BishopAccountability.org
	Convictions of Priests 'Elusive' Many Released by Stogner Decision So Public Interest in Personnel Files 'May Be Even Stronger' Privacy Order 6/18/07 41 Accused Clergy in Santa Barbara Alone By Kay Ebeling City of Angels [Los Angeles, Ca] June 25, 2007 http://cityofangels3.blogspot.com/2007/06/convictions-of-priests-elusive-many.html It's fun to hear a church attorney put his foot in his mouth. At the June 7 hearing that may lead to the opening of some accused priest personnel files came this dialogue: JUDGE LICHTMAN: What about the need of the state in this instance to protect children from further molestation? CHURCH ATTORNEY HELDT: We have institutions for that and they're not in this courtroom. They get this information under Megan's Law or under the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act. JUDGE LICHTMAN: The argument then is these priests are not convicted, not registered, so there's all the more reason to find out information about them. If they're registered with Megan's law, we don't need further information. There are other individuals out there still in the shadows of society and they still pose a danger to society. Then in the June 18 Court Order Lichtman continued, "Convictions of many priests… have been elusive due to the passage of time. Numerous clergy were arrested under California's former law allowing for retroactive criminal prosecutions for child sex abuse. "The vast majority…were released when the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Stogner v. California." The public's interest in private personnel files "may be even stronger," writes Judge Lichtman, "because these alleged perpetrators are not known to the communities and often have unlimited access to children." Why So Many Predator Pedophile Priests in Santa Barbara? More Evidence of the Dumping of Problem Priests in Rural Areas "A troublesome history of child abuse in the Santa Barbara Area" Plaintiffs' counsel submits sworn testimony that outlines a troublesome history of child abuse in the Santa Barbara area which clearly implicates the Friars," writes Judge Lichtman. "Plaintiffs have identified 41 child abusing clergy transferred to and/or allowed to live in Santa Barbara County at various times from 1960 to the present. Of the 40 or so perpetrators, 24 of them were Franciscan preists or brothers. Don't expect full coverage from the LA Times. Unless someone mentions something dirty. . . Out of the 22-page order from Lichtman the Times reported a few paragraphs, including several quotes from attorneys, saying, "Yup gee great." And of course they had to include this paragraph: "In sworn testimony, Becker testified about his attraction to boys, his interest in the Man-Boy Love Association, his leanings toward being attracted to post pubescent boys, and that he gave names of people to the Archdiocese that might come forward with allegations," Lichtman wrote. Got to get that Man-Boy Love Association quote in there to get your readers salivating. HERE'S ONE FOR THE CHEERLEADERS: When I read the top of page 20 I let out a victory whoop. "There can be no doubt that in the matter presently before this Court, there exists legitimate public concern regarding how church officials have allegedly covered up and concealed the sexual abuse of children for years. This concern grows more pressing as additional individuals may be harmed by identical or similar action. "This public concern clearly weighs in favor of allowing these documents to be made public." Should California's Policy Favoring Settlements Provide a 'Safe Haven'? Specifically with cases that settle out of court, Lichtman writes: "Can the fact that the actions have settled derail dissemination of the document simply because the parties have availed themselves of California's public policy favoring settlement? Can the act of settlement turn off the scrutiny switch? The answer to each of these questions has to be no." He affirmed that if the settled cases had gone to court, "discovery of these documents would have been ordered." To me this is important because it's an area where the Church's "above the law" behavior is backfiring in constitutional law, but because the church's behavior was so horrible and went on so long, this step backwards for privacy rights has to be taken: Lichtman writes in the order: "Privacy interests are not absolute and must be balanced against other important interests. Intrusion into constitutionally protected areas of privacy is appropriate where there is a balancing of the privacy right with a state interest and a finding that the state interest is compelling and outweighs the individual's privacy right. "In this regard, courts have also recognized an interest in making documents public which show coverups and concelment of the truth so as to provide the transparency necessary to ensure a cessation of this type of conduct in the future." CHURCH AIDING AND ABETTING NOW BACKFIRES ON PRIVACY RIGHTS I knew there was a reason I wasn't celebrating, in truth this rubs me wrong, but it's inevitable as a result of the church's crimes. If the church had reported and removed pedophiles instead of aiding and abetting them for 50-plus years, we wouldn't need hearings and orders today that push back our rights of privacy in order to protect the public good. The Church not only turned generations of predators loose on a population of children, they are now causing the pendulum to swing away from privacy rights many Americans cherish. The Church's failure to protect children is resulting in more state power over privacy. I knew there was a reason I was having trouble writing this post. I'm not really that happy with this decision, or I should say, I'm not happy that an institution the size of the church was able to carry on like organized crime in this country for so long that the only way to clear up the damage is create law that could impact personal privacy in the future. I also don't really think the pedophile priests belong in jail. I think they're the scapegoats. I think Mahony and the other bishops think they are satisfying the public by letting a few pedophile priests sit in prison. The real criminals here are the bishops and monsignors who helped sex crimes take place in their rectories, behind their altars, in the dark of the confessional. Their lax policies created a safe haven for pedophiles, indeed it's probably why some of these sick men decided to become priests in the first place. Believe me, pedophiles communicate with each other. Once, say in the 1950s, word got out on their networks that Catholic priests have open prey on young boys and girls, they signed right up. It was open season on us kids as a result. Now Mahony let's Baker and Wempe and a few others sit in jail and I bet the Cardinal thinks if he settles the LA Clergy Cases that make it through adjudication, this problem will all go away? I don't think so. In February 2007 in numerous Boston bishops and monsignors were called in front of a Grand Jury to explain their decades cover up activities. More from City of Angels Winging It Transcripts Hey, I'm a journalist not a typist. It's as close to verbatim as you're going to get: CHURCH ATTORNEY BRYAN HANCE: This person has not been before the court, has not had an opportunity to litigate anything. To submit he's now a danger to society, the court acts as prosecutor, legislator and everything. JUDGE: It's not a simple as that. Sit down. (All the attorneys sit down.) JUDGE LICHTMAN: We have a particular entity that is aware. The archdiocese. That entity steadfastly has maintained through all these settlements, we have no objection. We do not take a position on it. They're not objecting, yet they're the depository of information in regards to society. They now come forward and say well we are asserting our right to privacy. You can say these are individuals that have never been to court, never tried, never had due process of court. Therefore should not be tainted with this brush, stigma of these allegations. Shouldn't lose their rights to privacy. As Mr. Hale has pointed out and Mr. DeMarco, it is because of their failure to do what they were obligated to do that we have this situation. More to come. . .
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.