Paul Shanley, the defrocked Boston priest convicted of raping and molesting a 6 year old boy in his parish, has been sentenced to 12-15 years in prison. At 74, it is likely a death sentence for all practical purposes. But here's what bothers me about the whole priest sex scandal issue. Why are there no bishops being brought up on charges of obstructing justice or failure to report child abuse? In dozens of cases, the church has been made aware of priests sexually abusing children and has required them to go to counseling and moved them to another parish. In no case, so far as I know, has any priest ever been turned over to the police once his bosses found out what they had done. If a doctor, teacher or social worker even suspects that a child has been abused, they are required to report it to the police. Why are church officials excused from that responsibility? And why has no prosecutor had the nerve to charge one of the church higher ups with obstruction?
- Log in to post comments
Watch out, man!
You are risking having Opus Dei go after you. They have a long dark history as the Catholic Church's secret police.
Why isn't anyone pointing out that the criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice, cover up these crimes, and silence the victims goes apparently all the way up to the offices of the Vatican? (IIRC, from ABC 20/20 reports, et al)
What does it take to qualify as a criminal organization? Certain diocese / arch-diocese might qualify.
And it galls me that they presume to have a moral voice on same-sex marriage.
What really worries me about this particular case is that the evidence appears to consist entirely of "recovered" memories.
I suspect that Shanley was convicted as much if not more for his media reputation as anything else. I also find it strange that he was convicted based solely on evidence adduced through "recovered memories," but the sad fact--sad for Massashusetts jurisprudence--is that this isn't the first time this has happened. It also happened about 20 years ago in the Fells Acre Day School case. The lead prosecutor in that case, Tom Reilly, the current MA Atty General, will probably be the governor after the next election. It will be a difficult choice selecting between a sleeze-ball like Reilly and a nut like Romney.
To expand upon the topic raised by SharonB, one might also wonder where the parents were while these things were (allegedly) going on. The parents were apparently complaining to the Archdiocese about the molestation problem--otherwise, the Archdiocese would not be in a position to know what was going on. Why didn't they complain to the police?
On the point of the post, "Why are church officials excused from that responsibility?" I suppose the reason is a hyper-sensitivity to the 1st amendment. I suppose that a law or regulation that required anyone who has reason to believe that a child has been abused, report it to the government authorities, would also cover church officials. (The likelihood of such a law/reg being enacted is fairly slim, I might add.) But a law that singles them, and certain other named (even if by their licensed professions) individuals, that specifically mentions clergy, would likely run afoul of the 1st amendment's establishment clause.
That doesn't mean, however, that the authorities shouldn't investigate the various establishments of religion for their possible being accessories before and/or after the fact (I suspect that's what they would be). But, from what I have read, the Catholic Church basically had a "deal" with the prosecutors that they would deal with the "problem" themselves. So the prosecutors would also be implicated.
BTW, I suspect--but obviously can't prove--that the relatively lenient sentence that Shanley received was a reflection of the fact that the judge was somewhat leery of the "recovered memory" evidence provided by the complaining witness.
I wonder the same thing. It can only be the result of christian priveledge.
I think it was Hitchens who referred to the catholic church as "an internatonal ring of child molesters" on I think it was Hardball.
Here's a good article of his
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/hitchens_22_3.html
I recently posted this on an Irish website www.voicesemerge.com which speaks for those falsely accused of child abuse. I believe Recovered Memory Syndrome is the modern equivalent of the "Spectral Evidence" in the FIRST Salem Witch-Hunt in 1692.
Rory Connor,Dublin, Ireland
THE CONVICTION OF (FATHER) PAUL SHANLEY
The conviction of the former priest Paul Shanley for child rape is incredible considering that the only evidence was the Recovered Memory type. Four men accused him of raping them in the 1980s when they were under 10 years old. All four claim to have repressed the memory of the rapes for decades and only recovered their memories in early 2002.
Shanley's original chief accuser was a man called Gregory Ford. As his parents tell it he had tried in vain for years to recall being molested by anyone. They showed him a newspaper article and photo of Shanley and he did not even remember the priest. Finally they showed him a snapshot of his first communion with Father Shanley and he collapsed sobbing and said that from 6 to 11 he had been raped by the priest. He alleged that Shanley took him from his one hour Sunday school class, raped him and then returned him to his schoolmates. The Fords say that Gregory never exhibited any unusual behaviour during those years. THEY CLAIM THAT AFTER EACH ONE OF 80 SEXUAL ASSAULTS, GREGORY FORGOT WHAT HAPPENED AND APPROACHED EACH NEW ASSAULT AS IF IT WERE THE FIRST. "AS SOON AS IT HAPPENED, EACH TIME HE LEFT THE ROOM, HE FORGOT ABOUT IT," GREGS FATHER RODNEY FORD SAID. "THE SPECIALISTS HE SEES NOW ARE AMAZED HE COULD BLOCK THIS OUT, THAT HE HAD SUCH CONTROL". [1]
The specialists were not the only amazed ones. The director of the Sunday school program says she never saw Shanley take any kids from the class. Moreover even firm supporters of Recovered Memory Syndrome do not believe in this kind of serial forgetting scenario. The prosecution eventually dropped Gregory Ford from the case in July 2004 because his fantastic allegations gave too much useful material to Shanley's attorneys.
In the meantime something amazing happened. Three of Gregory Ford's friends also began to "recover" memories of having been abused by Father Shanley. One of these was dropped by the prosecution at the same time as Greg Ford. Another failed to turn up for a pre-trial hearing in October 2004, having been heavily grilled by Shanley's attorney at a previous hearing. That left one accuser named Paul Busa. Shanley's original accuser had been deemed unreliable and this man was just following in his footsteps. In any normal society this should have meant the end of the case. However Shanley had become the chief whipping boy of the anti-clerical lobby in the USA and the prosecution could not be abandoned.
During the recent trial, Paul Busa's Recovered Memories were the only evidence on offer. But there was a strange twist. The judge dismissed one of the rape charges because Busa, even when prompted by prosecutor Lynn Rooney, could not remember anything about it. Does the Recovered Memory Brigade believe it is possible to
A) Forget a sexual assault for 20 years;
B) Remember it and report it to the police;
C) Forget it again?
Well thats what Busa did and it didnt seem to upset the jury. If the judge had not dismissed the charge forthwith, they probably would have convicted Shanley on that count also! [2]
Shanleys attorney said that Busa started proceedings for Compensation as soon as he recovered his memory i.e. 11 February 2002. Busa denied this. The attorney was able to produce records from the law firm showing that Busa became their client on 11 February 2002. (The records of Busas psychologist dated 12 February confirm that Busa wanted leave to consult with his attorney in Boston so that he could pursue a class action lawsuit). How did Busa explain this? Well he said that the law firms records were mistaken! He also suggested that his psychologist was only trying to help get him get a 10-day leave to visit friends in Boston, not to consult with a lawyer! [3]
Paul Shanley was convicted on ludicrous evidence because the USA is gripped by hysteria about child sex abuse. It is the same blind hysteria that secured Nora Wallconviction in June 1999. Who can forget those touching headlines Vile Nun, Pervert Nun, I was Raped by Anti-Christ. It was not only the tabloids that created this lunacy. ONE OF NORA WALLS DEFENCE TEAM TOLD ME THAT SHE WAS CONVICTED IN A CLIMATE OF HYSTERIA CREATED BY THE MEDIA AND SPECIFICALLY BY MARY RAFTERYS STATES OF FEAR SERIES.
Paul Shanley was also convicted because of hysteria created by the liberal media in the USA and specifically by the Boston Globe. Let us hope that his conviction will be overturned as quickly as that of Nora Wall.
[1] Sex, God and Greed article by Daniel Lyons in Forbes Magazine, 9 June 2003.
also "The Passion of Paul Shanley" By J Wypijewski in Legal Affairs magazine September/October 2004
[2] AP Legal Affairs writer Denise Lavoie on 2 February 2005
[3] Pam Belluck, New York Times, 29 January 2005