Why No Accountability for US Catholic Hierarchy or Bush Administration?
Years after the Catholic Church's pedophilia and sexual abuse scandal blew wide open in the US, apparently bishops still lead a charmed life of lack of accountability for keeping silent about their knowledge of clergy pedophiles while transferring the criminal clergy to shield themselves and the church from the scandal at the expense of more innocent young victims.
The scandal of priests sexually abusing youths broke in 2002 and has forced U.S. dioceses to pay over $2 billion in damages. Five have gone bankrupt.
As the Washington Post reports: "It's getting a little uncomfortable for Catholic Bishop Carlos Sevilla these days.
"Several times in recent months, the Yakima, Wash., clergyman has had to defend himself against accusations that he concealed sexual misconduct by priests and employees. In one case, a priest who had worked in the diocese was convicted of felony abuse for fondling a 14-year-old girl. In another case, Sevilla hired a former seminarian after the man was charged with viewing child pornography.
" 'In hindsight, the bishop realizes he could have done more' to alert parishioners to the situations, said the Rev. Robert Siler, diocese spokesman.
"Sevilla has also acknowledged that he had not alerted his flock to the case of the Rev. Jose Joaquin Estrada Arango, 42, who had worked at four churches in Yakima between 2001 and 2003, before being transferred to a nearby diocese in Oregon, where he was convicted of sexual abuse for fondling a 14-year-old girl. Estrada was deported to Colombia."
In hindsight, the bishop could have done more! What a hypocritical understatement for complicity in covering up a criminal offense!
"Doing more, a lot more, is just what Catholic activists want the church hierarchy to do about bishops who have covered up cases of sexual abuse.
"Sevilla is an example of the conundrum facing the U.S. Catholic Church as it struggles anew with the sex-abuse scandal, which Pope Benedict XVI brought up during his U.S. visit last month. The pope repeatedly expressed shame and remorse for church's role in the disgrace and met with some of its victims. To the U.S. bishops, with whom the pope met in the District, he said that the scandal had sometimes been poorly handled and that it is their "God-given responsibility" to heal the wounds and restore shattered trust.
"Since then, activists have launched letter-writing campaigns and petition drives to try to push the pope into taking action against bishops who they believe have moved slowly to stop predator priests.
"Sevilla is not alone, activists say. Cardinal Francis George, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, waited months to remove an accused parish priest in Chicago, the Rev. Daniel McCormack, who was criminally charged in 2006 and pleaded guilty to sexually abusing five boys ages 8 to 12. George has acknowledged that he failed to act soon enough in McCormack's case.
"Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles, whose archdiocese last year agreed to pay $660 million to settle legal claims with more than 500 victims, has been accused by abuse victims of moving sexually abusive priests to different parishes and of blocking efforts in court to expose them. Spokesman Tod Tamberg said Mahoney [sic] was one of the first bishops in the nation to implement policies on clergy child abuse and has moved aggressively to remove offenders from the priesthood.
"Bishops say they cannot punish each other over the issue because that is solely the prerogative of the pope.
"But activists say the system of informal oversight does not work. They want to see the pope force bishops into retirement, suspend them or otherwise discipline them for their actions -- or inaction.
"In another case, in 1999, Sevilla determined in that a deacon had molested a 17-year-old boy. The deacon fled to Mexico and took a job as an Episcopal priest, but Sevilla did not write the Mexican archbishop to alert him of the deacon's past until 2005. Siler, the diocese spokesman, said Sevilla assumed the archbishop had conducted a background check on the priest, who has since been permanently barred from the Episcopal priesthood."
Where was the bishop's sense of responsibility to other potential victims? At a permanent retreat of his mind?
The article continues: " 'What is the pope going to do now? If it's nothing, then that is a terrible thing," said Terry McKiernan, president of BishopAccountablity.org, based in the Boston area. "There has been no public action by the Vatican since the pope's visit."
What does the pope plan to do? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will guard the guardians or Who will protect us from the protectors?
Pope Benedict's (formerly Cardinal Ratzinger) record on clergy pedophilia and hierarchy cover up doesn't inspire much confidence.
Here are just a few reasons:
"In 2002, when the clergy sexual abuse crisis exploded in the United States, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger blamed the scandals on an “intentional, manipulated…desire to discredit the church” by the media.
"In 2002, he “watered down” the rules for confronting priest sex abuse established by U.S. bishops earlier that year in Dallas. Cardinal Ratzinger, then Pope John Paul’s closest adviser, called for measures that weakened the role of lay review boards and seemingly promoted a view that church law trumps criminal law.
"He has kept the most notorious of all American bishops in handling clergy sexual abuse on the job in the literal and figurative center of Catholic power.
"Since becoming pope, he hasn’t disciplined or spoken out against a single U.S. bishop who failed to enforce the 2002 policy on child sexual abuse."
As the Washington Post article concludes: "Our diocese has repeatedly erred on the part of protecting offending clerics," said Robert Fontana, a former Yakima Diocese employee who now works with an activist group, Voice of the Faithful. "There is no mechanism in place to challenge the bishop's behavior except media exposure and lawsuits. We still haven't gotten beyond that. That's amazing to me."
It appears the Catholic Church hierarchy is like the Bush administration higher ups: hypocritical, untouchable, and unaccountable even when complicit in crimes and criminal cover ups; while others (for the church, it's the parishioners in the pews; for the Bushites, it's the American taxpayers) end up paying for the horrendous damages these "officials" have caused.
The scandal of priests sexually abusing youths broke in 2002 and has forced U.S. dioceses to pay over $2 billion in damages. Five have gone bankrupt.
As the Washington Post reports: "It's getting a little uncomfortable for Catholic Bishop Carlos Sevilla these days.
"Several times in recent months, the Yakima, Wash., clergyman has had to defend himself against accusations that he concealed sexual misconduct by priests and employees. In one case, a priest who had worked in the diocese was convicted of felony abuse for fondling a 14-year-old girl. In another case, Sevilla hired a former seminarian after the man was charged with viewing child pornography.
" 'In hindsight, the bishop realizes he could have done more' to alert parishioners to the situations, said the Rev. Robert Siler, diocese spokesman.
"Sevilla has also acknowledged that he had not alerted his flock to the case of the Rev. Jose Joaquin Estrada Arango, 42, who had worked at four churches in Yakima between 2001 and 2003, before being transferred to a nearby diocese in Oregon, where he was convicted of sexual abuse for fondling a 14-year-old girl. Estrada was deported to Colombia."
In hindsight, the bishop could have done more! What a hypocritical understatement for complicity in covering up a criminal offense!
"Doing more, a lot more, is just what Catholic activists want the church hierarchy to do about bishops who have covered up cases of sexual abuse.
"Sevilla is an example of the conundrum facing the U.S. Catholic Church as it struggles anew with the sex-abuse scandal, which Pope Benedict XVI brought up during his U.S. visit last month. The pope repeatedly expressed shame and remorse for church's role in the disgrace and met with some of its victims. To the U.S. bishops, with whom the pope met in the District, he said that the scandal had sometimes been poorly handled and that it is their "God-given responsibility" to heal the wounds and restore shattered trust.
"Since then, activists have launched letter-writing campaigns and petition drives to try to push the pope into taking action against bishops who they believe have moved slowly to stop predator priests.
"Sevilla is not alone, activists say. Cardinal Francis George, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, waited months to remove an accused parish priest in Chicago, the Rev. Daniel McCormack, who was criminally charged in 2006 and pleaded guilty to sexually abusing five boys ages 8 to 12. George has acknowledged that he failed to act soon enough in McCormack's case.
"Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles, whose archdiocese last year agreed to pay $660 million to settle legal claims with more than 500 victims, has been accused by abuse victims of moving sexually abusive priests to different parishes and of blocking efforts in court to expose them. Spokesman Tod Tamberg said Mahoney [sic] was one of the first bishops in the nation to implement policies on clergy child abuse and has moved aggressively to remove offenders from the priesthood.
"Bishops say they cannot punish each other over the issue because that is solely the prerogative of the pope.
"But activists say the system of informal oversight does not work. They want to see the pope force bishops into retirement, suspend them or otherwise discipline them for their actions -- or inaction.
"In another case, in 1999, Sevilla determined in that a deacon had molested a 17-year-old boy. The deacon fled to Mexico and took a job as an Episcopal priest, but Sevilla did not write the Mexican archbishop to alert him of the deacon's past until 2005. Siler, the diocese spokesman, said Sevilla assumed the archbishop had conducted a background check on the priest, who has since been permanently barred from the Episcopal priesthood."
Where was the bishop's sense of responsibility to other potential victims? At a permanent retreat of his mind?
The article continues: " 'What is the pope going to do now? If it's nothing, then that is a terrible thing," said Terry McKiernan, president of BishopAccountablity.org, based in the Boston area. "There has been no public action by the Vatican since the pope's visit."
What does the pope plan to do? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will guard the guardians or Who will protect us from the protectors?
Pope Benedict's (formerly Cardinal Ratzinger) record on clergy pedophilia and hierarchy cover up doesn't inspire much confidence.
Here are just a few reasons:
"In 2002, when the clergy sexual abuse crisis exploded in the United States, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger blamed the scandals on an “intentional, manipulated…desire to discredit the church” by the media.
"In 2002, he “watered down” the rules for confronting priest sex abuse established by U.S. bishops earlier that year in Dallas. Cardinal Ratzinger, then Pope John Paul’s closest adviser, called for measures that weakened the role of lay review boards and seemingly promoted a view that church law trumps criminal law.
"He has kept the most notorious of all American bishops in handling clergy sexual abuse on the job in the literal and figurative center of Catholic power.
"Since becoming pope, he hasn’t disciplined or spoken out against a single U.S. bishop who failed to enforce the 2002 policy on child sexual abuse."
As the Washington Post article concludes: "Our diocese has repeatedly erred on the part of protecting offending clerics," said Robert Fontana, a former Yakima Diocese employee who now works with an activist group, Voice of the Faithful. "There is no mechanism in place to challenge the bishop's behavior except media exposure and lawsuits. We still haven't gotten beyond that. That's amazing to me."
It appears the Catholic Church hierarchy is like the Bush administration higher ups: hypocritical, untouchable, and unaccountable even when complicit in crimes and criminal cover ups; while others (for the church, it's the parishioners in the pews; for the Bushites, it's the American taxpayers) end up paying for the horrendous damages these "officials" have caused.
Comments