The police are also inquiring into what they have called abuse on an “unprecedented” scale possibly involving more than 200 girls, some on BBC premises. And, on Tuesday, Prime Minister David Cameron’s office said the government order its own inquiry after the existing investigations.
LONDON — The director general of the British Broadcasting Corporation on Tuesday defended the institution’s handling of a burgeoning sex abuse scandal involving one of its best-known personalities, saying the corporation was not trying to “avoid answering questions” and had begun inquiries that were “the opposite of an attempt to hide things.”
In his remarks, Mr. Entwistle expressed “horror” at the scandal.
The director, George Entwistle, was appearing before a parliamentary panel that has played a major part in investigating Britain’s phone hacking scandal and is known for its often abrasive interview techniques.
But in more than two hours, Mr. Entwistle seemed to parry most questions, falling back frequently on the argument that formal inquiries that he has commissioned at the BBC would resolve some of the issues. Denying accusations of a cover-up, he expressed “horror” at the scandal and said it had raised questions of trust and reputation for the BBC. He insisted that his direct knowledge of the episode was minimal, prompting panel members to mock him for what they called an extraordinary lack of curiosity about events around him.
The hearing came just a day after the BBC broadcast an examination by the “Panorama” program into a decision by the editor of another program, “Newsnight,” to cancel an investigation last December into accusations of abuse against Jimmy Savile, an iconic showman once depicted by the BBC as a national treasure.
“There is no question in my mind that this is a very grave matter indeed,” Mr. Entwistle said.
“I would accept that there have been times when we have taken longer to do things than in a perfect world I would have liked,” he continued. “But I think if you looked at what we have achieved since the scale of the crisis became clear, I think you see we have done much of what we should have done and done it in the right order with proper respect paid to the right authorities.”
It was not possible to look back on the decades of Mr. Savile’s behavior “with anything but horror that his activities went on as long as they did undetected,” Mr. Entwistle said.
Asked whether sexual abuse was endemic at the BBC, as some victims have suggested, Mr. Entwistle said he did “not have enough of a picture to know it was endemic.”
But he went on: “There’s no question that what Jimmy Savile did and the way the BBC behaved — the culture and practices of the BBC seemed to allow Jimmy Savile to do what he did — will raise questions of trust for us and reputation for us.”
The BBC has instituted two formal investigations, one into its culture over decades and one into the specific details of the canceled “Newsnight” program. Mr. Entwistle said the “scope and scale” of those inquiries was “as wide as it should be” to fully investigate the scandal.
The police are also inquiring into what they have called abuse on an “unprecedented” scale possibly involving more than 200 girls, some on BBC premises. And, on Tuesday, Prime Minister David Cameron’s office said the government order its own inquiry after the existing investigations.
David Jordan, the BBC’s head of editorial policy, told the panel that since the period when some of the abuse has taken place, the BBC has tightened its rules governing the protection of children on its premises. “The sorts of things that happened, where people were allowed to be taken into the dressing rooms of stars, as has been alleged, should not and could not happen today.”
The BBC announced on Monday that the editor of “Newsnight,” Peter Rippon, was “stepping aside” while the episode is investigated after it was found that his explanation of the cancellation was “incomplete” or “inaccurate.”
Mr. Entwistle said there was no question of managerial pressure on Mr. Rippon to cancel the investigation. “The decision was made by Peter Rippon,” he said.
Mr. Entwistle, who took over as director general on Sept. 17, was also questioned about a conversation he had last December at a time when the BBC was planning a series of glowing, year-end tributes to Mr. Savile, who died last year at 84.
At that time, Helen Boaden, the BBC’s director of news, told Mr. Entwistle at a lunch that the investigation by “Newsnight” could have an impact on year-end schedules and he might have to change them.....
It is a well-known fact that after the death of Darwin, his evolution theory became more and more popular and many young Jews were attracted by his ideas and left the fold. In 1885, in the city of Kovno, there was a meeting of rabbis that included the famous geonim (Torah giants) Rabbi Elchanan Spector and Rabbi Alexander Lapides. One prominent leader suggested that any Jew who studied Darwin's works should be ostracized. Rabbis Spector and Lapides strongly opposed the move on the grounds that "mayim genuvim yimtaku" (2), stolen waters are sweet, and banning Darwin's books would only make his theories more appealing. (3)
Judaism has little interest in using thought control. Prior to the emancipation of the Jews, bans were sometimes used when the coherence of a Jewish community, living in gentile and often hostile surroundings, was at stake. Yielding to unity then was crucial to the survival of the Jewish people. The rabbis, however, were very reluctant to impose bans knowing how harmful they would be for the so-called renegades and even for their families. (4) But above all, they realized that such condemnations were for the most part counter-productive.
Religious condemnations today, by ban or other means, reflect negatively on those who issue them. They are symptoms of fear and lack of intellectual honesty. They indicate a refusal to conduct intellectual debate, and they display fundamentalism and dogmatism. Willfully or unintentionally, bans are identified with the Christian clerical authorities who condemned Galileo in the seventeenth century for suggesting that the earth was not the center of the universe. Bans have been enforced against demons, witches and other objects of superstition. Hardly activities that rabbis would want to be identified with.
Should rabbis wish to send a message to their followers that they are not in agreement with the contents of certain books, they should first realize that bans and condemnations are not the road to take. It is no longer possible to contain censorship or condemnation solely within a certain social group. Once released, it travels to every corner of the world to be seen by all, Jews and gentiles. Most of the time, it elicits laughter and greatly embarrasses authentic Judaism. This is especially so when certain rabbis try to withhold scientific information from their followers, or want to hold on to ideas that the intellectual community and authentic Judaism have long since rejected as simplistic, outdated, and even incorrect.
No doubt, rabbis have a right to convey their displeasure, but they should do so through appropriate and convincing arguments, never through mind control. (5)
Refuting arguments in one's study is easy when one has only to answer oneself. The art is to confront the adversary and see if one's arguments really live up to the challenge. Instead of condemning a book, one should meet the author, ask him to explain his point of view and then try to refute his opinions. In that case, the first requirement is to actually read the book carefully from beginning to end. Reviewing or criticizing a book before having read it is highly problematic, unless the reader is afraid of being too prejudiced by reading it!
Furthermore, a truthful criticism should reflect great expertise. Recklessly condemning scientific claims is a sign of great ignorance, even if some of these claims may be open to debate. Such statements are an indication that one cannot suffer disagreement because one is unable to defend oneself. They reveal an inability to handle opposing views. Pulling something apart is often the trade of those who cannot construct. As English writer Charles Caleb Colton once said, "Criticism is like champagne: nothing more execrable if bad, nothing more excellent if good."
It is also a matter of decency not to condemn somebody's views when they are in essence restating earlier and well-established sources quoted by great rabbinical authorities. One should have the courage to challenge or attack the earlier sources and not those who rely on them and who are more vulnerable. Yet lately, the latter has become the practice. This is dishonest. To hide behind false valor and take the easy way out shows great cowardice. Courage is the direct result of resisting and mastering fear; never is it a consequence of escaping fear.
Criticism should not be quarrelsome and destructive, but should rather be guiding, instructive and inspiring. Judaism has never feared dissent and debate but has in fact encouraged it. What, after all, is the benefit of condemnation when Judaism simultaneously loses its soul?
It is time to reestablish Judaism on its authentic foundations as a religion of moral and intellectual heroism, one that encourages open-mindedness. We must never forget that we owe most of our knowledge not to those who have agreed with us but to those who have differed.
Jews have greatly suffered from condemnations and inquisitions. The Talmud and its many commentaries have often been put on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (List of Prohibited Books) of the Catholic Church. It has been condemned and burned but has outlived all its foes. Let us therefore be careful not to follow in the footsteps of the Church, which loved the truth so much that it was afraid of overexposure. Such attitudes have no place in the Jewish religious world of today. The truth cannot be served by imposing bans, but only by honest investigation and dialogue. Today it is wrong to use a ban or open condemnation, even when one is right, let alone when one is definitely mistaken.
Judaism was able to overcome many of its intellectual opponents because it showed courage. It is committed to the truth because it is convinced that the truth is represented by the holy Torah.
1. In the last few years more and more books and essays by well-respected Torah teachers have been condemned as heresy by some influential rabbinic authorities. Several years ago, the books of Rabbi Natan Slifkin were put under a religious ban by several rabbinic leaders in Israel and the USA. The rabbis claimed that his books on Torah and science include heretical views that contradict Jewish Tradition. This ban turned into a major desecration of God's name (it hit the NY Times in 2005), greatly damaging the image of Judaism. Most disturbing is the fact that the condemnations hurled at Rabbi Slifkin were seemingly meant for earlier eminent rabbinic authorities who were the first to make these "heretical" observations. Apparently, the rabbis who condemned his book did not dare to challenge those earlier authorities and therefore attacked Rabbi Slifkin. It has also come to our attention that several rabbis who signed the ban did not read Rabbi Slifkin's books but simply relied on hearsay.
2. Mishle (Proverbs), 9:17; Nedarim 91a.
3. Rabbi Ahron Soloveichik, Logic of the Heart, Logic of the Mind, (Jerusalem: Genesis Jerusalem Press, 1991) p. 55.
There is a beautiful end to this story: "Then, [the famous sage, tzaddik and exponent of mussar] Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv of Kelm enunciated an entirely different approach. How can anyone blame a man like Darwin for propounding his theories of evolution and descent from animals and lower forms of life? He kept the company of so many British lords who were only interested in waging war, people with little or no regard for the rights of their fellow beings.... 'If Darwin had mingled with individuals like my mentor, Rabbi Yisrael Salanter,' said Reb Simcha Zissel, 'he could never have uttered such a ridiculous theory.' Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv contended that the most effective way to counteract Darwinism and any teaching antithetical to the Torah is not to avoid them but to overcome them by inculcating moral and ethical values" (ibid).
Obviously, we know today that Darwin's theories are far from foolish. They have added much to our knowledge, though the discussion concerning his claims still continues. The venerable Rav Avraham Yitzchak Kook, mystic, philosopher and former Chief Rabbi of British Mandatory Palestine, was of the opinion that evolution conforms to the teachings of Kabbalah. See for example: Oroth Hakodesh, vol. 2, p 537.
4. See for example: Responsa of the Rosh 43.9 and Responsa Mahari Bruna, 189.
5. It is well known that the "heretic" Uriel da Costa of Amsterdam (1585-1640), forerunner of Spinoza, was put under a ban several times by the leaders of the Portuguese Spanish Synagogue in Amsterdam and consequently committed suicide. Concerning this most unfortunate and tragic case, the famous sage Rabbi Baruch Halevi Epstein, author of the Torah commentary Torah Temimah, made the following comment:
"This phenomenon, to our sadness, seems to repeat itself in every generation. Whenever people quarrel over matters related to ideology and faith, and a person discovers his more lenient opinion is in the minority, all too often--although his original view differed only slightly from the majority--the total rejection he experiences pushes him over the brink. Gradually, his views become more and more irrational and he becomes disgusted with his opponents, their Torah and their practices, forsaking them completely.... Instead of instructing him (da Costa) with love and patience and extricating him from his maze of doubts by showing him his mistake, they disparaged him. They pursued him with sanctions and excommunication, cursing him until he was eventually driven away completely from his people and his faith and ended his life in a most degrading way..." (Mekor Baruch, chapter 13:5.)
This surely applies to the ban on Spinoza as well, although there may have been political motives to this ban so as not to create a frontal clash between the Portuguese Spanish Jewish community and the Dutch authorities.
Foreign policy has long been considered the one area in which President Obama has a decisive edge over challenger Mitt Romney in the eyes of most voters. Or at least that was the case until Sept. 11 2012, when mobs overran the U.S. embassy in Cairo and Al Qaeda terrorists killed the U.S. ambassador to Libya, together with three other State department personnel.
Voters do not normally pay a great deal of attention to foreign affairs, at least in the absence of obvious disaster or war, and that has served to protect President Obama's foreign policy from closer voter scrutiny. While the United States' determination and ability to secure its vital interests and guard the stability of the international order have declined on his watch, these are matters far from the purview of most voters. As long as the President removed American troops from Iraq – no matter what the cost in terms of expanding Iranian influence in the country – and is well along in the process of doing so in Afghanistan, voters were sure to give him the nod over Governor Romney when it comes to guiding America's foreign affairs over the next four years.
September 11 2012 changed all that, and the events of that day and the administration's response to them will likely dominate discussion of foreign policy until November 6. From the point of view of a candidate locked in a very close contest, it is understandable why Romney would punch away at Obama's greatest foreign policy vulnerability: By putting the President on the defensive, Romney can negate Obama's perceived foreign policy advantage. But in truth, the events of September 11 are just a subset of more general policy failures that Romney will have to address if he is elected.
Let us first understand why September 11 constitutes a virtual refutation of the centerpiece of the Obama administration's foreign policy – its outreach to the Moslem world. Obama entered office with a near mystical belief in his powers of persuasion and the force of his charisma. That confidence was most on display with respect to the Muslim world. Both as a candidate and after his election, Obama touted his formative years spent in Muslim Indonesia and his knowledge of Koran.
His much publicized 2009 Cairo speech was the high point of his outreach to the Muslim world. There he proclaimed, without a scintilla of evidence, the identity of Islamic and American values: "[Islam and America] share common principles – principles of justice and progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings." He used that same speech to apologize for a litany of American wrongs to the Muslim world, including having acted "contrary to our ideals" in the interrogation of Muslim prisoners. And he implied that anti-Muslim prejudice, Islamophobia, lies behind criticism of Islamic intolerance, anti-Semitism, and misogyny: "We cannot disguise hostility to any religion behind the pretense of liberalism."
Yet for all the apologies and bowing to Arab potentates, the United States is no more popular in the Middle East than under President George W. Bush. According to the Pew Center, America's unfavorability ratings in the both Egypt and Jordan are higher than they were four years ago. The day after the Cairo embassy was overrun by mobs so were a number of other U.S. embassies around the Middle East.
Obama's failure to boost America's popularity – a highly overrated quality at any rate -- highlights one of the central follies of the Obama administration's reading of the Muslim world – the assumption that anti-Americanism is primarily a result of American actions rather than growing out of indigenous forces within Islam and the deep sense of failure that pervades Arab and Muslim societies when they compare themselves to the West.
There is much evidence that Obama actually believes the bromides he offered in Cairo about the identity of Islam and democracy. He consistently portrays radical Islam, with its expansionist theology, as a fringe phenomenon in the Islamic world, and the problem of radical Islam as primarily one of a few terrorists groups. As Middle East analyst Barry Rubin puts it, the Obama administration is focused on law enforcement actions against Al Qaeda, while Islamists take over entire countries.
Its misreading of the Arab and Muslim world led the administration to take a far too sanguine view of Arab Spring and to take too little account of the dangers of posed by the Muslim Brotherhood, at the expense of true liberals, in countries under transition. Obama placed Muslim Brotherhood representatives in the front row of his Cairo speech. And the administration provided Egypt's new Muslim-Brotherhood-led government with $1.3 billion of emergency aid, with no strings attached. Yet President Mohamed Morsi did nothing to prevent the Cairo embassy from being overrun by rioters. Nor, it seems, did it ever occur to the President or Secretary of State to demand that he do so. Even President Obama had to admit afterwards that Egypt is no longer "exactly an ally."
The slightest dip into Muslim Brotherhood theology – the group also spawned Al Qaeda and Hamas – and its rampant anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism would have warned the administration that this would be the case. At root, the Obama administration's inability to understand the limits on Muslim Brotherhood moderation derives from the refusal of liberals to take religious seriously. But religious principles cannot be abrogated overnight. As the leading living Muslim Brotherhood theorist Khariat el-Shafar puts it, "No one can come say, 'Let's change the overall mission' [i.e., the Islamization of all aspects of society]. . . . No one can say, 'Forget obedience, discipline and structure.'"
The murder of the Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens by Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists put to rest one ofthe central boasts of the President Obama's campaign – i.e., that the killing of Osama bin Laden marked the end of Al Qaeda – and turned it into at best a symbolic victory. Protestors in Cairo and at other embassies in the Arab world chanting, "Obama, Obama, we love Osama," brought the point home.
And the assassination called into question the administration's Libyan policy, by highlighting the degree to which the Western-supported overthrow of Gaddafi created a vacuum in Libya into which jihadi terrorists have poured.
IN RESPONSE TO THE EVENTS of September 11, top administration officials – Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, UN Ambassador Susan Rice, Presidential Press Secretary Jay Carney, and the President himself quickly settled on a narrative: the trigger for Cairo riots (and those that followed the next day in Yemen and elsewhere), as well as the events leading to Ambassador Stevens murder was a trailer for an insulting film about Islam apparently produced in America. That narrative, the falsity of which should have been quickly realized by every sentient being, was the outgrowth of both politics and ideology.
First, the ideology. The narrative fit well with administration's basic view of the Muslim world comprised of people basically just like us, albeit with a lower threshold of irritability, whose hatred of America and the West is largely the result of the wrongs and insults they have suffered. Clinton, Rice, and Carney thus proclaimed over and over again their revulsion at a movie they had never seen, and which may not even exist. In response to Egyptian President Morsi's demand that the those responsible for the film be prosecuted, the producer of the trailer (once he was identified) was visited by brown-shirted U.S. Probation officers in the middle of the night and taken away for questioning about possible probation violations. And Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey contacted an obscure Florida pastor to ask him not to show the film so as to not incite further Muslim rioting. In short, many in the administration do actually view the United States, including its freedom of expression, as a principal cause of radical Islam.
Politics, of course, had a good deal to do with the chosen narrative as well. Candidate Obama obviously had no interest in highlighting the fact that Al Qaeda is still alive and kicking, much less the failure of his entire outreach to the Muslim world. Thus Press Secretary Carney was at pains to insist that the rioting was "obviously not a response to United States policy, and obviously not the administration or the American people, [but to] a film we judged to be reprehensible and disgusting."
Yet from the start the story did not hold, even with respect to the events at the Cairo embassy. On September 8, an Arabic-language website called for the burning of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo unless certain demands (none involving a film) were met. Those threats were published in an article by Raymond Ibrahim of the Middle East Forum the day before the Cairo embassy was overrun. (Despite the warnings, security was not reinforced and the Marines guarding the embassy were not provided with ammunition.) Moreover, the leader of the rioters was none other than Muhammed al-Zawahiri, brother of Al Qaeda's current leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri.
In Libya, the claim of a spontaneous riot evolving into a terrorist attack was facially implausible. The night before the attack, Sean Smith, one of those killed, posted on-line his premonition of a coming attack: "We saw one of our 'police' that guard the compound taking pictures." He worried about dying that night. Finally, the number of those who attacked the embassy compound and the quality of their weaponry made it clear that the attack was a carefully planned terrorist operation. Just prior to congressional hearings three weeks later, the State Department finally admitted that all had been quiet at the compound when Ambassador Stevens bid farewell to his last guest, less than an hour before the start of the attack. At the same time, State Department representatives detailed numerous requests for increased security in Benghazi, all of which had been turned down.
Following the Watergate rule, the cover-up only made matters worse, much worse. Within the administration, everyone was busy pushing the envelope when it came to explaining why the administration had spent five days pushing a blatantly false story about a spontaneous demonstration morphing into a terror attack. The White House claims that it was relying on intelligence reports, but the intelligence points circulated to Congress appear to have been carefully crafted. Reuter's Mark Housenball reports that the first information streaming into Washington during and just following the Benghazi attack did not mention a demonstration. The initial intelligence report fashioned from those feeds, however, did raise the possibility that the Benghazi terrorists sought to use the Cairo eruption over the film a a pretext for the attacks. Only four days later, did the administration circulate to Congress "CIA talking points" suggesting that the [non-existent] demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protest in Cairo.
[This piece was written prior to the October 16 presidential debate, at which President Obama claimed to have referred to the killing of Ambassador Stevens as "an act of terror," in remarks in the Rose Garden on September 12, before leaving for the fundraiser in Las Vegas. But the reference to an "act of terror" followed two paragraphs discussing the attacks of September 11 2011. In his discussion of the events in Libya, the president referred only to "senseless violence" and "brutal acts," perpetrated by "killers," not terrorists. And he implicitly linked those "brutal acts" to the offensive movie, by describing the United States as a nation that "rejects all efforts to denigrate religious beliefs of others."]
Ambassador Stevens
Meanwhile, at a State Department briefing of reporters on October 9, Charlene Lamb, who was in real-time communication wit Benghazi during the attack, gave a detailed account of the events at the U.S. compound on the night of September 11, and said that it had never been the State Department's view that the attack on the compound was anything other than a terrorist operation or that it had been preceded by a demonstration. Asked by Fox News' Chris Wallace whether President Obama had met with national security officials after the attack before jetting away to a fundraiser in Las Vegas, campaign guru David Axelrod evaded the question.
Ambassador Stevens
The question remains to be answered: If the State Department never believed that the Benghazi attack was the outgrowth of a protest over the movie trailer, how did Ambassador Rice appear on numerous Sunday morning talk shows, five days after the attack to espouse her "the movie made them do it theory." She is, after all, a State Department employee. And her boss, Secretary of State Clinton, also busied herself with denunciations of the unseen film and wondering how this could have happened in Libya, after everything America had done for the people of Libya.
In sum, the foreign policy apparatus of the administration stands indicted for having negligently failed to protect its foreign service personnel in dangerous locations, and, far worse, for having advanced a narrative to explain the events of September 11 that was either mendacious or phantasmagoric, in order to evade having to face the delusions of its foreign policy towards the Muslim world. And Mitt Romney will understandably harp on these points, which are relatively easily digested, in the coming debates.
NEVERTHELESS, IT IS TOO BAD that the discussion will likely not focus on more fundamental issues concerning the direction of American foreign policy. Perhaps that would be too much to expect from the debate format. As Jackson Diehl writes in the October 15 Washington Post, future historians are likely to attach much more importance to Obama's Syrian policy than to poor security decisions made by mid-level State Department officials about Benghazi. The former, he writes, "exemplifies every weakness in his foreign policy – from his excessive faith in "engaging" troublesome foreign leaders to his insistence on multilateralism as an end in itself to his self-defeating caution in asserting American power." As a consequence, the United States sits on the sidelines in Syria, while "allies" like Saudi Arabia fund the Islamist forces among the Syrian opposition, and thereby make likely that the world's largest cache of chemical and biological weapons will eventually fall into the hands of Islamists.
Obama seeks to deflect attention from Syria so that he can carry on with his cheery mantra of "war is receding." But the truth is the world is not becoming a safer place. In many ways, it is much more unpredictable and unstable since the end of the Cold War 1989, and with it a bi-polar world. The rise of radical Islam and the accompanying proliferation of terrorism, by both state and non-state actors, increase the sources of danger.
Nature abhors a vacuum, and the withdrawal of America from its role as guarantor of global order will be filled by actors both inimical to our values and security. Neither America nor the world can afford an America that is, in Bernard Lewis's words, neither trusted by its friends nor feared by its enemies. But that is what has taken place over at an accelerated rate over the last four years (and to be fair under a series of American administrations.) It's not that America does not continue to hold the best geo-political cards, writes Walter Russell Mead, but that it has forgotten how to play them.
Iran is the test case for the future of the global order, Bret Stephens argues, in a masterful article in the current Commentary devoted to foreign policy issues. Iran presents Western policymakers, chief among them the President of the United States, with a clear binary choice. Either avoid a confrontation now because it will "likely entail unseen and unpleasant consequences, or accept a nuclear Iran soon, which will entail easily foreseeable and utterly disastrous consequences. It says something about the quality of statesmanship and public discourse in the West today that the choice should be presented as a difficult one and the decision . . . should be so much in doubt."
Romney has spoken about the need to identify and aid potential allies among the Syrian opposition, has criticized the Obama administration for failing to convince the Iranians of its seriousness, and called for the United States to retain its overwhelming naval superior and the ability to deploy on multiple fronts. In a major foreign policy address, just after the first presidential debate, he asserted that "our friends and allies" want more, not less, American leadership. For "if America does not lead, others will – others who do not share our interests and our values."
American global leadership cannot be separated from the theme of economic strength that has been the centerpiece of the Romney campaign. As Cicero (quoted by Victor Davis Hanson in the curren Commentary) warned, "the sinews of war are endless money." The Soviet Union ultimately imploded because it did not have the economic capability of matching the American arms buildup under Reagan. By the same token, if American entitlement spending continues to skyrocket, until it accounts for almost the entire U.S. budget, the United States will be unable to maintain its position as the world's pre-eminent military power.
And if the global order devolves into chaos, following an American withdrawal from its role of guardian of stability and trade, there will be no hope of the recovery of the world economy from its current doldrums. Romney would do well to link a growing, vibrant American economy to continued American leadership.
But my guess is that his critique of Obama's Syrian policy will be muted by the lack of any good or obviousoptions – just less bad ones. Nor will he enunciate any red lines on Iran, lest he seen to be acting as the puppet of Prime Minister Netanyahu. And too much emphasis on the necessity of American leadership will, unfortunately, be selling spinach to an American public eager to consume of ice cream of Obama's "war is receding."
So, as Diehl writes with resignation, it will be easier for Romney to focus in the foreign policy debate on the death of ambassador in a terrorist attack than to force President Obama into a serious discussion about American foreign policy going forward.
Well, I was hoping for more from Romney, and I'm sure you were too. But he did OK.
He seems very gun-shy about challenging/attacking Obama on hard core facts, such as this Libya tragedy and all his broad sweeping proclamations about how his policies are working, how the Bush administration created this mess, and how he, Obama, is more for the middle class and small business than is Romney and his republican pals.
All this is preposterous and ripe for ridicule and attack .But there was little of this. Again, he's either gun shy, afraid of making a mistake at this late stage of the game, or simply lacks the killer-instinct we'd like to see.
Romney is a nice guy and plays fair. But he's in a mud-wrestling contest with a political Hulk Hogan, and he's been dirtied up a lot. Why his handlers/advisors don't remind him of this, I can't imagine?
In the last debate he will get one more chance to say full on, to Obama 's face, your policies are bringing this country down!
Your actions and posturings in the days and weeks following the Libya tragedy were unintelligible and without merit or consequence, leaving the American people in the dark as to why their ambassador was murdered ! It's been over a month, and we still don't know who was responsible for this breakdown!
Your claims to be for the middle class is a ruse, because you won't define which middle class you're talking about? We all know you mean people making less than $100K, but the real movers/shakers of our economy are all those making $100K & $500K. These are the real drivers of the economy,
and you would tax and penalize them, forcing them to shed jobs and lay off workers; some say as many
as 750,000 jobs, with the stroke of your pen!
These are the real middle & upper middle class folks making America great, but you call them rich and privileged, which proves you don't have a clue about the economic contribution they make.
You claim 97% of small businesses make under $250K. That's bogus too. We all know about the tax structuring of their companies with C-Corps/S-Corps /LLC's which dilutes the earnings. Also tax breaks
for depreciation/amortization and other methods to lower income & reduce tax. These folks make in pure terms much more and hire over half the workforce, but you'd tamper with that, driving a stake through the heart of our economy.
Then you say you're for small business, but you demonize them with the tax code, and you're on record as telling them "they didn't build that", which is utter nonsense and a slap in their face!
You keep claiming you've added 5 million jobs, but that's after losing 28 million! And no, Bush didn't lose them,YOU DID - with your crazy regulations, Obamacare and proposed tax increases. This whole mess
is on your watch, it's your failure and your responsibility. So do us a favor, stop blaming Bush!
I could go on, but you get the idea. Romney must rise to this final occasion/opportunity to rub
Obama's nose in it.
Accuse him of lying, not understanding how the economy works, or how to run a business, or what really drives a successful foreign policy, or how to properly and effectively deal with a crisis like Libya, or how to elicit the cooperation of an unfriendly congress. Lest we forget, that's being a leader, in the
midst of adversity . . .
Whether our Jewish friends, or folks in those border-states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and the rest get this is anyone's guess? It seems we live in an age where, whoever tells the most lies wins! How could this happen? Evidently, by having more and more people abandon any attempt at staying informed, understanding the issues, recognizing a phony when he's in their face, or comprehending what it means to be an American.
Yes, we tolerate and welcome all views and ideologies, but these are shadings/colorings if you will, that don't dramatically pull the mainstream of American thought off it's center path. In other words, if you truly think socialism, statism or communism is the way to go, or some kind of ultra-right wing, Christian-based theocracy for that matter, then you're no longer an American. One cannot sponsor and subscribe to these ideologies without abandoning the basic precepts of what it means to be an American.
Jews of course, tend to be left and feel government should help more. A little of that goes a long way. Wilson did that, FDR more, LBJ more still, and now Barack Obama is barreling down the left side of the mountain. It's too much, can't work, hasn't worked in Europe and other places, and will never work in light of the hopes and dreams of the human spirit.
Undecided swing-staters, I haven't a clue. How they can still be on the fence inspite of the trouble we're in, I find unimaginable. May as well be a proverbial ostrich with its head in the sand! One thing's sure, they better decide soon, because it all hinges on them, the Jews, and reasonably rationale and intelligent blacks, browns and single-white females.
That's where we're at. Let's hope some of these folks begin to see the light, and come to their senses. If some of them will do that, and if this Libyan scandal catches fire like it should and heads begin to roll,
well, who knows, we just might find ourselves with a change of course, a new engineer driving the train, and a bunch of folks finally wakening from their political slumbers and starting to take an interest.
Yep, that good old American Spirit might just win the day!
Take Heart & Stay Well
Al
Postscript:
You've been reading a letter from me to my good friend of many, many years, Paul M. You can find more letters and other thoughts of mine, including ongoing commentaries of current topics and issues,
at my new blogsite; www.shaneview.com
Alvan I Shane
2175 Foothill Blvd Suite B
La Verne, Calif 91750 al@bmgmtassoc.com
Archdiocese restores Philadelphia priest to ministry
Archbishop Charles J. Chaput said Monday that he had reinstated a Philadelphia priest whose case city prosecutors cited as proof that the archdiocese failed to properly investigate clergy sex abuse or misconduct.
The Rev. Joseph DiGregorio had been accused of molesting a teenage girl in the late 1960s. His case was a focal point of the scathing 2011 grand jury report about the handling of abuse cases by the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, and he was among the first of 26 priests placed on leave as church officials reexamined allegations against them.
But DiGregorio's case stood out for other reasons. The allegations were among the oldest against any cleric, and were leveled by a single accuser. He was also the only suspended priest to publicly deny wrongdoing.
Noting the public attention to the case, Chaput said the archdiocese enlisted more than 20 child-abuse experts to review it. The examiners concluded that DiGregorio had violated church standards for priests' behavior, but also found "compelling evidence" that he was suitable to return to ministry, Chaput said.
Citing policy, the archbishop declined to explain the violations. But his decision was "based on the facts of Father DiGregorio's case, a thorough external investigation, the fact that no other complaints were reported in an atmosphere where the public was largely aware of the situation, and that thorough clinical evaluations from competent outside authorities indicate he poses no danger to minors," Chaput said.
DiGregorio is the eighth cleric from the group placed on leave to be allowed to resume his public duties as a priest. He is the only one restored despite being found to have violated the church's behavior standards for priests.
Seven others have been permanently barred from ministry, and one died before the review of his case was complete. Also, the Rev. Andrew McCormick is awaiting a criminal trial in the alleged sexually assault of a 10-year-old altar boy in 1997.
DiGregorio's reinstatement was first announced over the weekend in two Philadelphia churches he served in the last decade, Stella Maris and St. Martin of Tours.
The priest declined to comment Monday. His lawyer, Gregory Pagano, said DiGregorio was grateful to be reinstated and looked forward to someday returning to a parish - he wasn't sure which one - but would be forever hurt by the allegations.
"It's unfortunate that he was even implicated by the taint of this investigation," Pagano said. "It had no merit, it has no merit. . . . And his lifelong commitment to good work will forever be tainted, to some extent."
The woman who leveled the accusation said she was stunned when an archdiocesan official told her of Chaput's decision.
"This is just an example of the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church and how they cover up for the priests," said Barbara Dellavecchia, speaking publicly for the first time. "He abused me. Everything in that grand jury report is true."
The report said that DiGregorio's accuser - named in the document under the pseudonym Donna - contacted the archdiocese in 2005 and reported that she had been abused by two priests at Our Lady of Loreto Parish in West Philadelphia in the late 1960s. One, William Santry, confessed to misconduct and was removed from the priesthood.
The other was DiGregorio, who Dellavecchia claimed had molested her in a car and at the rectory, "kissing her, removing her bra, lying on top of her, and fondling her breasts," the report said.
In an interview, Dellavecchia, now 62, said she kept the abuse secret until about a decade ago, when it emerged during counseling.
"I never felt free to say anything while my parents were still alive because I didn't want to upset them," she said. "Plus, I was trying to handle it on my own, and I wasn't succeeding at it."
Her claim landed in 2006 before the archdiocese's Review Board, the independent body that examines allegations of clerical misconduct and recommends action to the archbishop. According to the grand jury report, the priest agreed to take a lie-detector test, and it "indicated that Father DiGregorio was being deceptive when he said that he did not fondle Donna in his car and his bedroom."
In March 2006, the review board first deemed that Dellavecchia's allegation against DiGregorio was credible, citing the consistency of her claim, the confession from the other priest, and what the board said was the inconclusive result of DiGregorio's polygraph.
Three weeks later, the board noted that all of its members had not been present for the first vote and voted again. This time, it declared the claim was not substantiated and recommended no action against DiGregorio.
He became one of three priests whose cases were highlighted by prosecutors as examples of how they said the archdiocese let priests remain in ministry despite credible accusations of abuse.
DiGregorio, a former military chaplain, fired back and publicly vowed to fight. "I'm not hiding anything," he told The Inquirer last year. "I didn't do this."
The priest's lawyer said Monday that he was unsure which standards his client was found to have violated.
Chaput said his decision followed recommendations from the review board and a team of investigators overseen by Gina Maisto Smith of the Ballard Spahr law firm. "All cases are unique and contain various factors that require careful consideration," the archbishop said. "This one was no exception."
There is no indication when the rest of the cases will be resolved. Three remain under review by local law enforcement agencies, the archdiocese said.
Even the ones already settled by the archbishop might not be over. At least four of the priests who have been permanently removed from ministry have appealed the decisions to Rome, according to a source familiar with the cases.
America has Jerry Sandusky. Britain has Jimmy Savile.
Sandusky you know; the predatory Penn State football coach was sentenced last week to spend his remaining years in prison for raping boys who looked up to him. Savile you may have missed; a venerable British TV personality who died last year, he is now at the center of a posthumous scandal unspooling in London. His appetites ran mostly to adolescent girls, but otherwise the parallels are striking. In both cases, the story is not just one of individual villainy but of the failure of a trusted institution, if not a flaw in the wider culture.
Perhaps you’ve had your fill of these sordid accounts — the celebrity gropers, the pedophile priests, the fondling in the locker room shower, the witnesses who look the other way. But Savile’s case is worth mulling, if only because the institution in which his serial child abuse took place is one of the most respected media organizations in the world, a putative shrine to truth and accountability: the BBC. And in the early days of the scandal the revered broadcaster has faced the same questions of dereliction or outright cover-up that dogged Penn State and the Catholic Church when they experienced their respective outbreaks of infamy.
To appreciate Jimmy Savile’s place in English culture, imagine a combination of Dick Clark of “American Bandstand” and Jerry Lewis, maestro of the muscular dystrophy telethon. Savile was the longest-serving host of the immensely popular BBC music show “Top of the Pops,” and the star of another long-running show called “Jim’ll Fix It,” in which he pulled strings to grant the wishes of supplicants, mostly children. Like Sandusky, he buffed his reputation by throwing himself into charity work. Like Sandusky he seems to have used his philanthropy both to identify vulnerable children for his personal sport and to inoculate himself against suspicion. The good deeds helped earn Savile two knighthoods, one bestowed by the queen, the other by the pope. He was Sir Jimmy, confidant — or at least photo-op accessory — of royals, prime ministers, even Beatles.
Like Sandusky, he cultivated an aura of flamboyant eccentricity. The Penn State coach was a prankster and a knucklehead, a perpetual adolescent, which served as a plausibly benign explanation for all his prodding and grabbing. It was just Jerry being Jerry. Savile was a gregarious goofball who lived with his mother, and who sported a blond pageboy haircut, pink-tinted glasses, garish track suits and fat cigars. Being the man-child Pied Piper of the pubescent was his shtick, his job, and cover for a brutal cunning.
The testimony of his accusers describes what Malcolm Gladwell calls, in a shuddersome study of Sandusky’s ilk published in The New Yorker last month, “child-molester tradecraft.” You have “the subtle early maneuvers of victim selection,” the screening out of children who object or who are supervised closely by parents, the testing, ingratiating, “grooming” and “desensitizing the target with an ever-expanding touch,” the escalation of abuse.
Gossip about Savile’s fondling of young teenagers was rife, but never rose to a level deemed newsworthy during his life. But on Oct. 3 the investigative program “Exposure,” on the rival ITV network, aired a damning documentary. It included interviews with five women who described being sexually abused as teenagers and with colleagues who witnessed compromising behavior. After that, the deluge. London police now say they are pursuing more than 300 leads, and that they believe Savile abused girls as young as 13 over the course of four decades — in his BBC dressing room, in hospitals where he was a benefactor, in the back of his white Rolls-Royce.
It turns out that the BBC’s own investigative show, “Newsnight,” had also delved into Savile’s history, but ended up killing the program last December. It would have run a few weeks before a BBC holiday tribute to the memory of Jimmy Savile.
The BBC rides on the taxpayers’ subsidy — and at times rides a high horse — so the story has inspired some gloating. Media mogul and BBC-hater Rupert Murdoch, no doubt happy to have a distraction from the grubby behavior of his phone-hacking tabloids, found in the Savile uproar a chance to tweak two of his fiercest rival news organizations at once. He reminded his Twitter followers that the recent head of British Broadcasting, Mark Thompson, will soon take over as chief executive of The New York Times Company. “Look to new CEO to shake up NYT,” Murdoch tweeted, “unless recalled to BBC to explain latest scandal.”
So far no evidence has surfaced that Thompson, his successor or anyone else up top had anything to do with dropping the Savile documentary. (The BBC says it is investigating.) The editor of “Newsnight,” Peter Rippon, says he decided to shelve the program after prosecutors told “Newsnight” they had declined to bring a sexual abuse case against Savile “due to lack of evidence.” Whether the BBC fell short in its reporting and missed the story or had the story and lacked the nerve, it is a significant embarrassment, compounded by the hard question of why the widespread rumors of Savile’s behavior were ignored for so long.
Jerry Sandusky delivers one final hateful, haunting response to his victims!
BELLEFONTE, Pa. – Jerry Sandusky wore bright red jail garb on Tuesday, looking like a quarterback in practice, untouchable and protected.
Except Sandusky was about to get hit, a 30- to 60-year sentence coming from Judge John Cleland here at the Centre County Courthouse stemming from 45 guilty counts of sexual molestation. It's enough, given Pennsylvania's parole guidelines, to keep the 68-year-old Sandusky confined to prison for life.
Judge, defense and prosecution all agreed on that.
"Realistically, even if Jerry was to survive the 30 years, he won't be released," said Sandusky's own attorney, Joe Amendola.
Sandusky knew he was never going to be free again. He knew it that hot June night as the sheriff and a deputy hauled him away, a look of fright across his face, people shouting for him to rot in hell. Judging by his thinning frame, a result, his family said, of twice-a-day workouts in his isolation cell and a distaste for jail food, he's on his way to doing just that.
So, no, this crisp fall morning wasn't about a sentencing hearing, the outcome a mere formality.
Instead, the old Penn State defensive coordinator was determined to mount one last offense, to haunt his victims simply because he could.
"Touchdown Jerry," read an inspirational card of support from a former Second Mile kid who still loved Sandusky – or so Sandusky claimed when he read the card in open court during his long, rambling, delusional testimonial to himself.
Sandusky stood and spoke for about 15 minutes, and this setup was exactly what he wanted. He didn't take the stand at his trial, when he would have faced the wrath of deputy attorney general Joseph McGettigan on cross-examination. He's refused to sit for an interview with the media in recent months, where facts and pointed questions would unravel him. He already fumbled through a brief, impromptu session with Bob Costas where exact details weren't even broached.
No, this was perfect. Sandusky's was the final voice at the hearing, so he would talk and everyone would listen. Sandusky was in control, staring right at the judge about to condemn him, his words floating over a courtroom packed with the victims and the damn cops who finally got him, rows of reporters taking down every word.
No rebuttals. No tackles. Touchdown Jerry in practice red.
Jerry Sandusky was sentenced to at least 30 years in prison for molesting children. (Reuters)There was no acknowledgement of Sandusky's crimes, no apologies to the victims, no signs that he cared or even understood the path of destruction he left in his wake here. Sandusky maintained his innocence and vowed an appeal. Then he flaunted his depravity in open court.
Sandusky dismissed everything presented, every shred of evidence, every emotional witness-stand session. Three of his former victims mustered the courage to come and address him directly, and he responded with a dismissive smirk as he sat hunched over the defense table. Another victim came to the hearing and had a statement read by McGettigan.
The coach had a strategy, a two-part game plan and he was executing it. On Monday, Amendola instructed him that a sentencing hearing wasn't the time or place to attack witnesses and argue innocence. If he tried, Judge John Cleland would silence him on the spot.
Within hours, a pre-taped audio statement from jail was conveniently playing on Penn State's ComRadio. It allowed him to condemn the system, label everything a conspiracy and beg those with "the courage to listen" to "evaluate the accusers and their families." He then promptly did it for them, of course, labeling his victims as greedy, dishonest, disloyal, poor, trashy, troubled liars.
"An insult to human decency," McGettigan called Sandusky's statement.
"Like all conspiracy theories, it flows from the undeniable to the unbelievable," Judge Cleland scolded.
"You tried to attack us as if we had done something wrong," Victim No. 4 said to him directly. "You have no morals."
Another unwitting assault finished, Sandusky switched tactics for the second part of his plan.
Over and over he spoke about the good times of his life, the good visions of the past and about how no conviction, no sentence, no little isolated prison cell could take those memories from him. He spoke of saying that a friend had provided him a helpful saying to reflect on as he sits in a cell: "It doesn't matter what you look at, it's what you see."
"I look at those walls and I see light," Sandusky joyously declared. "I see letters of support, I see great memories. I see family and friends. I see those who overcame big obstacles."
You can't touch me, he was saying. You can't hurt me after I've lived such a righteous existence. These bars and walls and razor wire are powerless to that. Then, worst of all, he said he would remember more.
He would remember the kids.
"I see my throwing thousands of kids up in the air, hundreds of water balloon battles, happy times, people laughing with us," Sandusky said. "I see kids laughing and playing, and I see a loveable dog licking their face."
For decades, Sandusky used every manipulative trick to molest young boys, and he was trying the same here. To bring up his ruse of tossing prepubescent boys into the air – one of his first moves grooming new victims in the pool at the Second Mile camp for disadvantaged children that McGettigan calls a "victim factory" – was particularly cruel.
Sandusky would "kind of [pretend] like he was having trouble getting a good grip," Victim No. 4 described those pool sessions back at trial. "And as he was grabbing you, he would brush your genitals and then throw you."
Sandusky heard Victim 4's testimony on the witness stand a few months back. Now, he was flipping it around as the same guy was sitting right there in the gallery, forced to listen.
You bet Sandusky was going to remember all those throws in the air, all those troubles getting a grip, all those brushes of the genitals.
That was about the depth of his speech. A sick final spin on his conviction. Sandusky played martyr a bit and he expressed undying love for his family and friends who still visit him and make his life bearable. And he went on some pointless, self-absorbed spiels.
Sandusky said he will cherish the memories of his time with children at Second Mile. (Reuters)Mostly though he wanted everyone to know he would draw strength from the memory of his time with children, all the children, and all the memories, an unspoken nod to the horrors that haunt his grown victims. Go ahead and put him in prison, he was saying. He'll be thinking of them, reliving his time with them, enjoying a look back at every single act they experienced together.
What we call despicable and criminal, Jerry Sandusky calls a "blessed life."
Across the courtroom, Victim No. 6, the boy who Sandusky lured into a Penn State shower back in 1998, sat with his head down, intermittently weeping as Sandusky spoke. Earlier, the victim described Sandusky getting him naked under the running water and declaring himself the "'Tickle Monster,' so you could rub my 11-year-old body and get me to think that what you were doing was OK." The ensuing police investigation led to no charges. Sandusky continued. Now Victim No. 6 couldn't even bear to look up.
This was about seizing one final bit of control over the kids, the ones who have come forward and the ones who still remain silent. During the past year he did it over and over, whether it was waiving hearings at the final moment and forcing witnesses to prepare for nothing, or sitting with an ugly smug look as they testified about the sickest moments of their shattered lives.
This was a shrewd plan, and throughout this entire ordeal, of all the terrible things people said and proved Jerry Sandusky to be, no one ever claimed he wasn't remarkably intelligent, creative and cunning.
This was Sandusky bathing them in his narcissism, reminding everyone, and his victims in particular, that when he leans back on that prison bed, no matter how thin the mattress, uncomfortable the conditions or inedible the lunch, no can stop him from reliving it all.
He wanted them to know: They'll remain his. Forever. That part of Touchdown Jerry, clad in red, remains safe and secure.
"A most banal, self-delusional, completely-untethered-from-reality, entirely-self-focused-as-if-he-himself-was-the-victim," McGettigan said, blasting Sandusky's statement.
"It was, in short, ridiculous."
The only hope is that it wasn't effective, that it won't stick with those frightened kids who became powerful men, and that the hateful, harmful words of Jerry Sandusky just drifted off into the Bellefonte air, soon to be forgotten like the shrinking pathetic man they took away on Tuesday to die.
Former priest hired by TSA to pat down passengers, three months after church kicked him out for 'molesting young girls'
....First he was fired for allegedly groping young girls, then hired to frisk them at an airport.
A disgraced former priest, defrocked from his New Jersey diocese over allegations of molestation in 2002, was three months later given a job as a TSA officer, it has been revealed.
Thomas Harkins was employed in a role where his duties would include doing pat downs on children, according to local news, after the agency failed to do a thorough background check and offered him a position at Philadelphia International Airport.
Thomas Harkins now works as a TSA officer, where his role involves patting down passengers
Had officials looked properly they would have discovered that the 65-year-old had been recently forced out of the priesthood after being accused of sexually abusing two grade-school girls.
But in the wake of the September 11 2001 terrorist attacks, the TSA said, an urgent need for agents meant that staff were being hired without being put under sufficient scrutiny.
50,000 workers were employed at the same time as Harkins, an unnamed TSA official told philly.com, many of whom went through without checks.
Hawkins was hired the following year, months after the alleged abuse scandal saw him ousted from the church, and proved so skilled at his new post that he even secured himself a promotion.
Although never prosecuted, after church-driven civil lawsuits were settled for $195,000, Harkins was barred from presenting himself as a priest, Camden diocese spokesperson Peter Feurherd told rawstory.com.
He was also banned from attending church services.
A third young girl, aged 11, has since filed a lawsuit claiming that she, too, was one of Harkins' victims Cbs Philadelphia reported.
She claims to have been abused by the former priest 10-15 times in 1980 and 1981, including incidents which took place in his bedroom in the rectory.
Getting wind of Harkins' posting, in 2003 the church wrote to the TSA, informing officials of the allegations made against Harkins, but still he remained on the payroll.
The TSA took no actions because 'an allegation alone does not warrant dismissal or automatically disqualify applicants from employment with the TSA,' spokesperson Ann Davis told philly.com.
Harkins is employed by the Philadelphia International Airport (pictured)
Harkins' current role at the airport involves overseeing screening operations for checked baggage and earns him a salary of $75,600-a-year.
He is one of 4,300 priests accused of molestation across the United States, according to bishop-accountability.org, a nonprofit that tracks clergy abuse.
'They should know who they’re hiring,' Karen Polesir, told Cbs. She is a Philadelphia spokeswoman with the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP).
'As the public, we are screened to our underwear getting on a plane, and yet they hire a man like that.'
A documentary at the Milwaukee Film Festival is a haunting look at a priest who abused deaf boys in this archdiocese.
By Marie Rohde - Oct 4th, 2012
Mea Maxima Culpa
What does it take for a deaf man to be heard? That’s the question asked by the documentary film “Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God,” which will be shown by the Milwaukee Film Festival Friday night.
Long before the waves of the Catholic Church’s child sex abuse scandal surged across America, three young men, molested as children at the St. John’s School for the Deaf in St. Francis, tried to tell their stories and stop one of the Milwaukee Archdiocese’s most prolific — and horrifying — pedophiles.
The deaf men — Gary Smith, Bob Bolger and Art Budzinski — would not accept defeat. They began their battle in 1974, launching their first organized protest a decade before the case of an abusive priest in Louisiana, Gilbert Gauthe, which was the first to make headlines across the country.
The three deaf men went to the archbishop. They went to the police. They went to the media. They went to court. They even went to the public with crude mimeographed “wanted” posters of their abuser, Father Lawrence Murphy. Finally, they went to the Vatican.
Their cries for justice fell on deaf ears until 2003, when the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel finally told their story. The old Milwaukee Journal had an on-again, off-again attitude toward reporting the larger story of abuse in the church, publishing some early stories in the 1980s and 1990s, only to back off in 1995 when the paper merged with the Milwaukee Sentinel. It was only after the Boston Globe waged a relentless fight in 2002 to uncover pedophile priest secrets that the Milwaukee newspaper renewed its interest in the story.
The story of St. John’s is the touchstone used by award-winning documentarian Alex Gibney to expose the larger scandal that has engulfed the church worldwide. What made Milwaukee different was the persistence of the deaf men who shouted for decades while no one listened.
Gibney traces the responsibility for the sordid affair to the very top, the office of Pope Benedict XVI who, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, ordered that all of the priest abuse allegations from around the world be handled by his office, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. That office, Gibney reminds us, was once known as the office of the Inquisition.
Gibney lays out his case with one fact after another, clearly and without insulting the viewer’s intelligence, and the details mount to create a damning story.
A few heroes emerge, including a Chicago priest who tried to blow the whistle on Murphy in the 1950 but was largely ignored; Father Thomas Doyle, a one-time top church lawyer who warned the American bishops that the scandal would cost more than $1 billion (it’s up to $2 billion now) and who is now working for the victims; Richard Sipe, a former priest and expert on sexual and celibacy issues; and Patrick Wall, a former Benedictine priest who had been sent in to parishes to clean up after pedophilia scandals.
But former Archbishop Rembert Weakland is also portrayed as heroic, which some Catholics here may see as misleading. Weakland tells Gibney he tried to get the Vatican to defrock Murphy but was thwarted by his superiors. Because some of the abuse occurred in the confessional, Weakland thought he could get the Vatican to act.
But in the years before he acted in 1998, Weakland had psychological reports characterizing Murphy as an untreatable pedophile. Weakland knew that Murphy was working as a priest in Superior and did nothing to warn the parish, the police or anyone else. It was the threat of a lawsuit that appeared to force Weakland to act. Even after Murphy’s death, Weakland wrote to a nun that he was trying to keep the Murphy case out of the press to protect the priest’s “good name.” None of this was included in the film.
The film notes that Weakland retired after reports he had paid a former gay lover for his silence but the emphasis is on Weakland’s sexuality. Most Milwaukee Catholics seemed more upset that the archbishop used church money to cover up the problem and protect his good name.
Weakland, Gibney notes, once was looked on by many American Catholics as a reformer, one who would bring about the true nature of “church.” Gibney seems to be saying that Weakland courageously fought the power structure and lost. But the evidence omitted by the film suggests the archbishop knew about the misconduct but acted only when it was clear the story was about to get a great deal of publicity. By contrast, the other priests portrayed positively in the documentary joined forces with the victims, publicly calling the church to task not only for the abuse but for the cover up.
Weakland’s protection of predator priests, his pattern of moving priests from one parish to another when misdeeds were discovered, his indifference to the victims – he even threatened some in other cases – ultimately helped keep the abuse within the church secret.
The film is quite tough on other leaders: there are damning clips of then-Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Timothy Dolan defending themselves.
Gibney does a superb job of taking the viewers back to the school in the 1960s, opening the film with clips from a video of happy children in a classroom, innocent and eager to learn under the kindly eye of a nun in a full habit. One of the deaf men signs about how happy he was at first attending the school with its leafy campus and so many other deaf children. “I felt like we were in heaven.”
Purists may object to Gibney’s recreation of scenes at the school — an actor portraying Murphy in the confessional or strolling through a boys dorm, a room crowded with cots where some of the abuse occurred. But they feel honest and take the viewer to the haunting places where so much abuse took place. Whatever its flaws, the film has a powerful message about the difficulty of confronting respected institutions and leaders that refuse to listen.
The release of the film comes at an interesting time. The Milwaukee Archdiocese filed for bankruptcy in 2011, citing the large number of claims – 570 – brought by victims of abuse. A federal judge ordered all parties to mediate the dispute. The October 2 deadline for resolving the issue has been extended 10 days but it appears that the court battle will continue.
Budzinski and Smith are among those who filed claims. Their friend, Bob Bolger, died before getting his day in court.
The film, done for HBO, will premiere on 7 p.m. Friday, Oct. 5, at the Oriental Theatre. Gibney, who has won an Oscar, an Emmy, a Peabody and a Grammy for his earlier work, will be present at the showing.
New Georgia law requires manditory reporting of child abuse
As of July 1, nurse's aides, members of the clergy, and personnel, employees and volunteers at schools, social agencies, hospitals, reproductive health care facilities and pregnancy resource centers were added to the list of individuals who are required by law to report suspected child abuse.
“We need to let Georgians know about these key changes because each individual has a moral obligation to report if they know a child is being abused,” said Rep. Penny Houston (R-Nashville). “It is also important that everyone knows what constitutes child abuse. Child abuse is not just physical and sexual abuse; in fact, most cases that are reported in Georgia involve child neglect. Together we can make a difference and help these children.”
Under Georgia’s mandatory reporting requirements, certain individuals are required by state law to report suspected instances of physical injury or death to a child caused by a parent or caregiver, neglect or exploitation of a child, sexual abuse of a child and sexual exploitation of a child. These individuals must also report the failure of a parent or caregiver to see that a child is properly supervised, fed, clothed, or housed.
This legal obligation to act previously applied only to medical personnel, psychologists, social workers, counselors, law enforcement personnel, child service organization personnel and school teachers, administrators and guidance counselors.
During this year’s legislative session, the General Assembly chose to expand the list of mandatory reporters in order to better protect children in the state. Under House Bill 1176, the list now includes licensed physicians, hospital or medical personnel, dentists, licensed psychologists, anyone participating in internships to obtain licensing to become a psychologist, podiatrists, registered professional nurses, licensed practical nurses, nurse's aides, professional counselors, social workers, marriage and family therapists, school teachers, school administrators, school guidance counselors, visiting teachers, school social workers, school psychologists, child welfare agency personnel, child-counseling personnel, child service organization personnel, law enforcement personnel, reproductive health care facility or pregnancy resource center personnel and volunteers, and members of the clergy.
A person falling under any of these mandatory reporter categories that has a reasonable cause to believe that a child has been abused must report the suspected abuse. Failure to report the abuse could lead to their criminal prosecution.
Anyone who attends to a child pursuant to their duties as an employee of or volunteer at a hospital, school, social agency, or similar facility, can fulfill his or her legal obligation by reporting suspected child abuse to the person in charge of the hospital, school, or social agency. All other individuals required to report suspected child abuse must file a report by telephone or in writing to their local DFCS office, police authority, or district attorney. These reports should be made within 24 of learning of the suspected abuse.
Individuals required to report suspected child abuse must do so even if their suspicion comes from information that is considered privileged or confidential by law. Although members of the clergy are not required to report child abuse that they learned of solely from a communication required to be kept confidential under church doctrine or practice, such as confession, the law does require clergy to report information about child abuse learned of from any other source - even if the clergy member also received a report of the child abuse from a confession.
While the law only requires the above specified individuals to report suspected child abuse, the law also makes it clear that all other individuals with reasonable cause to think that a child is being abused may report the abuse. Anyone who reports abuse in good faith, whether required by law or not, is protected by the law from any civil and criminal liability that could result from their report.
If you have reason to believe that a child is being hurt or neglected, you should report the case to authorities immediately. During the week days, individuals should contact the local Division of Family and Children Services (DFCS) and provide them with the name and location of the child in question. For after hours, weekends, or holidays, call 1-855-GACHILD. All reports are made confidentially.
For more information on Georgia’s Division of Family and Children Services, please visit dfcs.dhs.georgia.gov.
South Carolina: Citadel Vows Steps Against Sex Abuse
DARKNESS TO LIGHT:
The Citadel said Wednesday that it would train every student, employee and campus resident how to prevent sexual abuse, after a former camp counselor’s admission that he molested 23 young boys over a decade. The military college formed a partnership with a nonprofit group, Darkness to Light, to train all 3,650 people on its Charleston campus starting next year in how to detect and prevent child abuse, the college president, Lt. Gen. John W. Rosa, said. Louis ReVille, 32, a Citadel graduate who became a camp counselor there and an educator at other schools, pleaded guilty in June to 22 counts of child sexual abuse and was sentenced to 50 years in prison. Victims have claimed The Citadel knew Mr. ReVille molested teenagers at a camp in 2002. The college investigated the complaint but did not report it to the police. In September, two other cadets brought sexual assault charges against an older classmate who had made unwanted advances.
Come to the Hearing - and Understand What Went Terribly Wrong
By: Rabbi Yakov Horowitz
During these days leading up to Succos, our z'man simchaseinu, (time of collective joy), one might consider it inappropriate to write about topics that are far from joyous. However, having spent Rosh Hashana at an amazing and inspiring Madraigos retreat, where there were more than a few abuse survivors in attendance, I feel compelled to release these lines at this time, to fulfill a promise I made then to let the survivors among us know that they are not standing alone, and with the hope that it will result in safer practices among those in our community who are seeking help for their children.
After many delays and much legal wrangling, Nechemia Weberman will finally stand trial in Brooklyn Criminal Court on October 30th for allegedly abusing a young girl in the Williamsburg community over a period of three years -- beginning when she was 12 years old.
Mr. Weberman is entitled to his day in court and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Having said that, quoting the Halachic terms employed in the Teshuva of Rav Elyashiv zt"l, there is clearly far more than "raglayim l'davar" (credible suspicion) in this case. In fact, all indications point to the inescapable conclusion that something is very, very wrong here.
What Parents Need to Know
One of the most important things frum parents - especially those in the "heimish" community - ought to be developing, is a deep understanding of the norms and accepted practice in the mental health profession. Gaining this would allow devoted and caring parents the ability to obtain suitable professional help for their children who need it, and avoid the trauma associated with following the recommendations made by untrained, well-meaning folks (unfortunately, an all too frequent occurrence, one which sometimes creates horrific results).
Moreover, it would help undo the denial and cognitive dissonance of those who defend Weberman -- by pointing out how disturbing were the circumstances of his "treatment" of the young girls referred to him.
Don't Ignore the Warning Signs
Think of it this way. Wouldn't alarm bells go off in your mind if a doctor performed an invasive procedure without using latex gloves, or if he/she picked up a used syringe to give you an injection? Wouldn't you think it strange, if you were a single mother and were requested to meet with your son's Rebbe or principal at 9:00 p.m. one evening in a deserted Yeshiva building to discuss your son's progress?
What Went Wrong
Well, those of us familiar with the do's and don'ts of accepted practice in the mental health profession saw similar blaring warning lights in our minds, as should you when the facts were made public that Weberman:
1) Had unregulated access to many girls over a number of years in his inappropriate and illegal role as their unlicensed "therapist."
2) Had these young girls referred to him for counseling by very Chassidish schools, whose general level of gender separation far exceeds those of the typical "Bais Yakov" (and it would be exceedingly rare for non-Chassidish girls' schools to regularly refer their Talmidos to a male therapist).
3) Engaged in private, unsupervised counseling sessions with young girls -- often in an office/apartment that contained a working bedroom -- violating all norms of Yichud and Tzniyus.
In addition to all these disturbing facts, it has become clear that these serious allegations are in fact not isolated ones. In fact, since Mr. Weberman's arrest, I was personally contacted by immediate family members of four additional alleged victims of his who are afraid to come forward, and those of us close to the community have heard similar reports from others as well.
All the victims - none of whom know each other and all of whom are terrified to go to the authorities because of fear of backlash from the community - report striking similarities in the MO of Weberman (his manner of working), fueling suspicion that we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg.
What is most chilling is that each and every one of his victims who came to us is currently married; meaning that 1) this has been going on for a very long time, 2) if there are current victims who are single, they are even more terrified than the married women of coming forward, for fear that going public will ruin their chances of doing a decent shidduch.
Weberman's case may very well be our community's most important abuse trial during our lifetimes. It is imperative that we have a huge turnout in support of this courageous young lady who, may she be gezunt and ge'bentched, is determined to see this through to the end so others won't suffer like she did. Unbearable pressure is being brought to bear against her and her family to drop the case, which is one of the reasons that a show of support is so important.
Now That You Know
Those of us who work with abuse survivors respectfully implore you to please, please stand with this victim on October 30th, and with the other silent and silenced victims who are watching this case unfold very carefully, and with all survivors of abuse and molestation.
Please pass this on to your friends and family members and I hope to see you at the trial, heeding the timeless charge of Yeshayahu (Isaiah) (1:16) to "Seek justice [and] strengthen the victim."
In the 1990s, Vincent Felitti and Robert Anda conducted a study on adverse childhood experiences. They asked 17,000 mostly white, mostly upscale patients enrolled in a Kaiser H.M.O. to describe whether they had experienced any of 10 categories of childhood trauma. They asked them if they had been abused, if family members had been incarcerated or declared mentally ill. Then they gave them what came to be known as ACE scores, depending on how many of the 10 experiences they had endured.
The link between childhood trauma and adult outcomes was striking. People with an ACE score of 4 were seven times more likely to be alcoholics as adults than people with an ACE score of 0. They were six times more likely to have had sex before age 15, twice as likely to be diagnosed with cancer, four times as likely to suffer emphysema. People with an ACE score above 6 were 30 times more likely to have attempted suicide.
Later research suggested that only 3 percent of students with an ACE score of 0 had learning or behavioral problems in school. Among students with an ACE score of 4 or higher, 51 percent had those problems.
In Paul Tough’s essential book, “How Children Succeed,” he describes what’s going on. Childhood stress can have long lasting neural effects, making it harder to exercise self-control, focus attention, delay gratification and do many of the other things that contribute to a happy life.
Tough interviewed a young lady named Monisha, who was pulled out of class by a social worker, taken to a strange foster home and forbidden from seeing her father for months. “I remember the first day like it was yesterday. Every detail. I still have dreams about it. I feel like I’m going to be damaged forever.”
Monisha’s anxiety sensors are still going full blast. “If a plane flies over me, I think they’re going to drop a bomb. I think about my dad dying,” she told Tough. “When I get scared, I start shaking. My heart starts beating. I start sweating. You know how people say ‘I was scared to death’? I get scared that that’s really going to happen to me one day.”
Tough’s book is part of what you might call the psychologizing of domestic policy. In the past several decades, policy makers have focused on the material and bureaucratic things that correlate to school failure, like poor neighborhoods, bad nutrition, schools that are too big or too small. But, more recently, attention has shifted to the psychological reactions that impede learning — the ones that flow from insecure relationships, constant movement and economic anxiety.
Attention has shifted toward the psychological for several reasons. First, it’s become increasingly clear that social and emotional deficits can trump material or even intellectual progress. Schools in the Knowledge Is Power Program, or KIPP, are among the best college prep academies for disadvantaged kids. But, in its first survey a few years ago, KIPP discovered that three-quarters of its graduates were not making it through college. It wasn’t the students with the lower high school grades that were dropping out most. It was the ones with the weakest resilience and social skills. It was the pessimists.
Second, over the past few years, an array of psychological researchers have taught us that motivation, self-control and resilience are together as important as raw I.Q. and are probably more malleable.
Finally, pop culture has been far out front of policy makers in showing how social dysfunction can ruin lives. You can turn on an episode of “Here Comes Honey Boo Boo,” about a train wreck working-class family. You can turn on “Alaska State Troopers” and see trailer parks filled with drugged-up basket cases. You can listen to rappers like Tyler, The Creator whose songs are angry howls from fatherless men.
Schools are now casting about, trying to find psychological programs that will help students work on resilience, equanimity and self-control. Some schools give two sets of grades — one for academic work and one for deportment.
And it’s not just schools that are veering deeper into the psychological realms. Health care systems are going the same way, tracing obesity and self-destructive habits back to social breakdown and stress.
When you look over the domestic policy landscape, you see all these different people in different policy silos with different budgets: in health care, education, crime, poverty, social mobility and labor force issues. But, in their disjointed ways, they are all dealing with the same problem — that across vast stretches of America, economic, social and family breakdowns are producing enormous amounts of stress and unregulated behavior, which dulls motivation, undermines self-control and distorts lives.
Maybe it’s time for people in all these different fields to get together in a room and make a concerted push against the psychological barriers to success.
I'm a Catholic and I take my kids to church every Sunday. Church is supposed to be a safe place. But Bishop Robert Finn, who is the head of my diocese (that's a regional group of churches), made our church unsafe for my children when he covered up a child sex abuse scandal.
Last month, Father Shawn Ratigan -- who was a priest in a church near mine -- plead guilty in U.S. Federal Court to producing and possessing child pornography. Father Ratigan used his position as a priest to take lewd images of children in his faith community.
Now a judge has found Bishop Finn guilty of covering up Ratigan's crimes -- Bishop Finn is the highest level leader in the church ever to be convicted in a sex abuse scandal. But despite his conviction, Bishop Finn still has his job as head of our diocese.
I started a petition on Change.org asking Bishop Finn to resign as head of the Kansas City diocese.
Since Bishop Finn's conviction, groups like the National Survivor Advocates Coalition have called on him to resign, and the Kansas City Star published an editorial saying it's time for him to go. Our diocese needs a leader who protects children, not one who protects their abusers.
As a Catholic, I believe in forgiveness, and I think Bishop Finn should be forgiven. But as a father, I don't think he should keep a job where he could put more children in danger. Forgiveness and change can work together.
The Catholic church needs to see that it's not enough to get rid of priests who abuse children -- the leaders who cover up the abuse must be held accountable as well. I know that if thousands of people sign my petition, Bishop Finn will have to resign.
Please sign my petition calling on Bishop Robert Finn, who was convicted of covering up a child pornography scandal, to resign as the head of the Kansas City diocese.
