Priests, parishes target Pa. legislators who backed sex-abuse bill

By MARIA PANARITIS

Rep. James R. Santora
Rep. James R. Santora, a Republican from Drexel Hill, sits in his office at the Pennsylvania Capitol on Tuesday.

HARRISBURG – One lawmaker called it “electioneering.” Another grew emotional as she recounted being snubbed by a priest. A third penned a Facebook screed that became the buzz of the House of Representatives.

Legislators expressed outrage this week after they said they had been named by priests at Mass, in church bulletins or in some other way rebuked by the Catholic Church for supporting a bill that would let child sex-abuse victims sue individuals and private institutions decades after the abuse occurred.

Rep. Nick Miccarelli, a devout Catholic from Delaware County, said he was stunned on Sunday to see his name printed alongside what he called “lies,” and “distortions” in the weekly bulletin at his Eddystone parish. By his count, at least a dozen other House members reported having been singled out by the church or its advocates in recent days.

“A lot of the members would tell you responses have been nothing short of threats to claims of betraying their faith,” Miccarelli, a Republican first elected in 2008, said the day after his Facebook post about the campaign quickly made the rounds in Harrisburg.

Several of the legislators, each of whom faces re-election this fall, said they were targeted for retribution as Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput leads a push to stop the bill from becoming law.

The measure would give victims until age 50 – instead of 30, as the current law allows – to sue their abusers or the institutions that employed or supervised them. It won near unanimity in the House this spring, but faces an uncertain fate in the Senate.

The church, among the biggest opponents, has warned that the bill’s retroactivity could lead to a wave of lawsuits and unfairly cripple parishes and schools that deserve no blame for sexual attacks that happened decades ago.

Ken Gavin, a spokesman for Chaput, confirmed that archdiocesan pastors this weekend in “many instances” shared with worshipers how certain lawmakers had voted on the bill.

“The bill is public and the voting records are public,” Gavin said in an email Wednesday. “There’s nothing wrong with sharing that information. Obviously, parishioners are very concerned about this legislation. For those constituents to contact elected officials to voice such concern is a very normal thing.”

The push from the pews was not new or unexpected from Chaput. He used the same approach as bishop of Denver to help defeat a similar bill a decade ago. Other dioceses subsequently replicated the approach when statute of limitations reform took hold in their state capitals.

But some on the receiving end said they believed the effort went beyond simply educating the congregation.

The House bill passed overwhelmingly – all but 15 of 195 members voted in favor of it.

Still, Rep. James R. Santora, another Delaware County Republican, said even stalwart church supporters like him were finding themselves under attack and unhappy about it.

“I believe everyone that voted for the bill is being targeted,” he said, including himself in that list but declining to say how he had been targeted.

To Santora, the naming of lawmakers inside churches and in parish bulletins smacked of “electioneering.” He questioned the propriety of the church telling worshipers, as he saw it, that they were not worthy of votes come November.

It also bothered Santora that, to the church, it made no difference that he had helped secure millions of public dollars to help the archdiocese finance the visit of Pope Francis to Philadelphia. Or that his late mother worked for the archdiocese. Or that his children attend Catholic school.

“We’re constantly advocating for the church,” Santora said in an interview, “and now we’re the enemy.”

At Mass Saturday and Sunday at St. Dorothy’s in Drexel Hill, the pastor did not name Santora, he said, but did read a letter from Chaput urging parishioners to contact the Senate Judiciary Committee.

After that, calls and emails began flowing in, including from a major church donor who asked Santora to explain why he had supported the bill.

Santora said he did so because as a Catholic he felt it was the moral thing to do.

“I had a choice,” he said. “Do I choose victims, or do I choose the rapists or the abusers? I chose the victims.”

In an interview Tuesday, Rep. Martina White of Northeast Philadelphia was visibly moved as she described hearing a few days ago she would be no longer welcome at some constituent events in her district. She said a priest told her aide the reason was White’s support in April of House Bill 1947.

“When you think of the Catholic Church, you think of acceptance and forgiveness and a community that’s available to you,” said White, a first-term Republican who belongs to St. Christopher’s in Somerton and attended 12 years of Catholic school.

“Being dis-invited,” she said, choking back tears, “you feel cut off.”

A letter on the issue distributed to St. Christopher’s parishioners over the weekend didn’t identify White, she said, but it did name Sen. John Sabatina, a Democrat from Northeast Philadelphia. (He did not respond to request for comment.)

Another legislator said to have been shaken after hearing his parish priest call him out by name at Mass was Rep. Thomas Murt of Montgomery County, according to Miccarelli, who said he discussed it with Murt. A Republican and Iraq war vet, Murt did not respond to a request seeking an interview.

In recent letters distributed to worshipers and through Catholic schools, Chaput and others have expressed many of the same concerns that, when brought to the table in Colorado, helped defeat a change to the civil statute of limitations there.

They say the bill is unconstitutional because it allows retroactive filing of civil claims; is selective because the retroactivity does not apply uniformly to public schools and state institutions; and could bankrupt schools and parishes by allowing a flood of lawsuits for clergy abuse.

Gavin also noted that the archdiocese had taken action in recent years to help victims of clergy abuse, dedicating more than $13 million since 2002 “to provide victim assistance to individuals and families, including counseling, providing medication, eliminating barriers to travel and childcare, and providing vocational assistance as well as other forms of support.”

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Stewart Greenleaf (R., Montgomery) has taken no position on the bill, committing only to hold a hearing Monday on its constitutionality.

After enduring what he called “bully tactics,” Miccarelli went on Facebook Monday night and excoriated his church, St. Rose of Lima, for singling him out in what he said was an inaccurate summary of the bill. That passage in the church bulletin read:

JUST SO YOU ARE AWARE – State Representative Miccarelli voted in favor of House Bill 1947 which states that private institutions can be sued as far as 40 years ago for millions of dollars, while public institutions may not be sued for any crimes committed in the past.

Supporters point out that the bill would not prevent people from suing public institutions for child sexual abuse on the grounds of gross negligence.

On Tuesday, Miccarelli distributed copies of the church bulletin page to members on the House floor and began to hear stories of similar campaigns. Demand was so strong for the copies, he said, he had to make more.

Despite the pressure, he, like other legislators, said he would not change his stance on the bill.

Said Miccarelli: “I would much rather be chastised from the altar, than to be damned for not allowing justice to be done.”

Complete Article HERE!

A Public Service Translation of a Catholic Bishop’s Letter Against SOL Reform

By

bishop-letter

Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia is circulating a letter to parishioners and schools to enlist Catholics to join him in his scorched earth battle against the child sex abuse victims his institution created as well as the rest of them, including the incest victims. As someone who is familiar with Chaput’s tactics against victims and statute of limitations reform ten years ago in Denver, Colorado, I am performing the public service of providing the public a factual translation of his letter, which leaves out a few details.

Dear friends, bishop chaput2

A bill is currently pending in our state senate, HB 1947, that poses serious dangers for all of our local parishes, schools, PREP programs, charities and other Church ministries.

Translation: Well, HB 1947 is actually a watered-down version of the robust statute of limitations (SOL) reform in Delaware, Hawaii, and Minnesota. It caps all civil claims at age 50, which is actually a pretty big win for us bishops, who know that there are many victims well over the age of 50 who have yet to tell their story publicly. Especially good news for us is that many of the survivors of serial Philly predator Stanley Gana will be blocked. Thank God for small miracles! Between us: we have insurance to cover claims, and the insurance guys don’t want to have to pay on those policies, so we do have some powerful friends on our side.

With this letter, I urge you to write or telephone your local state senator and members of the state Senate Judiciary Committee to vote against HB 1947, and especially to oppose any retroactivity provision in the civil statute of limitation covering sexual abuse.

Translation: The Grand Jury reports of the Philadelphia and Altoona-Johnstown dioceses have already revealed way too many facts about our callous disregard for Catholic children. If a retroactive bill is enacted, more truth will be spilled and we will look really, really bad. Look at the tens of thousands of pages released in California! Besides, we need to get this bottled up quickly so we can divert everyone’s attention to the glorious Fortnight for Freedom for us to impose our faith on others in as many arenas as possible, whether we are talking abortion, contraception, or same-sex “behavior.” It starts June 21. I can’t wait!

All of us are rightly angered by the crime of sexual abuse.

Translation: The crime itself is just, well, despicable. The cover up, was, well, you know, necessary.

Over the past decade the Church has worked very hard to support survivors in their healing, to protect our children and to root this crime out of Church life.

Translation: I mean, it has been appropriate, of course, for us to fight tooth and nail every single victim who has had the temerity to sue us! We have had no choice but to smear them in the press, assert baseless religious liberty defenses, depose their families and friends, and blame them for their pathetic problems in life. And if their statute of limitations expired, we have had to righteously shut them down ASAP. If they would just heal the way we tell them to with some short-term therapy (c’mon, you can’t expect us to pay for your whole life—get it together!) and a prayer, we could forgive them.

But HB 1947 and bills like it are destructive legislation being advanced as a good solution.

Translation: I have talked to my fellow bishops and these laws are bad news: victims get to request discovery from us if you can believe it, and some judges actually have forced dioceses to produce their Secret Archives, and, let’s face it, they’re supposed to be secret! (That’s why many dioceses did not share their Secret Archives with John Jay College during its invasive investigation of us.)

The problem with HB 1947 is its prejudicial content. It covers both public and religious institutions — but in drastically different and unjust ways.

Translation: Look, I know the lawyers have told me that private and public tort liability is always treated differently. And I don’t have any problems with sovereign immunity generally. (Let’s face it—that’s the reason it is so hard to sue our mother ship, the Vatican; if it weren’t a country willing to invoke sovereign immunity everyone would be suing!) But this is another tactic that my PR firm back in Denver crafted for me, and it’s a winner. At this point, let’s face it, we are the victims.

The bill fails to support all survivors of abuse equally, and it’s a clear attack on the Church, her parishes, her schools and her people.

Translation: Okay, okay, I know it is not an “attack” on the Church, because it applies to all private institutions, secular and religious, for-profit and nonprofit. But this is another public relations move from Denver and, praise Jesus, it works. Let me repeat: we are the victims.

HB 1947 is retroactive for private and religious entities, but not retroactive for public institutions.

Translation: Apparently that is unconstitutional under the Pennsylvania Constitution, unlike the rest of the bill, which, to be honest, we know is constitutional. Nevertheless, we are bringing in some high-powered law guys to say that the whole thing is just one big unconstitutional debacle, so every Pennsylvania Senator will have the ammunition needed to reject HB 1947 on a principle.

It places very low caps on damages for sexual abuse in public schools in the future. And it makes it hard for abuse victims to sue public institutions going forward.

Translation: I mean, public schools have been mandated reporters for a very long time, and we made sure we weren’t, but, still, if we have to pay for our bad acts, they should pay, too! Surely, everyone else screwed up just as much as we did, right? Right?!

Meanwhile, private and religious entities face unlimited liability for exactly the same evil actions, and not just going forward, but also in the past.

Translation: I know “unlimited liability” is a bit of a stretch, but you know what I mean—the damages of the victims of child sex abuse, especially when they lose their faith as well as their innocence, can be astronomical. Why should we be the ones to pay for that?

This is not justice.

Translation: From where we’re sitting.

In fact, HB 1947 actually excludes most victims.

Translation: Especially if you ignore the incest victims, which we hope our readers do.

And it also targets innocent Catholic parishes and school families, like your own, who will bear the financial burden of crimes committed by bad individuals in the past, along with the heavy penalties that always result from these bad bills. This is not just an archdiocesan problem.

Translation: We are the real victims of those “bad individuals.”

In other states where similar legislation passed, local parishes have been sued, resulting in parish and school closures and charity work being crippled. The effect of bills like HB 1947 is to erase the sacrifices of generations of faithful Catholics who have done nothing wrong.

Translation: Of course, 75-90% of Catholic Charities funding comes from the government but I don’t want to get too far into the weeds here.

The Church in Pennsylvania accepts its responsibility for the survivors of clergy sex abuse. It’s committed to helping them heal for however long that takes. But HB 1947 and bills like it are not an answer. This kind of legislation is unjust and deeply misleading. It benefits too few victims, and it ends up punishing Catholic parishes and families who are innocent of any wrongdoing.

Translation: In my experience, nothing works better than triangulating the parishioners against the victims we created.

This is a serious and time-sensitive matter.

Translation: I really just need another year so that the funds I have been moving around will be beyond the reach of the victims when they eventually do get justice, like the funds from selling our seminary this week. I’m not stupid! I know SOL reform is inevitable. If I can get the finances arranged just so, and delay SOL Reform just enough, once a bill is passed, we can file for voluntary bankruptcy with its many benefits: We can force every victim to come forward–ready or not–and then pay pennies on the dollar for the ones in statute, and pay absolutely nothing to those we have kept out of statute! It worked like a charm in Milwaukee, where they were able to not only achieve these goals but also drag the survivors through years of federal litigation over the religious liberty right to engage in fraudulent transfers to hide millions from the victims. The Seventh Circuit was pretty harsh, but I am eager to see what the Third Circuit will think!

Please take a few minutes to review the important materials I’ve included with this letter.

Translation: These are killer documents, passed around by the U.S. bishops under SOL attack, though we do have some questions whether Pope Francis is with us.

Senate hearings begin on or around June 13. Please act now to contact your senator, and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and urge them to oppose HB 1947 and any effort to impose civil statute retroactivity. You can do that quickly and easily by visiting www.pacatholic.org. That’s the website for our state Catholic Conference, and you’ll see a prominent link on the homepage about this vital matter.

Thank you and God bless you.

Sincerely yours in Jesus Christ, Most Reverend Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap. Archbishop of Philadelphia

Translation: Not a bad letter if I do say so myself.

P.S. Let’s be clear: No one is shifting the full cost of the abuse to this Archdiocese. We need those funds to help the truly needy and of course to lobby against contraception availability, abortion regardless of the woman’s health or life, and the litigation costs of firing gay and unwed mothers who are teachers in our parochial schools.

Peace be with you.

Complete Article HERE!

N.Y. pol says Brooklyn bishop tried to bribe her to drop child-abuse reform; diocese calls her allegation ‘patently false’

BY

The head of the Catholic Church in Brooklyn offered a $5,000 bribe to an Albany politician in exchange for dropping her support for the reform of a state law preventing victims of child sexual abuse from seeking justice, the pol claimed Monday.

Assemblywoman Margaret Markey, who has for a decade advocated for an overhaul of the state’s statute of limitations on claims of child sexual abuse, said she turned down the unholy hush money from Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio in 2007.

“I’m not a billionaire, but I don’t need $5,000 to buy me off,” Markey told the Daily News.

The offer came across as a payoff, not a campaign donation, she added.

he Brooklyn Diocese called the allegation “patently false.”

New York Assemblywoman Margaret Markey (l.), seen with sex abuse survivor Bridie Farrell, says the head of the Brooklyn Catholic Church tried to bribe her.
New York Assemblywoman Margaret Markey (l.), seen with sex abuse survivor Bridie Farrell, says the head of the Brooklyn Catholic Church tried to bribe her.

“The bishop did not, would not and has never attempted to bribe an elected official or anyone else,” said Carolyn Erstad, a diocese spokeswoman. “This is a very serious allegation against a clergyman with an impeccable reputation. It is beyond comprehension that an elected official would not report an alleged crime of this kind to the proper authorities. She did not report it. It is not true. And it would be irresponsible for your paper to print it.”

Markey (D-Queens) said DiMarzio, who as head of the Brooklyn Diocese presides over 1.5 million Catholics, invited her into his chancery at the now-shuttered Bishop Ford High School on Prospect Park West in early 2007.

A nun was present when he offered the money, she recalled.

Markey’s spokesman Michael Armstrong said that DiMarzio suggested to Markey that the money would go toward therapy for one of her family members who had been sexually abused as a child.

Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio
Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio

After declining the offer, DiMarzio targeted her with robocalls as she ran for reelection against Republican challenger Anthony Nunziato in 2008, saying she did not have Catholic values, Markey said.

“I do have Catholic values — but my Catholic values don’t include raping children,” said Markey, who easily won reelection.

Instead of going silent, she wrote in the Daily News that year about her crusade, which now appears closer to success than ever.

“Lengthening or even eliminating statutes of limitation is a costless way for the states to do right by victims,” Markey wrote in April 2010.

Current state law prevents victims from suing their abuser after the victim’s 23rd birthday.

Markey says she saw no use in reporting the $5,000 offer to authorities at the time.

“Who could I report it to? He said, I said,” she explained Monday.

She first spoke publicly about the offer Sunday — but without naming DiMarzio — after crossing the Brooklyn Bridge with 250 people supporting reform of the statute of limitations.

Markey said she decided to go public, saying she was overcome with emotion after crossing the bridge with the supporters.

“I’d call that shut up money,” advocate and abuse survivor Kathryn Robb said. “He tried to pay her to shut up, right? That speaks for itself.”

Even if authorities were to investigate Markey’s allegations, the statute of limitations on bribery charges would likely be a factor.

State bribery charges must be brought within three years of the alleged crime; federal charges must be brought within five years.

The offer isn’t the first time DiMarzio allegedly played hardball with politicians over Markey’s bill, which would make it easier for victims to sue and also grant a one-year window for those whose statute of limitations had expired to bring a civil lawsuit.

In 2008, DiMarzio reportedly threatened lawmakers who supported Markey’s Child Victims Act, telling them he would close parishes in their districts — and say they were to blame.

The diocese denied that threat was ever made.

The state’s Catholic Conference spent $2.1 million between 2007 and 2015 lobbying against efforts to reform the law, as well as other measures. Others, like yeshivas and private schools, have also opposed Markey’s bill.

The church supports other bills that would extend the statute of limitations, but that does not include the one-year lookback, Erstad said.

Meanwhile, Albany politicians continued negotiating over a vote on reform of the statute with just six days left in the legislative session, which is scheduled to end next week.

Senate Majority Leader John Flanagan (R-Suffolk County) said there were “productive” discussions taking place among leaders of the Senate and Assembly and Gov. Cuomo about reforming the statute of limitations.

Complete Article HERE!

Release Secret Clergy Abuse Files and Protect the Youth of Seattle Archdiocese

Sartain

 

Dear Archbishop Sartain:

We, as Catholics of the Archdiocese of Seattle, believe that the profound damage and alienation caused by the clergy abuse crisis remains with us and that our young people continue to be vulnerable because of the incomplete response to this crisis by the Archdiocese. We know of your deep concern for abuse victims and appreciate your willingness to extend pastoral care to them. We also acknowledge that some procedures have been put in place to safeguard our youth. However, we believe that more is needed if we are to truly protect our youth, heal the wounds caused by this horrific evil, and address the continued alienation of Catholics from their Church. We urge you to:

  1. Establish and implement a protocol for the release of all files, memoranda, settlements and communications related to credible claims of abuse by all clergy and religious who have ministered in this Archdiocese or will do so in the future (with the names of victims redacted). Doing so would meet the expectation set forth in the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ “Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People” (Dallas Charter) that there be “open and transparent communication with the public.” (Article 7)
  2. Consistent with the intent of the Dallas Charter, empower a reconstituted Review Board that would have: a) broad, independent access to all Church files concerning clergy abuse of minors, and b) authority to investigate and make recommendations as to policy and discipline for all matters relating to such abuse in the Archdiocese – past, present and future. The majority of members on this independent Review Board should be selected by the laity and all of its recommendations made public unless the Archbishop explains in writing to the Catholic community the reasons for not doing so.

We urge you to take these actions because the interests of abuse victims must be placed above those of the abusers and those who protected them. A final and definitive revelation of the historical truth regarding clergy abuse, including attempts to cover up acts of abuse and shield abusers, will provide some measure of justice to the victims who have suffered so horribly. Although many victims continue to come forward, we know, too, there are many others who have and will continue to suffer in silence. We must honor them as well by disclosing the whole truth of what has happened.

Full disclosure of secret files and the ongoing involvement of an independent Review Board are necessary to create a sustainable culture and structure of deterrence and accountability, thereby significantly reducing the possibility that this systemic evil will ever happen again. As stated by Cardinal Frances George, when he released the Chicago Archdiocese files in 2014, “We cannot change the past but we hope we can rebuild trust through honest and open dialogue.” Revealing secret files is one step in rebuilding trust. Reconstituting and empowering a truly independent Review Board would verify that the trust is well placed.

Now is the time for us to move forward in mercy and justice (gifts of the good Spirit), instead of remaining mired in fear, obfuscation and self-preservation (reactions not borne of the good Spirit). We recognize that the steps we urge you to take are not easy steps, but we also believe that God’s Spirit will be with us as we take them together. “When there is mercy, justice is more just, and it fulfills its true essence.” (Pope Francis)

Finally, we wish to emphasize that as Catholics we are deeply conscious of our baptismal identity, of our vocation and mission in the Church, and of the many dedicated and faithful clergy of our Archdiocese. Pope Francis, in declaring this Extraordinary Jubilee to be a Holy Year of Mercy, emphasizes the healing power of God’s grace, forgiveness and mercy. We pray that you recognize that full and open disclosure of these files and reconstituting the Review Board as a permanent, independent body are necessary if we are to become a more just, healing Church, one that will bring us all closer to the Mercy of God.

Complete Article HERE!

Pope names temporary administrator for Guam archdiocese

By Haidee V Eugenio

Archbishop Anthony Apuron
Archbishop Anthony Apuron

 

Archbishop Anthony Apuron released a video message responding to the Vatican’s decision to appoint a temporary administrator of the Archdiocese of Agana. Watch the video here.

Original story follows.

Pope Francis named on Monday night (Guam time) a new apostolic administrator “sede plena” for the Archdiocese of Agana, pending investigation of allegations of sexual abuse against Archbishop Anthony Apuron.

While Apuron remains archbishop of Agana, Archbishop Savio Tai Fai Hon — as apostolic administrator — has been given temporary authority to govern the Archdiocese of Agana.

Archbishop Savio Tai Fai
Archbishop Savio Tai Fai

“The appointment of an apostolic administrator ‘sede plena’ means that while the administrator will discharge the archdiocesan pastoral duties, Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron remains the Archbishop of Agana,” the Archdiocese of Agana confirmed in a statement sent after 11 p.m. Monday.

This may well be the first time ever — or at least the first in recent history — that the Vatican made such an appointment in a U.S. territory.

Apuron, 70, has led the Archdiocese of Agana since 1986.

The Archdiocese of Agana, through a statement sent by the Rev. Edivaldo da Silva Oliveira, said Pope Francis named Archbishop Savio Tai Fai Hon, the secretary of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, as apostolic administrator “sede plena” of the Archdiocese of Agana “following a request from Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron for an apostolic administrator pending the investigation of an abuse allegation.”

“The Archdiocese and the Archbishop warmly welcome Archbishop Hon to Guam,” the statement added.

A man in his early 50s, Roy Quintanilla, recently came forward to say that he was molested when he was an altar boy in the 1970s by Apuron when the latter was parish priest at Our Lady of Mount Carmel Parish in Agat.

Quintanilla inspired Doris Y. Concepcion to also come forward days later to say that, before her son passed away 11 years ago, he told her that he was molested by Apuron when he was an altar boy in Agat, also in the 1970s.

Apuron and the Archdiocese of Agana denied the allegations.  Apuron has not been charged with any crime at this time.

Monday’s announcement comes shortly after Pope Francis approved new procedures for removing bishops who are negligent in sexual abuse issues, and made it clear that lack of diligence in cases involving minors is grounds for dismissal.

It also came three days after the Archdiocese of Agana announced it’s working with a U.S. law firm and independent investigator to look into an allegation — and “rumors” — against Apuron.

Deacon Steve Martinez, the former coordinator of a local church group charged with reviewing sexual abuse allegations involving clergy, said at a press conference last Wednesday that Apuron purposely kept the archdiocese’s sexual abuse policy weak to protect himself.

On Friday, the local church said that this allegation is a “calumny of such magnitude that the only avenue, which we are following, is recourse to the civil and canonical legal processes to address these intentional lies.”

This story is developing.

Complete Article HERE!