally creative way to manipulate the
Peterson jury; is that why they opposed the request to sequester the
jury?
Judge Alfred A. Delucchi said jurors will be allowed to go home each
night with an admonishment not to discuss the case, "and we'll see
what happens." We'll see what happens, if this selected fool who is
supposed to be a judge, continues to preside over a kangaroo court.
I repeat; The case against Scott Peterson is OVER, because Scott
Peterson, the most investigated man in America, has been absolutely
cleared by 24/7 scrutiny. In the alternative, you can promote the so
called credibility of the January 6, 2004 issue of the National
Enquirer, because every other issue has prompted widespread laughter
--and now, it's just a matter of time... before the media rejects the
latest fraud.
http://www.geocities.com/botenth/national.htm
_
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
|
| |
| |
=> Vox Populi " <vox@popu.li> wrote in message news:<aZJ0c.12$e25.17753@news.uswest.net>...
Jack Nichols wrote:
What's worse, the killing of one pregnant woman, or the systemic
anal rape and sodomy of 10,000s of children in the name of "god" ...?
Do support your answer, points will be given for logic and clarity.
sure, you sound like a sick pervert ! like the morons who murdered
Laci Peterson -any connection?
so sad -the MORONS who murdered Chandra Levy and Laci Peterson have
failed to frame Scott.
719 Date: 2004-03-07 16:26:11
David Sween ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
As I have repeatedly indicated, Scott did not dump his wife in the
Bay, her body was deliberately planted, to implicate Scott Peterson.
If Scott had in fact murdered Laci and dumped her in the Bay, sonar
searches would have located the body.
Indeed, a sonar search just recovered a man from Idaho, who was just
located at the bottom of Auke Bay.
Visibility is not a factor in Sonar searches because experts measure a
reflection of sound and not light. The only reason that Laci was not
located is because she was not there, and that is probably because she
was buried in a shallow grave.
Speculation aside, sonar searches failed to recover the body, and that
is because there was no body to recover. It was obviously planted to
implicate Scott Peterson, and that is clearly what sonar searches have
proved.
718 Date: 2004-03-06 05:08:47
Bruno Jasienski ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
Do not fear your enemies. The worst they can do is kill you. Do not
fear your friends. At worst, they may betray you. Fear those who do
not care; they neither kill nor betray, but betrayal and murder exist
because of their silent consent.
717 Date: 2004-03-03 21:27:13
David Sween ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
Why does Judge Delucchi contradict himself? In his own words, "I'm
persuaded the dog tracking in and around Modesto can't be
corroborated'' said Delucchi. "You can't cross-examine the dog."
Delucchi, however, ruled that prosecutors will be able to present a
separate piece of dog-tracking evidence that places Laci Peterson's
scent at the very pier where her husband said he left for an afternoon
of fishing on the day she went missing. The
jury will hear testimony from an expert dog handler whose Labrador
retriever Trimble followed Laci Peterson's scent from the parking lot
of the Berkeley Marina to the edge of the pier.
Court precedent requires corroboration of any dog-tracking evidence,
Delucchi said, and called the marina evidence admissible because Scott
Peterson admitted going to the marina, and Laci Peterson and her fetus
washed ashore 2 1/2 miles from the marina four months later. What does
that have to do with the need to follow Laci's scent?
Where is the corroboration? Did anybody see Laci at the Marina? Is
Judge Delucci going to cross-examine the dog? This judge does not make
any sense. First and foremost, the crap that Delucci has chosen to
call evidence is straight out of the National Enquirer, and this is
the direct quote: "And Trimble, another Lab tracking dog, produced the
most compelling evidence against Scott. He showed that Scott left his
warehouse in his truck, headed for the Berkeley Marina, and the dog
picked up Laci's scent at the marina!"
Is Judge Delucchi going to cross-examine the dog?
Moreover, Delucchi has selectively excluded dog tracking evidence
because Modesto police detective Al Brocchini called off a search even
though a bloodhound named Merlin appeared to be following Laci
Peterson's scent, and that is not justifiable.
Where is the corroboration? Who saw Laci at the marina? Eyewitnesses
corroborated the fact that Scott was at the marina, alone. This is
extremely bizarre and presumptuous corroboration -like denying Merlin
the tracking dog, the opportunity to follow Laci Peterson's scent.
Delucchi's peculiar obsession to dismiss the fact that nobody saw Laci
at the marina, not to mention the fact that she was witnessed walking
her dog on December 24th, clearly indicates that the so called,
"corroborated" dog-tracking evidence is nothing more than the bizarre
theory that the National Enquirer publicized. That is not even what
you call evidence, let alone, corroborated evidence.
716 Date: 2004-03-03 03:35:51
Mike ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
Judge rules that the "evidence" published in the National Enquirer on
January 6, is admissable ! LOL
Dogs tracked Laci's scent to a boat she had never been on. Fascinating
! Sounds like dogs don't know the difference between Scott and Laci's
property, since Scott had handled it. For those who don't know the
diff, that's called contaminated evidence --but what else do you
expect from the National Enquirer? You would think that a judge would
know better.
715 Date: 2004-03-01 21:45:35
John Ashcroft's Justice Department is involved? ( no email / no
homepage) wrote:
"They have report after report after report of investigations that
were taking place in December," Geragos said. "These items are
negative for my client. I've got pages upon pages of hair comparisons
that exclude my client at every single point."
Prosecutor David Harris said they were working with the Department of
Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigations to turn over the
reports.
"We're doing the best we can," Harris told Delucchi. "We're going up
the chain and saying you need to get this done."
714 Date: 2004-03-01 16:14:28
Joe Sneider ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
Oh Fred, you are so gentle with your leading questions, don't beat
around the bush ! These idiots are trying to suggest that Scott
Peterson made cement anchors, used them to sink Laci, and he just left
one behind so that the geniuses can trace it back to Scott. These
MORONS are so stupid, it will be a huge shock if the entire jury does
not die laughing before this is over.
713 Date: 2004-03-01 15:38:19
Fred Sanfilippo ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
The bodies of Laci Peterson and the baby were simultaneously recovered
in April along the shores of San Francisco Bay, not far from where
Scott Peterson was reported fishing on the day his wife vanished -
Christmas Eve, 2002.
Who is gullible enough to believe that Scott Peterson directed the
opportunity to frame himself?
712 Date: 2004-02-29 18:08:15
David Sween ( no email / no homepage) wrote:
The case against Scott Peterson has been aired in the National
Enquirer and it does not belong in any court room where Kangaroo
Justice does not prevail.
Mark Geragos does not need a defense to make it clear that it is not
p
|
| |
| |
|
