**********The City of Angels is Everywhere*********

At age five, 1954, "The Bishop" (Card. Stritch) stood over me and said, "Stop babbling about what Father Horne did to you." It took me 40 years to talk about it again. Now, I babble. - ke
In 2009 our ongoing coverage of the pedophile epidemic in the Catholic Church will be at http://cityofangels5.blogspot.com/ .

Read more stories by Kay Ebeling, LA city buzz Examiner at http://www.examiner.com/x-1960-LA-City-Buzz-Examiner

Friday, September 5, 2008

Pedophiles turned loose with no monitoring, one takes 2 boys out drinking while monitored. Blame someone else, Cardinal George says in deposition

*****
By Kay Ebeling


The Catholic Church laicizes pedophile priests, then effectively turns them loose on society without putting them on a law enforcement database, admits the Archbishop of Chicago. While pedophile priest Dan McCormack was under monitoring, he took two boys to an arcade-bar, another predator priest took a vacation with his monitor, with whom he also shares ownership of a resort condo. And are those age spots or freckles on Father Bennett’s scrotum? This and more you can read in the January 2008 deposition of the Archbishop of Chicago, posted at the archdiocese website, under "Misconduct."

Reading the Cardinal's answers, you see priests living in a culture where sex is a series of pathologies to be studied in seminars, all while trying to be celibate, and the only persons in their personal lives are other men and boys trying to be celibate. You almost start to feel sorry for the guy, so cut off from the world he couldn't see a pedophile epidemic in his own environs - wait a minute.

Priests may be cut off from normal lives, but rape of a child is never okay no matter how you look at it. It seems Catholic hierarchy live by their own set of laws, somewhere way above our petty little human laws. So an Oblate of Mary Immaculate can take an oath on a Bible, then look you in the eyes and tell you a pack of lies.

In the Cardinal’s deposition, excerpted and scruitinized at length below, George answers in a series of passive construction phrases. Guilty parties use passive construction phrases when they are forced to answer questions. It is a way to state guilt, without actually admitting it was you. In Cardinal George’s answers you continuously read phrases like:

“That had been done.”
“It had been handled”


Look closely. There’s no subject, no identification of who actually did it, just “it had been done, it was done."

Very slippery

While Cardinal George was a high head honcho with the Oblates in Rome, three Oblates in America acted out as pedophiles. Even when he returned to the US in the early eighties, George did nothing to inform parishioners about those three priests.

The Civil authorities took care of it. It had been handled.

As a Bishop in Yakima Washington, George knew about the 1985 report by Tom Doyle to American bishops:

CARDINAL: “It was referred to, it was tangential to the discussion as I recall.”

Re: The 1962 Crimen solicitaciones document:

CARDINAL: “I was a seminarian in 1962 and in moral theology class, that was a document that was given us when we discussed the sacrament of penance.”

“(Solicitation) is a sin and a crime that is reserved to the Holy See. The protocol would demand that the Holy see review the case, saving the seal of the sacrament which is a very sacred confidentiality privilege in our sacramental system.

This “confidentiality” that is a “privilege” of their “sacraments” is often a way to cover up crimes.

Of course the best way for law enforcement to get to that information is:

We need a Whistle Blower.

Try this:

****************
Dear Catholic Priests of America,


Do you want to go down in Christian history? Do you feel you get no respect as a priest because of all the pedophiles?

Try being a whistle blower.

Are you a Catholic priest not getting the respect you deserve?

Consider blowing the whistle. Sure it will be difficult, and you may have to give up that great guaranteed income for life,

BUT

The way your church hides criminal activity by calling it part of a sacrament, it’s time to call law enforcement. There is no one in a better position to bring a close to this crisis, than you, Father (insert name).

Or contact a journalist to release the true story

Remember Good Priests Blow the Whistle, not little boys


My email address is cityofangelslady@yahoo.com

I’ll keep your identity a secret.

Blow the whistle through City of Angels Network.

*****************
Back to deposition of the Cardinal:


“. . . a very sacred confidentiality privilege in our sacramental system.”

(In his testimony the Cardinal Confirmed:)

There is a place where evidence is kept secret and that when Crimen Solicitaciones came out in 1962:

“What was new was that they had to tell someone to be sure the crime never was repeated again, even though it was within the seal.”

(ME: “Within the seal” - That is a euphemism for evidence of sex crimes on children by priests be put in a hiding place.)

CARD: For the first time, it required him to make the report (to the Pope)

AND: And it required that the report be secret at all times?

(LONG paragraph of Church Attorney’s objections, then:)

CARD: It’s required to disclose (the sex crime) for the first time…to those who have responsibility for the sacrament of the Church, namely to the Holy see.

AND: And only them, correct?

CARD: That's correct. .

(RE: Monitoring of accused priests that went on during the time Bennett and McCormack were serial raping children in the archdiocese.)

ANDERSON: Do you agree with the finding of Childers that there was a gross deficiency in the monitoring of priests by the Archdiocese.

CARDINAL: It was inadequate if you're talking about supervising convicted criminals. . .

ANDERSON: What do you mean?

CARD: People who - whom the state has found guilty, that's his standard. And a priest’s supposed police power. That's where the discrepancy is found.

PAGE 47
RIDICULOUS CLAIMS


ANDERSON: You know enough about this topic (pedophilia) now to know that once a cleric or an adult offends a child one time, that they’re at risk for reoffending?

WITNESS: I think in the studies that I read after 2002 I came to that conclusion for the first time. I realized the recidivism rate was unacceptable to take a chance.

ME: HE DIDN'T KNOW THIS UNTIL 2002?

If that answer is true it shows priests need to be released from their cloisters NOW before more sex crimes are committed. How could anyone have their head so deep in the ground to not know about pedophilia until 2002????

No. He’s not that na├»ve.

He Must Be Lying.

P. 69

CARDINAL: The Defenbaugh report showed how information that was available was not shared

(PASSIVE CONSTRUCTION ALERT:
“Information that was available was not shared.”
Then
“judgments were made based on information available.”)


(I think the following is the part the Cardinal wanted the Public to read when he released his deposition.)

CARD: . . . and, therefore, the judgments were made on the information available. It was not adequate and a boy was abused and this is - this is something that I have to live with because it’s a terrible crime and it was on my watch.

But

I acted on the information that was given to me.

(It takes Jeff Anderson a whole page of transcript to recover and then)

ANDERSON: If I'm hearing you correctly, you're testifying that the recidivism rate and the risk an offender who’s offended once poses to reoffend-- the rate and risk of recidivism really came to you for the first time post-2002? Is that what you're saying?

CARDINAL: I think that's true, Yes, I think that's true.

ANDERSON: Is it your position that those 33 priests who have been credibly accused and removed from ministry after 1997 have all stopped abusing?

CHURCH ATTORNEY (Mr. Klenk): Objection

More discussion then:

CARDINAL: We have no supervision of laicized priests. Some are in nursing homes, but I guess yes, (they are not supervised after being laicized.)

(ME: So Chicago has been laicizing priests with credible accusations against them and just turning them loose on the society. Cardinal George just admitted it.)

More from the Cardinal George’s January 2008 deposition:

Q: And you assumed that because the police released (Daniel McCormack) from custody that he was thus not guilty?

A: Well they also didn't charge him and I did assume that, sir.

Q: Father Rassas the Vicar General was promoted to Auxiliary Bishop following this failure?

A: That is a Roman appointment, not mine.

Q: You're the one that ultimately appointed McCormack, right?

CARD: That's correct. I didn't see this (exhibit).

ANDERSON: And it’s not because it wasn’t available to you, but it’s because you didn't look or ask. Correct?

CARDINAL: The information wasn’t given to me.

(ME: Passive Construction alert: “The information wasn’t given to me.”)

Q: Rassas didn't tell you?

A: No he did not tell me that.

Q: So McCormack was made dean by you?

A: Yes, I appoint deans.

Q: Who told you that McCormack was innocent?

CARDINAL: The police let him go, sir. He was innocent as far as they were concerned. . . his release to me meant the police couldn't charge him and they had reason to believe he was not a danger to children.

ANDERSON: You've never really believed in the zero tolerance policy, have you?

CARDINAL: I beg your pardon sir, but that's entire inaccurate.

ANDERSON: McCormack wasn’t even released so much as allowed to go home, but police told McCormack to come back next day, it says in a memo in the file of Ed Grace. August 30, 2005.

(Anderon picks up an exhibit, a memo from Father Grace that was in McCormack’s file, and reads it to Cardinal George. )

ANDERSON: “It states I was called at Queen of All Saints rectory by Reverend McCormack. He informed me that he was being questioned by police at the local police station, concerning an allegation made against him by the mother of a ten year old boy.

“He put the detective on the phone to explain the circumstances to me,” correct?

CARDINAL: Yes.

ANDERSON: It goes on to say in the last sentence of the next paragraph, Father McCormack succeeded in lowering the boy’s pants and fondling -- fondled his genitalia. That's what it stated, doesn't it?

CARDINAL: Yes.

ANDERSON: It goes on to state in the next sentence, Detective found the boy’s story credible.

ANDERSON: “The next sentence says I then spoke with Dan again and advised him not to discuss the matter further with police.

ANDERSON, CONT’D: So as I read this and as I just read it to you, Father Grace, your Vicar for Priests, is telling Dan McCormack, Don’t talk to the police, don’t tell them that you've abused other kids. don’t tell them anything.

ANDERSON: Is that something that you approve of?

CARDINAL: No. that's not part of his--

ANDERSON: It looks to me, Cardinal, like Father Grace is trying to keep McCormack’s arrest secret and avoid scandal. Does it look that way to you?

CARDINAL GEORGE: It’s a public arrest sir. It’s not a secret.

ANDERSON: But right now the only ones that know are Father Grace, father Dan, and the police, right?

FRANCES GEORGE: At this point, yes.

ANDERSON: So the parishioners and the community of faith don’t know?

(Anderson points out that George must have known that McCormack got an attorney because the archdiocese paid for it, right?)

CARDINAL: We pay for a lawyer until there is a conviction or an arrest.

====

Here I go on a tangent:

The way the church responded, paying for the lawyers, keeping the charges quiet: You don’t think pedophiles all over America didn't see that?

And some of them decided to become Catholic priests when they saw that the hierarchy protects the pedophiles in their midst and covers the crimes?

This is MORE PROOF that the Catholic Church is responsible for the epidemic of child sex crimes in America today BECAUSE it empowered pedophiles, the coddling and protecting its criminal priest. Me: it’s time for the church to be forthcoming about the true extent of the crimes.

DEPOSITION CONTINUED:

CARDINAL: I didn't see this memo until after the second arrest.

(Like that's an alibi? Like if you're not paying attention and you're in charge, you're not guilty? )

(Anderson then points out the Vicar for Priests Father Grace asked Father McCormack to tell him everything he said to the police.)

ANDERSON: Now I read this to be Grace asking McCormack to tell him what he had told the police. Now let me put it to you this way. Why is “he said NOTHING ELSE” to the police and the “NOTHING ELSE” is in caps.

CARDINAL: I don't know why it’s in all caps. Maybe Father Grace’s training as a defense attorney was instrumental in his reacting this way

(There were multiple detectives who interviewed McCormack and they interviewed the child, and everyone believed the allegations. )

ANDERSON: Is that the way you read this, Cardinal?

FRANCES GEORGE: I read this a couple of weeks ago. I deeply regret that the police did not keep Dan in custody.

ANDERSON: Did you read this a couple of weeks ago for the first time in prepping for this deposition?

FRANCES GEORGE: It was one of the documents given to me, yes.

ANDERSON: That was the first time you've seen this in, in preparation for this today?

GEORGE: As far as I can recall. . . . . .

(George says his staff, all of them, working together hard, were unable to find evidence against McCormack.)

GEORGE: I kept asking whether or not we could pursue this case and do the investigation. Each time I was told they're still trying to get the allegation together, in the form to be tried by the Review Board.

(Anderson then trips up the Cardinal asking how accused priest Rickard L. Bennett could have stayed in ministry with all the allegations, INCLUDING ones gives to the Review Board

Frances George claimed he knew nothing about the McCormack charges, even after the Review Board was reviewing them?

It turns out Father Bennett was coaching a basketball team right up until:

ANDERSON: Until yesterday. He was coaching while under these so -called restrictions and monitoring?

GEORGE: Yes that's right.

ANDERSON: The last sentence of this says it was reported to Fr. Fitzgerald that Father McCormack took the boys to Dave and Busters. That's a bar, isn’t it? Okay, well it’s an arcade, restaurant, and bar. Then McCormack returned the boys home at the end of the day.

GEORGE: That's what it says.

ANDERSON: So just to get this right. He’s under restriction while he’s alleged to have been doing this. This is while he’s under monitoring?

GEORGE: That's correct.

(J’ACCUSE! page 145)

ANDERSON: Cardinal, it sounds to me like you're more concerned about the rights of the accused priests than you are the rights and the safety of the children out there. What do you say to that?

CARDINAL: I say you’re mistaken, sir. It is the protection of the children that is always primary but within a process that presupposes some fairness. . . . . .

(Blah-blah-blah blah-blah-blah blah-blah-blah blah-blah-blah)

PAGE 149 BACK FROM BREAK, BEGINNING OF VIDEO 4

Cardinal: How would the police let someone go that they thought was a threat?

ANDERSON: Because Father Grace urged them to let him go. That's why they let him go. Father Grace said please let him come back tomorrow.

(ME: AND ARRANGED FOR HIS DEFENSE ATTORNEYS)

CHURCH ATTORNEY KLENK: Objection. We don’t need to have an argument here with the witness.

(PASSIVE CONSTRUCTION ALERT:

CARDINAL: “I don't recall ever having got that information given to me”)


(Summary: In truth the documents he claims he never saw was sent from Leah McCluskey to Bishop Paprocki, and Fathers Akczorowski, Bonaccorsi, Legges, and O’Malley and Cardinal George is on the distribution list)

(Summary: Father Dubi was monitoring Bennett. They took a trip to Mexico together while Dubi was monitoring Bennett. In fact Dubi and Bennett own property together. The Card thought Dubi was the perfect monitor for Bennett because they were such good friends.)

ME: Okay, read the next one and tell me if it doesn't sound like the Cardinal is making up stories here:

(The Cardinal Interrupts as he suddenly thinks up answer to previous question)

CARDINAL: You raised a very good question, have I ever gone back to the Review Board once they had decided there is no reasonable cause. . . I did that at least once that I can recall, when the accuser came forward and explained. It was Review Board, the one we have now that had made that finding, that there was no reasonable cause, but that she (the victim) wanted to reopen her case. I asked the Board to open the case again.

ANDERSON: Who was that? What priest?

CARDINAL: It was against Father Bennett -- No it was not. Again, these cases some years back, it was another priest?

A: Who was it?

CARDINAL: I can’t recall his last name. His first name is John.

(ME: okay wait a minute. With months of preparation for this deposition with his posh suite attorneys, the Cardinal only now while under oath suddenly remember an incident critical to the case. It’s a lie, bare faced and given probably looking straight into Anderson’s eyes. That's what these guys do. Lying under oath is not as bad as besmirching the reputation of the church. Because Church hierarchy think they are above the laws of man)

MORE DEPOSITION OF CARDINAL GEORGE

(Here’s a throwaway line that gave me the total creeps - it’s about pedophile priest Richard L. Bennett being put back into a parish after lots of allegations)

ANDERSON: Are you aware that at that time Bennett was the only priests in that parish?

CARDINAL: I believe he was - He may have had a resident living with him but I'm not sure

(ME: A resident living with him????)

p. 176;


CARD: I'm sorry, I'm a little confused. Which allegations are we talking about here.

(ME: There are so many accusations against pedophile priests he can’t keep them straight.)

(For details on Father Richard Bennett’s spots on his scrotum go to around page 197 to 199 or so, I'm not running them here, but it’s all in detail there, the attorneys debate: are they age spots or freckles. That's the level of respect to which the Catholic Church has taken the courts.)

Page 218

ANDERSON: Cardinal, you just said we just need one report to take action, didn't you?

CARDINAL: Yes

AND: Well, think back to those two women that were the original victims -- doesn't it seem at this point in time that you had a duty. . .?

CARD: I think we should revisit that, yes.

(ME: That's how you respond when your own negligence caused several more kids to be raped? You should “revisit” it?)

P. 219

I don't recall. . .

ANDERSON: But this is alarming information, isn’t it?

CARD: Oh it, it, it --

KLENK: Objection to the form of question.

CARD: Well it, it, it, it creates an atmosphere of sexual misconduct surrounding a name.

(ME: HUH?)

AND: Do you know anything more about this than what is reflected in the letter?

CARD: I --

KLENK: Objection

CARD: I don't and the document doesn't know anything about it either. . .

AND: Well when you saw it, what were you going to do about it?

CARD: It was given, I'm sure, to Leah McCluskey

(PASSIVE CONSTRUCTION ALERT: "It was given")

AND: Then what does the Archdiocese do about the allegations?

CARD: If someone unknown previously comes forward with a date for the alleged abuse which is still unknown and that someone is willing to say that he or she was a minor when the abuse took place, we have a case --

(ME: AGAIN HUH?????)

ANDERSON: Look at 94. There are 11 allegations against Bennett now.

ANDERSON (reading): “PRA Provided Ms. B with Dr. Michael Bland’s name and contact information” That's victim 12?

*******************8
ANDERSON: There are as many as a dozen allegations against Richard L. Bennett

(Anderson only got the documents about them the week before deposition.)

p. 228

ANDERSON: I am absolutely shocked to get this information just this week that there are as many as a dozen allegations against Bennett? It came to me as a complete surprise and I'm tracking everything you are doing on this investigation.

Q: How can you claim that people know all the allegations against Bennett?

CARDINAL: Well, Mr. Anderson, you learn, don’t you, sir, of allegations when accusers come to you and ask to be defended. That's what the archdiocese addresses did in each of these cases with the help of a lawyer. Or the Assistance Ministry outreaches to them. Bennett is out of ministry permanently.

ANDERSON: But people out there believe there was only one allegation. I was led to believe the archdiocese thought there was only one allegation until this week, Cardinal.

CARDINAL: Well the people who are writing in know there are more allegations, and then that all goes into the newspapers, sir.

ANDERSON: How many do you believe he abused?

CARD: I share the Review Board’s convictions. The ones that the Review Board has found reasonable cause to suspect, I'm sure of those.

THE AGREEMENT TO RELEASE THIS DEPOSITION:

ANDERSON: Cardinal, isn’t it time for you to make the information you just shared here on the record known to the public?

CARD: I think the information is public, sir. His name is on the list in the newspapers.

ANDERSON: His removal, according to Dwyer was based on one allegation. The public doesn't know that there are at least a dozen allegations against Bennett.

ON PAGE 232 THE CARDINAL SAYS:

“CARDINAL: I agree we should go back and check again in the two cases where the Review board prior found there was no reasonable cause to suspect.”

(ME: BETTER NO, GO BACK AND RE-CHECK ALL TWELVE ALLEGATIONS.)

ANDERSON: I‘m asking you for a further public dissemination of this information presented here today for the first time. Will you consider that?

CARD: Of course I’ll consider anything we can do to make sure more victims come forward and know that they are not alone.

AND: How many allegations did you know of on July 14, 2008, when you wrote this letter?

CARDINAL: What I had in mind was Jane Doe One, that was what his letter was about. I am trying to respond to that.

(DOESN'T MENTION THE OTHER ELEVEN OR SO ALLEGATIONS IN HIS LETTER)

ANDERSON: But here you write he’ll be returned to ministry unless there are other charges.
Excuse me? Unless there are other charges? Aren’t you implying here that there are no other charges against Bennett?

CARD: No. I can’t tell people about other victims. I can’t divulge that kind of information.

(ME: They always try to make themselves look like they take all their actions with prayer and guidance from some power up above, when all they're doing is obstructing justice.)

ANDERSON: You could tell him in the letter that there are multiple allegations against Father Bennett, couldn't you?

CARDINAL: I did tell him that (there were multiple allegations) by saying “unless there are other charges to be investigated.”

ANDERSON: Uh, no. That tells him there are no other allegations.

CARDINAL: No, but that's enough to tell him that just because he’s concerned about one case doesn't mean it’s the only case. That's what I meant to say.

(ME: Double flip flop backwards total balderash logic. The above answer from the Cardinal makes absolutely no sense at all, it just fills up paper in the Answer section of the deposition transcript.)

******
Page 239

(TALK ABOUT TRYING TO MAKE THEMSELVES LOOK GOOD, READ THIS:)

(The Cardinal is explaining why he doesn't tell victims there are other victims and other allegations against the same priest):

ANDERSON: You go on to say (in July 2006 letter) “Of course I hope Father Bennett is innocent, who would not.”

CARDINAL: I hope all the charges are not true, because true charges mean that somebody has been abused. That's a terrible, terrible development in someone’s life.

(ME: Oh thanks, Card, for all your compassion for the victims.)

CARDINAL: You always hope that the allegation isn’t quite what the accuser says it is.

ANDERSON; Why didn't you tell this writer that there were multiple allegations? Why didn't you do that?

(The Cardinal calls the victims. “The accusers.”

ANDERSON: You call them accusers like this is unsubstantiated, don’t you?

CARDINAL: It’s the word he used in his letter to me.

(I'm AT PAGE 242 when I realize this cultural connection:

"I am shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!" --Renault. Casablanca, 1942)


*******
ANOTHER CARDINAL EXCUSE:

(p. 246 the Cardinal knew pedophile priest Norbert J. Maday was a perpetrator in 2000 and did not laicize the priest until late 2007.

ANDERSON: Do you know how many allegations of sex abuse have been recorded against Maday?

CARD: I don't know the number.

ANDERSON: My staff has counted between 35 and 45. Does that come as a shock or news to you?

CARD: I didn't know it was that high but I knew there were a good number. . .

CARDINAL: I consider Maday a danger to children and I made that case to the State to keep him in custody to protect children.

ANDERSON: Cardinal, the attorney for the State of Wisconsin who is trying to commit Maday reported to me that you and your office refuse to provide information they need to civilly commit him.

KLENK: Objection

ANDERSON: Those who are trying to commit Maday say that you are refusing to cooperate.

KLENK; Objection.

CARDINAL: It’s news to me. I wrote a letter, maybe two.

ANDERSON: They were trying to get files and allegations regarding Maday so they could commit him as a predator sexual offender after his release. They told me your office would not give them the files, they had to get them from me. Do you know anything about that?

CARDINAL: No, I don't. I wrote two letters, I believe.

(Maday is the priest convict who was able to do a mass for his family members, discussion on this is around P. 248)

ANOTHER EXCUSE FROM THE CARDINAL:

ANDERSON: So the benefit to Maday of doing the Oshkosh program would likely be early release.

CARD: This was 1997 before we knew more. We wanted him to recognize the evil that he had done, the abuse of children which he could not do. His only chance was to appeal for an early release. Early release meant keep him in treatment.

ANDERSON: Okay.

CARDINAL: Early release is the carrot that is dangled in front of him to keep the hope of early release there. . .

p. 253 bottom

ANDERSON: Maday is being paid by the Archdiocese while he’s in prison, is that right?

CARDINAL: He gets a small stipend, as long as he is a priest. . .

(And as for the letter suggesting Maday be released to the Chicago Archdiocese for monitoring)

CARDINAL: We wouldn't write a letter like this today.

(ME: The rest of the world knew about pedophilia by 1999 so if Cardinals and Bishops were this out of touch, it’s the church’s liability entirely-- all the way at the top.)

******
THE CARDINAL SOUNDS A LITTLE WORN DOWN BY P. 260

ANDERSON: You were suggesting that Maday contact the archdiocese of Green Bay because there had been public criticism of the Archdiocese of Chicago for attempting to influence his incarceration?

CARDINAL: Uh-huh.

AND: Is that right?

CARD: That was -- was told me. I wasn’t aware of that.

P. 261

ANDERSON: (READS) It’s important for Bishop Mycielo (Green Bay) to intercede with the governor in his own name and not merely convey the message of the Chicago Archdiocese. We feel this is important because the media (will) take on the Story that Chicago was attempting to influence the way things are done in Wisconsin.

ANDERSON: Did you ever let anybody know you were working for the early release of Maday?

CARDINAL: It never came up.

ANDERSON: And the last paragraph, from 2003 (reads) an allegation that he had fondled genitals and gave minors alcohol and pot and that he was in bed with somebody at a hotel? The Review Board voted unanimously that there was reasonable cause to suspect misconduct occurred.

Q: Did you follow their recommendation?

CARDINAL: The list of those who would be laicized was being assembled. . . in 2003 we were beginning to get the cases together.

AND: So it took four years until late 2007.

CARD: Well for a man in prison and therefore no danger to anyone - It took too long probably but he’s laicized now

(ME: oh well not my problem anymore.)

ANDERSON: Well if you’d been successful in his early release, he would have been a danger to these kids?

CARD: Yes.

KLENK: Objection.

********
MORE CARDINAL EXCUSES:
P. 272-274


ANDERSON: There was nothing keeping you from removing McCormack, was there?

CARDINAL: Except you can remove from ministry an offending priest, not an accused priest.

AND: You have to remove a priest from ministry who poses a risk to children, don’t you?

CARD: Within -- within the rules that govern my conduct.

(ME: Again claiming to live by an elusive esoteric set of laws that apply only to the bishops on up and don’t have anything to do with the rest of us, even if by living by their esoteric laws, horrible crimes are committed in their communities - by them. )

ANDERSON: Is there a code of secrecy among the clerics?

CARD: No.

AND: Then why, Cardinal, did you not until recently make known the names of offenders in the Chicago Archdiocese?

CARD: When they were removed from ministry they were made known.

ANDERSON: I'm saying before 2002? Between 1997 and 2002 can you name one instance where the parishioners were told why the priest was removed?

CARD: Well I don't know right now that I can recall any such removals.

(In case you got lost, the above answer reveals this logic:

We announce the names when we remove them,
but since we did not remove that one,
we did not announce his name.)


ANDERSON: Isn’t it true that up until the January 31, 2006 lawsuit we filed, the names weren’t made public? ANDERSON: Is it your testimony that the names of offender priests were posted on the Archdiocese website?

(ME: CHECK out this slick slippery use of the tongue. For shame, Cardinal:)

CARDINAL: Well, all the names of all priests in the Archdiocese were on the website, and anyone could write and ask for a complete file of the priest’s history and then they would know if there was an allegation.

(ME: Did you catch that? If you took time to read the files of every priest in the Archdiocese you could see which ones have allegations in their files. That is how the Archdiocese made the perpetrator names public.)

AND: What prevented you, as Cardinal Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Chicago, from making those names public until 2006?

CARD: They were public, sir.

AND: I'm talking about a list by the Archdiocese.

CARDINAL: The process wasn’t perfect, reasonable cause to suspect is a very, very low threshold and, therefore, it wasn’t perhaps fair --

(ME: FAIR!??@!@ These priests gave up their right to fair a few felonies back)

p. 290

AND: What does the archdiocese of Chicago do to care for victims of priest sex abuse?

CARD: When an allegation is made, even before we know there’s reasonable cause to suspect, the VAM is encouraged to reach out and offer spiritual help, counseling.

(ME: You think I can give Catholic professionals any credibility or trust when it comes to spiritual counseling? What an affront, an selfish offering that does not consider the victim or what they really need.)

CARD: (Cont’d): Part of that help of course is monetary settlements-

(ME: Not unless you go through legal hoops and spend years fighting church attorneys)

CARD: My conversations with them I think have been helpful.

*******
Another Side trip
The Victims Deserve the Same Consideration as the Perpetrators:

Okay, for decades the pedophile priests got long term inpatient treatment with almost luxurious surroundings. Not to mention the church provides them with defense attorneys, and advocates for them with parole officers.

Where is the recovery center slash spa for the crime victims?

******


The Cardinal seems to get it for about one minute

CARDINAL: (re helping victims) It always stays with them, even when they seem to be in control of their life. If you touch a certain button, it’s as if it happened yesterday for many of them.

(So, Where is the treatment center for victims?)

ANDERSON: Why did you ask Defenbaugh and Associates to look at the archdiocese and make a report?

CARD: So we could know what went wrong with the McCormack case.

AND: Does this report recommend any changes?

CARD: Judgments have been made to look at our policies and make changes in the way we treat cases.

(PASSIVE CONSTRUCTION ALERT:
“Judgments have been made to look at our policies.”
Who? Where? What When?)


*****
(RE A LETTER ABOUT MCCORMACK)

ANDERSON: Was this letter sent to you?

CARDINAL: No it was not. Not it was not. This is very painful.

AND: Was this letter sent to the office of the Archdiocese of Chicago?

CARD: No it was not.

AND: Had you received this letter what would you have done?

CARD: Had I known that DCFS was investigating that would have been reason to remove father McCormack from ministry. Had I received this, that would have been the samae as the Review Baoard and he would have been out, And that's why I find it very painful to know that we were not surprised of that information.

(Over soap opera music) If I had only seen this.

Isn’t he in charge of the archdiocese?
Not seeing letters is no excuse.)


ANDERSON: Why is that? Why do you find it painful.

CARD: Because children were abused after this date when DCFS knew --

(ME: What? All of a sudden you care about children? A little too little too late, if you ask this Chicago survivor. No matter how many tears of pain are cried by how high a hierarch in this meaningless hierarchy. )

It continues:

ANDERSON: But you knew they had arrested McCormack, didn't you? You knew that didn't you?

CARD: No I did not.

AND: You didn't know they had arrested him?

CARD: No.

AND: What do you call what they did with McCormack?

CARD: They released him. That was - they had terminated their investigation I thought.

(They claim to run by their own set of rules. Yet they say if a district attorney releases a suspect , the suspect is totally innocent. They only go along with our laws when it is convenient.

This isn’t Catch 22 it’s Catch 44

We're bishops, we answer to a higher power. But if the cops arrest our pedophile priest and then send him home, he must not be guilty, as when it is convenient we bow to the civil law authority. )

******

(Do not take a sip of coffee before reading this line or you’ll spit it out bursting out laughingJ

ANDERSON: The Defenbaugh report was done at your request under intense public pressure:

CARDINAL: We wanted to know what went wrong. A system that had worked that had been effective in protecting children, suddenly didn't work.

ANDERSON: Why don’t you make this stuff public?

CARDINAL: What stuff?

AND: The exhibits we reviewed here today. Why haven’t these files been made known to the public?

CARD: The question is to take incidents that involve minor children and publish them as stories?

AND: Are you done with the answer?

CARD: The victims themselves would not want to see their stories paraded in public, I think.

AND: The information we've shared with you today is not accessible to victims, as to what the archdiocese knew and when they knew it.

CARDINAL: We publicized the allegations as they came forward. We went to parishes where victims had lived.

(ME: Yeah right, kids now adults who were sodomized by priests behind the altar are really going to be attending church at the same parish ten or twenty years later.

THINK!!!)


******
(The deposition drawing to a close)

CARDINAL: Everyone concerned and I as well thought that Maday was a danger.

ANDERSON: So why did it take you four months to write the letter?

(The cardinal again blames his legal department and his vicar.)

ANDERSON: That's all I have. Thanks, Cardinal.

end of deposition

*************
POST NOTE:

The deposition begins: -

ANDERSON: This was delivered to us as we were preparing last night at 6:30 PM, Exhibit D, which the Archdiocese discloses to us for the first time, there are over 200 pages of documents, what they call supplementary production of materials, ranging from Becker to Bennett to Craig to Hagan and right down the list to page three. Again, it would be impossible to have reviewed on such short notice.

******
Weirdest thing, when the medial relations woman from Chicago archdiocese called me back to correct me and show that the deposition was not taken down, it just is no longer announced and linked on the front page. You go down the column under the Cardinal's picture, and at the bottom, click on "Misconduct."

As soon as the phone rang with her calling, things began to fly around my room. I answered, there was an awful interference noise when I picked up the phone, and as we said hello my laptop fell off its shelf to the desk, luckily didn't break.

Weirdest thing.

CUT THIS 'GRAPH, NOW PUTTING IT BACK IN: In a priest's culture sex is a series of pathologies to be studied in psychology seminars, all while trying to be celibate, and the only persons you interact with are other men and boys trying to be celibate. After reading the deposition of Francis Cardinal George that used to be posted on the Chicago Archdiocese website, it became clear to me that a sure cause of the pedophile epidemic in the Catholic Church is the way priests are cut off from the reality that they are human beings with human sexuality, like it or not. In order to maintain their celibacy while plagued with a sex drive, the priests end up grabbing vulnerable children, developing a private secret sex life by intimidating their sex targets, gullible children. Over and over again the way to solve this problem seems to be to let priests live a normal life, get married and have children, like every other human being on the planet. As long as priests continue to be cloistered away, they will never have normal sex lives. Any sexual activity they participate in has to be secret. So the doors are open for perversions.

Onward. . .

1 comment:

hrh said...

Thanks for the tremendous post. I, too, have noticed, and gotten furious, concerning the Bish Club's constant use of the passive voice to avoid resonsibility when under oath. I wish the attys would force them (making it an issue of clarity?) to speak in the declarative. An excellent way to hold their feet to the fire. (which these twisted creeps should be feeling for real soon enough!)


Kay