Show Notes Ep. 56
Posted by Don McLenaghen on April 1, 2010
First things first, due technical difficulties, a “mimed” version of this episode was posted to iTunes and the CiTR pod-feed. We are currently employing a team of alien homeopaths to look into the problem. Our hopes are high but the outlook seems poor. Will update as info becomes available…Now for the Show Notes…
Women on birth control live longer than women not on it –> (original study)
School in Kamloops teaching creationism
Anne Coulter, and free speech
Melany Fulgham on SkeptiCamp
You were the primary organizer for SkeptiCamp, is it true what they say about skeptics and cats?
Tell us, what makes SkeptiCamp different from other conferences?
SkeptiCamp occurred on the 20th, after having some time to digest it all, how do you think it went?
What was your favorite talk?
What’s next for SkeptiCamp?
Can you give us any hints about topics or presentations for SkeptiCamp in October?
What can people who want to help do? Volunteering? Promotion?
And how can those interested people get in touch with SkeptiCamp?
Thanks to all those who helped make SkeptiCamp a success
Is the Pope a criminal?
Is the Pope protecting sexual predators?
New York Times article about the Pope apologizing for abuse in Ireland but no consquences for the abusers
Four Irish Catholic Archbishops ignored childhood sexual abuse from 1975 to 2004. Report from Irish authorities:
One priest admitted to sexually abusing over 100 children, while another accepted that he had abused on a fortnightly basis throughout his 25-year ministry.
The Commission examined complaints in respect of over 320 children against 46 priests. Substantially more of the complaints relate to boys – the ratio is 2.3 boys to one girl.
Of the 46 priests examined, 11 pleaded guilty to or were convicted in the criminal courts of sexual assaults on children.
There was one clear case of a false accusation of child sexual abuse.
The report found Dublin Archdiocese’s pre-occupations in dealing with cases of child sexual abuse, at least until the mid 1990s, were the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the Church, and the preservation of its assets. All other considerations, including the welfare of children and justice for victims, were subordinated to these priorities.
All the Archbishops of Dublin in the period covered by the Commission were aware of some complaints.
The Church authorities failed to implement most of their own canon law rules on dealing with clerical child sexual abuse. This was in spite of the fact that a number of them were qualified canon and civil lawyers.
A mother who contacted the Archdiocese to report that her daughter had been abused as a child was told that the daughter would have to make the complaint. When the mother made it clear that the daughter was unlikely to be able to make such a complaint, she was not even asked for the name of the priest.
A number of very senior members of the Irish police regarded priests as being outside their remit. There are some examples of them actually reporting complaints to the Archdiocese instead of investigating them.
The Church did not start to report complaints of child sexual abuse to the Irish police until late 1995
Cardinal Sean Brady (who is the head of the Irish Catholic Church) over saw the initial cover up of the abuse and protected child molesters in 1975. He offered to resign if the Pope requested him to, the Pope has since not requested.
Bishop John Magee (who was under the authority of Cardinal Brady) has resigned over his failure to stop child sexual abuse in his Diocese. However Cardinal Brady stresses that ‘he wanted to acknowledge Bishop Magee’s “long and varied ministry”.’ and “I assure him of my prayers at this time and wish him good health in his retirement,” I guess he feels prayer is better than criminal charges for his years of looking the other while children were raped.
When the Pope apologized to Ireland (and Ireland alone) he did not request Cardinal Brady to resign, nor did mention any punishment for the priests who covered or committed sexual assault.
Many are confused to why these rapists were not reported to local civic authorities. However, before Benedict was Pope, 2001 a directive by Benedict, then a cardinal, reiterating a strict requirement for secrecy in handling abuse cases. The directive also gave the authority for handling such cases to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; Benedict was prefect of the congregation from 1982 until becoming pope in 2005.
Accusations that the Pope directly covered up childhood abuse by priests in America:
There is a new lawsuit being brought against the Vatican in America in which a priest Lawrence C. Murphy, allegedly abused 200 deaf children.
In 1996, Cardinal Ratzinger (the Pope) failed to respond to two lettersfrom archbishop of Milwaukee, Rembert G. Weakland, eventually they decided to start their own secret canonical trial but Cardinal Ratzinger (the Pope) stopped the trial because Lawrence C. Murphy (the accused) wrote him a letter saying that he had repented and was old and “I simply want to live out the time that I have left in the dignity of my priesthood,”
In 1993, with complaints about Father Murphy landing on his desk, Archbishop Weakland hired a social worker specializing in treating sexual offenders to evaluate him. After four days of interviews, the social worker said that Father Murphy had admitted his acts, had probably molested about 200 boys and felt no remorse.
New York Times article indicating Benedict was directly responsible for protecting a pedophile priest:
A memo has come to light that shows back when the Pope was bishop of Munich he was informed that a Priest, Peter Hullermann, he had sent to therapy in 1980 to overcome pedophilia, would be reassigned to a new to another parish. That priest was later convicted of molesting boys in that parish.
A statement from the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising placed full responsibility for the decision to allow the priest to resume his duties on Cardinal Ratzinger’s deputy, the Rev. Gerhard Gruber. However the memo clearly shows that the future pope not only led a meeting on Jan. 15, 1980, approving the transfer of the priest, but was also kept informed about the priest’s reassignment.
Cardinal Ratzinger was later appointed to a position of handling abuse accusations for the Vatican and was in a position to have the priest prosecuted for his crimes, or at least, isolated from harming other children.
The German Archdiocese has acknowledged that “bad mistakes” were made in the handling of Father Hullermann, though it attributed those mistakes to people reporting to Cardinal Ratzinger rather than to the cardinal himself.
The weeks of December 1979 to February 1980 have come under close scruitny because in that time period Hullermann was disgraced and suspended and then allowed to continue without restriction in Munich.
In September 1979: he was removed from his congregation after three sets of parents claimed he molested their children. He did not deny the charges.
Dec. 20, 1979: Munich’s personnel chief, Father Fahr allegedly recieved phone call from the Essen Diocese requesting Hullermann’s transfer to Munich to see a psychiatrist there.
On Jan. 9 1980: Fahr prepared a summary of the situation for top officials at the diocese, saying that Hullermann needed “medical-psychotherapeutic treatment in Munich” and a place to live with “an understanding colleague.”
Jan. 15, 1980: Cardinal Ratzinger presided that morning over the meeting of the diocesan council. The request for Hullermann was approved.
Jan. 20 1980: Cardinal Ratzinger’s office received a copy of the memo from his vicar general, returning Hullermann to full duties, Hullermann resumed parish work practically on arrival in Munich, on Feb. 1, 1980. He was convicted in 1986 of molesting boys at another Bavarian parish.
What others think:
PZ Myers thoughts (older post)
Rebecca Watson (adult language)