Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Pope Benedict's visit to Britain is nothing to celebrate

Those Opus Dei papal controllers at the Vatican are making sure that Benedict XVI travel to the major cities in the world so that someday they can plant his statues there like they did with John Paul II. The Opus Dei are so obssessed in silencing the Jesuits like Jon Sobrino that they silence or expel the Jesuits wherever and whenever they can - like those Jesuits were expelled from the Vatican Radio. The Opus Dei tie up the Jesuits and force them to be parrots of papal writings - which are Opus Dei writings to begin with. But there is Divine Justice and the Opus dei shall sink into the mire with the mammoth-money worshipping Vatican as predicted by the Third Secret of Fatima.

Pope Benedict XVI. Photograph: Bela Szandelszky/AP

Ignore the bells and the smells and the lovely Raphaels, the Pope's visit to Britain is nothing to celebrate

Gordon Brown is 'delighted', David Cameron is 'delighted'. I am 'repelled'.

Comments (632)
o Tanya Gold
o The Guardian, Tuesday 29 September 2009

Save us, O Lord, save us all. Save us from the Pope. Joseph Ratzinger is coming to Britain. Gordon Brown is "delighted". David Cameron is "delighted". I am "repelled". Let him come; I applaud freedom of speech. But no red carpets, please. No biscuits. No Queen.

In his actions on child abuse and Aids, Joseph Ratzinger has colluded in the protection of paedophiles and the deaths of millions of Africans. As Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Pope John Paul II's chief enforcer), it was Ratzinger's job to investigate the child abuse scandal that plagued the Catholic church for decades. And how did he do it? In May 2001 he wrote a confidential letter to Catholic bishops, ordering them not to notify the police – or anyone else – about the allegations, on pain of excommunication. He referred to a previous (confidential) Vatican document that ordered that investigations should be handled "in the most secretive way . . . restrained by a perpetual silence". Excommunication is a joke to me, perhaps to you, but to a Catholic it means exclusion and perhaps hellfire – for trying to protect a child. Well, God is love. (see the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army

He also waved aside calls to discipline Marcial Maciel Degollado, the Mexican founder of the global Legion of Christ movement. Allegations of child abuse have stalked Maciel since the 1970s. His victims petitioned Ratzinger, only for his secretary to inform them the matter was closed. "One can't put on trial such a close friend of the Pope as Marcial Maciel," Ratzinger said. Two abuse victims sued him personally for obstruction of justice, but he claimed diplomatic immunity.

Eventually, when the allegations could no longer be denied, Ratzinger apologised, and sent Maciel off "to a life of prayer and penitence". Why not prison? He didn't say. "It is a great suffering for the church . . . and for me personally," was Ratzinger's comment about the wider child abuse scandal. Great suffering? I thought to be raped as a child was great suffering. To be exposed as complicit in a cover-up is surely merely . . . embarrassing?

Ratzinger added that he believed the Catholic church had been the victim of a "planned" media campaign. By whom? By gays? By Jews? By Jedi? He instructed that prayers be said in perpetuity for the victims – thanks, I feel better now! – along with a push to ensure that men "with deep-seated homosexual tendencies" do not enter the priesthood, thereby turning all responsibility for the scandal into – the laps of the evil gays!

Ratzinger is also active in the suppression of Liberation Theology, a Latin American movement that insists that social justice is the central purpose of Christianity; that good Catholics should also be political activists who fight for the rights of the slum-living poor. Ratzinger was repelled, and dismissed it as "a fundamental threat to the faith of the Church".

And so to the church's own holocaust – in Africa. Condoms can protect Africans from Aids. But who can protect them from Ratzinger? The Catholic church has long pursued a no-condoms policy. In El Salvador the church got a law passed, ensuring that condoms were only sold with a warning stating they did not protect the user from Aids. In Kenya, Cardinal Maurice Otunga staged public burnings of condoms. The former Archbishop of Nairobi, Raphael Ndingi Mwana a'Nzeki told his flock that condoms, far from protecting them, contribute to the spread of the disease. Well, God is love.

Some local priests in Africa counsel contraception, because they care about their parishioners. But the Vatican, on its Roman cloud, disagrees. Aids, Ratzinger says, "cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems". That is a lie. Not a fantasy, like the virgin birth and all the other magical, mystical nonsense, but a dangerous lie. There are, Your Holiness, more than 12 million Aids orphans in Africa. Twenty-two million Africans have Aids and the UN fears that eventually 90 million could die.

Ratzinger presides over a church that calls homosexuality "a deviation, an irregularity, a wound". Catholic reformers have tried to liberalise this view but Ratzinger slapped them down. In a 1986 letter, he complained that, "Even within the Church, [people] are bringing enormous pressure to bear . . . to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered." He added that homosexuality is "an intrinsic moral evil".

Care to know the suicide statistics for teenage gays, Your Holiness? They are four times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual fellows. In 1998, a 39-year-old gay man called Alfredo Ormando set fire to himself in St Peter's Square, in protest at your policies. He died.

Ratzinger is no better on women; he opposes women priests, of course, and demands the criminilisation of abortion even for women who have been raped or are very sick; gin and wire coathangers, anyone? His friend, the theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg, has said that Ratzinger sees the push for female priests as driven by "spokeswomen for radical feminists, especially lesbians".

So this is the man who is coming to lecture us about morality. Welcome, Benedict XVI, Episcopus Romae, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City, Servant of the Servants of God. Don't tread on the corpses.

Wednesday, September 09, 2009

War tactics should be applied to Benedict XVI and lying schmucks who covered up the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army

Benedict XVI and the Opus Dei led the cover-up of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army for over a quarter of a century. Their victims surpass those of SEptember 11 and World Trade Center attacks.

Compare the CRIMES and their VICTIMS in America

Victims - Attackers - Responsible Leader

Pearl Harbor - 3,000 victims - 170 planes - Admiral Yamamoto

WTC & 9/11 attacks - 5,000 victims - 19 Muslims - Osama bin Laden

USA Priest Pedophilia - 12,000 victims - 5,478 priests - John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Opus Dei - the Vatican Trinity

See the John Paul II MIllstone for details

War tactics should be applied to abusers and lying schmucks who covered up

September 6, 12:04 PM
Pittsburgh Independent Examiner
Mike Ference

Every day brings new evidence that we no longer live in a civilized and principled society. The worst part, it usually concerns another case of sexual misconduct involving a Catholic priest, young children and a church hierarchy that helped to cover up the case.
The recent revelations of Bishop Ray Goedert’s, a former vicar of priest, who knew that at least 25 priests had sexually molested children and did nothing. His rationale, as one fellow bishop admitted, that at the time , “he was not a mandated reporter.” In other words, like so many other bishops, cardinals and popes – better to protect dysfunctional sex freaks than God’s most precious commodity – innocent children.

Bishop Ray Goedert’s link to his deposition:

To be sure, media pressure and public outrage have inspired displays of contrition from members of the church hierarchy. But as more and more cases of abuse — and cover-up — come to light, one begins to wonder whether such displays should be considered any more trustworthy than those of, say, Saddam Hussein.

So — what is to be done? Given the level of wreckage and anguish caused in the lives of so many people, it seems appropriate to look to the war on terror for a model strategy.

A first prong of attack might involve a Special Forces unit made up of highly skilled and trained military personnel capable of tracking down and obtaining confessions from any priest accused of acts of sexual abuse against children. If rights are violated, if military personnel sometimes go a little too far, so be it. The Catholic Church had ample opportunity to fess up and repent. Those incapable of civilized behavior shouldn’t expect the rights and privileges of civilization.

A deck of cards can be created to help identify hard-to-find priests as well as the disgraceful church leaders who permitted, and in essence, condoned the sexual abuse of young children. Photos of the most deviant and reprehensible church officials accompanied by a list of their offenses will encourage us all to do our patriotic duty in helping the authorities track down suspected priest-terrorists or at least be able to identify the culprits as they come and go freely because their sins where covered up and the time to criminally prosecute has expired.

Another option would be to divide the nation into territories. A color-code warning system would be established, alerting parents about abusive priests being transferred into their respective regions. Depending on the designated color for a particular region, parents would know whether their children should serve at Mass, go on field trips, or even attend Catholic school that day.

To aid this unique war on terror, a pool of money should be collected, not involuntarily from taxpayers, but voluntarily from those decent human beings who believe crimes committed against our children are sins that God takes very seriously. Some of the funds raised could then be turned into outrageously tempting reward sums for information leading to the capture of our targeted criminals. Once the rogue clerics have been imprisoned and forced to talk, I recommend that their confessions be given to someone like Steven Spielberg or George Romero. Hollywood writers and producers could create a blockbuster movie like Roots or Schindler’s List to serve as a bitter reminder that these crimes should never again be permitted to occur. Tom Savini could be hired to recreate the horror on the faces of child actors chosen to play parts.

Proceeds from the movie could go to victims of abuse and their families. And no matter how old the crime, compensation would be available. There should be no statute of limitations when the rights of children have been violated by those who lived much of their adult lives perched on a pedestal heightened by the trust of innocent and vulnerable believers. In fact, I would extend compensation to the second and perhaps even third generation of sufferers. It would certainly include siblings denied the experience of growing up with a brother or sister untraumatized by such abuse. And since crimes of abuse tend to echo, it would extend to the victims of the victims as well.

If all else fails, is it any less rational to declare war on the Catholic Church as part of a war on child abuse than it was to declare war on Iraq (which had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al-Qaeda and apparently had no weapons of mass destruction) as part of a war on terror? How many innocent children have been verifiably lost to this menace — and how many more will be lost if we don’t make a preemptive strike?

As horrific as sexual abuse by priests may be, the perpetrators might merit a more forgiving place if only their superiors had the courage to do the right thing. For a few, counseling and close supervision might have been enough to prevent future abuses. Others clearly required something more intensive — a mental hospital or a prison.

But repeated abuse, as well as willfully hiding the crimes and the criminals — as far as I can see, this brings us much closer to the realm of mortal sin. And the sinners include not just the church hierarchy, but also attorneys who ill-advised parents not to buck the system and take on the Catholic Church, or may even have provided inside information to thwart legitimate cases against the church, law enforcement officials who may have thought it best to warn church officials of pending investigations, and janitors, housekeepers, teachers, and employees of the Catholic Church who kept silent because of concerns about a paycheck, a 401K, a pension, or a fear of standing up to church authorities. God has a place for everyone — and if you abuse children or protect the abusers of children, we can only hope that your place is called hell.

Anyone with additional information to this story or similar events please feel free to send a message to my email address is or drop a dime at 412-233-5491.

Reporting live from Pittsburgh’s Golden Triangle – where the confluence of the Sicilian mob and the Democratic Party meet to form the deMOBocrats.

Saturday, September 05, 2009

Benedict XVI's victims number more than September 11

This Benedict XVI and the John Paul II Millstone web/blogs were inspired by a vision of St. Michael the Archangel in July 2002 when the late John Paul II came to America for his last WYD World Youth Day.

It is now 2009 and after 7 years and the Catholic Church in the USA has paid more than 2 billion dollars to vicitms, Ireland is now erupting with its own share of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army the "great" John Paul II left behind -- through the great cover-up by Benedict XVI and the Opus Dei who controlled his 26 years papacy!

Our mission is to be in solidarity with the victims of the 26 years papacy of John Paul II -- by showing to America and the world why John Paul II must never be called a "saint" in American lips, in American soil and in every nation where his army, the JPIIPPA John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army reigned in secrecy and cover-up under his Holy See......

Compare the CRIMES and their VICTIMS in America

Victims - Attackers - Responsible Leaders

Pearl Harbor - 3,000 victims - 170 planes - Admiral Yamamoto

WTC & 9/11 attacks - 5,000 victims - 19 Muslims - Osama bin Laden

USA Priest Pedophilia - 12,000 victims - 5,478 priests - John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Opus Dei - the Vatican trinity

There are now new victims being unraveled in Ireland. There are hundreds of thousands of victims of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army in the poor countries of Latin America unaccounted for.

Excuses like "I was not aware", "the dog ate my homework", " I spoke out" are not going to cut it with Christ who has been reported by Gospel writers to have said: "Woe to whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea......" The John Paul II Millstone

Thursday, September 03, 2009

Benedict XVI & Opus Dei are the master minds of the cover-up of pedophile priests

Benedict XVI and the Opus Dei are the master minds of the cover-up of the John Paul II Pedophile Priests Army and now they are at it again through the Opus Dei Supreme Court justice Scalia who will influence the other judges to keep the documents of the pedophile priests sealed.

The Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport must not be allowed to hide behind the First Amendment

September 1, 6:24 PMChurch & State ExaminerMiranda Hale

Accusations, revelations, lawsuits, legal battles, and settlements have, in recent years, finally brought to light some of the long-hidden instances of clergy sexual abuse in the American Catholic Church. Well-publicized cases have raised the public's awareness of just how widespread this abuse was and how utterly thorough and entrenched the institutional cover-up had been.

It quickly became apparent that this was not a situation that could be dismissed as a case of a few malignant individuals in a large, benign organization; on the contrary, the malignancy permeated the Church. The extent of the abuse and the pervasiveness of the institutionally enforced secrecy is staggering. Perhaps the most disturbing and telling revelation of all was that various Church officials had reassigned to other parishes priests who had allegedly committed sexual abuse against children (in most cases with very good evidence to back up those allegations), thereby willfully ignoring both the priests' alleged prior victims and knowingly placing even more children in potential danger.

The abuse was rampant and the cover-up was endemic. This scandal involved both the violation of children and an organizationally enforced blatant refusal to admit culpability or to properly atone for the crimes. This institutional denial of guilt demonstrates a particularly powerful type of contempt for victims. Because the Church has frequently shown that it perceives itself to be above the law, and because Church officials repeatedly display a galling sense of entitlement and an expectation of special treatment that most other institutional perpetrators of sexual abuse do not, it has become the institution that is currently most closely associated with child sexual abuse in the United States. Despite many Church officials' claims that this is an unfair association that has been created and disseminated by biased, anti-Catholic forces, the Church itself is to blame for this association and for its perpetuation.

Clearly, the Church's primary concern in these cases, and regarding the issue as a whole, is to protect its reputation, resources, power, and level of influence. Despite the Church's very well-publicized assertions to the contrary, they are not concerned with helping victims to heal, providing them with appropriate restitution, or protecting their rights. From an institutional perspective, the victims have been both a threat and a nuisance for the Church, primarily because the Church's power and reputation depended to a large extent on the victims' willingness or lack thereof to keep secret the abuse they suffered.

The actions that the Church is currently taking in order to protect itself have the same motivations and intentions that priest reassignment did. The Church is desperate to avoid dealing with the problem and will go to extremes to shelter itself and its reputation, in the process disregarding both victims and potential victims. The Church has been and is still willing to disregard and demean victims of alleged clergy abuse if and when these victims threaten the privilege and the power of the Church. The many instances of priest reassignment, each of which involved knowingly exposing children to alleged pedophiles, illustrates the Church's willingness to do almost anything in order to protect itself and its interests.

The Church has devoted much of its substantial power and resources to keeping its secrets concealed. In some cases, this has involved Church officials attempting to prevent the release of documents that would shed light on the true extent of both the abuse and the cover-ups. This blatant refusal to be open and transparent is not only unethical. In some cases, it is also in violation of the law.

Last week, in one such case, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport, Connecticut, was dealt a major setback in its ongoing attempts to prevent the unsealing of documents detailing clergy sexual abuse lawsuits.

On August 27th, United States Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued a ruling that denied the diocese's emergency request to keep the documents under seal until the Court decides whether or not to hear the case of Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp. et al.

The more than 12,600 judicial documents in question detail sexual abuse lawsuits filed against six Bridgeport diocese priests. The majority of these lawsuits were filed in the mid-1990s, regard abuse that allegedly occurred in the 1960s and 1970s, and were settled out of court in 2001 for undisclosed amounts and with the agreement that the content of the settlements and documents relating to it would remain permanently sealed.

The documents include three depositions given by Edward Egan, who was Bishop of Bridgeport from 1988 to 2000, when the majority of the lawsuits against the priests in his diocese were filed. Egan recently retired as the Archbishop of New York. These documents would likely provide specific information regarding how Egan dealt with the allegations and may reveal the extent of his culpability in the matter. Such disclosures could greatly damage the reputation of both Egan and of the diocese as a whole.

In 2002, after it was discovered that the documents had not been destroyed, four newspapers filed a lawsuit in an attempt to have them unsealed. A 2009 decision by the Supreme Court of Connecticut upheld a 2006 Waterbury Superior Court's ruling that the newspapers must be allowed access to the documents. The state Court also rejected diocesan officials' assertions that the documents had constitutional privileges, specifically relating to the diocese's claim that unsealing the documents would violate the diocese's rights under the First Amendment's religious clauses. The diocese is now appealing to the United States Supreme Court to consider the case (Rosado v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp. et al.) and to overturn the state Court's decision.

Their request for appeal is based upon two legal issues. The first regards the state Court's definition of “judicial documents” and the second arises from the diocese's argument that the decision to unseal the documents violates their First Amendment rights, as they claim that they offered these documents with the understanding that they would never be unsealed. However, the state Court ruled that the diocese waived the right to keep the documents perpetually sealed and protected under the First Amendment when they did not, at the time of the ruling, protest on First Amendment grounds.

The diocese argues that the Supreme Court should hear the case because the First Amendment prohibits civil authorities from involving themselves in internal Church decisions regarding priest assignments. Attorneys for the diocese have also argued that because state and federal courts have differed on their definitions of "judicial documents," the Supreme Court should use this case as an opportunity to set a clear legal definition.

In the clergy abuse lawsuits, the diocese was blamed for reassigning six priests who had a history of alleged sexual abuse. The diocese has argued that it cannot be sued for this practice because such choices are private church decisions. It also asserts that any document dealing with such decisions is protected by the the religious clauses of the First Amendment, saying in a recent writ that:

Because courts lack a legitimate role under the First Amendment to examine a church’s employment decisions regarding its ministers, the courts similarly lack constitutional authority to require a church to produce and publicly disclose confidential internal documents or testimony that would be germane only to second-guessing those decisions.

But decisions that may have led to the sexual abuse of children need to and deserve to be second-guessed. If the documents contain nothing implicating either the diocese or specific individuals in the knowing perpetuation of alleged sexual abuse, then the diocese wouldn't be fighting so vociferously and persistently to prevent their release.

Just as a secular counselor or therapist is legally required to report to law enforcement when a patient makes threats of violence against their self or others, the diocese should be compelled to act in a similar manner and should be prohibited from invoking religious privilege in order to keep hidden their protection of alleged pedophiles.

Legal precedent doesn't bode well for the diocese: in 2003, Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Constance M. Sweeney denied the Archdiocese of Boston's request to dismiss claims from hundreds of alleged clergy sexual abuse victims. As in the Bridgeport case, the archdiocese argued that its religious freedom would be violated if civil courts intervened in its decisions regarding priest assignments.

The Bridgeport diocese believes that because they are a religious institution, the government shouldn't have any say in which priests they choose, how they choose them, and what decisions they make regarding the placement of the priests. However, individual rights, especially the rights of children who have allegedly been sexually abused, must always take precedence over religious rights. The diocese, both in the past and today, is misusing and abusing the First Amendment in order to harbor known alleged child abusers and to protect those who willfully chose to put children in harm's way. The diocese knowingly reassigned and failed to remove priests who were accused of sexual misconduct and now assert that the decisions and practices of their Church, even when those decisions and practices cause, perpetuate, or defend child sexual abuse, are above the law.

Until the Court decides whether or not to consider their case, the diocese wants the documents in question kept sealed and thus filed the emergency request in an attempt to maintain the stay on their release. Justice Ginsburg denied their request, ruling that only 15 documents of the more than 12,600 in the 23 separate files (one for each lawsuit filed against six separate priests) can be kept from the public record. Of those 15 documents, at least two are depositions.

After Ginsburg's decision, the diocese said that it was disappointed but that it would continue with its fight to prevent the release of the documents, saying in a statement that it:

[I]ntends to proceed with its announced determination to ask the full U.S. Supreme Court to review the important constitutional issues that this case presents.

Notice here that the statement is focused on “constitutional issues.” The diocese and its attorneys in this case have repeatedly maintained that their primary concern is with protecting and defending First Amendment rights. By falsely insisting that this is the case, they are attempting to reframe the issue and to shift attention away from their actual motives.

Jonathan Albano, an attorney representing three of the newspapers that have asked to have the documents unsealed (The New York Times, The Boston Globe, and The Washington Post), argues that Ginsburg's refusal to maintain the seal obligates the diocese to release the documents and that the case involves previously resolved state law, saying that:

It's somewhat disappointing that the diocese continues to approach the litigation in a way that delays the public's right to see these documents. There's been seven years of litigation.

He acknowledges the diocese's right to ask the full Court to review Ginsburg's decision, saying:

At the end of the day, the diocese will be able to say they were heard before every court that was available to them.

Indeed. The diocese will eventually have exhausted every possible legal option. They are running out of chances.

All of these frantic maneuvers by the diocese demonstrate an immense fear of the documents becoming public. Despite a number of defeats in various courts, the diocese still refuses to abide by any of these rulings. Of course they have the right to keep appealing as long as it is legal to do so. However, their dogged insistence on pursuing the case until they get the answer they want indicates that they feel entitled to receive special treatment from the judicial system.

The diocese was so unhappy with Ginsburg's decision that on August 28th, attorneys for the diocese specifically asked United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative Catholic and the father of a priest, to look at their case and to reconsider their request to have the stay continued.

The amount of arrogance on display here is shocking and disturbing.

The diocese seems to think that because they didn't like Ginsburg's decision, they now have the right to not only have the decision reviewed, but to also choose the Justice who will review it. They've obviously chosen Scalia under the assumption that he, as a conservative Catholic, will rule in their favor, once again indicating that the diocese will not stop until they get the answer that they want.

Since when does anyone, be it an individual or an organization, have the right to decide which Justice considers their case?

The source of this arrogance and of the massive sense of entitlement on display here is no mystery. The Church is accustomed to having things their way and is used to making their own rules, and they resent when the legal system “intrudes” into their selfish, secretive world. Church officials have shown a willingness to protect each other at any cost and clearly expect the outside world to bend to their beliefs, expectations, and practices, citing “religious privilege” whenever they are asked to justify their expectations or behavior.

In addition to demonstrating a staggering sense of entitlement, this move also displays the diocese's desperation. They know that they have almost exhausted their legal options and see Scalia as a last-ditch hope.

This arrogance, dishonesty, and desperation was made manifest last weekend in a letter from the diocese's Bishop William E. Lori that was distributed to all 87 parishes in the diocese. In the letter, Lori explained the diocese's reasons for opposing Ginsburg's ruling and for deciding to continue with their legal fight. And, in a discussion of the diocese's current actions and the recent decisions in this case, Lori had the gall to say that:

[I]t is important to note that the Diocese has not pursued this matter in an effort to cover up the issue of sexual abuse.

That's not only blatantly dishonest. It's also a slap in the face to the victims who not only had to allegedly endure horrible sexual abuse, but have also had to watch the diocese spend many years waging expensive legal battles in an attempt to protect itself from having to take responsibility for its actions and inaction. The diocese is clearly engaged in an effort to prevent the release of information that would harm the reputations of itself and of many of its officials. The victims know this, and the bishop's dishonest denial of the diocese's true motives both insults their intelligence and opens their wounds anew.

The Church's rampant dishonesty regarding this issue is nothing new. They've repeatedly promised to be open and honest regarding their past and present mistakes, but have broken this promise time and time again.

In 2002's Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, American Catholic bishops pledged openness and transparency, promising that dioceses would be:

[O]pen and transparent in communicating with the public about sexual abuse of minors by clergy within the confines of respect for the privacy and the reputation of the individuals involved.

Yet openness and honesty do not exist in the Bridgeport diocese, and Church officials and their lawyers are working diligently to make sure that remains the case.

The Supreme Court most likely will not make a decision regarding whether or not to take up their case until this fall.

New Jersey attorney Stephen Rubino, who has previously represented sexual abuse victims, does not believe that the Court will decide to hear the case, arguing that:

There's no First Amendment protection to keep secret records of criminal activity.

That sums it up perfectly. The diocese can insist all they like that this case is about “religious privilege” and constitutional protections. It's not. It's about protecting themselves and their reputations, covering up past crimes, and a refusal to take responsibility or to properly atone for their misdeeds.

The diocese is solely concerned with its own self-interest and is cowardly hiding behind its mistaken interpretation of the religious clauses of the First Amendment.

They cannot be allowed to hide any longer. A bright light must be shone on them, on their criminal activities, and on the true extent of the cover-ups. They must not be allowed to continue avoiding the consequences of their actions and inaction.

In order to send a clear message to the diocese and to the Church as a whole, the Supreme Court must refuse to hear this case.

Let these documents be inspected by anyone who wishes to do so. If the diocese has nothing to hide, then they shouldn't be afraid to make the information a part of the public record.

The Church must act on their promises to be open and transparent and must not be allowed to abuse the First Amendment in this way. Their pervasive institutional corruption cannot continue. It is essential that victims' rights take precedence over the Church's religious rights. Justice must be served.

Let's shine that bright light on the darkest, dankest, and most disturbing aspects of the Church. For too long, they've been allowed to hide behind the First Amendment and to choose which aspects of their institution they want on display, and which aspects they want kept secret. When it comes to the sexual abuse of children, the most disturbing of acts, the Church must not be allowed to make that choice.

It is never acceptable for an individual or an organization to protect or defend allegedly abusive individuals. This includes religious institutions. An institution must not be allowed to invoke “religious privilege” in order to protect itself from scrutiny in these matters and it is reprehensible that the Bridgeport Diocese is currently doing just that.

The Church's secrets must be brought to light so that the Church and its officials can be held fully responsible for their misdeeds. The Church's dishonesty and secrecy must not be allowed to proceed unchecked. The First Amendment does not protect their criminal acts.

Let's train the bright light of the public eye on the darkest secrets of the Church. It's long past due.


1. "Diocese takes abuse case to parishes" 08/28/09
2. "Bridgeport Diocese Appeals To U.S. Supreme Court In Clergy Sex Abuse Cases" 08/28/09
3. "Conn. diocese asks Supreme Court to intervene in release of records" 07/18/09
4. "Justice Ginsburg refuses to halt release of Conn. diocese documents" 08/26/09
5. "Conn. diocese to ask U.S. high court to block records release" 07/29/09
6. "Conn. diocese wants Scalia to look at case" 08/28/09
7. "A Letter to the Catholic Faithfulof the Diocese of Bridgeport from Bishop William E. Lori" 08/29/09
8. "Diocese appears to break pledge, Fights order to disclose sexual abuse records" 08/29/09

More About: establishment clause · the supreme court · the catholic church · clergy sex abuse · free exercise clause · the first amendment
Related Articles:
Top ten books on near-death experiences (NDEs): Don Piper's 90 Minutes in Heaven
Ben Barnes: "pitched battles" in Dawn Treader?
Central Ohio Ghost Squad (COGS) raises hell during investigation of Bobby Mackey's Music World
Sex and the Christian
Mindful path to quitting smoking
Your Ad Here
Hope Rice says:
According to the Scriptures, the people are the church. Where are the people and why are they not protesting in the streets, demanding that their leaders release the court records they have been hiding that pertain to sexual abuse lawsuits? The Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport denied the reports of this evil as long as it could. Now it wishes that it would just go away.This is another example of "protecting" the problem instead of protecting the children, all for the sake of false pride and image. It appears they are more concerned about this becoming public knowledge than the fact that it happened in the first place. Would they teach that a lie becomes a truth only when people find out about it? How cowardly.
Let the sunshine in. Sunshine is a powerful disinfectant.
September 3, 12:27 PM
T42 says:
Why are some afraid to say who they are, or who they work for when meeting for a group session? are they trying to hide something? or throw out a line to fish for something? no matter how one properly eats , nor being in such calmness & control of conversation is an act of luring!, and that's cultic antics.... how ever do you sleep @ night pancake girl?.
Did you find what you were seeking?. oh, that's right, of course...I couldn't hear your knock of a pounding of hammer through all of that silence!

Oh, Step-Dad had a knack for spotting robotic clones, good thing "Rafael Angelo" passed that knack on to me.
Thanks Ralph!
How is everything up there anyway these days?
September 3, 10:14 AM
T42 says:
Get the Point?
September 3, 9:18 AM
T42 says:
There was such a diversity in the people that would come over to our house who were on welfare. From Jew to Gentile, from Atheist to Agnostic, from Mobsters to Millionaires, from Politicians to Priests, FBI's to Police Officers, Artists, Musicians, Beauticians, Madams,..... oh the list is endless..but you get the idea.
What were they all coming over to welfare recipients house for safety?.
September 3, 9:17 AM
Ralph Angelo Carsello says:
Is there an honor among thieves? believe it or not, my syndicate couldn't stand pedophiles, even in prison among the most considered evil of convicts. They just wouldn't last long in prison, there still is a pecking order, I guess.
"I question if my life could have been different if I took up a different but similar career to lived up to my name Ralph Angelo?". Both careers live like caged animals.
September 3, 8:47 AM
Kevin says:
For the countless boys who had their innocence and lives destroyed, you can take what Jesus said to his disciples in Luke 12:2-3 to your hearts. "But there is nothing covered up that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be made known. Accordinly, whatever you have said in the dark shall be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in the inner rooms shall be proclaimed upon the mountaintops."
September 3, 5:03 AM
Ralph Carcello says:
I still don't know why a murdered Pope ( JPI) doesn't turn more heads, ring more bells, blow more whistles about what kind of Institution the Hierarchy of the Catholic Church is running?.
I know I can't be the only one who thinks about this, that would be vain.
How can the sheep in trust to turning one's soul, or their childrens souls over to this sinful man made
institution in a blink of an eye?.
What is the difference in made men of the Mafia, & the Roman Curia?
They both swear to oaths to this new family with some kind of "holy" article of faith, they both have Dons to answer to, they both seek their funds illegally, but the Mafia gets caught like
I did, & spent 36 yrs. for circumstantial evidence.
September 3, 4:40 AM
Albino Luciani says: for DAILY verified & vetted reporting on the USCCB (Unremoved Sexual Criminal Cabal Bishops) & Roman "La Cosa Nostra" Pedo Curia.

THE SOLUTION? "STOP DONATING LAITY" as St. Peter Damien correctly asserted & was, in part, canonized for.

"The only condition for the triumph of evil is for good men (or women) to do nothing" as Edmund Burke reminds each of us.

There is no middle ground here laity, you are either financially contributing to a proven and pervasive CLEAR & PRESENT DANGER racketeering curia caused pedo cult, or you are not.


Fiat Lux & Veritas!

Albino Luciani,
September 2, 11:31 PM
Ace of Hearts says:
how much does it cost the RCC when they are Contempt of the courts orders to produce their files?
September 2, 9:43 PM
Ace of Hearts says:
There is a Fungus Among U.S. the Catholic Fungi hides behind the spores of Biological dispersal, and ask for aka donations to fund their mushroom population! :)
September 2, 9:40 PM
Glorybe1929 says:
Sister Maureen,
You write so well and are so informed. You could be a paid columnist for any news organization in this country. I wish you and Fr. Tom Doyle would leave this sicko church and "really " make a statement!
September 2, 7:45 PM
Glorybe1929 says:
This column is magnificent! Please pass it on to as many news org's as possible. The people in the pews must find out about their chuch, whether they want to or not.. They need to make a Christian decision as to what Christ would do and do it.
September 2, 7:41 PM
maggie says:
Justice Scalia's son was seduced by ,"The poster child organization of Catholic corruption", The Legion of Christ,
according to the expose' film, "Vows of Silence". He just
might not be as well desposed to their cause as one might think.
September 2, 7:00 PM
gabe says:
Thank you so very much for having the nerve to print this. It is about time that the Catholic church is not able to get away with hiding its crimes and actually being held responsible for them. I am appalled by the bishop's repeated attempts to conceal sexually predatory priests and the cardinals and bishops who covered up for them. I hope they remember that they will have to meet their Maker just like the rest of us, and although God is merciful, God is a just God.
September 2, 4:20 PM
annaleon says:
Why doesn't this church of God want to reveal pertinent files that pertain to the welfare of those whom they are intrusted to while under their care for direction in Faith?. If they have nothing to hide and want to show the world that they are mis understood, or misrepresented than what's the harm in turning over the files? Is this church trying to vie over the U.S. Laws when it comes to crimes commited under one nation & one God?. Why are they trying to hang a Rainbow over their head or around their neck to claim that they are heaven sent? and cannot be touch by any law other than their own in which they still do not abide by. As long as this church gets free reign to run, victims will constantly be in crisis! Whom does the victim go to for protection?
September 2, 1:31 PM
Kurt Gladsky says:
Thank goodness for Sister Maureen. In Maryland we need to enact the same legislation that Delaware has enacted to protect children and hold those who prey on them to account. If nothing changes,nothing changes. Kurt Gladsky Towson Maryland.
September 2, 12:43 PM
Little John says:
1 Peter 2.13-14(RSV): "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right"
September 2, 11:30 AM
I am grateful to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg for her ruling that denies the diocese's request that the documents remain sealed until the high court decides whether to take up the case in the fall.

Secrecy and the abuse of power have brought the institutional Roman Catholic Church to this point and only truth, justice, and the ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY the the U.S. bishops promised in 2002 will begin to turn it around.

There should be no accomodation in law that gives more protection to sexual predators and any accompanying enablers, individuals, religious denominations or public entities then to the very real victims of childhood sexual abuse.

Churches should and must follow the laws everyone in society has to.

This is a step in the right direction and the Bridgepost Diocese should abide by it ASAP.

Making these documents available for study should give some sense, context and an understanding of what led to leadership's failure to do the morally right thing.
September 2, 8:57 AM

A further step would be to remove all criminal and civil statutes of limitation regarding the sexual abuse of children in all states as has been done in Delaware.

Moreover, laws in all states that exempt any group, from mainline religious denominations or institutions down to the seemingly most benign local cult, from the laws that the rest of society are required to observe should be struck down. In this particular case the Supreme Courth has already ordered the release of those files. Church leaders should comply.

In all likelihood that material will shed light on the history of this horrific abuse of power and authority by bishops that resulted in untold thousands of children being sexually abused who would not have been had the bishops dealt with these predators when they became aware of their criminal and mortally sinful behavior.

Sister Maureen Paul Turlish
Victims' Advocate
New Castle, Delaware
September 2, 8:53 AM
Norma Villarreal says:
The diocese will not stop until it gets the answer it deciding which Justice considers their case. Here is an opportunity for the Catholic Church to be transparent, open and honest, but once again they are covering up past crimes and avoiding the consequences of their actions and inactions.
September 2, 7:55 AM

Hit Counter
Hit Counter
free counters
Free counters
web hosting