Pedophilia, Catholicism and the First Amendment in Vermont

Philosopher's Haze
February 9, 2012

http://philosophershaze.com/tag/religious-freedom/

There is one thing we all know, whether we happen to be religious or non-religious in nature: if I break the law and in a court it can be shown that I broke the law, I am found guilty and must pay the prescribed penalty. Though this should come as no surprise to anyone, there are some who do not think that this is fair. In the case of organizations, there are some who believe that in the event they are found to have systemically violated a particular law that they should only be penalized for some of the wrongdoing. This is the case of the roman catholic diocese of Vermont: they have already paid out millions of dollars in law suits because they employed pedophilic clergy, but do not think it is fair that further suits will place the future of the diocese in jeopardy. That’s right folks! The roman catholic diocese of Vermont wants to actually evade their responsibility to suffer penalties for committing crimes. Sure…it might be bad that children were raped and scarred for life, but for a diocese to go bankrupt for these crimes is unacceptable!

Bishop Salvatore R. Matano. Source: www.vermontcatholic.org

The roman catholic diocese of Vermont is led by bishop Salvatore R. Matano, and in the cases of pedophilic clergy it is represented by the law firm of Cleary, Shahi & Aicher and lawyers Kaveh Shahi and Tom McCormick. To date the Vermont roman catholic diocese has had a plethora of priests charged with pedophilia (46 lawsuits since 2002, according to Burlington Free Press - BFP) and in May of 2010 the diocese paid out $17.6 million that was supposed to cover all 26 pending cases of alleged sexual abuse and rape. In order to make the $17.6 million payout, the diocese was forced to sell the property of its headquarters for $10 million. However, now that the diocese is facing another law suit involving the diocese and how it historically handled the pedophiles in their ranks, it is working with its lawyers to do whatever it can to avoid paying out any further damages. Here’s the reason:

Since this settlement, however, more suits have arisen. There is currently one suit in federal court and 8 awaiting trial in the Chittenden Superior Court. The diocese fears that further suits, if successful, will result in its financial future being placed in jeopardy – it has already had to sell off its property to stay liquid. And this is unacceptable to them. In fact, the diocese and their lawyers are arguing that the First Amendment should prohibit a court from being able to sanction actions which would place a religious institution in danger. The First Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

On this Amendment, the diocese and their chump lawyers are attempting to abuse the intention or ‘spirit’ of the First Amendment by using it to prevent them from being penalized for breaking the law. Vermont law professor Cheryl Hanna, as reported by the BFP, rightly refers to the diocese as attempting to use the Bill of Rights to shield itself from liability. The BFP cites lawyers Shahi and McCormick who state:

If the protections of the First Amendment are to mean anything, the government should not be allowed to shut the doors of a church and put it up for sale… We researched this and nobody has acted on this theory before…We believe this legal battle is infringing on the rights of current believers to practice their religion.

What this amounts to is the diocese asking for special legal exemptions be provided for religious organizations, such that their futures cannot be threatened due to their illegal an unethical activities. Whereas the First Amendment prohibits the establishment, by Congress, of a law that affects religious groups, the diocese wants laws passed that gives religious groups special considerations or exemptions. This is an overt, brazen example of the roman catholic church trying to undermine the United States’ Bill of Rights.

Let s be clear about a few things: catholics do not require organizations with special legal statuses in order to practice their religion. As such, if because of its illegal activities, any particular diocese or entire religious organization can no longer remain operational in their current capacity, it would in no way diminish the ability of these religious persons to practice their faith. Religious groups do not need churches or mosques or synagogues to practice their faith: these are just buildings that have been consecrated, and houses will suffice just as well. Furthermore, religious persons and organizations are to be held to the same legal standards as everyone else in society: religion provides no immunity. For this reason, every religious person and organization must suffer the same consequences as everyone else when they violate the law. Ergo, justifiable law suits against catholic organizations cannot be blocked because the organization fears it will be put out of business if the court determines it must pay. This would amount to religion being elevated above the law, in some situations at least, which violates the First Amendment.

This move by the diocese and their ambulance chasers reveals the true nature of the despicable beast: it has zero regard for the law; the law is something that religion wants to bend and shape to its advantage, such that the laws that apply to everyone and everything else do not hold for them. It shows that whatever the church says about the evils of homosexuality, homosexuality is a sin reserved for everyone outside its priestly class. And when the roman catholic church talks about respecting human rights and about how special and in need of special protections children are, it really means that everyone else should have to adhere to these legal and ethical requirements while religious organizations can shrug them off like annoying fleas.

This is not a case involving the violation of roman catholics’ religious freedom. Conversely, it is a prime example of how the church claims bogus violations of its right to religious freedom only so that it may play the victim and in exchange receive liberties reserved for itself. The roman catholic church is a greedy monstrosity, harbouring xenophobic sentiments, sometimes quite violently, and is convinced that ours is a reality in which everyone ought to obey their moral and legal codes.

In the eyes of the roman catholic church, everyone else is beneath them. What it would ultimately like is to have a world in which it is accountable only to itself.

The roman catholic church has also made it abundantly clear that it has little or no actual regard for those whom it has wronged – even when those that are wronged include little boys and girls that have been raped and sodomized.