10/17/12
My Dear Friend Paul,
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
Author, The Day Liberty Wept
EVERY SIGNATURE MATTERS - THIS BILL MUST PASS!
CLICK - GOAL - 100,000 NEW SIGNATURES! 75,000 SIGNATURES HAVE ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED TO GOVERNOR CUOMO!
EFF Urges Court to Block Dragnet Subpoenas Targeting Online Commenters
CLICK! For the full motion to quash: http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/hersh_v_cohen/UOJ-motiontoquashmemo.pdf
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
UOJ to Catholic Church - DROP DEAD!
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.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20121015_Archdiocese_restores_72-year-old_Phila__priest_to_ministry.html
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.
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20121015_Archdiocese_restores_72-year-old_Phila__priest_to_ministry.html
Monday, October 15, 2012
Predators on Pedestals
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.
READ ENTIRE ARTICLE BY BILL KELLER:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/opinion/keller-predators-on-pedestals.html?emc=tnt&tntemail1=y
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.
READ ENTIRE ARTICLE BY BILL KELLER:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/opinion/keller-predators-on-pedestals.html?emc=tnt&tntemail1=y
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
There Are Sanduskys In Your Schools, Shuls & Neighborhoods!
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.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf--jerry-sandusky-delivers-one-final-hateful--haunting-response-to-his-victims.html
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.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf--jerry-sandusky-delivers-one-final-hateful--haunting-response-to-his-victims.html
Sunday, October 07, 2012
"Tendler Looking For Work At The TSA" - Jewish Fress
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.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2211427/Former-priest-hired-TSA-pat-passengers-months-church-kicked-molesting-young-girls.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Friday, October 05, 2012
Any Greater Lowlives On The Planet?
A Cry for Justice
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.
Writer Marie Rohde was the religion reporter for many years for the Milwaukee Journal and has written extensively about the clergy abuse scandal.
http://urbanmilwaukee.com/2012/10/04/film-fest-a-cry-for-justice/
Thursday, October 04, 2012
No Real Gedolim In Georgia!
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.
http://www.news4jax.com/news/georgia-news/New-Georgia-law-requires-manditory-reporting-of-child-abuse/-/475792/16840576/-/if844jz/-/index.html
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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/us/south-carolina-citadel-vows-steps-against-sex-abuse.html?_r=1&emc=tnt&tntemail1=y
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.
http://www.news4jax.com/news/georgia-news/New-Georgia-law-requires-manditory-reporting-of-child-abuse/-/475792/16840576/-/if844jz/-/index.html
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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/us/south-carolina-citadel-vows-steps-against-sex-abuse.html?_r=1&emc=tnt&tntemail1=y
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Weberman's case may very well be our community's most important abuse trial during our lifetimes
Nechemia Weberman's Trial is on October 30th:
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."
Yakov Horowitz
www.kosherjewishparenting.com.
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."
Yakov Horowitz
www.kosherjewishparenting.com.
The link between childhood trauma and adult outcomes was striking
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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/opinion/brooks-the-psych-approach.html?emc=tnt&tntemail1=y
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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/28/opinion/brooks-the-psych-approach.html?emc=tnt&tntemail1=y
The leaders who cover up the abuse must be held accountable as well (regardless of the color shmattes they wear)
Dear Paul,
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.
Thank you,
Jeff Weis
Kansas City, Missouri
The Proven Petition Site
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.
Thank you,
Jeff Weis
Kansas City, Missouri
The Proven Petition Site
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Tell The Supreme Court Sholom Rubashkin Does NOT Deserve a Life Sentence!
On the eve of Yom Kippur, please take the time to sign this petition on behalf of Sholom Rubashkin. He has committed serious crimes, but does not deserve in effect the same sentence meted out to the likes of Charles Manson, David Berkowitz, and other mass murderers. In these Days of Awe, and with the tefillot of Klal Yisroel, may we pray that the Supreme Being and the Supreme Court of the United States see fit to grant Sholom a new trial with the possibility of a sentence that would enable him to serve God as a free man, with a horrifying sentence of 27 years reduced to single digits.
A g'mar chasima tova to all of Israel.
UOJ
Petitioning The Supreme Court Of The United States
In our current legal system, prosecutors have tremendous power to choose and amplify charges while the Judges they argue before have extreme discretion as to how they hand down sentences. And when this happens, we are faced with the shocking reality that stands in direct contrast to our nation’s claim to guarantee the accused a fair trial.
The Supreme Court is currently in a position to address these issues in the case of 'Sholom Rubashkin v. The United States of America.' The case is before them for review.
It is not the guilty verdict that demands the Supreme Court’s attention, but the charges and harsh sentencing of a seemingly over-zealous judicial system. It is critical that the Supreme Court agree to review this case as it stands to set legal precedent for certain gray areas of the current law, like mandatory minimum sentencing, over-criminalization, prosecutorial power and the boundaries of the relationship between judges and the prosecutors who argue before them.
Tell the Supreme Court to ACCEPT this case. Tell them to HEAR this case. Tell them to rein in the Justice System they preside over -- a system that currently sees over 95% of all cases end in a plea bargain rather than a constitutionally guaranteed trial by jury. Prosecutors are routinely piling on charges to create "slam dunk" cases and improve their personal "conviction rates." Judges are sentencing for crimes with wildly varied results -- your punishment may no longer fit the crime so much as it fits the courtroom in which you are tried.
In the case of Mr. Rubashkin, the federal government turned the largest immigration raid in US history into a bank fraud case concerning a $35 million business loan. Rubashkin was found guilty on 86 of 91 counts related to fraud. For those crimes, he faced over 1,000 years in prison. At sentencing, prosecutors sought a life sentence until six former US Attorney Generals and other Justice Department veterans wrote to the judge objecting to such harsh punishment. Prosecutors revised their request to 25 years in prison; Judge Linda Reade sentenced Mr. Rubashkin to 27 years - more than many other white-collar criminals whose crimes far exceeded the value of Mr. Rubashkin's.
A subsequent Freedom Of Information Act request returned documents demonstrating Judge Reade had worked with prosecutors in the months leading up to the initial raid on Mr. Rubashkin's business, creating what his defense argues “at the very least the appearance of impropriety.’
America is a nation of laws. Those laws must be administered fairly and equally, not separately and with creative discretion.
To those we grant power, we demand accountability.
Tell the Supreme Court to HEAR THIS CASE.
Tell them to hear your voice.
Online Petition Template
A g'mar chasima tova to all of Israel.
UOJ
Petitioning The Supreme Court Of The United States
In our current legal system, prosecutors have tremendous power to choose and amplify charges while the Judges they argue before have extreme discretion as to how they hand down sentences. And when this happens, we are faced with the shocking reality that stands in direct contrast to our nation’s claim to guarantee the accused a fair trial.
The Supreme Court is currently in a position to address these issues in the case of 'Sholom Rubashkin v. The United States of America.' The case is before them for review.
It is not the guilty verdict that demands the Supreme Court’s attention, but the charges and harsh sentencing of a seemingly over-zealous judicial system. It is critical that the Supreme Court agree to review this case as it stands to set legal precedent for certain gray areas of the current law, like mandatory minimum sentencing, over-criminalization, prosecutorial power and the boundaries of the relationship between judges and the prosecutors who argue before them.
Tell the Supreme Court to ACCEPT this case. Tell them to HEAR this case. Tell them to rein in the Justice System they preside over -- a system that currently sees over 95% of all cases end in a plea bargain rather than a constitutionally guaranteed trial by jury. Prosecutors are routinely piling on charges to create "slam dunk" cases and improve their personal "conviction rates." Judges are sentencing for crimes with wildly varied results -- your punishment may no longer fit the crime so much as it fits the courtroom in which you are tried.
In the case of Mr. Rubashkin, the federal government turned the largest immigration raid in US history into a bank fraud case concerning a $35 million business loan. Rubashkin was found guilty on 86 of 91 counts related to fraud. For those crimes, he faced over 1,000 years in prison. At sentencing, prosecutors sought a life sentence until six former US Attorney Generals and other Justice Department veterans wrote to the judge objecting to such harsh punishment. Prosecutors revised their request to 25 years in prison; Judge Linda Reade sentenced Mr. Rubashkin to 27 years - more than many other white-collar criminals whose crimes far exceeded the value of Mr. Rubashkin's.
A subsequent Freedom Of Information Act request returned documents demonstrating Judge Reade had worked with prosecutors in the months leading up to the initial raid on Mr. Rubashkin's business, creating what his defense argues “at the very least the appearance of impropriety.’
America is a nation of laws. Those laws must be administered fairly and equally, not separately and with creative discretion.
To those we grant power, we demand accountability.
Tell the Supreme Court to HEAR THIS CASE.
Tell them to hear your voice.
Online Petition Template
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Rosh Hashanah 5773 -- Who Are You?
We confront G-d as individuals on Rosh Hashanah, and not as members of a group. His first question will be the same as that of the assistant: Who are you?
And as I found out , answering that question is not so easy. Nor is it a question that many of us have spent much time thinking about. Sure most of us could provide a resume of some sort. We might describe our profession, or name our spouse and children, perhaps add a brief biography, or tout a few awards. But none of these matters really go to the heart of the question. We are left describing various attributes of ourselves, but nothing of our essence, our unique individuality.
THE REAL QUESTION which Rosh Hashanah beckons us to face is: What is my mission in life? What do I have to contribute that no one else in the world does? That is hinted to in the Musaf of Rosh Hashanah, in which each person is described as being judged according to his "ma'asav v'p'kudotav – his deeds and his mission." The first refers to his or her mitzvah observance. But the second is no less important, for it refers to a person's unique mission (tafkid) in life.
We might think that from the point of view of a mitzvah observant Jew, care in the observance of mitzvot is by far the most powerful determinant of the judgment of Rosh Hashanah. But that is not the case. Rabbi Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz, used to bring a Midrash to make the point. The Midrash discusses Navat the Carmelite, who refused to sell his vineyard to the wicked queen Jezebel. Jezebel caused false witnesses to be brought against him, and he was put to death.
The Midrash asks: What could such a righteous man have done to deserve such a horrible fate? It answers that Navat had a beautiful voice. Every pilgrimage festival those who had gone up to Jerusalem looked forward to being spiritually aroused by his davening. One year, Navat failed to come to Jerusalem for the festival. That was the year that Jezebel had him killed. The lesson that Reb Shraga Feivel derived is that the suppression of some special gift that G-d gives a person is also the basis for judgment.
Rosh Hashanah is the day that G-d first breathed into Adam's nostrils, and thereby established the connection between Man and the Upper Worlds. Like G-d Himself, Man is a creator, G-d's partner in bringing the world to its ultimate purpose. The judgment on Rosh Hashanah, the anniversary of the birth of Man as a spiritual being, focuses on the question: Does this person deserve to be created again? Does he have a role to play in bringing the world to its purpose? And if the answer is affirmative, what tools does he need to fulfill that mission?
HOW DOES A PERSON begin to think about his or her particular mission? Reb Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz believed that just as every animal instinctively does that which is needed to ensure its survival so each person has some instinctive sense of his or her purpose in life. Some have a strong sense of calling from an early age – e.g., musical or mathematical prodigies who are passionately drawn to particular endeavors.
Others notice something that requires repair in their society or even in the smaller circle of family or friends. And instead of telling themselves that everyone else must have noticed the same thing, and that someone more talented or powerful or influential than they will surely address the problem, they take responsibility upon themselves. They reason that if G-d revealed a certain problem to them, then that is a sign that the problem is related to them in some way. Like Yosef, they not only interpret Pharoah's dream to ascertain the approaching danger, but offer a plan for alleviating the threat.
And for still others, their mission is thrust upon them by the circumstances into which they are thrust, and the way they respond to challenges they could have done little to anticipate.
All this requires preparation. Ideally, the entire month of Elul is devoted to an analysis of where one is holding in life, what is still to be achieved, and what resources – both internal and external – are required to achieve that goal. The process starts with the recognition that each of us was only brought into being because we have something unique to contribute to the world – each of us has a task given to no one who preceded us and no one who will follow.
TRAGICALLY, the requisite self-knowledge has never been farther from us. That is why the question, "Who are you?" is almost certain to trigger something akin to panic. The title of Nicolas Carr's popular book on the impact of constant connectivity on our neurological hardwiring, including our capacity for contemplation, captures our situation: The Shallows. We have become shallow, distracted people, who live our lives in public on Facebook because we are so utterly lacking any sense of self and so dependent on the reactions of others as a means of affirming our own existence.
May we all be inscribed in the Book of Life for a year filled with all manner of material and spiritual blessing.
http://www.jewishmediaresources.com/1553/rosh-hashanah-5773-who-are-you
And as I found out , answering that question is not so easy. Nor is it a question that many of us have spent much time thinking about. Sure most of us could provide a resume of some sort. We might describe our profession, or name our spouse and children, perhaps add a brief biography, or tout a few awards. But none of these matters really go to the heart of the question. We are left describing various attributes of ourselves, but nothing of our essence, our unique individuality.
THE REAL QUESTION which Rosh Hashanah beckons us to face is: What is my mission in life? What do I have to contribute that no one else in the world does? That is hinted to in the Musaf of Rosh Hashanah, in which each person is described as being judged according to his "ma'asav v'p'kudotav – his deeds and his mission." The first refers to his or her mitzvah observance. But the second is no less important, for it refers to a person's unique mission (tafkid) in life.
We might think that from the point of view of a mitzvah observant Jew, care in the observance of mitzvot is by far the most powerful determinant of the judgment of Rosh Hashanah. But that is not the case. Rabbi Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz, used to bring a Midrash to make the point. The Midrash discusses Navat the Carmelite, who refused to sell his vineyard to the wicked queen Jezebel. Jezebel caused false witnesses to be brought against him, and he was put to death.
The Midrash asks: What could such a righteous man have done to deserve such a horrible fate? It answers that Navat had a beautiful voice. Every pilgrimage festival those who had gone up to Jerusalem looked forward to being spiritually aroused by his davening. One year, Navat failed to come to Jerusalem for the festival. That was the year that Jezebel had him killed. The lesson that Reb Shraga Feivel derived is that the suppression of some special gift that G-d gives a person is also the basis for judgment.
Rosh Hashanah is the day that G-d first breathed into Adam's nostrils, and thereby established the connection between Man and the Upper Worlds. Like G-d Himself, Man is a creator, G-d's partner in bringing the world to its ultimate purpose. The judgment on Rosh Hashanah, the anniversary of the birth of Man as a spiritual being, focuses on the question: Does this person deserve to be created again? Does he have a role to play in bringing the world to its purpose? And if the answer is affirmative, what tools does he need to fulfill that mission?
HOW DOES A PERSON begin to think about his or her particular mission? Reb Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz believed that just as every animal instinctively does that which is needed to ensure its survival so each person has some instinctive sense of his or her purpose in life. Some have a strong sense of calling from an early age – e.g., musical or mathematical prodigies who are passionately drawn to particular endeavors.
Others notice something that requires repair in their society or even in the smaller circle of family or friends. And instead of telling themselves that everyone else must have noticed the same thing, and that someone more talented or powerful or influential than they will surely address the problem, they take responsibility upon themselves. They reason that if G-d revealed a certain problem to them, then that is a sign that the problem is related to them in some way. Like Yosef, they not only interpret Pharoah's dream to ascertain the approaching danger, but offer a plan for alleviating the threat.
And for still others, their mission is thrust upon them by the circumstances into which they are thrust, and the way they respond to challenges they could have done little to anticipate.
All this requires preparation. Ideally, the entire month of Elul is devoted to an analysis of where one is holding in life, what is still to be achieved, and what resources – both internal and external – are required to achieve that goal. The process starts with the recognition that each of us was only brought into being because we have something unique to contribute to the world – each of us has a task given to no one who preceded us and no one who will follow.
TRAGICALLY, the requisite self-knowledge has never been farther from us. That is why the question, "Who are you?" is almost certain to trigger something akin to panic. The title of Nicolas Carr's popular book on the impact of constant connectivity on our neurological hardwiring, including our capacity for contemplation, captures our situation: The Shallows. We have become shallow, distracted people, who live our lives in public on Facebook because we are so utterly lacking any sense of self and so dependent on the reactions of others as a means of affirming our own existence.
May we all be inscribed in the Book of Life for a year filled with all manner of material and spiritual blessing.
http://www.jewishmediaresources.com/1553/rosh-hashanah-5773-who-are-you
Agudath Israel & A Deadly Ritual - Both Must Be Abolished!
If you want to understand just how religious authoritarianism harms children, look no further than the actions of a powerful group of rabbis in New York known as Agudath Israel. AI is a Jewish communal organization that represents the most conservative Jewish believers, the haredi or ultra-Orthodox Jews.
These rabbis are seeking to sue the City of New York after the health department announced it would adopt a measure that requires parents to sign a written consent form warning them of the dangers of a circumcision ritual called metzitzah b’peh. (The policy was just passed.) If you have not heard of metzitzah b’peh, brace yourself: It involves the sucking of the bleeding penis by the circumcising rabbi or mohel.
The practice of metzitzah b’peh is thousands of years old. Originally, it was believed to clean the wound. Fast forward to today and not only do we find that this segment of the Jewish population is allowing rabbis to do what would normally be considered to be sexual abuse, the ritual has led to babies dying or suffering brain damage after contracting the herpes simplex I virus.
Neonatal herpes infections of all kinds are nearly always fatal in infants. An investigation by the New York City Board of Health found that, in the last decade, an average of one baby per year who underwent metzitzah b’peh contracted the virus. Two of the infants died, and two suffered brain damage.
“This is a ritual. . . that’s come down through the ages, and now it has met modern science,” the chair of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University told ABC News. . “It’s certainly not something any of us recommend in the modern infection-control era,” he said.
Not surprisingly, AI proclaimed that, in passing the parental consent policy, New York health officials are impeding on religious freedom, indicating that the religious leaders know more about infectious diseases than doctors. In a statement signed by 200 haredi rabbis, the group accused the health department of “spreading lies” and that participating in the “evil plans” of the department is forbidden by the Torah.
Most people would be shocked that religious leaders would support such a disgusting—and potentially deadly—practice. In a letter he wrote to Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center infectious disease specialist Dr. Jonathan Zenilman wrote that the AI is “doing a terrible disservice to the Jewish Community and the public at large.”
But as I have repeatedly pointed out, such disregard for children’s rights is part and parcel of religious authoritarian cultures like the haredi. Members of this segment of the Jewish population consider their belief system to be the one, true faith, and they are convinced that all other believers, including other Jews, are spiritually inferior. In addition, the haredi manifest the three perfect-storm characteristics of a religious authoritarian culture: They have a strict, social hierarchy; they are unusually fearful; and they are socially separatist.
As I continue to reiterate, the way religious authoritarianism harms children is through the parents—or, rather, through parental impotence. In religious authoritarian cultures, parents lack autonomy in how to raise their children. Instead, they rely on—or are forced to adopt—child-rearing practices that fail to attend to children’s physical and emotional needs. In fact, the New York health department has received numerous complaints from parents whose mohels went so far as to perform metzitzhah b’peh on their babies without their consent.
It stands to reason that the powerful rabbis of Agudath Israel don’t want parents to be informed about the dangers of metzitzah b’peh, even though it puts children at risk for death or being left permanently disabled. Instead, these men prefer to leave mothers and fathers in the dark, where they will remain powerless to make critical decisions in their children’s lives.
READ ARTICLE:
http://religiouschildmaltreatment.com/2012/09/a-deadly-ritual/
Thursday, September 13, 2012
NYC Approves Ritual Circumcision Consent Form
After the deaths of two children who contracted the herpes virus through an ultra-orthodox practice of circumcision, the New York City Board of Health voted today to require parents to sign a written consent that warns them of the dangers.
In the most contentious part of the Jewish ritual, known as metzitzah b’peh, the practitioner, or mohel, places his mouth around the baby’s penis to suck the blood to “cleanse” the wound. The city wants parents to know the risks before circumcision.
Some estimate that 70 percent of the general population is infected with the Type 1 herpes I (HSV-1), which can be transmitted from the mouth to the child. It is different from Type 2 or genital herpes (HSV-2), which is a sexually transmitted disease and can cause deadly infections when a newborn passes through an infected birth canal.
Neonatal herpes infections are nearly always fatal in infants.
The 5,000-year-old religious practice of circumcision, performed during a ceremony known as the bris, is seen primarily in ultra-Orthodox and some orthodox communities. New York has one of the largest such communities in the country.
In 2003 and 2004, three babies, including a set of twins, were infected with Type 1 herpes; the cases were linked to circumcision, and one boy died. Another died in 2010. In the last decade, 11 babies in the city have contracted the virus, and two have had brain damage, according to health officials.
Dr. Jay K. Varma, the New York City deputy commissioner for disease control, told the New York Times, “There is no safe way to perform oral suction on an open wound in a newborn.”
But some rabbis have said that they will oppose the law on religious grounds, insisting it has been performed ”tens of thousands of times a year” worldwide. They say safeguarding the life of a child is one of the religion’s highest principles.
“This is the government forcing a rabbi practicing a religious ritual to tell his congregants it could hurt their child,” Rabbi David Niederman, executive director of the United Jewish Organization of Williamsburg, told ABCNews.com. “If, God forbid, there was a danger, we would be the first to stop the practice.”
But Dr. William Schaffner, chair of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University, told ABCNews.com during the investigation of one of the deaths last spring, “It’s certainly not something any of us recommend in the modern infection-control era.”
“This is a ritual of historic Abraham that’s come down through the ages, and now it has met modern science,” he said. “It was never a good idea, and there is a better way to do this.”
The modern Jewish community uses a sterile aspiration device or pipette to clean the wound in a circumcision.
About two-thirds of boys born in New York City’s Hasidic communities are circumcised in the oral suction manner, according to Rabbi David Zwiebel, executive vice president of the Orthodox Jewish organization Agudath Israel of America.
The Department of Health argues parents should be informed of the risks before making a decision. Since 2004, it has received “multiple complaints from parents who were not aware that direct oral suction was going to be performed as part of their sons’ circumcisions,” according to a public notice.
The law requires mohels to explain the oral suction procedure and its risks, including the possible transmission of herpes simplex virus, and have parents sign a waiver.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/09/13/nyc-approves-ritual-circumcision-consent-form/
In the most contentious part of the Jewish ritual, known as metzitzah b’peh, the practitioner, or mohel, places his mouth around the baby’s penis to suck the blood to “cleanse” the wound. The city wants parents to know the risks before circumcision.
Some estimate that 70 percent of the general population is infected with the Type 1 herpes I (HSV-1), which can be transmitted from the mouth to the child. It is different from Type 2 or genital herpes (HSV-2), which is a sexually transmitted disease and can cause deadly infections when a newborn passes through an infected birth canal.
Neonatal herpes infections are nearly always fatal in infants.
The 5,000-year-old religious practice of circumcision, performed during a ceremony known as the bris, is seen primarily in ultra-Orthodox and some orthodox communities. New York has one of the largest such communities in the country.
In 2003 and 2004, three babies, including a set of twins, were infected with Type 1 herpes; the cases were linked to circumcision, and one boy died. Another died in 2010. In the last decade, 11 babies in the city have contracted the virus, and two have had brain damage, according to health officials.
Dr. Jay K. Varma, the New York City deputy commissioner for disease control, told the New York Times, “There is no safe way to perform oral suction on an open wound in a newborn.”
But some rabbis have said that they will oppose the law on religious grounds, insisting it has been performed ”tens of thousands of times a year” worldwide. They say safeguarding the life of a child is one of the religion’s highest principles.
“This is the government forcing a rabbi practicing a religious ritual to tell his congregants it could hurt their child,” Rabbi David Niederman, executive director of the United Jewish Organization of Williamsburg, told ABCNews.com. “If, God forbid, there was a danger, we would be the first to stop the practice.”
But Dr. William Schaffner, chair of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University, told ABCNews.com during the investigation of one of the deaths last spring, “It’s certainly not something any of us recommend in the modern infection-control era.”
“This is a ritual of historic Abraham that’s come down through the ages, and now it has met modern science,” he said. “It was never a good idea, and there is a better way to do this.”
The modern Jewish community uses a sterile aspiration device or pipette to clean the wound in a circumcision.
About two-thirds of boys born in New York City’s Hasidic communities are circumcised in the oral suction manner, according to Rabbi David Zwiebel, executive vice president of the Orthodox Jewish organization Agudath Israel of America.
The Department of Health argues parents should be informed of the risks before making a decision. Since 2004, it has received “multiple complaints from parents who were not aware that direct oral suction was going to be performed as part of their sons’ circumcisions,” according to a public notice.
The law requires mohels to explain the oral suction procedure and its risks, including the possible transmission of herpes simplex virus, and have parents sign a waiver.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/09/13/nyc-approves-ritual-circumcision-consent-form/
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Rosh Hashana Greetings to our Heilige Survivors
by Rabbi Yakov Horowitz
As we prepare to stand before Hashem in the days to come, and daven (pray) for ourselves, our families and all of Klal Yisroel, those of us who work with survivors of abuse and molestation ask you to publicly show your support for them in these yemei rachamim (days of mercy)
Part and parcel of the strategy employed by many of the predators in our community is to discredit their victims who have the courage to step forward and press charges against them. Typically, the molester will point to the victim's 1) diminished level of religious observance and/or 2) self-destructive behaviors, like substance abuse, to "prove" his own innocence.
However, for those of us who work with at-risk teens, the fact that one of our tayere kinderlach engaged in hard-core drug use, self-mutilation, suicide attempts, or left Yiddishkeit, makes it MORE likely that the accusation is true, not less. Why? Because we have known for many years now that the vast majority of our kids who have descended into the gehenom of these destructive activities have done so because they were molested.
Of all the horror committed by predators against our innocent, precious boys and girls, the premeditated and deliberate defamation of their character is perhaps the most unforgivable; since it abuses them all over again and adds to their disconnect from our kehila – when what they need most is our acceptance and love.
With that in mind, I respectfully ask our readers to please stand with the brave survivors and their families who have the courage to take the lonely path of coming forward and pressing charges, with the other silent and silenced victims who are watching the high-profile cases unfold very carefully to determine whether they too should risk going to the authorities, and with all survivors of abuse and molestation.
Precisely because the predators attempt to discredit and disgrace the victims and their families, is all the more reason why we need to reach out to them and let them know how much we respect and care for them.
Kindly take a few minutes from your busy schedules and post a Rosh Hashana bracha in the thread following these lines and have them in mind in your Tefillos. Previous efforts to garner public support for victims were extraordinarily comforting to them as they help restore their faith in humanity and let them know that the vast majority of our community members are behind them.
CLICK PLEASE: http://bit.ly/TLCnJW
Please include your real names and the names of the cities where you live to personalize your message and to send a clear message that we proudly stand with the survivors and their families.
Abuse survivors are our heilege neshamos, our holy souls. They have endured unspeakable trauma in their lives and had their childhood cruelly stolen from them because they learned at a very young age, at the mercy of cunning and evil predators, to never trust again.
Nonetheless, the vast, overwhelming majority of survivors seek no revenge or retribution. They only hope and pray that today’s children be spared from the horror they endured. Regardless of their observance level, we ought to welcome these survivors as full and respected members of our kehilos. We ought to commit to them that we will do everything possible to remove from our community those who prey on our innocent children and speak truth to power if necessary in the coming year to keep all our children safe and secure.
If the great tzadik Reb Levi Yitzchak of Berdichev zt’l were alive, I imagine that he would embrace abuse survivors in his shul on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur and proclaim to Hashem, “Master of the Universe, look at these heilige neshamos who have endured so much with such dignity and in their ze’chus inscribe us all in the Book of Life.”
Best wishes for a k’siva v’chasima tova and may Hashem answer our tefilos b’rachamim u’vrazon.
Yakov Horowitz
Dean, Yeshiva Darchei Noam
www.kosherjewishparenting.com.
Those Goyim! They Sound As Confused As The Jews!
Bishops also have to be "firm" in applying the procedures that the body of bishops adopted 10 years ago to prevent child abuse, said Joliet, Ill., Bishop R. Daniel Conlon, the chair of the U.S. bishops' committee for the protection of children and young people.
Conlon spoke to NCR by phone from the sidelines of a meeting of the U.S. bishops' administrative committee. He addressed last week's conviction of Kansas City-St. Joseph, Mo., Bishop Robert Finn for failing to report suspected child abuse.
In a non-jury trial Sept. 6, Finn was found guilty of one count of failing to report suspected child abuse, a misdemeanor in the state of Missouri, making him the first sitting U.S. bishop to be convicted of a crime stemming in the decades long sex abuse scandal.
During Tuesday's interview with NCR, Conlon discussed the impact of that conviction on the continuing progress of the national church to address sex abuse, 10 years after the U.S. bishops' adopted the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People.
"We've got a long, long way to go," Conlon said. "But I think that diligent application of the Charter is essential. That doesn't mean that there's going to be 100 percent perfection because we're still human beings.
"And we have 190 dioceses in the United States. I can't help the fact that if there is a flaw in one place, that it's counted against one of us. I can't help that."
Following is NCR's interview with Conlon, edited slightly for context and length.
NCR: How do you see the U.S. bishops' conference addressing concerns about how the church handles reports of abuse in the light of Finn's guilty verdict?
Conlon: I think what this case brings up is that we always have to err on the side of caution -- we have to err on the side of protecting children. If there's any, any possibility that the law has been broken, if there's any possibility that an act of abuse has occurred, whether recently or in the decent past, then we need to report it to the civil authorities. We should never hesitate.
In the Kansas City case, we know that Bishop Finn never consulted his diocesan review board about a priest in possession of child pornography. How is that being dealt with by the national conference? What happens when a bishop doesn't report it to a review board?
I think we have to make a distinction between what is printed in the charter -- and that, of course, is what we have bound ourselves to -- and what is good practice. The charter states that diocesan review boards are "to advise the diocesan/eparchial bishop of its assessment of allegations of sexual abuse by minors and its determination of a cleric's suitability for ministry."
That's what it says. Not -- it seems to me by interpretation, and this is just a matter of interpretation -- that if the review board is going to fulfill its responsibility as laid out in the charter to advise the bishop in his assessment of allegations of sexual abuse, then it has to be notified that there's been an allegation.
Again, as I said in terms of reporting to civil authorities, likewise in reporting to the diocesan review board. The bishop has to, it seems to me, report any allegation of abuse to the review board so that it can fulfill its obligation of advising them. And I don't think the bishop should put a doubt before that obligation to bring the matter to the review board.
In cases like Kansas City, how do you see the issue of accountability for bishops who don't follow the guidelines in the charter? What should happen to them?
The responsibility that we have to deal properly with allegations of abuse, to try to create a safe environment for young people is part of our overall responsibility for pastoral care of God's people.
In looking at that general responsibility, the first person to whom we are accountable is Christ, who is the good shepherd, and we're called to act in his place. That's a very serious responsibility to the Lord himself.
Secondly, a bishop is accountable to the representative of Christ who calls a bishop to that office of bishop and that's the pope. So each bishop is directly on earth accountable to the pope.
And then a bishop, I think, is also accountable to the people of the diocese. And has to be attentive to what people say, what he hears people say -- the priests, the deacons, the laypeople in the diocese. He has to listen to what people say in terms of how they feel he is fulfilling his office.
In terms of accountability on the issue of child abuse and child protection, all of us, every day, have to ask ourselves if we are being accountable to all three points.
In instances like this, is there any accountability for bishops from the members of the U.S. bishops' conference or does everything have to come from Rome?
There definitely is no accountability to the conference of bishops. There is an accountability to the college of bishops, the whole college of bishops. But the conference of bishops has no authority over individual bishops and the individual bishop has no accountability to the conference other than a sense of fraternal responsibility.
I mean, I pray for the bishops of the United States, and I am concerned about my brother bishops across the country, that sort of thing, but we have no line responsibility for other bishops. It's more the spiritual, fraternal kind of responsibility.
How do you address the questions of trust here? Even with the changes since adoption of the charter, laypeople in parishes and schools around the country have to trust that their bishop will report these things to the review board or to civil authorities, should they come up. How do you address that issue after the verdict in Kansas City?
I think sometimes in our human relationships, we have to presume trust. I think that, for example, when two people marry, they have to presume trust in one another. I think that when a bishop is appointed to a diocese, the people have to presume that they can trust him to carry out his responsibilities.
And if they begin to see that he fails in that trust, then they're going to lose trust. And just as spouses may lose trust in one another as they see each other fail. But they don't start out with the presumption of not trusting.
And I think that it's important to treat each human being on his or her individual terms. I think it's wrong, for example, for a husband or wife to say, "I'm not going to trust you because I know there are a lot of husbands and wives who are not trustworthy."
So I don't think we should treat all bishops as untrustworthy because one or two or three or 10 or 20 have failed to fulfill their responsibilities in one form or another. But this issue of child abuse is extremely important. A lot of human lives have been devastated by sexual abuse within the church.
So I believe that bishops have an extraordinary level of responsibility to deal with these allegations. At the same time, there is a lot of prudential judgment that has to be exercised. And I have discovered over the years that no two cases ever seem exactly the same.
But the basic responsibility of reporting an allegation to the civil authorities and cooperating with the civil authorities in any investigation that they undertake is very straightforward. It's a very simple obligation. And I think that people should be able to assume that the bishop or anyone who is operating directly under the authority of the bishop is going to make those reports.
You were reported in recent days as saying that the church's credibility on this issue was "shredded." In the light of hoping that there's trust there, how can the bishops address that trust when their credibility seems to be so devastated over the past few years?
I was speaking at a national conference of safe environment coordinators and victims' assistance coordinators, so I wasn't addressing bishops.
That particular phrase, "our credibility is shredded," was specifically in a part of the talk where I was suggesting that the victims' assistance coordinators and safe environment coordinators might be of some help to the bishops in putting the work that they're doing out to the media. I was trying to say that the bishops' credibility with the media is shredded.
It is different. I was not saying that our credibility in general is shredded. I'd like to say that we still have some credibility with Catholic people and maybe in some other quarters as well. But we do have a credibility issue, there's no question about that.
On the other hand, I think we have made considerable progress. There's a recent Pew study that suggests we've made some progress in not only creating a safe environment for young people and dealing effectively with incidents of abuse, but in terms of our credibility.
But we've got a long, long way to go. And I think that in addition to the usual spiritual assistance that we have to count on -- and that's very important, we do have to count on prayer and the Holy Spirit to help us -- but I think that diligent application of the charter is essential. That doesn't mean that there's going to be 100 percent perfection because we're still human beings.
And we have 190 dioceses in the United States. I can't help the fact that if there is a flaw in one place, that it's counted against one of us. I can't help that.
But we have to try to prevent that by doing the best we can. But I don't think we're ever going to get to a point where there are not going to be failures. No institution in the world, including the Catholic church, even with the divine assistance that we have, is going to be perfect.
That doesn't mean that we should excuse our mistakes or that we should not be held accountable for our mistakes. I think continuing to be firm about applying the norms of the charter is a very important step.
Is there anything that we didn't get to that you'd want to say about this issue?
Just to be clear, I don't think that there's much room for making excuses for failures. To acknowledge that there are going to be failures is simply dealing with the reality of life. But, at the same time, I want to be clear that I'm not trying to make excuses. And I do think that bishops, in this area of child abuse, have to expect a very high level of accountability.
Accountability from civil and church authorities?
Yes. But all things in proportion.
http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/us-bishops-point-man-sex-abuse-addresses-kansas-city-case
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)