Click here to view related topics on this site :
Queen and Pope Summoned for Child Trafficking, Genocide Crimes Tribunal P 1/2
UPDATE: UK Tribunal to try Pope Ratzinger and Queen Elizabeth Windsor for child genocide
by Rev. Kevin D. Annett
The lie playing itself out this week in Rome is hardly new, or surprising. By the standards of the Vatican, it is actually a relatively obvious untruth. But for Pope Joseph Ratzinger to pose as someone who is sorry for what his church did to aboriginal people in Canada is about as sincere as the proclamations of his cash-strapped papal predecessors who ruled that it was a sin to believe that Jesus was a poor man - or, that one could buy one's way into salvation with enough payouts to the church.
"You are from your father, the Devil. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he acts according to his nature, for he is a liar and the Father of lies." Jesus, quoted in John 8:44
"Look boys, if we're going to worship a poor, humble man, we're going to need a rich, hierarchical institution to do it with!" Monty Python's "Vice Pope Eric"
Expediency should never be confused with the truth.
Like a little boy caught with a rock in his hand, Pope Joseph is in serious trouble, now that Canada has had to admit that thousands of native kids died at the hands of the Catholic church, which established and ran most of the Indian residential schools. But to make things worse, Joe [Pope Joseph Ratzinger] himself is personally implicated in the whole mess, since in writing he ordered Bishops and priests to suppress evidence of the violence done against not only native children, but any victim of priestly sexual assault, on pain of excommunication.
Covering up a crime is itself a crime, under any law, and Joe knows it. And so does the Oregon circuit court judge who ruled recently that survivors of any assault by a Catholic priest could sue the Vatican itself for damages.
International human rights lawyers have tried serving papers on Pope Joe a few times, and extraditing him into American courts because of his complicity in the silencing of church victims while he was a cardinal. But the Canadian residential school crimes are a lot more serious, now that mass graves have been identified. The Vatican has to quickly quell the threat of a War Crimes Tribunal summoning Pope Joe to answer questions, relying on the standard legal panacea known as "the apology".
Let's get clear about this word, and its corollary term so bandied about by guilty parties, "reconciliation" . Neither an apology nor a "reconciliation" has anything to do with being regretful or truly sorry, or with actually admitting that one has done something wrong. An "apologetic" means to defend and justify some act. Both words are about avoiding responsibility for a violent crime through a process of public and legal indemnification, whereby victims absolve the perpetrator and shield them from any consequences.
Put simply, if you're wealthy enough, you can get away with any crime, with the right words. And the Catholic church, as the oldest, wealthiest, and most systematic murderer on the planet, is a master of constructing words, which is the one and only skill required by the Lie.
Backtrack in time to the high middle ages, when the Vatican launched its crusades against "Saracens and pagans" abroad, and dissident Christians at home. A legal system was needed to justify the church's slaughter and conquest of all those Others, whether in the middle east or on distant continents. Papal lawyers came up with something called an Indulgence, a brilliant device which made it a virtue to loot, rape and murder, if these acts were done in the name of the church.
In 1095, Pope Urban II declared that Christian crusaders were absolved from any consequences for crimes they may commit in the upcoming war against Muslims, and indeed were spiritually elevated by waging such a war. The violence of the church became a virtue, under canon law.
By implication, those "unbelievers" damaged by the Crusaders had no basis to claim that wrong was done to them, since they were the cause of the war, and in fact the "unbelievers" had to make restitution to the church for having caused the violence done against them!
That act of restitution was termed a Reconciliation
During the Spanish Inquisition, for example, Catholics who had "lapsed" and become Lutherans were "reconciled through loss of property and compelled to endure prison terms". In 1612, five citizens of Madrid were "subjected to reconciliation for Judaism and committed to the galleys as slaves". And the same fate awaited American Indians. In 1690, the Bishop of Oaxaca in Mexico "discovered organized idolatry in eleven pueblos of Indians, and held an auto (inquisition) in which the culprits were reconciled and penanced, twenty of them being condemned to perpetual prison ...". (1)
To quote the medieval historian Henry Charles Lea,
This concept of blaming a victim for their suffering at the hands of the church, and of expecting any critic or opponent of the church to do penance on the latter's terms, is based on a basic Biblical and Roman notion that the mighty are always right, and the conquered must make amends to the conqueror.
"Reconciliation to the Church entailed confiscation and was usually accompanied with other penalties according to the record of the culprit and the readiness with which he confessed and recanted. There might be prison, public humiliation, scourging or the galleys." (2)
The core paradigm of European Christendom, and culture, is in fact the belief that mankind fell away from God in rebellion, and to win salvation must be reconquered by and "reconciled" to God (and, by implication, to the church) through penance and submission. The rebel thereby indemnifies the conqueror by acknowledging that the violence done by him was right and justified, freeing him from responsibility, and in effect stating to the world that there was no crime committed, except by the conquered rebel.
The Romans used this ritual re-submission of a conquered chieftain in their public religious ceremonies, prior to executing the chieftain by strangulation. And as the heir to the Roman Empire, the Catholic church incorporated this practice into its treatment of any enemy it conquered, including dissident Christians, aboriginal people or Muslims.
That practice, quite naturally, continues to the present day, albeit in a more secularized version. We have witnessed it played out in the residential schools drama in Canada, in which the church, Catholic and Protestant, has been publicly vindicated for any wrongdoing by the re-submission of its victims, in this case the aboriginal survivors of the schools.
After undergoing public humiliation, through recounting their tortures and receiving an insultingly minimal "compensation" in return for their promised silence, native survivors have freed the perpetrators of any liability by declaring that the churches are in fact not guilty of any crime, through their waiving of any legal action against the churches.
The fact that every Canadian Prime Minister since 1968, save one, has been a Catholic, has certainly helped the Vatican force the re-submission and "reconciliation" of its aboriginal victims, and avoid responsibility for mass murder. As a fundamentalist Protestant, Prime Minister Steven Harper perhaps felt freer to name the crime of the Vatican by finally responding to the evidence of genocide and the cries of the survivors, and opening the whole residential school can of worms in April of 2007.
But the essential point is that Pope Joseph's upcoming "apology" to residential school survivors is not an admission of wrongdoing on the part of the church, or even an expression of regret: a fact indicated by the manner in which native chiefs from Canada will be "received in audience" with the Pope, in exactly the same way that the Roman Emperor accepted the supplication of conquered chieftains at his palace - on his terms, and his alone. The chiefs will stand before the Emperor, again, to state that the latter is not guilty, and to seek readmission to the fold.
There is no other explanation to the fact that, as part of his "apology", the Pope will not be forced to revoke Papal laws authorizing the genocidal conquest of native people, nor disclose the buried location of residential school children, nor surrender those responsible for their deaths.
If Joseph Ratzinger was actually "apologizing" in the sense that most of us understand the word, he would travel to the victims, not they to him, and beg their forgiveness. He would disclose the truth, open the secret archives, and give his victims a proper burial. And he would stop instructing his priests and Bishops to hide the evidence of violence still being done against children in the Catholic church.
The fact that Joseph Ratzinger will be doing none of these things this week, but rather issuing words that will protect his church and himself from any hint of wrongdoing and from any legal liability for the death of tens of thousands of little children, indicates exactly who is in charge of this latest spectacle.
The Father of Lies, indeed.
The Pope played a leading role in a systematic cover-up of child sex abuse by Roman Catholic priests, according to a shocking documentary to be screened by the BBC tonight.
In 2001, while he was a cardinal, he issued a secret Vatican edict to Catholic bishops all over the world, instructing them to put the Church's interests ahead of child safety.
The document recommended that rather than reporting sexual abuse to the relevant legal authorities, bishops should encourage the victim, witnesses and perpetrator not to talk about it. And, to keep victims quiet, it threatened that if they repeat the allegations they would be excommunicated.
The Panorama special, Sex Crimes And The Vatican (featuring Thomas Doyle and Patrick Wall - see below), investigates the details of this little-known document for the first time. The programme also accuses the Catholic Church of knowingly harbouring paedophile clergymen. It reveals that priests accused of child abuse are generally not struck off or arrested but simply moved to another parish, often to reoffend. It gives examples of hush funds being used to silence the victims. [link here to read article mentioned in this special Runaway Priests Hiding in Plain Sight In the Shadow of the Vatican]
Before being elected as Pope Benedict XVI in April last year, the pontiff was Cardinal Thomas Ratzinger who had, for 24 years, been the head of the powerful Congregation of the Doctrine of The Faith, the department of the Roman Catholic Church charged with promoting Catholic teachings on morals and matters of faith. An arch-Conservative, he was regarded as the 'enforcer' of Pope John Paul II in cracking down on liberal challenges to traditional Catholic teachings.
Five years ago he sent out an updated version of the notorious 1962 Vatican document Crimen Sollicitationis - Latin for The Crime of Solicitation - which laid down the Vatican's strict instructions on covering up sexual scandal. It was regarded as so secret that it came with instructions that bishops had to keep it locked in a safe at all times.
Cardinal Ratzinger reinforced the strict cover-up policy by introducing a new principle: that the Vatican must have what it calls Exclusive Competence. In other words, he commanded that all child abuse allegations should be dealt with direct by Rome.
"When abusive priests are discovered, the response has been not to investigate and prosecute but to move them from one place to another. So there's total disregard for the victims and for the fact that you are going to have a whole new crop of victims in the next place. This is happening all over the world." [Father Thomas was also featured in Movie Our Fathers (abuse exposed in Boston)and documentary Deliver Us from Evil (abuse exposed in California -). Click on movie titles for links.]
The investigation could not come at a worse time for Pope Benedict, who is desperately trying to mend the Church's relations with the Muslim world after a speech in which he quoted a 14th Century Byzantine emperor who said that Islam was spread by holy war and had brought only evil to the world.
The Panorama programme is presented by Colm O'Gorman, who was raped by a priest when he was 14. He said: "What gets me is that it's the same story every time and every place. Bishops appoint priests who they know have abused children in the past to new parishes and new communities and more abuse happens."
Last night Eileen Shearer, director of the Catholic Office for the Protection of Children and Vulnerable Adults said: "The Catholic Church in England and Wales (has) established a single set of national policies and procedures for child protection work. We are making excellent progress in protecting children and preventing abuse."
Heinous as the accusations are, the most shocking – and significant – are those against the fifth defendant, Monsignor William Lynn. At 60, Lynn is portly and dignified, his thin lips pressed together and his double chin held high. In a dramatic fashion statement, he alone has chosen to wear his black clerical garb today, a startling reminder that this is a priest on trial, a revered representative of the Catholic Church, not to mention a high-ranking official in Philadelphia's archdiocese. Lynn, who reported directly to the cardinal, was the trusted custodian of a trove of documents known in the church as the "Secret Archives files" . The files prove what many have long suspected: that officials in the upper echelons of the church not only tolerated the widespread sexual abuse of children by priests but conspired to hide the crimes and silence the victims. Lynn is accused of having been the archdiocese's sex-abuse fixer, the man who covered up for its priests. Incredibly, after a scandal that has rocked the church for a generation, he is the first Catholic official ever criminally charged for the cover-up.
"All rise," the court crier intones as the judge enters, and Lynn stands, flanked by his high-powered lawyers, whose hefty fees are being paid by the archdiocese. The implications of the trial are staggering for the church as a whole. In sheltering abusive priests, Lynn wasn't some lone wolf with monstrous sexual appetites, as the church has taken to portraying priests who have molested children. According to two scathing grand-jury reports, protocols for protecting rapists in the clergy have been in place in Philadelphia for half a century, under the regimes of three different cardinals. Lynn was simply a company man, a faithful bureaucrat who did his job exceedingly well. His actions were encouraged by his superiors, who in turn received orders from their superiors – an unbroken chain of command stretching all the way to Rome. In bringing conspiracy charges against Lynn, the Philadelphia district attorney is making a bold statement: that the Catholic hierarchy's failure to protect children from sexual abuse isn't the fault of an inept medieval bureaucracy, but rather the deliberate and criminal work of a cold and calculating organization. In a very real sense, it's not just Lynn who is on trial here. It's the Catholic Church itself.
Battered by civil suits and bad press, the church has responded with a head-spinning mix of contrition and deflection, blaming anti-Catholic bias and the church's enemies for paying undue attention to the crisis. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops helped fund a $1.8 million study of sex-abuse cases against priests, but the results read like a mirthless joke: To lower the number of clergy classified as "pedophiles," the report redefines "puberty" as beginning at age 10 – and then partially blames the rise in child molesting on the counterculture of the 1960s. The church also insists that any sex crimes by priests are a thing of the past. "The abuse crisis," the study's lead author concluded, "is over."
Long before he became the guardian of the church's secrets, Bill Lynn was a boy with a higher calling. In the fall of 1968, after graduating from Bishop McDevitt High School in the suburbs of Philadelphia, Lynn arrived at St. Charles Borromeo Seminary, a stately campus whose soaring chapels, somber libraries and marble sculptures with heads bowed in prayer gave off an aura of reverence, history and costly precision. Lynn, a friendly, overweight boy whose acne-scarred face was topped with jet-black hair, was ready to begin his eight-year path to priestly ordination, a process the church calls "formation."
At St. Charles, Lynn was plunged into an environment in which every moment was accounted for. Strict rules governed all aspects of life, especially the personal. Besides the obvious prohibitions on sexual contact – including with oneself, or even in one's imagination – no seminarian was allowed to get too close with his peers, since he was to concentrate on developing bonds with God and the church. Seminary is a form of military-style indoctrination, molding men to think institutionally, not individually. "It's like a brainwashing, almost," says Michael Lynch, who attended St. Charles for nine years but was rejected for priesthood after repeatedly butting heads with his superiors. Lynch recalls a priest barking at his class, "We own you! We own your body, we own your soul! "
"The real secret here is the sexual life of cardinals and bishops," says Sipe, a former Benedictine monk who specializes in treating clergy and who has followed the case against Lynn. "If you pull the string in a knitted sweater, you'll unravel the whole thing. This will unravel all the way to Rome."
Many seminarians dropped out of St. Charles; others, informed that they weren't priestly material, were "invited" to leave. Those who remained were the ones willing to surrender to the process of formation: men prepared to bend to the will of their higher powers, both earthly and divine. Such intensive focus on preparing for one's "priestly burdens," however, often meant that men emerged from the incubator of seminary ill-prepared for the complexities of life itself. In 1972, while Lynn was still at St. Charles, a landmark study called "The Catholic Priest in the United States: Psychological Investigations" found that three-fourths of all American priests were psychologically and emotionally underdeveloped, or even "maldeveloped." The attitudes of these grown men toward sex, the study concluded, were on par with those of teenagers or even preteens.
Lynn thrived in seminary, where he made an impression as an affable guy who always toed the line. At his ordination, he took a solemn oath of obedience to the bishop, sealing himself into the church's vertical framework, in which everyone is bound to the strata above them. He was assigned first to a parish in Philadelphia, then to a wealthy church in the suburbs. His parishioners liked him, and Lynn's deference to his senior pastor made an impression on the archdiocese. In 1984, when a job as dean of men opened up at St. Charles, Lynn was plucked to fill it. "The dean is there to make sure you're being formed properly," explains a former Philadelphia priest familiar with the appointment. "A dean is also the type of person you want your students to want to be. We wanted to replicate priests in the model we had already been creating – nice, compliant, faithful priests. So we put Bill Lynn there: a nice, compliant, faithful priest we wanted young men to look up to."
Over the next eight years, Lynn was a hands-on adviser. He'd wake seminarians who overslept for Mass, take them to task for missing household chores and monitor their spiritual progress. Lynn proved himself to his superiors as someone who didn't disrupt the status quo, someone who could be trusted. In 1992, at age 41, he was named secretary of the clergy, a position that effectively made him the human-resources director for the 400 or so priests in greater Philadelphia. It was a job that required the utmost loyalty and discretion. Lynn now reported directly to Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua. If a priest broke the rules or stepped out of line in any way, it would be Lynn's job to discipline him and inform his superiors. That, says the former priest familiar with St. Charles, is precisely why Lynn was chosen for the job: "They sure as hell weren't going to pick someone who was going to send priests to jail."
Every Catholic diocese has Secret Archives files – it's mandated by canon law as a repository for complaints against priests so scandalous that they must be kept out of the regular personnel files. Few outsiders know the secret archives exist, and only the most trusted clergy have access to them. In Philadelphia, the sole keyholders were the cardinal and his closest aides. The files were kept in a row of unlabeled, gray-green cabinets in a windowless room on the 12th floor of the archdiocese's Center City office tower. Inside was an exhaustive compendium of scandals dating back more than 50 years: priests with drinking problems, priests who had gotten women pregnant, aging stacks of confiscated pornography. Then there were the reams of carefully typed memos that discussed priests with what the archdiocese delicately referred to as "unnatural involvements" or "unusual patterns." Priests, in other words, who had sexually abused the children in their care.
One memo directed to Cardinal Bevilacqua in 1989 described a pedophile priest's evaluation at an archdiocese-owned hospital, in which the doctor "is of the very strong opinion that Father Peter J. Dunne is a very sick man" who should be removed from ministry; the memo warned that Dunne's problem was so acute "that we are sitting on a powder keg." Another file began with a sheaf of letters that Father Joseph Gausch, an active pastor, had sent another priest detailing his sex with an eighth-grade boy in 1948, three years after his ordination. Gausch called it "the closest approximation to an old-fashioned roll that I have had in years... and the subject was oh-so-satisfactory and (this is what makes the story) willin'." In both cases, the response from the cardinal was the same: secret therapy, then reassign the offending priest to a new parish and pretend nothing had happened.
Bill Lynn understood that his mission, above all, was to preserve the reputation of the church. The unspoken rule was clear: Never call the police. Not long after his promotion, Lynn and a colleague held a meeting with Rev. Michael McCarthy, who had been accused of sexually abusing boys, informing the priest of the fate that Cardinal Bevilacqua had approved: McCarthy would be reassigned to a "distant" parish "so that the profile can be as low as possible and not attract attention from the complainant." Lynn dutifully filed his memo of the meeting in the Secret Archives, where it would sit for the next decade.
Over the 12 years that he held the job of secretary of the clergy, Lynn mastered the art of damage control. With his fellow priests, Lynn was unfailingly sympathetic; in a meeting with one distraught pastor who had just admitted to abusing boys, Lynn comforted the clergyman by suggesting that his 11-year-old victim had "seduced" him. With victims, Lynn was smooth and reassuring, promising to take their allegations seriously while doing nothing to punish their abusers. Kathy Jordan, who told Lynn in 2002 that she had been assaulted by a priest as a student at a Catholic high school, recalls how he assured her that the offender would no longer be allowed to work as a pastor. Years later, while reading the priest's obituary, Jordan says it became clear to her that her abuser had, in fact, remained a priest, serving Mass in Maryland. "I came to realize that by having this friendly, confiding way, Lynn had neutralized me," she says. "He handled me brilliantly."
In his very first year on the job, Lynn received a letter from a 29-year-old medical student that would trigger the events that led to his arrest 19 years later. The student – whom the grand jury would call "James" – reported that as a teenage altar boy he had been molested by his priest, Father Edward Avery. The popular and gregarious Avery, nicknamed "The Smiling Padre," was considered hip for a priest; he moonlighted as a DJ at weddings and invited lucky boys for sleepovers at his house at the Jersey Shore. The med student included a copy of a letter he had written to Avery. "I have let too much of my life be controlled by this terrible wrong you committed," it read. "You had no right to hurt me the way you did. You have no right to hurt anyone else this way."
This was a code-red situation that Lynn had to get under control. He began by interviewing James, who described how Avery had molested him at the beach house, at the parish rectory and on a ski trip to Vermont, sometimes after plying him with beer. James said he wasn't looking for money – only an assurance that Avery would no longer be a threat to children. That was surely a relief: the risk of scandal was clearly low. Next, Lynn confronted Avery, whom he'd known in seminary. According to Lynn's memo, the priest admitted that some of the allegations "could be" true – but insisted it had been "strictly accidental" and that he had been so drunk at the time, he couldn't recall exactly what had happened.
According to church protocol, an admission of any kind meant a priest must be sent for medical care. So Lynn recommended that Avery seek treatment at St. John Vianney Hospital, a facility in the leafy Philadelphia suburb of Downingtown that maintained a discreet inpatient program that treats sexually abusive priests. Cardinal Bevilacqua approved the request, but the bureaucratic wheels moved slowly: Avery remained in the pulpit for another 10 months before he was hospitalized for his secret therapy. After his release, his doctors prescribed that he be monitored by an aftercare team consisting of Lynn and two other priests. But the church did not take the recommendation seriously. The team did not meet for more than a year – one priest later testified that he didn't even know he was on the team.
Avery's doctors also recommended that he be kept away from teens and other "vulnerable" populations. Instead, the church assigned Avery to a new residence with plenty of exposure to kids: St. Jerome, a parish in northeast Philadelphia that included an elementary school. (The rectory had an empty bed because its previous resident, Rev. Bill Dougherty, had been quietly moved to another parish after being accused of abusing a high school girl.) Officially speaking, Avery didn't work at the parish – he simply lived there, with an assignment as a chaplain at a nearby hospital. With encouragement from Lynn, he became a regular presence at St. Jerome, serving Mass and hearing confessions. He took on more DJ jobs than ever, booking gigs almost every weekend. "He seemed mesmerized, focused, as if he became a different person DJ'ing," recalls Rev. Michael Kerper, who split shifts with Avery at the hospital. Kerper, under the impression that Avery had been moved to a low-pressure chaplain job after a nervous breakdown, worried that Avery was risking another collapse by spreading himself so thin. One day, when Avery failed to show up at the hospital while on call, Kerper wrote the archdiocese to express his concern. He addressed his letter to Monsignor Lynn.
Lynn surprised Kerper by calling him directly and telling him to mind his own business. "You're not going through the proper channels," Lynn snapped. "You're not his supervisor." Avery was permitted to continue working as a DJ and pitching in at St. Jerome. The following year, according to the grand jury, Lynn received an e-mail from James, who was looking for assurance that Avery had been reassigned to "a situation where he can't harm others... for my peace of mind, I have to know." Lynn reassured James that the archdiocese had taken proper steps. Then Lynn met with Avery and instructed him to be "more low-keyed." In doing so, says the grand jury, Lynn helped set the stage for the horror that came next.
"Billy" was a 10-year-old student at St. Jerome School in 1998, and an altar boy just like his older brother before him. A sweet, gentle kid with boyish good looks, Billy was outgoing and well-liked. One morning, after serving Mass, Rev. Charles Engelhardt caught Billy in the church sacristy sipping leftover wine. Rather than get mad, however, the priest poured Billy more wine. According to the grand jury, he also showed him some pornographic magazines, asking the boy how the pictures made him feel and whether he preferred the images of naked men or women. He told Billy it was time to become a man and that they would soon begin their "sessions."
A week later, Billy learned what Engelhardt meant. After Mass, the priest allegedly fondled the boy, sucked his penis and ordered Billy to kneel and fellate him – calling him "son" while instructing him to move his head faster or slower – until Engelhardt ejaculated. The priest later suggested another "session," but Billy refused and Engelhardt let him be.
A few months later, while Billy was putting away the bells following choir practice, he was taken aside by another priest: Father Avery. According to the grand jury, Avery told Billy that he had heard all about the boy's "session" with Engelhardt – and that Avery's own "sessions" with him would soon begin. Billy pretended not to know what Avery was talking about, but his stomach lurched. Later, after Billy served a morning Mass with Avery, the priest led him to the sacristy, turned on some music and told him to do a striptease. When Billy dutifully started shedding his clothes, Avery instructed him to dance to the music while undressing. Then the Smiling Padre sat back and watched the awkward performance before taking off his own clothes and ordering the naked boy onto his lap. He kissed Billy's neck and back, telling him that God loved him. Then he allegedly fondled the boy, fellated him, and commanded Billy to return the favor, culminating in Avery's ejaculating on Billy and congratulating him on a good "session." A second session allegedly followed weeks later when Avery, finding Billy cleaning a chalice after a weekend Mass, ordered the boy to strip. The priest then fellated Billy while making the boy masturbate him to climax.
Billy never told anyone what had happened. But from then on, he made sure to trade assignments with other altar boys to avoid serving Mass with Father Avery. After summer break, when Billy returned to St. Jerome and entered the sixth grade, he was assigned a new teacher, Bernard Shero. His abuse seemed to be a thing of the past, something best forgotten.
One day, according to the grand jury, Shero offered Billy a ride after school. Instead, they stopped at a park about a mile from Billy's house. "We're going to have some fun," Shero told him. He ordered Billy into the back seat, helped him undress, and then allegedly fellated and anally raped him, managing to insert his penis only partway because of Billy's screams of pain. Then Shero made Billy perform the same acts on him. "It feels good," he repeated over and over. Afterward, he made Billy get out of the car and walk home.
Before long, Billy began to change in disturbing ways. He often gagged or vomited for no reason and became increasingly sullen and withdrawn. He stopped hanging out with his friends and playing sports. He started smoking pot at 11; by his late teens, he was addicted to heroin. Billy spent his adolescence cycling in and out of drug-treatment programs and psychiatric centers, once spending a week in a locked ward after a suicide attempt. His parents, who later took out a mortgage on their home to pay for Billy's care, were beside themselves, clueless as to what had sent their sunny child into such a downward spiral.
When his mother found two books about sexual abuse stashed under his bed, Billy brushed off her suspicions. The books were for an assignment at school, he told her, and refused to say anything more.
Billy's alleged abuse at the hands of the Philadelphia priests might have remained a secret, if not for the church's inept attempt at spin control. After the abuse scandal in Boston broke open in 2002, every Catholic diocese in America had rushed to reassure its parishioners. Philadelphia was no different: Cardinal Bevilacqua declared that in the previous 50 years, his archdiocese knew of only 35 priests who had been credibly accused of sexual abuse. That was news to Lynne Abraham, the city's district attorney at the time, since not a single one of those 35 cases had been reported to her office. When Abraham asked the archdiocese's law firm for details, it refused to cooperate. In the face of stonewalling, Abraham moved for a grand-jury investigation and assigned a team of prosecutors nicknamed "The God Squad" to probe the archdiocese's handling of sex-abuse claims.
The God Squad had no idea what they were in for. The archdiocese fought the investigation at every turn. "It was like trying to infiltrate a racketeering organization," recalls former Assistant District Attorney Will Spade. "Most of these guys just seemed to be in the wrong professions. They weren't kind or understanding or any of the things a priest should be. They were just thugs."
The grand jury subpoenaed the church's internal records. Compelled by the court, the church's lawyer began meeting with prosecutors at a Dunkin' Donuts midway between the archdiocese's headquarters and the DA's office, handing over the Secret Archives files piece by piece. "I felt like I was living in a detective novel," says Spade. Though the prosecutors had been anticipating some sort of internal records, they were taken aback at the very existence of the secret files. "I always thought it was funny, them calling it the Secret Archives files," he says. "You morons! If they're so secret, why are you even calling it that?"
When the secret archives were finally unlocked, prosecutors were stunned to find thousands of documents that detailed the hundreds of victims who had allegedly been abused by 169 priests. "There was so much material, we could still be presenting information to the grand jury today if we followed every lead," says Charles Gallagher, a former Philadelphia deputy district attorney who supervised the investigation. "We ultimately had to focus."
In the case of Rev. Stanley Gana, accused of "countless" child molestations, Lynn spent months ruthlessly investigating the personal life of one of the priest's victims, whom Gana had allegedly begun raping at age 13. Lynn later helpfully explained to the victim that the priest slept with women as well as children. "You see," he said, "he's not a pure pedophile" – which was why Gana remained in the ministry with the cardinal's blessing.
Monsignor John Gillespie, who was not sent for medical evaluation until six years after Lynn began receiving complaints about him. Therapists subsequently reported that Gillespie was "dangerous" – but Lynn was more concerned about the priest's insistence on apologizing to his victims. To keep the scandal from becoming public, Gillespie was ordered to resign for "health reasons." Cardinal Bevilacqua then honored the priest with the title of pastor emeritus – and allowed him to hear the confessions of schoolchildren for another year.
"In its callous, calculating manner, the archdiocese's 'handling' of the abuse scandal was at least as immoral as the abuse itself," the grand jury concluded. Immoral didn't mean illegal, however, and the grand jury found itself unable to recommend any prosecutions, in part because the statute of limitations on all of the abuse cases had run out. But the nightmare had been revealed, and the Philadelphia faithful recoiled in shock.
Perhaps no one was more disturbed than the new parishioners of Lynn, who had been quietly reassigned to a plum job as pastor of St. Joseph's, a rich suburban parish. The job was essentially a promotion: Lynn's predecessor had just been ordained a bishop and given a diocese of his own. A kind and jocular pastor, Lynn had swiftly become beloved in the parish, always happy to pitch in at events held by the Home and School Association or to host dinner parties in his rectory. Stunned by the grand-jury report, parishioners were at a loss to square the unfeeling church official who had manipulated innocent victims with the compassionate pastor whom they knew. In the rectory dining room, one woman confronted Lynn in tears.
"How did you do this?" she demanded, sobbing. "Why did you do this?"
Lynn looked her right in the eye. "Don't believe everything you read," he said firmly. "I put them in treatment. I took care of the families."
The first of the 63 priests listed in the grand jury's catalog of abusers was Father Avery. By then, Avery had been placed on administrative leave – but he still remained in the ministry, more than a dozen years after the allegations of sexual abuse against him had first surfaced.
Once again, it was the most powerful word in the secret archives – scandal – that spurred the church to take action. As the grand jury was preparing to release its report, Cardinal Justin Rigali "urgently" petitioned Rome to take the extreme step of defrocking Avery against his will. "There is a great danger of additional public scandal so long as Father Avery remains a cleric," he wrote, explaining that accusations against Avery had been in the papers and that his files had been subpoenaed. The Vatican needed to remove Avery from the priestly rolls, the cardinal urged, to avoid "additional scrutiny."
Rigali needn't have worried. According to the grand jury, Avery was persuaded to request a voluntary defrocking, thanks to a severance payment of $87,000. The laicization process of transforming a priest back into an ordinary civilian, which usually takes years of canonical trials, was completed in less than six months.
With Avery disposed of, Cardinal Rigali went about calming Philadelphia Catholics. The archdiocese retained a consultant to help it improve the handling of victim complaints. A centerpiece of the reform was an independent clergy-review board that evaluated accusations of abuse. It was a terrific idea, one that would inject transparency and accountability into the process by taking cases out of the shadowy archdiocese and putting them into the unbiased hands of others. In practice, however, the archdiocese simply cherry-picked cases to send to the board – a fact that board members themselves learned only after the secrecy was revealed by the grand jury last February. "The board was under the impression that we were reviewing every abuse allegation received by the archdiocese," board chair Ana Maria Cantazaro complained in an essay for the Catholic magazine Commonweal.
In the few cases that were actually submitted to the panel, the grand jury found that "the results have often been worse than no decision at all." Using lax standards developed in large part by the canonical lawyers, the board dismissed even highly credible allegations. The results of those decisions could be devastating. In 2007, a man named Daniel Neill complained that he had been abused as an altar boy by Rev. Joseph Gallagher. According to a lawsuit filed against the archdiocese, Neill gave three statements to an archdiocese investigator – only to be informed that the review board didn't believe him. Devastated, Neill killed himself in 2009. After the grand-jury report, the archdiocese finally reversed itself by suspending Gallagher.
Under another reform instituted by the archdiocese – the Victim Assistance Program – abuse survivors like Neill could receive counseling paid for by the church. "I urge anyone who was abused in the past to contact our Victim Assistance Coordinators, who can help begin the healing process," Cardinal Rigali declared. In reality, the grand jury found, the program was used as a way to discourage victims from calling the police and, even more insidiously, to extract information that could later be used against the victim in court. In a recent lawsuit against the archdiocese, one victim recounts how, in return for any assistance, the church pressured him to sign an agreement that "prohibited" the archdiocese from reporting the abuse to law enforcement. "All along, they were acting like they wanted to help me," says the victim, "but really they just wanted to help themselves."
When Billy, the altar boy allegedly passed around by Avery and others, sought help in 2009, the archdiocese's victim coordinators once again took measures to protect the church. Instead of immediately offering to take the case to the police, the grand jury found, a coordinator named Louise Hagner and another staffer showed up at Billy's house, where they pressured him into giving a graphic statement. Returning to her office, Hagner wrote up her notes – including her observation that she thought Billy had pretended to cry – and informed the church's lawyers that Billy intended to sue.
At least one good thing came out of Billy's case: When his allegations were finally brought to the district attorney's office, his case, which falls within the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution, became the foundation of the grand jury's current investigation. Even the Vatican itself appeared to take drastic action: On September 8th, Cardinal Rigali will be replaced by Charles Chaput, the charismatic archbishop of Denver. The Vatican insists, however, that Rigali's resignation has nothing to do with the scandal. Indeed, Pope Benedict XVI has shown nothing but support: In April, when the pontiff needed a special envoy to appear on his behalf in the Czech Republic, he chose none other than Rigali for the honor.
As for Cardinal Bevilacqua, under whose watch Billy and other children were allegedly abused, the grand jury regretfully noted that it could not recommend criminal charges in the current case, since it lacked direct evidence against the cardinal. Bevilacqua, now 88, has rejected responsibility for the abuses that occurred during his tenure. When he testified before the grand jury in 2003, Bevilacqua conceded that any move involving the reassignment of accused priests was "ultimately my decision." But he was quick to stress who was really at fault: In every instance, he insisted, he had "relied on my secretary of the clergy's recommendations if anything was necessary to be done." With Bevilacqua insulated from prosecution, the district attorney grabbed at a lower-level bureaucrat, one the cardinal himself had hung out to dry: Monsignor Bill Lynn.
Lynn stands in the courtroom in Philadelphia, having been sworn in by Judge Renée Cardwell Hughes. Hands clasped, his face pulled into a frown of concentration, the monsignor proceeds to answer a series of routine questions: He holds a master's degree in education. He takes medication for high blood pressure. He has never been treated for mental illness or substance abuse. He understands that the charges against him carry a maximum penalty of 28 years in prison.
Then the judge comes to what she considers the most pressing point: Does Lynn truly understand the risk he faces by allowing the church to pay his legal fees? If Lynn's attorneys are paid by the archdiocese, their loyalty to their benefactor may put them at odds with his needs as a defendant in a criminal trial.
"You have been charged. You could go to jail," Hughes says gravely. "It may be in your best interest to provide testimony that is adverse to the archdiocese of Philadelphia, the organization that's paying your lawyers. You understand that's a conflict of interest?"
"Yes," Lynn replies.
The judge massages her temples and grimaces, as though she can't believe what she's hearing. For 30 minutes straight, she hammers home the point: Do you understand there may come a time that the questioning of archdiocese officials could put you in conflict with your own attorney? Do you understand that you may be approached by the DA offering you a plea deal, in exchange for testimony against the archdiocese? Do you realize that is a conflict of interest for your lawyers?
"Yes, Your Honor," Lynn continues to insist cheerfully, though his voice grows fainter as the minutes tick by. In one final plea for rationality, the judge asks if Lynn would like to consult with an independent attorney for a second opinion. He declines and returns to his seat, looking flushed and unhappy.
Lynn's lawyers, citing a gag order on the parties in the case, declined to allow him to comment for this article. The archdiocese also refused to comment, citing its emphasis on what it calls "moving forward." So far, Lynn's attorneys have simply argued that the case should be dismissed: Because charges of child endangerment are normally reserved for people directly responsible for kids – parents, teachers – Lynn's remove from the victims means his prolonged efforts to cover up the crimes were not technically illegal.
The court has rejected that argument, and the trial against Lynn and his co-defendants – all have pleaded not guilty – is scheduled to begin this winter. It may include videotaped testimony from Cardinal Bevilacqua, as well as the release of some 10,000 potentially incriminating documents. Lynn must know on some level that the church could be using him as a shield one last time in its systematic campaign to hide decades of monstrous abuses against children. But his willingness to sacrifice himself – his unswerving obedience to his superiors, even in the face of criminal charges – is what makes him such a loyal and devoted servant, all the way to the bitter end.
This is from the September 15, 2011 issue of Rolling Stone.
Posted June 09, 2011 by itccs.
Join the International Movement to Stop Church and State Terror Sept 15 - Oct 31, 2011.
Tribunals to be convened in London, Dublin, Brussels and Rome on September 15, 2011
The ITCCS has the endorsement of over thirty organizations, including eight indigenous nations in North America and Asia, survivors of Catholic church torture in Ireland, Australia and England, and the autonomous sovereign nation of Eurostaete.
1. Hidden from History: The Canadian Holocaust http://canadiangenocide.nativeweb.org/genocide.pdf
3.Website of The International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State http://www.itccs.org/
Kevin's award-winning documentary film UNREPENTANT on his website http://www.hiddenfromhistory.org/Or you can also view it here on this website http://revealingtruthinnovascotia.blogspot.com/search/label/0.%20UNREPENTANT%20Kevin%20Annett%20and%20Canada%27s%20Genocide
Kevin Annett: Queen Liz, Child Kidnapper
I am an Interior Salish spirit dancer and am 58 years old. I live in Vancouver, Canada.I am a survivor of the Kamloops and Mission Indian residential schools, both run by the Roman Catholic church. I suffered terrible tortures there at the hands especially of Brother Murphy, who killed at least two children. I witnessed him throw a child off a three story balcony to her death. He put me on a rack and broke some of my bones, in the Kamloop school basement, after I tried running away.I also saw him and another priest burying a child in the school orchard one night.In October, 1964 when I was 12 years old, I was an inmate at the Kamloops school and we were visited by the Queen of England and Prince Phillip. I remember it was strange because they came by themselves, no big fanfare or nothing. But I recognized them and the school principal told us it was the Queen and we all got given new clothes and good food for the first time in months the day before she arrived.The day the Queen got to the school, I was part of a group of kids that went on a picnic with her and her husband and some of the priests, down to a meadow near Dead Man’s Creek. I remember it was weird because we all had to bend down and kiss her foot, a white laced boot.After awhile, I saw the Queen leave the picnic with ten children from the school, and those kids never returned. We never heard anything more about them and never met them again even when we were older. They were all from around there but they all vanished.The group that disappeared was seven boys and three girls, in age from six to fourteen years old. They were all from the smart group in class. Two of the boys were brothers and they were Metis from Quesnel. Their last name was Arnuse or Arnold. I don’t remember the others, just an occasional first name like Cecilia and there was an Edward.What happened was also witnessed by my friend George Adolph, who was 11 years old at the time and a student there too. But he’s dead now.
Issued by the Legal Advisory Committee of the International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State – January 3, 2011
William Coombes, a Canadian aboriginal, was to have served as a sworn witness at the September 2011 session of the International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State as to crimes of torture, genocide and crimes against humanity committed by Elizabeth of Windsor (Queen Elizabeth II) and her consort Prince Philip in Canada in October 1964 at Kamloops, British Columbia.
Rev. Kevin Annett sets out the prima facie evidence for Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip's personal involvement in the disappearance of 10 aboriginal children abducted by them from a residential school in Kamloops, BC in the period Oct. 5 - 13, 1964 and never seen again in their lives. Learn how the U.K. and the Canadian governments and the Roman Catholic Church were directly responsible for the disappearance of 50,000 aboriginal children in Canada due to a land grab. Rev. Annett explains how no legal accountability has ever been had for these crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity, and how the so-called Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Canada is a white-wash.
According to Rev. Annett, it appears that William Coombes was assassinated on February 26, 2011 by persons in St Pauls Hospital, Vancouver, BC, acting on behalf of the Crown and the Vatican to prevent William Coombe's testimony at the September 2011 Session of the International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State.
The publication of Rev. Annett's interview comes as the House of Windsor is scheduled to hold a Royal Wedding on April 29, 2011, [and royal tour to Canada in July 2011] thereby fraudulently attempting to deflect public attention from the genocide and crimes by the House of Windsor against humanity in Canada.
During his exclusive interview, Rev. Annett indicated that the total number of aboriginals killed in the Canadian genocide by the British Crown is approximately 25 million persons, and amounts to one of the world's secret genocides. Over 50,000 aboriginal children are still missing and unaccounted for from the residential schools operated by the Catholic and other churches on behalf of the British Crown.
According to a statement of the Legal Advisory Committee of the International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State
Background and Rationale
The abuse, trafficking, torture and murder of children appears endemic to European culture, and continues to be actively practiced, and condoned and protected, by church, state, judicial and police forces around the globe.
These same institutions are equally responsible for the historic genocide of indigenous peoples at the hands of European Christendom: an enormous crime against humanity which has never stopped, and continues to ravage and destroy the innocent and the earth.
Because these crimes have emerged from within the heart and laws of so-called western civilization, they have not faced judgment or accountability. We believe it is time for both.
Two of the main practitioners of this genocide of the innocent – the Vatican and the Crown of England – are effectively immune from prosecution under existing laws and customs. It is therefore incumbent upon all citizens to take action to safeguard their children in the face of the refusal of courts and governments to bring to justice those who threaten public safety and wellbeing.
On this basis, our Tribunal has been established to enforce common law to try and convict the institutions and their officers responsible for such historic and ongoing crimes against humanity. We therefore constitute a de jure Court under common law, with full power of arrest, conviction and enforcement.
We have issued a Public Summons to Joseph Ratzinger (aka “Pope Benedict”) and six senior cardinals in the Roman Catholic Church, inc. to appear before our opening session on September 12, 2011 in London. A similar Summons will be delivered to other church and state officials in the coming months.
Common Law peace officers working for our de jure Court and Tribunal will apprehend these persons and bring them to trial, and will enforce the verdicts of our Court, if regular peace officers refuse to do so.
Our Court and its officers will follow the normal Common Law rules of due process in all of its deliberations and decisions, guided by natural law principles of equity, reason and justice, and the maxim Actus nemini facit injuriam: The act of the law does no one wrong.
In addition, our Court will recognize and allow in its proceedings the Land Law tribal jurisdiction of any indigenous nations or persons who bring suit against those parties summoned to our Court.
It is understood by our Court that its decisions, based as they are on Natural and Common Law, supersede and invalidate all statutes and statutory laws which conflict with the decisions of the Court, particularly when those statues uphold crimes or their concealment, or the protection of the guilty. Similarly, our Court does not recognize the jurisdiction or authority of any contending legal systems, such as the so-called “Canon Law”, or any form of personal, diplomatic or legal immunity governing any person or institution, including heads of states, churches and corporations.
As a de jure Court and a popular forum to address grievances, crimes and consequences, our Tribunal is by definition a public process that can only fulfill its mandate with wide participation, especially from survivors of church and state crimes.
Accordingly, in other countries and communities, the Tribunal will seek to hold public forums to coincide with its London sessions, and which will be linked by simultaneous telecast, to allow people to present their affidavits and testimonies which will become part of the official Court transcript and Tribunal record.
The final verdicts and findings of the Court and Tribunal will be made public in the form of a final public Report whose decisions will be enforced by the Common law Peace Officers and their agents, if regular peace officers refuse to do so. These decisions can and will include the imprisonment and community sentencing of the guilty, the issuing of commercial Liens and Orders of Expropriation against church, corporate and state institutions and their property and assets, orders of Reparation and Compensation, and the return of all land, property, unpaid taxes, and revenue obtained through forced labor.
Our Court and tribunal derive their ultimate authority from the self-evident Natural Law which resides within the reason and compassion of every man and woman, and from the Common Law right of the informed citizenry to establish their own Courts, Policing and Laws when normal institutions fail or refuse to uphold the liberty, rights, safety and well being of the community.
Issued by the Legal Advisory Committee of the International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State – January 3, 2011
February 24th, 2011
The five-nation Executive of the International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State (ITCCS) today authorized the commencement of an immediate investigation into alleged mass graves of children at former Indian residential schools across Canada.
ITCCS forensic assessment teams and investigators will arrive in Canada tomorrow to lead this inquiry in conjunction with local aboriginal elders.
The ITCCS action has been sparked by the refusal of Canadian Prime Minister Steven Harper to respond to two letters from the ITCCS Executive asking that his government investigate the graves and commence criminal proceedings against the churches responsible for the deaths of children in the residential schools.
School survivors and indigenous elders in three regions of Canada have requested the ITCCS intervention, and will cooperate with the ITCCS teams to produce hard evidence of mass murder in the schools. This evidence will be submitted to the opening session of the ITCCS on September 12, 2011 in London, England.
“We will be issuing a Public Summons to Prime Minister Harper this week requiring his presence at our Tribunal, to answer charges of obstructing justice and aiding and abetting a crime against humanity” said Rev. Kevin Annett, Secretary of the ITCCS Executive.
“We have issued a similar Summons to Pope Joseph Ratzinger and six senior catholic cardinals, and will be asking common law peace officers to enforce the Summons.
“We call on all residential school survivors in Canada to cooperate with our inquiry and boycott the Canadian government’s so-called ‘Truth and Reconciliation Commission’, whose actions are obstructing justice, silencing eyewitnesses and whitewashing this enormous genocide.”
The ITCCS forensic investigation teams’ actions can be monitored on its website http://www.itccs.org/For more information, contact the ITCCS at email@example.com
Authorized by the ITCCS Executive:
Rev. Kevin Annett, Secretary
Henry Bear, LL.B., Maliseet Nation, Chief Prosecutor
Chief Peter Yellow Quill, Anishinabe Nation
Ken Bear Chief, Legal assistant
Andrew Paterson, Common Law advisor
Gerry O’Donovan, David O’Brien and Kevin Flanagan: ITCCS Ireland and Religious Abuse Truth
50,000 Canadian Children Murdered by Priests/Nuns: TeleGracia Investigates - 1/4
50,000 Canadian Children Murdered by Priests/Nuns: TeleGracia Investigates - 3/4
Rev. Kevin Annett deliberating at UCC 1/2
On his recent European Lecture Tour Rev. Annett was invited to partake in the debate "Should The Pope be Arrested" during the 161st Year debating season at University College Cork on september 27th 2010. Thanks to UCC Philosophical Society for their hospitality and permission to put this deliberation in the public domain.
Rev. Kevin Annett deliberating at UCC 2/2
Illuminati III - Murdered by the Monarchs
Part 1 of 4
Part 2 of 4
Kevin Annett on Freedomlink Radio 10/3/2010
Part 3 of 4
Kevin Annett on Freedomlink Radio 10/3/2010
Part 4 of 4
Kevin Annett, Head of UK Tribunal trying Pope Ratzinger and Queen Elizabeth Windsor for Genocide, Jailed and Barred from re-entering England
London, UK: Monday, May 30, 2011