The explanation here is quite simple. 1) Bishops want to keep clergy sex crimes secret. 2) That means keeping victims trapped in shame, secrecy and self-blame. 3) One easy and effective way to do this: guilt. What better way to make other victims feel bad about coming forward than to make sure that the first post-LA settlement story is about nuns being made homeless?

Cardinal Roger Mahony's spokesman, Tod Tamberg, says "the pain is being spread around. We're losing our headquarters and none of the employees got a pay raise this year." It's been weeks now since the settlement, and we haven't read of a single other cut-back. Think about that.

Melinda asks "why begin on the backs of these servants of the poor—in full traditional habit, no less?" Because with each new lawsuit helping to expose more and more coverups by the hierarchy, any step that might deter even a single victim from speaking up is worth taking, from the bishops' point of view.

(By the way, another way to keep victims silence is through full scale, scortched earth legal hardball. Bishops do that too.)

"1) Bishops want to keep clergy sex crimes secret."

So Priests should no longer abide by the Privacy of the Confessional? What kind of sleeze ball are you? Why not get rid of Patient Client Privledge and Lawyer Client Privledge while at it!

"2) That means keeping victims trapped in shame, secrecy and self-blame."

They had a chance to go to the police. They failed to. The lack of Justice is on their hands, not the Catholic Church's.

"What better way to make other victims feel bad about coming forward"

By coming forward, you mean asking for money instead of pressing legal charges? Disgusting. They profited off of their alleged molestation. There is no proof that they even had anything done to them, as there was never even a legal trial over it to prove that a priest molsted them!

To the best of my knowledge (provide citations if you have contrary information), none of the lawsuits have as their claim of action, the assertion that the Church should have violated the sanctity of the confessional. I believe that in most cases, the victim or parents of the victim had contacted Church officials who then did nothing, or in some cases actively covered up the allegations.

Contacted the Chuch?

WHY NOT THE POLICE? HMM?

Are you stupid? The Church doesn't deal with mortal law. Who would contact the bloody church! Thats like saying I think you may have murdered someone and called up your work accusing you o being a murderer!

You are a damn fool and you should leave before you embarass yourself even more for putting forth such an idiotic idea.

Ummm, can someone tell this San dude that FB already has its own resident foaming-at-mouth lunatic?

If he's considering applying for position, we might have to require a wrestling bout to decide........

You mean to tell me that a Priest buttfucking a 13-year-old boy is not a matter for the church? I was under the impression that homosexual buttfucking was generally frowned upon by the Church. I thought I recalled you posting quite emphatically how the Church views all non-procreative sex.

Whether or not these victims should have gone to the police is another question, but it is not relevant. I imagine in many cases, the victims and their families did not want to harm the Church by a public charge -- hoping that speaking with the Church officials would result in appropriate action.

Or maybe you could finally kill yourself like every other whiney goth girl who believes cutting themselves for attention is "cool".

"You mean to tell me that a Priest buttfucking a 13-year-old boy is not a matter for the church?"

If there was proof then it would go to the Police.

Anything said to a Priest is inadmisable in a court of law.

You are an idiot.

"Anything said to a Priest is inadmisable in a court of law."

Could you please cite exactly WHERE in the code of law that run the country and states that it says that?

Well, it has in some cases, and the priests in question have gone to jail.

It is only communication in the confessional or similar situation that is protected. If I tell a priest that another priest is doing something wrong, that is not protected.

Because they have been brain washed into thinking that if they say anything against a priest that they damn themselves.

Statements made during confession are in fact admissable in court. It's just that priests cannot be compelled by the courts to reveal information they've received during confession, anymore than a person may be compelled to testify against their spouse. But just as is the case re spousal testimony prists can elect (and in fact have sometimes elected) to reveal information they've received in confession voluntarily.

"Could you please cite exactly WHERE in the code of law that run the country and states that it says that?"

Its the same as Doctor Patient Privilege and Lawyer Client Privilege.

People v. Phillips determined: It is essential to the free exercise of a religion, that its ordinances should be administered-that its ceremonies as well as its essentials should be protected. Secrecy is of the essence of penance. The sinner will not confess, nor will the priest receive his confession, if the veil of secrecy is removed: To decide that the minister shall promulgate what he receives in confession, is to declare that there shall be no penance...

Commonwealth v Drake stated that privilege information passed from priest to another member of the Church could not be used as evidence in Court.

<link>

Now, it could be challenged IF they went through the Police and pressed charges and IF the Church stood in the way of arrests. But that did not happen. THEY never went to the Police. THEY wanted money, like the sick bastards who sue Michael Jackson for money after letting him have hours alone with their children because they sold their children for the money.

" If I tell a priest that another priest is doing something wrong, that is not protected."

Not according to Commonwealth v Drake, which says EXACTLY THAT is inadmissable.

Thank you for talking out of your ass again.

Actually I believe priest/follower, lawyer/client and doctor/patient confidentiality privileges do have limits. For example: If a doctor/nurse observes injuries to an under-age patient that are consistant with abuse/rape they are legally required to report their findings to police and/or Child Protective Services. If a client admits to his lawyer that he is guilty of the offense with which he is charged the lawyer can no longer argue for his client's innocence in a court of law. Kind of like "The Freedom of Speech" in our constitution does not give one the right to yell "fire" and create panic in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire.

I also have a question for you. Are you a former priest? Or maybe a former alter-boy who did not get enough love and attention at home and therefore found the sexual advances your local priests made toward you something you enjoyed? I only ask because instead of addressing the warped sense of priorities displayed by the leaders of the church in their choice of properties to liquidate (which is what the article was about) you rail against the idea that some priests engaged in sexual activities with under-age people. No matter the cause of the church needing to raise cash, throwing three nuns out of where they live before exhausting most every other option to raise the cash is deplorable. Not surprising but deplorable none the less.