Tag Archives: TNCRRG

Innocent Fr Basil Hutsko attacked by the… bishops? and the Holy See?

And so it begins?

From the chancery of the Parma Eparchy: PRAYER REQUEST: Fr. Basil Hutsko was attacked and knocked unconscious this morning in the altar servers sacristy at his parish in Merrillville, Indiana after celebrating Liturgy. The attacker choked him and slammed his head to the ground. Fr. Basil lost consciousness. Before going unconscious Fr. Basil heard the attacker say, “This is for all the kids!” (reference to the clergy sex abuse coverage in the media.) All clergy are now targets and need to be vigilant. However it must also be clear that Fr. Hutsko was a random target. He is NOT guilty of any sex abuse. Fr. Hutsko is being examined in the hospital at this time.

No. This is not an occasion to say: “And so it begins.” This violence against priests has been going on ever since the U.S. Bishops and The National Catholic Risk Retention Group and their sycophants in the Holy See decided that the best way to go about things is to treat priests as guilty of abuse because they were ordained, so that an accusation is proof of guilt, so that that money can be paid to those who call those bishops heroes for being “tough” for not allowing due process.

There is little difference between Fr Basil Hutsko’s attacker not granting due process and the Bishops collectively not granting due process. The bishops provided the example, an example of claimed divine mandate. You know someone is going to take up the example.

But the bishops will get their comeuppance. Unfortunately, as all the guilty ones retire out, it will be the good ones who get punished just like Fr Basil Hutsko paid the price owed by this guilty counterparts. That’s what happened to Jesus. I suggest to the good ones, however, that they ought best do what is right before God, and grant due process.

Dear bishops: mercy is the provision of the justice of due process. It what Jesus wants. And this is all about Jesus, right? Right?

2 Comments

Filed under Abuse

USCCB! Be subject to Dallas Charter National Catholic Risk Retention Group

[[I got the following email from the Diocese and before that from the USCCB. To me this is a statement of hypocrisy. Until the bishops treat themselves the same way they treated and do now treat priests, I won’t for a second believe they are sincere. How did they treat priests, you know, with the Dallas Charter and The National Catholic Risk Retention Group? Here’s how:

An accusation comes in to an (arch)diocese about a priest. The priest is away anointing the sick at the hospital. He returns to find the rectory locked, all his things thrown out on the lawn with no explanation. No priest will talk to him. No bishop. It’s winter, and sleeting. He has no where to go. He’s innocent. But now even his own family will not talk to him. All friends have disappeared. At about six hours into the night under a bridge, he instead jumps off. Meanwhile, in those hours, the bishop has paid off a settlement, slitting the throat of the priest just in case he is still alive, and even if he isn’t. They say this isn’t proof of guilt, but that payment is used against him. At best he is out of the priesthood forever with no chance to defend himself, no due process, totally shamed. Maybe he will remember the beatitudes, but his seminary training was surely not about Jesus, just about CYA. At worst he has despaired. Bishops say that they are heroes for doing this, you know, because they saved thirty pieces of silver. Let’s see how nicely they treat themselves. They could have just said that the Dallas Charter and rules of The National Catholic Risk Retention Group applies to them as well (no lawyers, putting the accuser in charge, making instant settlement payments, holding priest to be guilty because they were ordained), but this is what the bishops avoided since the very beginning. Moreover, I wan’t to see the bishops place sanctions on themselves, like laicization, or if from the laity, another just penalty, if anyone says that homosexual abuse is actually pedophilia so as to protect the “legitimacy” of homosexuality. That covers just about all the laity in the media, and almost all bishops. The vast vast vast majority of cases were homosexual, not involving pedophilia. Anyway, here’s that email:]]

Dear Fathers,

Below you will find a statement that has just been issued by the USCCB. It deals with the situation involving Archbishop McCarrick and the revelations of the Pennsylvania grand Jury. The gist of this communication is that significant change is coming on a variety of different fronts. As you get questions about these matters the statement will be a good reference to provide the faithful with answers. -d

David Hains – Director of Communication – Diocese of Charlotte
From: USCCB – Public Affairs on behalf of USCCB – Public Affairs
Date: Thursday, August 16, 2018 at 11:05 AM
To: “Hains, David W.”
Subject: President of U.S. Bishops’ Conference Announces Effort That Will Involve Laity, Experts, and the Vatican as U.S. Bishops Resolve to Address “Moral Catastrophe”

President of U.S. Bishops’ Conference Announces Effort That Will Involve Laity, Experts, and the Vatican stating, “Let me ask you to hold us to all of these resolutions,” as U.S. Bishops’ Offer Firm Resolve to Address “Moral Catastrophe”

August 16, 2018

WASHINGTON— Cardinal Daniel N. DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), has issued the following statement after a series of meetings with members of the USCCB’s Executive Committee and other bishops. The following statement includes three goals and three principles, along with initial steps of a plan that will involve laity, experts, and the Vatican. A more developed plan will be presented to the full body of bishops at their general assembly meeting in Baltimore in November.

Cardinal DiNardo’s full statement follows:

“Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Two weeks ago, I shared with you my sadness, anger, and shame over the recent revelations concerning Archbishop Theodore McCarrick. Those sentiments continue and are deepened in light of the Pennsylvania Grand Jury report. We are faced with a spiritual crisis that requires not only spiritual conversion, but practical changes to avoid repeating the sins and failures of the past that are so evident in the recent report. Earlier this week, the USCCB Executive Committee met again and established an outline of these necessary changes.

The Executive Committee has established three goals: (1) an investigation into the questions surrounding Archbishop McCarrick; (2) an opening of new and confidential channels for reporting complaints against bishops; and (3) advocacy for more effective resolution of future complaints. These goals will be pursued according to three criteria: proper independence, sufficient authority, and substantial leadership by laity.

We have already begun to develop a concrete plan for accomplishing these goals, relying upon consultation with experts, laity, and clergy, as well as the Vatican. We will present this plan to the full body of bishops in our November meeting. In addition, I will travel to Rome to present these goals and criteria to the Holy See, and to urge further concrete steps based on them.

The overarching goal in all of this is stronger protections against predators in the Church and anyone who would conceal them, protections that will hold bishops to the highest standards of transparency and accountability.

Allow me to briefly elaborate on the goals and criteria that we have identified.

The first goal is a full investigation of questions surrounding Archbishop McCarrick. These answers are necessary to prevent a recurrence, and so help to protect minors, seminarians, and others who are vulnerable in the future. We will therefore invite the Vatican to conduct an Apostolic Visitation to address these questions, in concert with a group of predominantly lay people identified for their expertise by members of the National Review Board and empowered to act.

The second goal is to make reporting of abuse and misconduct by bishops easier. Our 2002 “Statement of Episcopal Commitment” does not make clear what avenue victims themselves should follow in reporting abuse or other sexual misconduct by bishops. We need to update this document. We also need to develop and widely promote reliable third-party reporting mechanisms. Such tools already exist in many dioceses and in the public sector and we are already examining specific options.

The third goal is to advocate for better procedures to resolve complaints against bishops. For example, the canonical procedures that follow a complaint will be studied with an eye toward concrete proposals to make them more prompt, fair, and transparent and to specify what constraints may be imposed on bishops at each stage of that process.

We will pursue these goals according to three criteria.

The first criterion is genuine independence. Any mechanism for addressing any complaint against a bishop must be free from bias or undue influence by a bishop. Our structures must preclude bishops from deterring complaints against them, from hampering their investigation, or from skewing their resolution.

The second criterion relates to authority in the Church. Because only the Pope has authority to discipline or remove bishops, we will assure that our measures will both respect that authority and protect the vulnerable from the abuse of ecclesial power.

Our third criterion is substantial involvement of the laity. Lay people bring expertise in areas of investigation, law enforcement, psychology, and other relevant disciplines, and their presence reinforces our commitment to the first criterion of independence.

Finally, I apologize and humbly ask your forgiveness for what my brother bishops and I have done and failed to do. Whatever the details may turn out to be regarding Archbishop McCarrick or the many abuses in Pennsylvania (or anywhere else), we already know that one root cause is the failure of episcopal leadership. The result was that scores of beloved children of God were abandoned to face an abuse of power alone. This is a moral catastrophe. It is also part of this catastrophe that so many faithful priests who are pursuing holiness and serving with integrity are tainted by this failure.

We firmly resolve, with the help of God’s grace, never to repeat it. I have no illusions about the degree to which trust in the bishops has been damaged by these past sins and failures. It will take work to rebuild that trust. What I have outlined here is only the beginning; other steps will follow. I will keep you informed of our progress toward these goals.

Let me ask you to hold us to all of these resolutions. Let me also ask you to pray for us, that we will take this time to reflect, repent, and recommit ourselves to holiness of life and to conform our lives even more to Christ, the Good Shepherd.”

================

Oh, did I mention that a homosexualist chairman of The National Catholic Risk Retention Group is fulfilling a twenty year prison sentence?

Oh, did I mention that I would like to see bishops recognize the due process rights of priests?

5 Comments

Filed under Abuse

Vatican attorney: Lady Justice peeking?

lady justice taking a peek

Sometimes hot air outweighs anything you care to enter into evidence…

Priests deserve basic justice, too – by Mauro Visigalli [August 26, 2016] // [Here with the [comments] of Father George David Byers. I am acquainted with Mauro, having spoken with him and emailed back and forth a number of times on behalf of a priest friend.] //

I am an Italian “avvocato rotale” [attorney on the Roman Rota, a kind of appeals court in the Catholic Church over in Rome]. I usually work in the Roman Curia of the Catholic Church where certain canonical crimes arrive for consideration from all over the world [such as having sex with a minor, etc.]. For this reason, I often look at American newspapers online, sometimes printing out their pages for my folders [I guess we have many canonical crimes!].

I was doing that the other day, searching for news about a priest who entrusted his case to me, when I found in The Providence Journal an article about a different priest, unknown to me (“Priest prohibited from serving,” news, July 1). His story made me want to share some thoughts, based on my professional experience.

What amazes me is that in a country like yours, where the rights of the accused are considered so important [perhaps in the Constitution, but that basically no longer exists; in reality, in the case involving a newly examined rape kit, those accused of a rape/murder are treated as guilty and are forbidden by the Supreme Court to be exonerated by DNA evidence that proves their innocence; we simply execute everyone regardless of guilt or innocence because we don’t give a damn], that rights do not seem to count when a priest is accused of a sexual crime [because going that far makes it all better]. Such is the paradox of a 95-year-old priest who is prohibited from serving based on “credible” facts of an incident that happened 60 years before [“Credible” for The National Catholic Risk Retention Group means that a priest is guilty because he was ordained; nothing else matters. They hold that paying settlements regardless of guilt, whereby the defendant is not the priest but the diocese, saves money, for it is 15 times more expensive to lose one litigated claim than it is to settle fifteen other incidents. Who cares if even all the priests are innocent of the accusations and are now removed from the priesthood for life.].

I would simply ask: How could someone defend himself against such old charges? [He cannot] And is the “presumption of innocence” a mere option [This is explicitly forbidden!], or has it been replaced in these cases with a “presumption of guilt?” I can find this same expression – “credibly alleged” – on the websites of many American dioceses, with attached blacklists of priests smeared forever after having dedicated their whole life to the church (sometimes dead priests, too). Some websites include a red button and phone numbers with the list, so that everyone can easily send in his or her accusation and everyone can infer, however wrongly, that such crimes are absolutely normal in the church! [It’s all actually more cynical than all that. Some priests are known to be innocent, but even one innocent priest is too much for a system that depends on all priests being guilty because they are ordained, so that we’re only waiting for an accuser to pay. If one priest is given due process then all priests must be given due process, but that makes settlements impossible, and litigation necessary. All too expensive when we could save thirty pieces of silver. This is “The Judas Crisis” as I call it. Sell the priests for money, with chancery rats and bishops prostituting themselves to the opinions of the media, whom they hope will call them heroes for “being tough on priests.”]

Do you know how many of those “credible accusations” started with a simple anonymous letter? Do you know how often the letter was sent from someone who was in a position to gain from the denunciation? Do you know how many priests weren’t found guilty but are still suspended because their bishop is frightened about public opinion? Do you know how long the accused priests, immediately suspended from their ministries with a simple letter from their bishop, live under the double pressure of a civil and a canonical tribunal? [It’s worse than that, my friend. Do you know how many times priests have been given the ultimatum whereby they will be laicized unless they agree to be treated by those treatment centers which have a long history of raping priests with plethysmography as mentioned many times in the John Jay report? It’s demonic, at the highest levels of the Roman Curia, but there it is, and this is ongoing.]

Don’t misunderstand me: I’m not denying the meaning of the word “credible” [as used in dictionaries, but not as used by certain money hungry ecclesiastics…]. When an accusation is credible, church authorities have the duty to communicate the matter to the police and to start their own separate inquiry. But until the process ends, no one can say that the priest is at fault or should be blacklisted. Whoever is guilty of certain crimes should be effectively punished, but only after an exacting procedure giving him all the rights that the law offers the accused.

What really hurts me, as a jurist, is the knowledge that church law in this area is very good, and Vatican judges are very skilled jurists. However, such excellence is not always available because exceptions are made, and the Vatican has limited resources to handle these cases. Many of the cases are thus entrusted to lower tribunals, where judges are not always as skilled as their Vatican colleagues. Often those called upon to judge in such cases are the same ones who initiated the formal accusation! [Right. The conflicts of interests and acts of fraud for self-aggrandizement are rampant and actually well known, and, sadly appreciated as precious and necessary for looking like heroes.]

I hope my words will make readers reflect: It is wrong to get into the habit of stoning someone who is accused of a crime, rather than seeking justice.

I thank you for your attention and I warmly greet every reader.

Mauro Visigalli, of Codogno, Italy, is a lawyer in Italian courts and at the Vatican. [Good for you, Mauro. Excellent article.]

===== My comment =====

Here’s the deal: When settlements are made regardless of innocence or guilt, forbidding priests to be defendants or have any due process whatsoever, giving all control to the accuser and making the settlement as soon as possible hopefully without lawyers, often not knowing the accusations or even whether the priest was even born when the alleged actions were said to have occurred, when this happens, and it does all the time by way of strictly enforced policy, the consequence is that this actually encourages more abuse even while bishops and chancery rats look tough and advance their careers. People get sick of innocent priests being accused and soon not even real victims have a voice to complain. When false accusers get payments on the suffering of real victims the real victims are raped again. The rapists are then the chancery rats and bishops who have sought hero status. But they can’t see clearly any longer, so full are their eyes with the blood of the priests who throats they have slit. And when they have congratulated themselves long enough for having no incidents for a number of years, then they will hesitate to call out any real abuse, and simply reassign a truly abusive priest so that they can continue to grant themselves hero status. The same abuse of power by which a rape occurs is the same abuse of power by which no due process is granted. The cycle will continue until the powers that be stop their Promethean self-referential self-absorption and realize that they are to serve Christ Jesus and not themselves.

8 Comments

Filed under Abuse, Priesthood, Vocations