/ pt-br Copyright © 2012, Apostasynow.org. All Rights Reserved. info@nospam.com (Administrator) info@nospam.com (Administrator) Wed, 08 Apr 2026 07:26:49 +0000 Wed, 08 Apr 2026 07:26:49 +0000 http://backend.userland.com/rss e107 (http://e107.org) hourly 1 60 http://pt.apostasynow.org/e107_images/button.png / 88 31 http://pt.apostasynow.org/news.php?item.17.1 http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/09/national/09PRIE.html?th


By FOX BUTTERFIELD; Katie Zezima contributed to this article
Published: August 09, 2003
SIGN IN TO E-MAIL
PRINT
SINGLE-PAGE

The Archdiocese of Boston today offered $55 million to settle lawsuits by 542 victims of sexual abuse by priests, according to a copy of the proposal. Lawyers for the victims said it was the first time the church had made a concrete offer to resolve the scandal.

The church's proposal comes only a week after the installation of the new archbishop of Boston, Sean P. O'Malley. He had said that his first priority would be to settle with the victims of the scandal, which has badly shaken the archdiocese and led to anger, reduced church attendance and a decline in giving in this heavily Roman Catholic city. The previous archbishop, Cardinal Bernard F. Law, resigned under pressure in December.

A spokesman for the archdiocese, the Rev. Christopher Coyne, said he could neither confirm nor deny the offer, in accordance with church policy of not commenting on pending litigation.

But Roderick MacLeish Jr., a lawyer representing 260 plaintiffs, said, ''This is the first concrete proposal the church has ever made.''
He added, ''It is substantial enough that it is worthy of real consideration.''

Mr. MacLeish said that a steering committee of five law firms representing the victims was formed this afternoon and would begin meeting this weekend to discuss the offer.

Mitchell Garabedian, a lawyer who represents 114 plaintiffs, called the offer ''a positive step in the right direction that illustrates the good faith of Archbishop O'Malley and his desire to resolve these cases quickly.''

But Mr. Garabedian said he was still skeptical about the terms of the offer because last year he reached an agreement in court to settle sexual abuse claims by 86 people against a former priest, John J. Geoghan, only to have Cardinal Law back out of the deal, saying the archdiocesan finance council would not approve it. The church eventually agreed to a reduced settlement, paying $10 million instead of the $14.8 million to $30 million that was originally agreed on.

Estimates over the past year by lawyers and church officials have suggested it would take $100 million to settle all the lawsuits, which had been thought to number slightly fewer than 500.

Carmen Durso, a lawyer who represents 42 plaintiffs, said that while the $55 million seemed large, it might not be enough for the pain and damage suffered.

''They're offering an amount of money that's not insignificant, but there are a lot of claimants,'' Mr. Durso said. ''The archdiocese doesn't deserve a volume discount.''

ADS BY GOOGLE]]> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/09/national/09PRIE.html?th


By FOX BUTTERFIELD; Katie Zezima contributed to this article
Published: August 09, 2003
SIGN IN TO E-MAIL
PRINT
SINGLE-PAGE

The Archdiocese of Boston today offered $55 million to settle lawsuits by 542 victims of sexual abuse by priests, according to a copy of the proposal. Lawyers for the victims said it was the first time the church had made a concrete offer to resolve the scandal.

The church's proposal comes only a week after the installation of the new archbishop of Boston, Sean P. O'Malley. He had said that his first priority would be to settle with the victims of the scandal, which has badly shaken the archdiocese and led to anger, reduced church attendance and a decline in giving in this heavily Roman Catholic city. The previous archbishop, Cardinal Bernard F. Law, resigned under pressure in December.

A spokesman for the archdiocese, the Rev. Christopher Coyne, said he could neither confirm nor deny the offer, in accordance with church policy of not commenting on pending litigation.

But Roderick MacLeish Jr., a lawyer representing 260 plaintiffs, said, ''This is the first concrete proposal the church has ever made.''
He added, ''It is substantial enough that it is worthy of real consideration.''

Mr. MacLeish said that a steering committee of five law firms representing the victims was formed this afternoon and would begin meeting this weekend to discuss the offer.

Mitchell Garabedian, a lawyer who represents 114 plaintiffs, called the offer ''a positive step in the right direction that illustrates the good faith of Archbishop O'Malley and his desire to resolve these cases quickly.''

But Mr. Garabedian said he was still skeptical about the terms of the offer because last year he reached an agreement in court to settle sexual abuse claims by 86 people against a former priest, John J. Geoghan, only to have Cardinal Law back out of the deal, saying the archdiocesan finance council would not approve it. The church eventually agreed to a reduced settlement, paying $10 million instead of the $14.8 million to $30 million that was originally agreed on.

Estimates over the past year by lawyers and church officials have suggested it would take $100 million to settle all the lawsuits, which had been thought to number slightly fewer than 500.

Carmen Durso, a lawyer who represents 42 plaintiffs, said that while the $55 million seemed large, it might not be enough for the pain and damage suffered.

''They're offering an amount of money that's not insignificant, but there are a lot of claimants,'' Mr. Durso said. ''The archdiocese doesn't deserve a volume discount.''

ADS BY GOOGLE]]> Misc Yaelle Mon, 08 Aug 2005 16:37:23 +0000 http://pt.apostasynow.org/news.php?item.17.1 http://pt.apostasynow.org/news.php?item.18.1 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/06/eveningnews/main566978.shtml

For decades, priests in this country abused children in parish after parish while their superiors covered it all up. Now it turns out the orders for this cover up were written in Rome at the highest levels of the Vatican.

CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales has uncovered a church document kept secret for 40 years.

The confidential Vatican document, obtained by CBS News, lays out a church policy that calls for absolute secrecy when it comes to sexual abuse by priests - anyone who speaks out could be thrown out of the church.

The policy was written in 1962 by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani.

The document, once "stored in the secret archives" of the Vatican, focuses on crimes initiated as part of the confessional relationship and what it calls the "worst crime": sexual assault committed by a priest" or "attempted by him with youths of either sex or with brute animals."

Bishops are instructed to pursue these cases "in the most secretive way...restrained by a perpetual silence...and everyone {including the alleged victim) ...is to observe the strictest secret, which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office...under the penalty of excommunication."
Larry Drivon, a lawyer who represents alleged victims, said, "This document is significant because it's a blueprint for deception."

Drivon said this proves what he has alleged on behalf of victims in priest-abuse lawsuits: that the church engaged in a crime – racketeering.

"It's an instruction manual on how to deceive and how to protect pedophiles," Drivon said. "And exactly how to avoid the truth coming out."

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said the document is being taken out of context, that it's a church law that deals only with religious crimes and sins. And that the secrecy is meant to protect the faithful from scandal.

"The idea that this is some sort of blueprint to keep this secret is simply wrong," said Msgr. Francis Maniscalco, a spokesman for the Conference.

"This is a system of law which is complete in itself and is not telling the bishops in any way about how to handle these crimes when they are considered as civil crimes," Maniscalco said.

But Richard Sipe, a former priest who has written about sex abuse and secrecy in the church, said the document sends a chilling message.

"This is the code for how you must deal with sex by priests. You keep it secret at all costs," Sipe said. "And that's what's happened. It's happened in every diocese in this country."

According to church records, the document was a bedrock of Catholic sex abuse policy until America's bishops met last summer and drafted new policies to address the crisis in the church.
Copyright 2009 CBS. All rights reserved.]]> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/06/eveningnews/main566978.shtml

For decades, priests in this country abused children in parish after parish while their superiors covered it all up. Now it turns out the orders for this cover up were written in Rome at the highest levels of the Vatican.

CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales has uncovered a church document kept secret for 40 years.

The confidential Vatican document, obtained by CBS News, lays out a church policy that calls for absolute secrecy when it comes to sexual abuse by priests - anyone who speaks out could be thrown out of the church.

The policy was written in 1962 by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani.

The document, once "stored in the secret archives" of the Vatican, focuses on crimes initiated as part of the confessional relationship and what it calls the "worst crime": sexual assault committed by a priest" or "attempted by him with youths of either sex or with brute animals."

Bishops are instructed to pursue these cases "in the most secretive way...restrained by a perpetual silence...and everyone {including the alleged victim) ...is to observe the strictest secret, which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office...under the penalty of excommunication."
Larry Drivon, a lawyer who represents alleged victims, said, "This document is significant because it's a blueprint for deception."

Drivon said this proves what he has alleged on behalf of victims in priest-abuse lawsuits: that the church engaged in a crime – racketeering.

"It's an instruction manual on how to deceive and how to protect pedophiles," Drivon said. "And exactly how to avoid the truth coming out."

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said the document is being taken out of context, that it's a church law that deals only with religious crimes and sins. And that the secrecy is meant to protect the faithful from scandal.

"The idea that this is some sort of blueprint to keep this secret is simply wrong," said Msgr. Francis Maniscalco, a spokesman for the Conference.

"This is a system of law which is complete in itself and is not telling the bishops in any way about how to handle these crimes when they are considered as civil crimes," Maniscalco said.

But Richard Sipe, a former priest who has written about sex abuse and secrecy in the church, said the document sends a chilling message.

"This is the code for how you must deal with sex by priests. You keep it secret at all costs," Sipe said. "And that's what's happened. It's happened in every diocese in this country."

According to church records, the document was a bedrock of Catholic sex abuse policy until America's bishops met last summer and drafted new policies to address the crisis in the church.
Copyright 2009 CBS. All rights reserved.]]> Misc Yaelle Sat, 06 Aug 2005 16:41:10 +0000 http://pt.apostasynow.org/news.php?item.18.1 http://pt.apostasynow.org/news.php?item.16.1 http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/07/vatican.document/index.html

Friday, August 8, 2003 Posted: 9:33 AM EDT (1333 GMT)



Story Tools


RELATED
• Special Report:Crisis in the Priesthood
• Molestation ruling shifts focus back to church document
• No charges for top officials in Boston church scanda
• Gays hit back at Vatican
NEW YORK (CNN) -- A 1962 Vatican document -- kept in secret archives -- instructed dioceses all over the world to keep sexual misconduct in the church under wraps.

But the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said that using the document as a "smoking gun" to prove the existence of a "'ground plan' for 'covering up' the crime of sexual abuse of minors by clerics" is off-base. The church's guidance on the issue was revamped in 1983, the bishops said.

Issued on March 16, 1962, the document primarily refers to cases involving confession. It says, if a priest tries to solicit sex from someone who is trying to give their confession, then the allegation against the priest should be "pursued in a most secretive way ... under penalty of excommunication."
That applied to all parties involved.

Church leaders caution that the document had no bearing on civil or criminal law and was superseded by the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which "treats the sexual abuse of a minor (and solicitation of a penitent by confessor) as criminal behavior, which may be punished by dismissal from the clerical state."

Carmen Durso, an attorney representing several victims allegedly sexually abused by priests, calls the document a blueprint for how to cover up misconduct.

"They were marching orders to each and every one of these priests and supervisors saying to them when you get information about this type of activity, you can keep it secret," Durso told CNN.

CNN obtained the document Thursday and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops confirmed its authenticity.

However, Francis Maniscalco, a spokesman for the conference, said the document has been taken out of context.

"That document was very much in the background and it did not really or was not really an effective force in most cases in the last 20 years," Maniscalco said.

Ray Flynn, a former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, said he doesn't believe it was any part of a massive cover-up because 195 U.S. bishops and hundreds more worldwide would have had to see the document and if the contents were that explosive someone would have leaked it earlier.

He also hinted that people were viewing the document with a financial goal in mind.

"If you were to sue a parish or a diocese that really doesn't have very much money -- the church services the poor -- and you know there is a limit to the amount of money you could get, you would look for the a bigger fish to go after. You wouldn't go after the minnows, you'd want to get the whale," Flynn said.

"If you could reach the Vatican, involving them in some sort of massive cover-up, you would have yourself quite a lawsuit and you'd be well off. You'd get more money than you could ever imagine spending," he said.

The Catholic Church has been rocked in recent years amid accusations of covering up sexual abuse cases involving priests. Dioceses have paid out millions of dollars to settle lawsuits involving alleged sexual misconduct by priests.]]> http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/08/07/vatican.document/index.html

Friday, August 8, 2003 Posted: 9:33 AM EDT (1333 GMT)



Story Tools


RELATED
• Special Report:Crisis in the Priesthood
• Molestation ruling shifts focus back to church document
• No charges for top officials in Boston church scanda
• Gays hit back at Vatican
NEW YORK (CNN) -- A 1962 Vatican document -- kept in secret archives -- instructed dioceses all over the world to keep sexual misconduct in the church under wraps.

But the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said that using the document as a "smoking gun" to prove the existence of a "'ground plan' for 'covering up' the crime of sexual abuse of minors by clerics" is off-base. The church's guidance on the issue was revamped in 1983, the bishops said.

Issued on March 16, 1962, the document primarily refers to cases involving confession. It says, if a priest tries to solicit sex from someone who is trying to give their confession, then the allegation against the priest should be "pursued in a most secretive way ... under penalty of excommunication."
That applied to all parties involved.

Church leaders caution that the document had no bearing on civil or criminal law and was superseded by the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which "treats the sexual abuse of a minor (and solicitation of a penitent by confessor) as criminal behavior, which may be punished by dismissal from the clerical state."

Carmen Durso, an attorney representing several victims allegedly sexually abused by priests, calls the document a blueprint for how to cover up misconduct.

"They were marching orders to each and every one of these priests and supervisors saying to them when you get information about this type of activity, you can keep it secret," Durso told CNN.

CNN obtained the document Thursday and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops confirmed its authenticity.

However, Francis Maniscalco, a spokesman for the conference, said the document has been taken out of context.

"That document was very much in the background and it did not really or was not really an effective force in most cases in the last 20 years," Maniscalco said.

Ray Flynn, a former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, said he doesn't believe it was any part of a massive cover-up because 195 U.S. bishops and hundreds more worldwide would have had to see the document and if the contents were that explosive someone would have leaked it earlier.

He also hinted that people were viewing the document with a financial goal in mind.

"If you were to sue a parish or a diocese that really doesn't have very much money -- the church services the poor -- and you know there is a limit to the amount of money you could get, you would look for the a bigger fish to go after. You wouldn't go after the minnows, you'd want to get the whale," Flynn said.

"If you could reach the Vatican, involving them in some sort of massive cover-up, you would have yourself quite a lawsuit and you'd be well off. You'd get more money than you could ever imagine spending," he said.

The Catholic Church has been rocked in recent years amid accusations of covering up sexual abuse cases involving priests. Dioceses have paid out millions of dollars to settle lawsuits involving alleged sexual misconduct by priests.]]> Misc Yaelle Fri, 08 Aug 2003 16:33:54 +0000 http://pt.apostasynow.org/news.php?item.16.1 http://pt.apostasynow.org/news.php?item.19.1 http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/11/national/11CALI.html?ex=1048407454&ei=1&en


LOS ANGELES, March 10 — More than 400 people have accused Roman Catholic priests in California of sexual abuse since the state began a one-year moratorium on the statute of limitations for filing lawsuits in such cases, lawyers for the plaintiffs say.

But the flood of litigation expected after the moratorium began on Jan. 1 has largely been held back by a 90-day agreement by plaintiffs' lawyers and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and the Diocese of Orange, the state's two largest church jurisdictions, to delay litigation during talks. While only about 40 civil lawsuits have been filed on behalf of some 60 victims, lawyers said a pattern of abuse had been revealed by the hundreds who had come forward.

"The new statute of limitation law has given them hope," said Katherine K. Freberg, an Orange County lawyer who represents about 80 plaintiffs. "Some of them had contacted attorneys years before and were told they couldn't do anything."
Last spring, Cardinal Roger M. Mahony of Los Angeles estimated that there were six to eight offending priests in the archdiocese.

Raymond P. Boucher, a Beverly Hills lawyer who is representing 200 victims in Southern California, said lawyers in Los Angeles and Orange County recently provided the archdiocese with more than 280 people whose claims involve 118 priests dating back about five decades.

J. Michael Hennigan, who represents the archdiocese, said Cardinal Mahony's estimate had referred to priests who were known to be in ministries and subsequently relieved of their duties. Mr. Hennigan said that many of the cases now being filed dated to the 1960's and 1970's and involved priests who are dead. In addition, Mr. Hennigan said, because the archdiocese has been given little more than a list of priests who have been accused, it has been hard to determine the merit of the cases.

"There are no doubt people who were seriously psychologically damaged by what happened to them and there are those who no doubt were not," he said.

Before the statute of limitations was lifted, childhood victims of sexual assault had until their 26th birthday or three years after recognizing problems related to the abuse to file a civil lawsuit. The new law also allows victims to sue institutions as well as the abuser.

Negotiations between the church and lawyers in Los Angeles stumbled recently as the archdiocese argued that the First Amendment allowed it to keep some information private despite Cardinal Mahony's earlier pledge of candor and openness. While the archdiocese says it is willing to provide information on the facts of the abuse, church officials are contending that some documents involve confidential discussions between a priest and a bishop.

"I think at this moment we're relatively comfortable that the information we can give them will be candid and complete and at the same time not force us to divulge some information we feel strongly needs to be protected," Mr. Hennigan said.

Such arguments have been unsuccessful in cases in Florida, New Hampshire and Massachusetts.

"What this is indicative of is an incremental movement occurring nationwide away from the position taken in Dallas where they assured the public and the faithful in the United States they were going to be transparent," said John C. Manly, an Orange County lawyer representing dozens of plaintiffs. "Even if you assume that they really believe this privilege is true and necessary, which I don't, the First Amendment does not protect or shield criminal conduct in this context."

Lawyers for plaintiffs have said that while they are keeping an open mind about mediation, any settlements would have to provide an open airing of the facts with no room for confidentiality agreements, which have been common in the past.

The archdiocese has taken the same position in neighboring Ventura County, Calif., where the church has turned documents over to a judge but not to a grand jury, saying the documents contain just such privileged information. Four top aides to Cardinal Mahony have testified in those proceedings.

In Los Angeles County, where six former or retired priests have been charged with child molestation, District Attorney Steve Cooley has promised to push the church to surrender all files.

A lawyer representing several plaintiffs said mediation efforts had broken down over disclosure issues in Sacramento, where at least 15 civil cases have been filed since the legislation was passed.

"Right now we're in litigation and our attempts at mediation are called off," the lawyer, Joseph C. George, said. "I got the distinct impression they want to manage this crisis by essentially throwing money at the problem without the true picture emerging."

While the plaintiffs are seeking damages in the lawsuits, they say it is important to let the public know how they were abused, how the church allowed it to happen and to make sure it never happens again.

"If I go through litigation and get nothing, I can still go to bed at night and say I helped some other guys out," said Steven Sanchez, 42, who has started a support group for victims and has a sexual molestation suit pending against the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. "The bottom line is, I just want to be 13 again and run the course of my life again."

Mary Grant, the southwest regional director for the victims group Survivors Network for Those Abused by Priests , said that while numerous victims were stepping forward as a result of the change in the law, many would not file lawsuits.

"Most survivors do not file lawsuits," Ms. Grant said. "but one of the things that I'm hearing from survivors is that it's giving them the support and the validation to take this step, if not to file a lawsuit, to break the silence about what they experienced."

For Sandy Graves, 49, the change in the statute is providing a second chance to take action against the church for the abuse she says began when she was 4 and became sexual molestation by the time she was 9.

Although the priest accused of the abuse, the late Adalbert J. Kowalczyk, was transferred after parents learned of the molestations and questioned their children, no other action was taken at the time.

"They just thought the best thing to do was forget about it," Ms. Graves said.

It was not until she was 38 and therapy led her to the Survivors Network for Those Abused by Priests, that she considered legal action. By then, the priest was dead and the statute of limitations blocked her efforts to sue the church.

"Now I'm going to get that chance again," she said, "and maybe help some people here along the way."]]> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/11/national/11CALI.html?ex=1048407454&ei=1&en


LOS ANGELES, March 10 — More than 400 people have accused Roman Catholic priests in California of sexual abuse since the state began a one-year moratorium on the statute of limitations for filing lawsuits in such cases, lawyers for the plaintiffs say.

But the flood of litigation expected after the moratorium began on Jan. 1 has largely been held back by a 90-day agreement by plaintiffs' lawyers and the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and the Diocese of Orange, the state's two largest church jurisdictions, to delay litigation during talks. While only about 40 civil lawsuits have been filed on behalf of some 60 victims, lawyers said a pattern of abuse had been revealed by the hundreds who had come forward.

"The new statute of limitation law has given them hope," said Katherine K. Freberg, an Orange County lawyer who represents about 80 plaintiffs. "Some of them had contacted attorneys years before and were told they couldn't do anything."
Last spring, Cardinal Roger M. Mahony of Los Angeles estimated that there were six to eight offending priests in the archdiocese.

Raymond P. Boucher, a Beverly Hills lawyer who is representing 200 victims in Southern California, said lawyers in Los Angeles and Orange County recently provided the archdiocese with more than 280 people whose claims involve 118 priests dating back about five decades.

J. Michael Hennigan, who represents the archdiocese, said Cardinal Mahony's estimate had referred to priests who were known to be in ministries and subsequently relieved of their duties. Mr. Hennigan said that many of the cases now being filed dated to the 1960's and 1970's and involved priests who are dead. In addition, Mr. Hennigan said, because the archdiocese has been given little more than a list of priests who have been accused, it has been hard to determine the merit of the cases.

"There are no doubt people who were seriously psychologically damaged by what happened to them and there are those who no doubt were not," he said.

Before the statute of limitations was lifted, childhood victims of sexual assault had until their 26th birthday or three years after recognizing problems related to the abuse to file a civil lawsuit. The new law also allows victims to sue institutions as well as the abuser.

Negotiations between the church and lawyers in Los Angeles stumbled recently as the archdiocese argued that the First Amendment allowed it to keep some information private despite Cardinal Mahony's earlier pledge of candor and openness. While the archdiocese says it is willing to provide information on the facts of the abuse, church officials are contending that some documents involve confidential discussions between a priest and a bishop.

"I think at this moment we're relatively comfortable that the information we can give them will be candid and complete and at the same time not force us to divulge some information we feel strongly needs to be protected," Mr. Hennigan said.

Such arguments have been unsuccessful in cases in Florida, New Hampshire and Massachusetts.

"What this is indicative of is an incremental movement occurring nationwide away from the position taken in Dallas where they assured the public and the faithful in the United States they were going to be transparent," said John C. Manly, an Orange County lawyer representing dozens of plaintiffs. "Even if you assume that they really believe this privilege is true and necessary, which I don't, the First Amendment does not protect or shield criminal conduct in this context."

Lawyers for plaintiffs have said that while they are keeping an open mind about mediation, any settlements would have to provide an open airing of the facts with no room for confidentiality agreements, which have been common in the past.

The archdiocese has taken the same position in neighboring Ventura County, Calif., where the church has turned documents over to a judge but not to a grand jury, saying the documents contain just such privileged information. Four top aides to Cardinal Mahony have testified in those proceedings.

In Los Angeles County, where six former or retired priests have been charged with child molestation, District Attorney Steve Cooley has promised to push the church to surrender all files.

A lawyer representing several plaintiffs said mediation efforts had broken down over disclosure issues in Sacramento, where at least 15 civil cases have been filed since the legislation was passed.

"Right now we're in litigation and our attempts at mediation are called off," the lawyer, Joseph C. George, said. "I got the distinct impression they want to manage this crisis by essentially throwing money at the problem without the true picture emerging."

While the plaintiffs are seeking damages in the lawsuits, they say it is important to let the public know how they were abused, how the church allowed it to happen and to make sure it never happens again.

"If I go through litigation and get nothing, I can still go to bed at night and say I helped some other guys out," said Steven Sanchez, 42, who has started a support group for victims and has a sexual molestation suit pending against the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. "The bottom line is, I just want to be 13 again and run the course of my life again."

Mary Grant, the southwest regional director for the victims group Survivors Network for Those Abused by Priests , said that while numerous victims were stepping forward as a result of the change in the law, many would not file lawsuits.

"Most survivors do not file lawsuits," Ms. Grant said. "but one of the things that I'm hearing from survivors is that it's giving them the support and the validation to take this step, if not to file a lawsuit, to break the silence about what they experienced."

For Sandy Graves, 49, the change in the statute is providing a second chance to take action against the church for the abuse she says began when she was 4 and became sexual molestation by the time she was 9.

Although the priest accused of the abuse, the late Adalbert J. Kowalczyk, was transferred after parents learned of the molestations and questioned their children, no other action was taken at the time.

"They just thought the best thing to do was forget about it," Ms. Graves said.

It was not until she was 38 and therapy led her to the Survivors Network for Those Abused by Priests, that she considered legal action. By then, the priest was dead and the statute of limitations blocked her efforts to sue the church.

"Now I'm going to get that chance again," she said, "and maybe help some people here along the way."]]> Misc Yaelle Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:47:02 +0000 http://pt.apostasynow.org/news.php?item.19.1 http://pt.apostasynow.org/news.php?item.20.1 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2824241.stm


More than 25,000 people in Spain have asked the Roman Catholic Church to excommunicate them.
Their move is in support of a Nicaraguan couple who were thrown out of the Church for allowing their young daughter to have an abortion after she was raped.

The petition, organised by a number of women's groups in Spain, was handed to the Vatican's ambassador in Madrid, Manuel Monteiro de Castro.

The nine-year-old girl's parents said she became pregnant after she was raped in Costa Rica where they were working on a coffee plantation.

The case caused huge controversy in Nicaragua where abortion is illegal except in exceptional circumstances, such as when the mother's life is in danger.

The girl's parents asked for special permission to have the pregnancy terminated.

She was four months pregnant at the time and medical experts warned she could die whether she had the abortion or not.

The Nicaraguan authorities ruled that the parents would not face criminal charges.

Solidarity

But the Catholic Church in Nicaragua condemned the abortion, excommunicating the couple and the doctors who carried out the procedure.

The petition's organisers from the Red Feminista (Feminist Network) said their campaign was designed to show solidarity with the girl, known as Rosa, and her family, and would continue.

They said the ambassador, Manuel Monteiro de Castro, had promised to pass their petition on to the Vatican.

The girl is reportedly in good health after undergoing the procedure last month.

Costa Rican authorities have arrested a man in connection with the rape allegations.
]]> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2824241.stm


More than 25,000 people in Spain have asked the Roman Catholic Church to excommunicate them.
Their move is in support of a Nicaraguan couple who were thrown out of the Church for allowing their young daughter to have an abortion after she was raped.

The petition, organised by a number of women's groups in Spain, was handed to the Vatican's ambassador in Madrid, Manuel Monteiro de Castro.

The nine-year-old girl's parents said she became pregnant after she was raped in Costa Rica where they were working on a coffee plantation.

The case caused huge controversy in Nicaragua where abortion is illegal except in exceptional circumstances, such as when the mother's life is in danger.

The girl's parents asked for special permission to have the pregnancy terminated.

She was four months pregnant at the time and medical experts warned she could die whether she had the abortion or not.

The Nicaraguan authorities ruled that the parents would not face criminal charges.

Solidarity

But the Catholic Church in Nicaragua condemned the abortion, excommunicating the couple and the doctors who carried out the procedure.

The petition's organisers from the Red Feminista (Feminist Network) said their campaign was designed to show solidarity with the girl, known as Rosa, and her family, and would continue.

They said the ambassador, Manuel Monteiro de Castro, had promised to pass their petition on to the Vatican.

The girl is reportedly in good health after undergoing the procedure last month.

Costa Rican authorities have arrested a man in connection with the rape allegations.
]]> Misc Yaelle Thu, 06 Mar 2003 17:51:58 +0000 http://pt.apostasynow.org/news.php?item.20.1 http://pt.apostasynow.org/news.php?item.21.1 http://www.redfeminista.org/EXCOMUNION.asp#ingles

ANTE LA EXCOMUNIÓN DE LOS PADRES DE ROSA EN NICARAGUA....
TODAS Y TODOS HEMOS COLABORADO ACTIVAMENTE EN HACER POSIBLE LA INTERRUPCIÓN DEL EMBARAZO

Ante la decisión tomada por la Iglesia nicaragüense de excomulgar a los padres de Rosa, la niña de 9 años violada que quedó embarazada y a la que finalmente se practicó el aborto tras la movilización y denuncia pública internacional del caso y el escándalo que suscitaron los intentos por parte de los sectores más recalcitrantes de la Iglesia Católica de impedirlo...

Las organizaciones de la Red Feminista contra la Violencia de Género en España inician una campaña para enviar a la Iglesia nicaragüense y al Vaticano el listado de personas que han participado y colaborado activamente en hacer posible la interrupción del embarazo de Rosa a fin de que se incluyan también en el expediente de excomunión.

A esta iniciativa ya se ha sumado la Red de Ciudades contra la violencia a las mujeres (organización que incluye a 20 municipios de la Comunidad de Madrid) y la página web www.ablacion.org .

La RED Feminista (miembro de la Plataforma Laica) ha denunciado que tras esta iniciativa de la Iglesia nicaragüense se encuentra lo más rancio del integrismo católico.

La RED hace un llamamiento al Estado nicaragüense y a la sociedad civil a sumarse a la defensa de los ideales de la laicidad como forma de garantízar la libertad y la democracia y recuerda que la expresa neutralidad de los Estados es el mejor modo de garantizar una efectiva e igualitaria libertad de conciencia para todos y todas.


Agradecemos la máxima difusión de este mensaje.

Nocias relacionadas:

http://www.redfeminista.org/noticia.asp?id=235
http://www.redfeminista.org/noticia.asp?id=245
CNF y Cladem respecto del caso en Nicaragua
COMUNICADO de CEFEMINA- Costa Rica
Las organizaciones de Costa Rica estan pidiendo la destitucion inmediata de la Ministra de la Niñez y Presidenta Ejecutiva del Patronato Nacional
]]> http://www.redfeminista.org/EXCOMUNION.asp#ingles

ANTE LA EXCOMUNIÓN DE LOS PADRES DE ROSA EN NICARAGUA....
TODAS Y TODOS HEMOS COLABORADO ACTIVAMENTE EN HACER POSIBLE LA INTERRUPCIÓN DEL EMBARAZO

Ante la decisión tomada por la Iglesia nicaragüense de excomulgar a los padres de Rosa, la niña de 9 años violada que quedó embarazada y a la que finalmente se practicó el aborto tras la movilización y denuncia pública internacional del caso y el escándalo que suscitaron los intentos por parte de los sectores más recalcitrantes de la Iglesia Católica de impedirlo...

Las organizaciones de la Red Feminista contra la Violencia de Género en España inician una campaña para enviar a la Iglesia nicaragüense y al Vaticano el listado de personas que han participado y colaborado activamente en hacer posible la interrupción del embarazo de Rosa a fin de que se incluyan también en el expediente de excomunión.

A esta iniciativa ya se ha sumado la Red de Ciudades contra la violencia a las mujeres (organización que incluye a 20 municipios de la Comunidad de Madrid) y la página web www.ablacion.org .

La RED Feminista (miembro de la Plataforma Laica) ha denunciado que tras esta iniciativa de la Iglesia nicaragüense se encuentra lo más rancio del integrismo católico.

La RED hace un llamamiento al Estado nicaragüense y a la sociedad civil a sumarse a la defensa de los ideales de la laicidad como forma de garantízar la libertad y la democracia y recuerda que la expresa neutralidad de los Estados es el mejor modo de garantizar una efectiva e igualitaria libertad de conciencia para todos y todas.


Agradecemos la máxima difusión de este mensaje.

Nocias relacionadas:

http://www.redfeminista.org/noticia.asp?id=235
http://www.redfeminista.org/noticia.asp?id=245
CNF y Cladem respecto del caso en Nicaragua
COMUNICADO de CEFEMINA- Costa Rica
Las organizaciones de Costa Rica estan pidiendo la destitucion inmediata de la Ministra de la Niñez y Presidenta Ejecutiva del Patronato Nacional
]]> Misc Yaelle Sat, 01 Mar 2003 17:54:52 +0000 http://pt.apostasynow.org/news.php?item.21.1 http://pt.apostasynow.org/news.php?item.22.1 http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/24/national/24BOST.html?todaysheadlines


The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston asked a judge yesterday to dismiss all the sexual abuse lawsuits against it on religious freedom grounds.

The First Amendment, the archdiocese said, does not permit courts to tell churches how to conduct their internal affairs, including the questions of where to assign priests and how to discipline them.

Bishop Richard G. Lennon, the archdiocese's interim leader, said the motion to dismiss the suits, which number more than 400, did not indicate a change in his commitment to trying to settle them. Rather, he said, the move was driven by the archdiocese's insurers and by a motion-filing deadline set by Judge Constance M. Sweeney of Suffolk Superior Court, who is hearing the cases.

Bishop Lennon also renewed his request that lawyers for the plaintiffs agree to a moratorium on further court proceedings and on the exchange of information between the parties. That, he said in proposing such a moratorium last week, would enable the two sides to concentrate on reaching a settlement.
Legal experts said that the First Amendment approach had little chance of success but that the archdiocese might well have jeopardized its insurance coverage had it failed to pursue any available arguments.

Jeffrey A. Newman, a lawyer for plaintiffs who say they were victims of the Rev. Paul R. Shanley, expressed appreciation for the explanation of the filing, and largely accepted the archdiocese's reasoning.

"The concern existed on the part of the archdiocese," Mr. Newman said, "that filing the motion would inflame an almost dangerously incendiary atmosphere by suggesting it was not serious in trying to resolve these claims."

But Mr. Newman was unimpressed by the argument that the First Amendment bars suits based on accusations of sexual abuse and cover-ups. "They don't make sense," he said of the First Amendment defenses, "to the extent you're talking about actions as opposed to beliefs."

Mitchell Garabedian, who represents other plaintiffs, concurred. "Child molestation qualifies as conduct that disturbs the public order and thus is not entitled to constitutional protection," he said.

Nor was either lawyer inclined to agree to a litigation moratorium, though Mr. Newman said that if the archdiocese's insurers were to make a significant offer, the pace of the litigation might slow.

Legal experts said First Amendment defenses like those in the new motion had met with some success in earlier cases. But the defenses have little hope, they said, in the current charged atmosphere.

"All of these claims do have a First Amendment implication about how churches select, train and supervise clergy," said Douglas J. Laycock, a law professor at the University of Texas who is an expert in the law of religious liberty. "The churches have won a few, but they have lost a lot more. It's not that they are clearly wrong arguments, but they have had declining success over the years. And the courts may not be immune to the incredible publicity of the last year, either."

Arguments about religious freedom, he said, are more likely to be accepted when the asserted abuses were isolated and supervisors acted on limited information.

A number of courts around the country have held the church immune from suit for the negligent hiring and supervision of priests who engage in sexual abuse. In 1997, for instance, the Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected a claim that the church had negligently supervised a hospital chaplain who was accused of sexually assaulting a woman. The court said it could not decide the case without interpreting ecclesiastical law, particularly the vow of celibacy. That, it held, would "excessively entangle the court in religious affairs, contrary to the First Amendment."

The majority of courts, though, have taken the opposite view. In March, the Florida Supreme Court held that "the First Amendment does not provide a shield behind which a church" may hide when accusations of sexual abuse are made.

In Massachusetts, the courts have tried to distinguish between matters of doctrine and harmful conduct. "The First Amendment prohibits civil courts from intervening in disputes concerning religious doctrine, discipline, faith or internal organization," the state's highest court held in 1985. In various cases since, courts have sidestepped disputes about hiring and firing clergymen and how churches govern themselves.

But they have not hesitated to decide suits concerning discrimination by churches acting as landlords and about the use of drugs in religious ceremonies. And they have shown special solicitude for claims concerning the health and safety of children.

In 1999, in a decision in a case against John J. Geoghan, the former priest whose case ignited the sexual abuse crisis, Judge James F. McHugh rejected most of the First Amendment arguments made anew yesterday. "The delicate balance between the freedom to exercise religion and the demands placed on all persons, clergy and others, to refrain from conduct with harmful potential to others," Judge McHugh wrote, "requires the courts to avoid sweeping, categorical decisions."

But he denied the motion, and legal experts say there is little reason to think other judges will do otherwise.]]> http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/24/national/24BOST.html?todaysheadlines


The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston asked a judge yesterday to dismiss all the sexual abuse lawsuits against it on religious freedom grounds.

The First Amendment, the archdiocese said, does not permit courts to tell churches how to conduct their internal affairs, including the questions of where to assign priests and how to discipline them.

Bishop Richard G. Lennon, the archdiocese's interim leader, said the motion to dismiss the suits, which number more than 400, did not indicate a change in his commitment to trying to settle them. Rather, he said, the move was driven by the archdiocese's insurers and by a motion-filing deadline set by Judge Constance M. Sweeney of Suffolk Superior Court, who is hearing the cases.

Bishop Lennon also renewed his request that lawyers for the plaintiffs agree to a moratorium on further court proceedings and on the exchange of information between the parties. That, he said in proposing such a moratorium last week, would enable the two sides to concentrate on reaching a settlement.
Legal experts said that the First Amendment approach had little chance of success but that the archdiocese might well have jeopardized its insurance coverage had it failed to pursue any available arguments.

Jeffrey A. Newman, a lawyer for plaintiffs who say they were victims of the Rev. Paul R. Shanley, expressed appreciation for the explanation of the filing, and largely accepted the archdiocese's reasoning.

"The concern existed on the part of the archdiocese," Mr. Newman said, "that filing the motion would inflame an almost dangerously incendiary atmosphere by suggesting it was not serious in trying to resolve these claims."

But Mr. Newman was unimpressed by the argument that the First Amendment bars suits based on accusations of sexual abuse and cover-ups. "They don't make sense," he said of the First Amendment defenses, "to the extent you're talking about actions as opposed to beliefs."

Mitchell Garabedian, who represents other plaintiffs, concurred. "Child molestation qualifies as conduct that disturbs the public order and thus is not entitled to constitutional protection," he said.

Nor was either lawyer inclined to agree to a litigation moratorium, though Mr. Newman said that if the archdiocese's insurers were to make a significant offer, the pace of the litigation might slow.

Legal experts said First Amendment defenses like those in the new motion had met with some success in earlier cases. But the defenses have little hope, they said, in the current charged atmosphere.

"All of these claims do have a First Amendment implication about how churches select, train and supervise clergy," said Douglas J. Laycock, a law professor at the University of Texas who is an expert in the law of religious liberty. "The churches have won a few, but they have lost a lot more. It's not that they are clearly wrong arguments, but they have had declining success over the years. And the courts may not be immune to the incredible publicity of the last year, either."

Arguments about religious freedom, he said, are more likely to be accepted when the asserted abuses were isolated and supervisors acted on limited information.

A number of courts around the country have held the church immune from suit for the negligent hiring and supervision of priests who engage in sexual abuse. In 1997, for instance, the Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected a claim that the church had negligently supervised a hospital chaplain who was accused of sexually assaulting a woman. The court said it could not decide the case without interpreting ecclesiastical law, particularly the vow of celibacy. That, it held, would "excessively entangle the court in religious affairs, contrary to the First Amendment."

The majority of courts, though, have taken the opposite view. In March, the Florida Supreme Court held that "the First Amendment does not provide a shield behind which a church" may hide when accusations of sexual abuse are made.

In Massachusetts, the courts have tried to distinguish between matters of doctrine and harmful conduct. "The First Amendment prohibits civil courts from intervening in disputes concerning religious doctrine, discipline, faith or internal organization," the state's highest court held in 1985. In various cases since, courts have sidestepped disputes about hiring and firing clergymen and how churches govern themselves.

But they have not hesitated to decide suits concerning discrimination by churches acting as landlords and about the use of drugs in religious ceremonies. And they have shown special solicitude for claims concerning the health and safety of children.

In 1999, in a decision in a case against John J. Geoghan, the former priest whose case ignited the sexual abuse crisis, Judge James F. McHugh rejected most of the First Amendment arguments made anew yesterday. "The delicate balance between the freedom to exercise religion and the demands placed on all persons, clergy and others, to refrain from conduct with harmful potential to others," Judge McHugh wrote, "requires the courts to avoid sweeping, categorical decisions."

But he denied the motion, and legal experts say there is little reason to think other judges will do otherwise.]]> Misc Yaelle Tue, 24 Dec 2002 17:57:58 +0000 http://pt.apostasynow.org/news.php?item.22.1 http://pt.apostasynow.org/news.php?item.24.1 http://www.srpska-mreza.com/library/facts/manhattan-vatican.html


Library of Congress catalog card number: 86-062016
First printing, 1986,
Published by: Ozark Books
Box 3703, Springfield, MO 65808
(For more info. call: (417) 883-0438 )

FROM THE BACK COVER:

The Vatican's Holocaust - Revealed at Last!

A sensational account of the most horrifying religious massacre of the 20th Century. Startling revelations of forced conversions, mass murders of non-Catholics, Catholic extermination camps, disclosures of Catholic clergy as commanders of concentration camps; documented with names, dates, places, pictures, and eyewithness testimony.
BACK COVER (About The Author):

Avro Manhattan is world-renowned authority on Roman Catholicism in politics. A resident of London, during World War II he operated a radio station called "Radio Freedom," broadcasting to occupied Europe. He also wrote political commentaries for the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC).

Besides lecturing and writing short stories, essays, articles, novels and plays, he has written several best-sellers, including THE VATICAN IN WORLD POLITICS, twice Book-Of-The-Month and going through 57 editions.

FROM THE PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITIONS

Quote:

THE VATICAN'S HOLOCAUST is not a misnomer, an accusation, and even less a speculation. It is an historical fact. Rabid nationalism and religious dogmatism were its two main ingredients. During the existence of Croatia as an independent Catholic State, over 700,000 men, women and children perished. Many were executed, tortured, died of starvation, buried alive, or were burned to death.
Hundreds were forced to become Catholic. Catholic padres ran concentration camps; Catholic priests were officers of the military corps which committed such atrocities.

700,000 in a total population of a few million, proportionally, would be as if one-third of the USA population had been exterminated by a Catholic militia.

What had been gathered in this book will vindicate the veracity of these facts. Dates, names, and places, as well as photos are there to prove them.

They should become known to the American public, not to foster vindictiveness, but to warn them of the danger, which racialism and sectarianism, when allied with religious intolerance can bring to any contemporary nation, whether in Europe or in the New World.

This work should be assessed without prejudice and as a lesson; but even more vital, as a warning for the future of the Americans, beginning with that of the USA.

Avro Manhattan
1986
]]> http://www.srpska-mreza.com/library/facts/manhattan-vatican.html


Library of Congress catalog card number: 86-062016
First printing, 1986,
Published by: Ozark Books
Box 3703, Springfield, MO 65808
(For more info. call: (417) 883-0438 )

FROM THE BACK COVER:

The Vatican's Holocaust - Revealed at Last!

A sensational account of the most horrifying religious massacre of the 20th Century. Startling revelations of forced conversions, mass murders of non-Catholics, Catholic extermination camps, disclosures of Catholic clergy as commanders of concentration camps; documented with names, dates, places, pictures, and eyewithness testimony.
BACK COVER (About The Author):

Avro Manhattan is world-renowned authority on Roman Catholicism in politics. A resident of London, during World War II he operated a radio station called "Radio Freedom," broadcasting to occupied Europe. He also wrote political commentaries for the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC).

Besides lecturing and writing short stories, essays, articles, novels and plays, he has written several best-sellers, including THE VATICAN IN WORLD POLITICS, twice Book-Of-The-Month and going through 57 editions.

FROM THE PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITIONS

Quote:

THE VATICAN'S HOLOCAUST is not a misnomer, an accusation, and even less a speculation. It is an historical fact. Rabid nationalism and religious dogmatism were its two main ingredients. During the existence of Croatia as an independent Catholic State, over 700,000 men, women and children perished. Many were executed, tortured, died of starvation, buried alive, or were burned to death.
Hundreds were forced to become Catholic. Catholic padres ran concentration camps; Catholic priests were officers of the military corps which committed such atrocities.

700,000 in a total population of a few million, proportionally, would be as if one-third of the USA population had been exterminated by a Catholic militia.

What had been gathered in this book will vindicate the veracity of these facts. Dates, names, and places, as well as photos are there to prove them.

They should become known to the American public, not to foster vindictiveness, but to warn them of the danger, which racialism and sectarianism, when allied with religious intolerance can bring to any contemporary nation, whether in Europe or in the New World.

This work should be assessed without prejudice and as a lesson; but even more vital, as a warning for the future of the Americans, beginning with that of the USA.

Avro Manhattan
1986
]]> Misc Yaelle Mon, 16 Dec 2002 18:05:57 +0000 http://pt.apostasynow.org/news.php?item.24.1 http://pt.apostasynow.org/news.php?item.23.1 http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/churchpoll021216.html


Dec. 16 — Public confidence in the Roman Catholic Church has fallen to its worst since the child sex-abuse scandal erupted early this year, with favorable opinions of the church, approval of its response and trust in its future efforts to deal with the crisis all reaching new lows.



Print This Page

Email This Page

See Most Sent
These views in this ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll underscore the Vatican's newly announced approval of a revised policy drafted by the U.S. bishops to handle sexual abuse by priests. Announcing the approval, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re wrote, "It appears necessary to devote every available resource to restoring the public image of the Catholic priesthood."
The poll finds 52 percent of Americans, including three in 10 Catholics, expressing an unfavorable opinion of the Catholic Church, both new highs. Unfavorable views of the church have risen by 25 points among all Americans, and 21 points among Catholics, since February.

Considerably more, 76 percent of all Americans and about seven in 10 Catholics, disapprove of the Church's handling of the issue of sexual abuse by priests — up 10 points since June to a new high. And the intensity of these feelings is deep: Among the 76 percent who disapprove, 58 percent do so "strongly," as do 51 percent of Catholics.

Looking ahead, confidence in the church to handle the issue in the future is also bleak. The poll finds 54 percent of Americans, including about four in 10 Catholics, express distrust in the church's ability to handle the issue properly in the future, up 11 points since June.


Unfavorable Views of the Catholic Church
Catholics All Americans
2/20/02 9 percent 27
3/28/02 24 34
6/09/02 28 45
6/17/02 28 47
12/15/02 30 52



It remains to be seen whether the Vatican's approval of a revised policy will do much to assuage these concerns. But after the U.S. bishops' meeting in Dallas last June, just 38 percent of all Americans, and 44 percent of Catholics, thought the meeting produced meaningful improvements in church policy. And that was before the policy was revised.

As would be expected, views of the church are most positive among regular churchgoing Catholics. Among those who attend Mass weekly, 82 percent have a favorable opinion of the church and 70 percent trust it to deal with the sexual abuse issue properly in the future. However, even in this loyal group, most, 58 percent, disapprove of the church's current handling of the issue.

Methodology

This ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone Dec. 12-15 among a random national sample of 1,209 adults. The results have a three-point error margin. Field work was done by TNS Intersearch of Horsham, Pa.
]]> http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/churchpoll021216.html


Dec. 16 — Public confidence in the Roman Catholic Church has fallen to its worst since the child sex-abuse scandal erupted early this year, with favorable opinions of the church, approval of its response and trust in its future efforts to deal with the crisis all reaching new lows.



Print This Page

Email This Page

See Most Sent
These views in this ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll underscore the Vatican's newly announced approval of a revised policy drafted by the U.S. bishops to handle sexual abuse by priests. Announcing the approval, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re wrote, "It appears necessary to devote every available resource to restoring the public image of the Catholic priesthood."
The poll finds 52 percent of Americans, including three in 10 Catholics, expressing an unfavorable opinion of the Catholic Church, both new highs. Unfavorable views of the church have risen by 25 points among all Americans, and 21 points among Catholics, since February.

Considerably more, 76 percent of all Americans and about seven in 10 Catholics, disapprove of the Church's handling of the issue of sexual abuse by priests — up 10 points since June to a new high. And the intensity of these feelings is deep: Among the 76 percent who disapprove, 58 percent do so "strongly," as do 51 percent of Catholics.

Looking ahead, confidence in the church to handle the issue in the future is also bleak. The poll finds 54 percent of Americans, including about four in 10 Catholics, express distrust in the church's ability to handle the issue properly in the future, up 11 points since June.


Unfavorable Views of the Catholic Church
Catholics All Americans
2/20/02 9 percent 27
3/28/02 24 34
6/09/02 28 45
6/17/02 28 47
12/15/02 30 52



It remains to be seen whether the Vatican's approval of a revised policy will do much to assuage these concerns. But after the U.S. bishops' meeting in Dallas last June, just 38 percent of all Americans, and 44 percent of Catholics, thought the meeting produced meaningful improvements in church policy. And that was before the policy was revised.

As would be expected, views of the church are most positive among regular churchgoing Catholics. Among those who attend Mass weekly, 82 percent have a favorable opinion of the church and 70 percent trust it to deal with the sexual abuse issue properly in the future. However, even in this loyal group, most, 58 percent, disapprove of the church's current handling of the issue.

Methodology

This ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone Dec. 12-15 among a random national sample of 1,209 adults. The results have a three-point error margin. Field work was done by TNS Intersearch of Horsham, Pa.
]]> Misc Yaelle Mon, 16 Dec 2002 18:02:25 +0000 http://pt.apostasynow.org/news.php?item.23.1