Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
2. More info from Minnesota Public Radio:
Tue Dec 3, 2013, 02:15 PM
Dec 2013
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2013/12/02/judge-releases-list-of-46-priests-accused-of-sexual-abuse

Archdiocesan officials have fought in the past to keep the list secret, but changed their position in response to an MPR News investigation that found that church leaders protected a priest who admitted to sexually abusing boys on an American Indian reservation and did not disclose his abuse to the police or the public. Archbishop John Nienstedt announced on Nov. 11 that he would begin releasing the names of priests with substantiated allegations of child sexual abuse against them in November if he obtained a judge's permission.

...

The battle over the list began in 2004, when the archdiocese told researchers at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice that it knew of 33 priests accused of sexually abusing children. The archdiocese did not provide the names of the priests. Researchers used the information from the archdiocese and other dioceses around the country to study the prevalence of clergy sexual abuse.

In 2009, victims' attorneys Jeff Anderson and Mike Finnegan asked a judge to order that the names of the 33 priests be released. Ramsey County Judge Gregg Johnson ordered the archdiocese to provide the information to the attorneys as part of a specific lawsuit but immediately placed the list under seal. It has remained under seal since then, which means it could not be released to the public -- and victims' attorneys cannot reveal its contents -- without a judge's order to unseal it.


It is beyond pathetic that the RCC was ordered to compile and now release this information, yet their PR machine is trying to spin it as being "allowed" by the judge to finally reveal it... despite sitting on it (and protecting men they KNEW were abusers) for decades prior.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Judge: Church Must Give N...»Reply #2