Post by socalexile on Aug 15, 2018 12:51:45 GMT -6
pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2018/08/14/pennsylvania-diocese-sex-abuse-grand-jury-report-released/
Here is the report, which has redactions, but is damning nonetheless:
cbspittsburgh.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/interimredactedreportandresponses.pdf
The first 10 pages mention some graphic findings. This is over several decades, but some of this stuff is still within the statute of limitations. Basically what they found is this:
ETA: Press announcement by PA AG:
Here is the report, which has redactions, but is damning nonetheless:
cbspittsburgh.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/interimredactedreportandresponses.pdf
The first 10 pages mention some graphic findings. This is over several decades, but some of this stuff is still within the statute of limitations. Basically what they found is this:
...While each church district had its idiosyncrasies, the pattern was pretty much the
same. The main thing was not to help children, but to avoid "scandal." That is not our word, but
theirs; it appears over and over again in the documents we recovered. Abuse complaints were kept
locked up in a "secret archive." That is not our word, but theirs; the church's Code of Canon Law
specifically requires the diocese to maintain such an archive. Only the bishop can have the key.
The strategies were so common that they were susceptible to behavioral analysis by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation. For our benefit, the FBI agreed to assign members of its National
Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime to review a significant portion of the evidence received
by the grand jury. Special agents testified before us that they had identified a series of practices
that regularly appeared, in various configurations, in the diocesan files they had analyzed. It's like
a playbook for concealing the truth:
First, make sure to use euphemisms rather than real words to describe the sexual assaults
in diocese documents. Never say "rape"; say "inappropriate contact" or "boundary issues."
Second, don't conduct genuine investigations with properly trained personnel. Instead,
assign fellow clergy members to ask inadequate questions and then make credibility
determinations about the colleagues with whom they live and work.
Third, for an appearance of integrity, send priests for "evaluation" at church -run psychiatric
treatment centers. Allow these experts to "diagnose" whether the priest was a pedophile, based
largely on the priest's "self -reports," and regardless of whether the priest had actually engaged in
sexual contact with a child.
Fourth, when a priest does have to be removed, don't say why. Tell his parishioners that
he is on "sick leave," or suffering from "nervous exhaustion." Or say nothing at all.
Fifth, even if a priest is raping children, keep providing him housing and living expenses,
although he may be using these resources to facilitate more sexual assaults.
Sixth, if a predator's conduct becomes known to the community, don't remove him from
the priesthood to ensure that no more children will be victimized. Instead, transfer him to a new
location where no one will know he is a child abuser.
Finally and above all, don't tell the police. Child sexual abuse, even short of actual
penetration, is and has for all relevant times been a crime. But don't treat it that way; handle it
like a personnel matter, "in house."
same. The main thing was not to help children, but to avoid "scandal." That is not our word, but
theirs; it appears over and over again in the documents we recovered. Abuse complaints were kept
locked up in a "secret archive." That is not our word, but theirs; the church's Code of Canon Law
specifically requires the diocese to maintain such an archive. Only the bishop can have the key.
The strategies were so common that they were susceptible to behavioral analysis by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation. For our benefit, the FBI agreed to assign members of its National
Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime to review a significant portion of the evidence received
by the grand jury. Special agents testified before us that they had identified a series of practices
that regularly appeared, in various configurations, in the diocesan files they had analyzed. It's like
a playbook for concealing the truth:
First, make sure to use euphemisms rather than real words to describe the sexual assaults
in diocese documents. Never say "rape"; say "inappropriate contact" or "boundary issues."
Second, don't conduct genuine investigations with properly trained personnel. Instead,
assign fellow clergy members to ask inadequate questions and then make credibility
determinations about the colleagues with whom they live and work.
Third, for an appearance of integrity, send priests for "evaluation" at church -run psychiatric
treatment centers. Allow these experts to "diagnose" whether the priest was a pedophile, based
largely on the priest's "self -reports," and regardless of whether the priest had actually engaged in
sexual contact with a child.
Fourth, when a priest does have to be removed, don't say why. Tell his parishioners that
he is on "sick leave," or suffering from "nervous exhaustion." Or say nothing at all.
Fifth, even if a priest is raping children, keep providing him housing and living expenses,
although he may be using these resources to facilitate more sexual assaults.
Sixth, if a predator's conduct becomes known to the community, don't remove him from
the priesthood to ensure that no more children will be victimized. Instead, transfer him to a new
location where no one will know he is a child abuser.
Finally and above all, don't tell the police. Child sexual abuse, even short of actual
penetration, is and has for all relevant times been a crime. But don't treat it that way; handle it
like a personnel matter, "in house."