FROM THE STORY

Weakland, who has largely been out of the public eye since he retired in 2002 in the midst of another scandal, was questioned under oath for more than a day by Anderson. Portions of that deposition were released - a common practice in court cases - in which Weakland acknowledged that he never reported any suspected abuse while he headed the local church. He also testified that he never directly asked accused priests whether allegations were true and that he never discussed what he knew about instances of sexual abuse with his successor, Archbishop Timothy Dolan.

The war of words is a side skirmish in a lawsuit, being fought in the courtroom of Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Jean DiMotto, in which seven men and women contend they were
assaulted by clergy decades ago.

The cases are expected to go to a jury trial in June or July 2009.

The cases are going to trial because the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled last year that the church could be sued by victims on fraud charges if they could show that the church knew about the misconduct and deliberately attempted to cover it up. In a ruling on the cases in her court, DiMotto dismissed actions against the church's insurance carrier, saying coverage did not apply to intentional acts.

That means that if the church loses in DiMotto's court, it will bear the full brunt of any financial award. John Marek, chief financial officer of the archdiocese, said in a Web page article last month that such a decision could "push the archdiocese toward bankruptcy."

Anderson said he was releasing the video that was taken as a part of the court case to rebut arguments that the deaths of witnesses would affect the outco

FROM THE STORY

Retired Archbishop Rembert Weakland admitted in a video deposition released Wednesday that he transferred priests with a history of sexual misconduct back into churches without alerting parishioners.

The former archbishop acknowledged that he did so because "no parish would have accepted a priest unless you could say that he has gone through the kind of psychological examination and that he's not a risk to the parish."

While similar allegations have been made for years as the scandal rocked the Catholic Church across the country, Weakland's statements give a rare glimpse of how a top church leader dealt with allegations of sexual misconduct by priests.

"I have never heard a bishop discuss openly the inner workings of this essentially secret handling of sex abuse cases," said Peter Isely, a spokesman for SNAP, a national support group for victims of clergy sex abuse. "I haven't seen anything like this anywhere in the country."

"Archbishop Weakland is able to comment on what he knew, but many if not all of those involved in these cases are dead," Jerry Topczewski, speaking for the archdiocese, said Wednesday. "We'll never know fully what happened or the intent of these people and their actions that date back 20, 30 and 40 years."

The release of the heavily edited portion of Weakland's deposition, which was taken in June, came in response to a contention last month by the Archdiocese of Milwaukee that the deaths of key people involved in the church's coverup of sexual abuse allegations had thrown into question the fairness of a pending trial, and that if the archdiocese lost the pending cases, it could face bankruptcy.

Jeffrey Anderson, a lawyer representing those suing the church, said Weakland's comments vividly show that the trial would be fair because Weakland's testimony showed that a coverup existed.

"I have never heard a bishop discuss openly the INNER WORKINGS OF THIS ESSENTIALLY SECRET HANDLING OF SEX ABUSE CASES (IN THE CATHOLIC CHUCRH)," said Peter Isely, a spokesman for SNAP, a national support group for victims of clergy sex abuse.

You could submit that, JohnDoe, but you'd be wrong.

Learn how to read.

The majority of Gazettefans' rebuttals hinge on his use of the term "In effect"
.
I would submit that in his case the term should actually be "Ineffect-IVE."

thediplomat: You're not the first one who posts here who believes that the mentality of your last post is an adequate response in a debate. In effect: "I know the truth and you're wrong and that settles it." Baloney. Reply in detail with reasoning to what ever it is you disagree with. All you do is throw jabs around in lieu of detals and reasoning skills.

How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that the priest was repeatedly found culpable for child rape?! Ignore it all you want, but that won't make the truth go away.

I happen to be very anti-Joe McCarthy. And by the way, contrary to McCarthy's rants, he never uncovered communists in the government. This is in stark contrast to the fact that three formal bodies have determined that Vosen is responsible for child rape.

All you're accomplishing here is having Vosen's wrongdoing highlighted and repeated.

Before you respond to this post, first do some thinking.

gazettefan,

I am by no means was commenting on the magnitude of the problem. I am very aware that this problem exists and that most are guilty. I was commenting on you publically condemning one man without doing adequate research. I can guarantee you that I know more about this particular case than you ever will. You may want to change your username to JMcCarthy.

All I know is that I was an altar boy at St. John Vianney Church for many a year in my youth, and I was NEVER hit on by one of these dirty priests. Quite frankly, I am offended. Maybe my pimples disallowed deviant interest...who knows?

These arguments have gotten out of hand here, but in any case, GAZETTEFAN is completely correct that the Multi-International Corporation known as "The Catholic Church" was more concerned with "covering up sex abuse" than expelling it, and the result was pedophiles being exported out to other communities with "fresh meat" available for the animal to devour. Just like Jesus would have done. That way, the money kept coming in. Not only is it all fairly simple, it is all stunningly proven. So get off your high horses, people. Did Vosen schtup this kid? Who knows? He wasn't a priest at the parish when I altered the stage, so I cannot say for sure. But it cannot be denied that plenty of priests were...and ARE...schtupping kids. Praise the Lord, and pass the lubrication. Amen.

The Catholic Church = secrets and serious issues!

Isley refers to the essentially secret handling of sexual abuse cases. It is the open discussion that is unusual. Open discussion of institutionalized child rape.

-------------------

"I have never heard a bishop discuss openly the inner workings of this essentially secret handling of sex abuse cases," said Peter Isely, a spokesman for SNAP, a national support group for victims of clergy sex abuse. "I haven't seen anything like this anywhere in the country."

What I said is reasonable and not a spin. If you want to put someone on the spot, state why you didn't step forward.

The jury didn't believe Vosen. It would be a tragedy if were innocent and not believed by the jury. If he was innocent and jury was swayed by widespread criminal behavior in the Catholic Church, then the harm that the Church has done has more than one face.

I have to chuckle at your attempt to put your spin on this. I have never had a doubt that Fr. Vosen is innocent.

The trial was publicized in advance. Character witnesses should have contacted Vosen or his lawyer. I suspect his "innocence" was doubted at the time.

Unfortunately, no. If the case would ever go any further, which I doubt, I would testify.

Go88, were you a witness at the trial?

Yet again people come forward with personal testimonies about this particular case, and all Gazettefan can do is ignore those salient points and belittle the comprehension abilities of the posters.
I stand by my assessment of your motivations and unreasonableness, Gazettefan.

I have been reading all of these comments and have tried to keep an open mind and respect the opinions of others. However, I was an alter server with the so called "victim" in this and I know one thing, there is NO WAY on Earth any of this could have possibly happened the way it was reported. I can remember serving many masses with the "victim" and we showed up at the same time and left at the same time. You can't tell me that any of this is true. Fr. Vosen helped me grow in faith and choose the correct path in a time when kids need direction. Fr. Vosen also taught me that there is only one who can judge us, it is not our place to judge. I hope and pray that one day Fr. Vosen will receive vindication for all of this. May God bless all of you!!!

billnewbie, let me tell you a little story.

Once upon a time, NO!!!

mousemarie, I know you're reading this.

Sometimes people's minds do get changed. But many times pride will keep them from admitting it. Your thoughts on this issue aren't very comprehensive if that didn't occur to you.

What's convoluted about this?: Vosen sued the victim because he claimed that what the victim said isn't true. The jury decided that Vosen didn't prove his case. This, by simple, uncomplicated reasoning means the jury believed what the victim said. This means the jury believes Vosen's guilty. Not guilty in the sense of a legal verdict but guilty in the sense that he actually, in the real world, raped the victim.

Vosen's guilty like you are guilty of having the need to speak while lacking the courage to listen.

I stand by my assessment of your motivations and of your unreasonableness, as your latest post clearly illustrates.

didi mao chop-chop

I have to say, I am utterly surprised at the amount of argument here. Do any of you sincerely believe that you are going to convert anyone to your point of view through a newspaper messageboard?!? Seriously? People seldom change their opinions when faced with absolute truth standing right in front of them. Do you really think that repeating 'institutionalized child rape' over and over will make someone decide they agree with you? Only those unable to form their own thoughts first are going to end up agreeing with you, and what kind of victory is that? Empty, that's what kind.

Let's be honest, the 'victim' himself could walk up to gazfan and withdraw all of his accusations, take and pass a polygraph and stand on his head and gazfan would still not believe him!

I also attended SJV for K-8 grade. Not only do I think Fr Vosen is a good man and that it is incredibly sad that he has been uncermoniously removed from his vocation based on this clearly unproven accusation. I also remember reading the original stories when it was reported and thinking 'the building isn't laid out like that. That type of discipline was NEVER offered/done.' The man's story simply didn't line up with the absolute facts of how the buildings are built, much less the realities of how the school was run.

I am also amused by gazfan's use of lawerly knowledge to the extent that it serves him. Yes criminal court is much different than civil court; however, a verdict in favor of the 'victim' does not prove guilt on the part of Fr Vosen. You have the most amazing and amusing convoluted logic.

Don't worry about responding to me. I have a thoroughly full life that does not include trolling gazextra's stories for places to argue with strangers and get undue attention.

billnewbie, why would you say that atheism is required to be against child rape in the Catholic Church? That's a strange computation.

I don't know how anything in the story about Weakland helps your side of this issue. What Archbishop Weakland did is just Standard Operating Procedure in the Church. All those tacit machinations is how that stuff is handled. It can't be denied that his closet homosexuality is somehow a part of the misdirected homosexuality in the Catholic Church. (It shouldn't be overlooked that girls are victims sometimes too.)

Like one of your fellow ingnorami below you contrived a way to take pleasure from the idea of child rape, by using it as an insult. Why should knowing or not knowing a victim of Catholic child rape make a difference? You don't know any victims and that's why you, in effect, defend child rape in the Church? Your defense of the indefensible is bizarre. Have you thought-out your neurotic line of reasoning?

The counter-equal to that mentality is that you are a victim of child rape by a Catholic priest and are in severe denial. A denial that includes a sado-masochistic, co-dependent relationship with the Church. You do seem to be a glutton for punishment.

Or maybe he is just a chop.

Gazettefan;
Why do you pursue this irrational contention that the Catholic Church has “institutionalized child rape”?
I have come to the conclusion that it is one of two reasons, or perhaps both. The first is that either you or someone close to you was a victim of one of these priests, a highly understandable reason for which I would have some compassion though you seem to have denied this below. The other is that, you being a well established anti-theist, are using this issue and your unreasonable contention as a stick with which to beat those who believe in God into submission to your point of view, a less than understandable and disrespectful purpose indeed. Considering your condescension towards those who disagree with you, your somewhat despicable contention that those of us who disagree with you condone child rape and your willful pretermission of many salient points I made suggest strongly that what drives you is the ulterior anti-theistic motivation I mentioned.

Here is an excerpt from that article describing former Archbishop Weakland’s deposition - "Weakland, who has largely been out of the public eye since he retired in 2002 in the midst of another scandal, was questioned under oath for more than a day by Anderson. Portions of that deposition were released - a common practice in court cases - in which Weakland acknowledged that he never reported any suspected abuse while he headed the local church. He also testified that he never directly asked accused priests whether allegations were true and that he never discussed what he knew about instances of sexual abuse with his successor, Archbishop Timothy Dolan”. This is hardly the actions of a member of a worldwide conspiracy of Catholic child rapists but of a member of a localized conspiracy of which Weakland was the head. The fact that he kept these matters to himself is evidence that he knew it was wrong and that his superiors and successor would not approve.
This is the same Archbishop Weakland of whom it was discovered at his “retirement” that he had paid off a man who was his former paramour. He’s not at all a man of honor, more like one of those wolves in sheep’s clothing I have written about. When it comes to a culprit like this, I’ll volunteer to put the noose around his neck while you operate the trap door.

The burden of proof is on those defenders of the Catholic Church who claim that this form of organized criminal activity and institutionalized child rape is no longer in practice.

Thanks, theguyonthecouch.

Ex-archbishop admits he put abusive priests in jobs

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/3...

I admit,I didn't expect you to break out into a chorus of "A Hail The Conquering Hero".

THE VERDICT FOR YOUR LAST POST

FORM: Not bad.

SENSE OF HUMOR: Excellent.

ACCURACY: You're in big trouble, pal.

After giving all the consideration your eloquent fulminations deserve , I hereby declare myself the winner of this debate (once again(this may be habit forming)) based on form, style, content, diligence and verbosity.
There is no need for you to concede although if you do, I may die from the shock, which at least will give you a better chance of winning next time.

billnewbie, take your time.

upnortwi, my judgment day post was in reference to your judgment day post in which you implied judgment day will be a bad day for me.

There'll be too many priests in line for severe judgment. The old bearded grumpy guy will never get to me. Next time get the joke!!!

upnorthwi, read my November 11th, 7:55pm post.

You guys still at it? Feels like grade school in here.

Is that your expert opinion, Gazettefan? I shall give it all the consideration it deserves.

MikeF..gaz always insinuates "whole", we all see that. But, when you point that out, he turns it around. I don't get it!

Once again, you are way off base. I condemn the priests that molest children! So, you think that just because they are priests they will be saved on judgement day? And I GUARANTEE there WILL be a judgement day. Once again, I am NOT Catholic, I DON'T share their beliefs. Keep twisting everyone's comments, you're great at it.

Form AND content needs work.

First I'm too wordy, then too curt. Your disapproving characterizations are no surprise, but it’s not the form of my compositions that vex you as much as their content. Your accusation that the Catholic Church institutionalized child rape is unreasonable as is your certitude of Vosen’s guilt.
That's hummorous of you to characterize my response as flippant, considering the content of your bombastic posts.

What I wrote is what I know to be what the Church wants people to think. In reality the Church wouldn't have dumped Vosen were it not for people raving against the Church. The Church dumped Vosen in an attempt to save itself.

The people who dumped Vosen would have transferred him to another parish to continue his child rape if what he had already done wasn't made high profile. They knew that Vosen is guilty. The act of dumping him was an act of self-condemnation, and therefore credible.

That's why the safe presumption is: As long as an incident of child rape isn't made known to the outside world, the Church will transfer the rapist to another parish.

Thanks for reducing your post from something long, rambling, and tiresome to something shorter. But don't get the idea that a short flippant, empty post is in any way a substantial retort.

I suppose that what I write must be well beyond your grasp, Gazettefan. I've made my points quite clearly. If you won't fairly consider what I've already written, rephrasing it won't help and I eventually lose interest when chasing my tail.

MikeF, no. You're adding the word "whole."

In the context of all that's been said here, the Church's determination that the allegations against Vosen are true is self-condemnatory. Vosen represented the Church and what he did reflected negatively on the Church.

When someone or an organization makes statements that are harmful to himself, herself, or itself, those statements are generally regarded as credible by investigators or officers of the court.

Given what's been going in the Church re: child rape, the Church's determination certainly is self-condemnatory, but it isn't necessarily condemning itself entirely.

Redemption includes the element of self-condemnation. When religious people pray, they are condemning themselves while at the same time intending to sin no more. In the matter of Vosen, this is what the Church did. The Church didn't transfer Vosen to another parish, but instead relieved him of his position and announced to the world that he is dangerous.

"The Church condemned itself when it determined that one of their own is a child rapist." So when an organization determines that one of it's members did wrong, the organization as a whole did wrong? Is that what you are saying?

"As a result of the decision in August, the jury rejected Vosen's demand for $1.1 million in damages against alleged sexual abuse victim Peter J. Arnold, and his parents, Leland R. and Nancy S. Arnold."

I guess all the opposition here would entrust, without worry, small children to Vosen.

upnorthwi, if judgment day ever comes, I'll just get in line behind the priests and I'll be safe for eternity.

billnewbie, what are you talking about?!!! You're really spinning-out. Some of your new post is just crazy confabulation.

The police consider a self-condemning report to be hard evidence. The Church condemned itself when it determined that one of their own is a child rapist. Why is that so hard to understand?

A finding or verdict by finders of fact is indeed evidence. If OJ had been found guilty in his criminal trial, that would have been submitted as evidence in the civil trail. Get a grasp on this.

And the OJ comparison was to point out the different standards for a criminal trial and civil trial. You're murkying this up with a lot of irrelevance and meanderings.

Many or the majority of verdicts are based on circumstantial evidence. If a smoking gun were always necessary, many criminals would walk free and many civil cases would end unfairly. When circumstantial evidence is constructed to a certain degree, then a verdict of guilty or responsible will follow. Your idea of evidence would give child-rapists free reign to do whatever they want.

Again, the evidence required for the plaintiff to win in a civil trial is slightly over 50% of all the evidence submitted. For a criminal trial, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt with a preponderance of the evidence. (Re-read my posts below for a refresher.)

I know Vosen brought the case to court. And he needed only a sliver of evidence over 50% and he would have won, but he didn't have it.

The nine jurors along with the other three made their testimony when they ruled against Vosen.

And what's this about the AP story? The issue was: Did Vosen sue the victim for over a million dollars. Non-AP stories say "Yes." You say "No." I was right and you were wrong; didn't you acknowledge that? What's going on with you?

Thanks, ms_sassy, we need more people who can grasp the horror and magnitude of what this issue is all about.

The crap-house nitpicky-lawyer-wannabes are running rampant here.

"What does that even mean?" It is a common response by society regarding someone who was victimized as a child. That the child survivor should somehow "pick themselves up by the boot straps" and carry on as if nothing happened to them.

"As I said below the churches in town are screening everyone who will work with or have contact with children and young adults."
Yes, Some are doing that NOW. But for the past 150+ years, background checks were not utilized. Any child who made a claim that they didn't feel right about being around a particular person was told to "obey your elders".

And when an abused child grows up and has an "abnormal" view of sex and becomes a prostitue, a stripper or drug addict or alcoholic, society tells him/her to take personal responsibility and "get over it", claiming that they cannot use any abuse against them as a child as a valid reason for not adjusting to what society says is "normal" or "acceptable behavior". When in reality, they have not been "normal" since the abuse occurred. And continue to be victimized by a blatant disregard of how the abuse affects the victim.

Quite true, ms_sassy_wi. That old fable about the wolf in sheep's clothing wasn't just a tale, but also a warning. The fact is we live like sheep with wolves all around dressed as sheep. Often times we find out too late that one we trusted meant us no good. That's true in all walks of life. Those who would do us harm know that a high position of trust affords more opportunities while offering cover even after the fact of their evil is know as many who's trust they've cultivated will not accept evidence contrary to what they believe. This problem is in no way confined to the Catholic Church. It is everywhere. We are, by and large, a gullible group, us humans.

"accept that child sexual abuse is ok-or the ever-popular: "it happened 20 years ago. get over it already" attitudes that really get me enraged"

WHO would ever accept that it is OK or "ever-popular"? What does that even mean? As I said below the churches in town are screening everyone who will work with or have contact with children and young adults.

I also would like to point out that MANY pedophiles seek jobs that allow them to perpetrate without much opportunity to get caught. Since the Catholic priest scandal broke wide open, many more people are much more cautious of who they entrust with their children, which is a good thing.

The problem, imho, is that there are so many victims from these and organizations like the church (ie: group homes, scouting, schools, etc) that there will be second- and third- generation victims that knowingly and unknowingly re-victimize and/or accept that child sexual abuse is ok-or the ever-popular: "it happened 20 years ago. get over it already" attitudes that really get me enraged. No one, not even a priest, has the right to take the innocence and SOUL of a child.

as luck would have it...it IS raining.

You should have saved your 2 cents for a rainy day.....

ok...I'll put my 2 cents worth in...

I have no definitive knowledge of any of the parties in this case; however, what I DO know is that the Catholic Church not only expects but also PRETENDS that the leaders are as infallible as Jesus Christ and that as such, will not have the thoughts, needs and desires of HUMANS. I firmly believe that if the church acknowleged that priests, etc. were "only" humans and allowed them to marry, have children and lead the life of a HUMAN (as opposed to a DIVINE) being, the sins that manifest themselves into horrific tragedies in innocent people's lives would drastically be reduced. These men (priests, etc) who do not want to (or cannot, because of the church's crazy logic) admit that they are unable to overcome their human thoughts and wind up destroying the lives of young boys who have not had an opportunity to experience normal feelings, attractions and sexual desires for anyone yet; therefore, grow into men with ill-conceived beliefs of what healthy sexual relationships are and who they are as a boy (and then, of course a man), due to the belief system that the priest is holy and can provide the guidance that a trusting person would naturally turn to.

The major problem is that the priests turn a boy with natural beliefs into sick, twisted, unnatural beings who wind up so confused and are unable to deal with life. They then, many times, turn to alcohol, drugs, sexual promiscuity and lives of crime in order to deal with the business of living. It's interesting how some think that the victim cannot be trusted now, based on the "choices" they have made-when the reality is that they had NO CHOICE IN THE MATTER OF BEING ABUSED. The same is said about female rape victims.

It is a tragedy and worse, is making a travesty out of the church that is supposed to provide the spiritual warfare to be better people in this world of evil. I fail to see how going to church on Sunday morning in today's world is any better than going to the tavern. This is why I am not a member of any denomination or church, but use God as my "go-to guy". I don't need a middle man to discuss my business with or confess my sins to-especially when the middle man's life is the epitome of wicked.

gaz, you really are a sick man. I would probably kill someone who touched my children, how DARE you say I seem to be ok with it! You are a total waste of my, and everyone elses, time who even responds to your twisted statements. Your day will come when you meet your maker for blaspheming the church and God. God help you!!

By your own words you illustrate the unreasonableness of assuming Vosen's guilt. All you have is that since the judge did this but he didn't do that, Vosen is guilty.
I find it contradictory that you take a Catholic Church's findings as accurate without retracting your indefensible claim that they have institutionalized child rape, which has been, and still is, the main point of contention between us. Those finding themselves are not evidence. They may be based on evidence but they are not in and of themselves evidence. Just like anyone else, what a person says about evidence is not evidence, it is an opinion of the evidence and only carries as much weight as the respect the opinion maker is held in, which in this case, you have well established through your proclamations of contempt for the Catholic Church is very little considering the opinions are from Catholic officials. Yet you accept these findings without question. I am certain that you would reject these finding had they been in Vosen’s favor while condemning the Church for its cover-up.
Whether Vosen is guilty or innocent of child rape cannot be substantiated without corroboration. I'll remind you that OJ was actually tried in criminal court with the evidence made available for all to see. Vosen has had no such criminal trial as the evidence against him does not so warrant. You don't think Mr. O'Leary would pass up such an opportunity if there were evidence enough, do you? Isn’t that evidence of Vosen’s innocence by your standards? Also, OJ’s civil case was brought against him, Vosen brought his civil case against the Arnolds. OJ’s civil case sought damages for wrongful death, Vosen’s sought damages for defamation of character. The Goldman’s had corroboration (a dead body and all that evidence from the criminal trial), Vosen only had his word against the Arnold’s and some unconvincing circumstantial evidence. The two cases are notable more in their differences than in their similarities and as such, OJ’s case is a poor choice for comparison to Vosen’s.
As far as the other 9 jurors saying nothing, what do you call that, silent testimony? If a person makes no comment at all, that can now be used as evidence? You do go on.
You still can't bring yourself to acknowledge your error about the AP story, can you?

PART TWO
Re: the judges statements that question the veracity of the victim: In order for a case to go to trial, a judge has to make such a determination: that the defendant might be wrong (especially if the defendant attempts to get the case thrown out of court which is what the victim's lawyer attempted). The trial is permitted so the whole thing can be sorted out. Keep in mind that the judge didn't make a summary judgment for either the plaintiff or the defendant, thus ending the case before the trial unfolded.

The judge said what he said because he thought the trial was necessary to sort out the truth. Recall in one of the stories I posted here, Vosen's lawyer, two months late, requested that the judge reverse the juries decision. The judge did not. He let it stand. This decision on his part contradicts his earlier statements re: the credibility of the victim. I believe Vosen's lawyer attempted to get a summary judgment against the victim, but the judge didn't allow it.

Judges have the right to overturn a jury's decision if they think a decision by a jury has gone against the cause of justice. The judge did not do this at the end of trial.

Re: Vosen's defenders. Rapists don't go around advertising what they are. They don't where a sign. They blend.

My "agenda" is apparent within the reasoning and facts I've presented here.

Re: your attempt to 180 me on why I believe the Church re: its action and attitude toward Vosen. In a criminal investigation, self-condemning actions and statements are considered hard evidence. The Church's attitude and action toward Vosen has the effect of condemning the Church. Therefore, the Church's determination against Vosen has to be regarded as credible. I am not contradicting myself by believing the Church in this matter.

OK, don't take any credit for what the Church does. But don't fight the forces that want to fix it.

Now it's time to go to Traxler Park and celebrate the people whose sacrifices gave us our First Amendment rights.

Maybe I'll see you there. I'll be the one in the sombrero.

PART ONE
Wow, billnewbie, you do go on. In light of your second paragraph, I don't understand your first paragraph. You didn't admit you were wrong about Vosen's demand until just now. Which I do appreciate. (You don't want to bring evolution into this.)

The standard to judge Vosen's guilt comes from the three formal bodies that determined that the accusations against Vosen are true. The findings are EVIDENCE. Your sketchy speculations on unimportant details are not on par with that evidence.

You have to understand this about a civil trial and a criminal trial: Because of what's at stake in a criminal trial (imprisonment or death) the burden on the prosecution is greater. Criminals and innocent people benefit from this concept.

Among other things, the reason OJ won his criminal trial was because the standard of proof was so high. In a criminal trial a preponderance of evidence is required (no reasonable doubt). In a civil trial less is at stake (money, reputation) so, less evidence is required. OJ lost his civil trial because the evidence required is only slightly above 50% of all the evidence, including the countervailing evidence. With that lower requirement, Vosen couldn't even win his civil trial.

This is consistent with the fact that three jurors (out of twelve) said that Vosen wouldn't be convicted in a criminal trial. And don't forget, nine (75% of the jurors) didn't make the same statement.

Remember, the standards are higher in a criminal case than in a civil case. This was made clear in OJs two trials.

How graceless of you Gazettefan. You can't even bring yourself to acknowledge a minor mistake. It’s just an AP story you’re wrong about, it’s not like you have to embrace Catholicism or admit that evolution isn’t proven
I does appear that you’ve made a point about Vosen’s damage request (I can admit I was wrong), but the larger issue of implied guilt due to such a request as you claim is still quite unreasonable.
Did you happen to read the article dated Jan. 31, 2006 in the same Baraboo newspaper where the Arnolds agreed to drop their request for Vosen to pay their legal fees? Should we now use the same standards you apply to Vosen and cast aspersions on the Arnolds for lacking the strength of their convictions? Do we now assume the Arnolds made it all up? That would also be unreasonable, I’m sure you’ll agree.
All we have here is the opposing claims of Vosen and his accuser. You demand that Vosen be condemned as a child rapist on the strength of that accusation as if that is all a reasonable person needs to know. Did you happen to see the article in the same Baraboo newspaper entitled “Priest’s Book Rebuts Allegations” published Oct. 18, 2008 in which the authors of the article wrote the following quotes “But three of the jurors in the case were later quoted as saying there was "insufficient evidence (against Vosen) for a criminal trial." And the judge was quoted as saying, "There is ample evidence that these actions (Vosen was accused of) never occurred." If Vosen can be assumed guilty by reason of the verdict against him at this trial, why would the judge say that? You were at the trial, how is it that you see things differently than the judge and those jury members? If anyone’s in trouble in this argument, you are, not that you’ll ever concede that.
You’ve cited that 2 other people have also accused Vosen. You’ve ignored the posts below of those who offered positive personal references on Vosen’s behalf. Why should the word of accusers be the only ones that have any weight with you? Could it be that the word of his supporters doesn’t fit your agenda?
You have also cited the Catholic’s Church’s own findings as evidence of Vosen’s guilt (the 2 other formal bodies you cite). It’s amazing how that church achieves temporary credibility in your eyes when they say something you want to hear.
By the way, not being a Catholic, I take no credit for anything that church does.

No credit can go to people like billnewbie and the diplomate for any positive changes in the Church re: this problem.

The practice of transferring priests/rapists to other churches has gone on for so long, the number of victims can never be truly known -given the nature of the trauma. The count can not be limited to the number of victims who've spoken out.

If the rapes and the transferring practice absolutely stopped right now, there will be living victims for many decades to come.

Also, the problem as to the nature of the priesthood being a magnet for a certain type of misfit has to be addressed. Until this matter is corrected, one way or another, the children are in peril.

First of all the crimes were committed by some dioceses and was not church wide. Second the number of offenders is roughly the same as any denomination's clergy. The offenders have been removed and of course the practice forbidden by the church. They have also gone the next step and most churches are doing background checks on all priests, deacons, lunchroom workers, and other volunteers at schools and churches. This began in 2002 with the "Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People".

tjncj, I don't know if it is or isn't. We do know the Church has done this for many years. And unless current victims speak beyond the Church about their ordeals, we have no way of knowing for sure what's going on now. The safe presumption is that the practice continues. The Church is to blame for this presumption.

If the practice has been discontinued, credit for the change goes to the victims who spoke out (like the victim in the above story) and to those who supported those victims by raving out at the Church for its institutionalized child rape.

Do you know the answer to your question?

So GF do you suggest the church is still transferring offending priests currently?

thediplomat, give your advice about research to billnewbie. I know all about the other two accusers. My statement re: them is accurate. My research on this matter is very comprehensive. You only continue with your nonsense because either you aren't reading my posts or your comprehension level is very low. Your so-called research or search engine skills amount to nothing more than lazy nitpicking.

None of what you've said here has changed the magnitude of the problem in question. You're not grasping the magnitude of the problem. You should ask yourself why you're fighting it.

gazettefan,

So two others have accused this priest, but again you fail to do your homework and state what the outcomes are from those accusations. Start here: http://www.google.com and after you have passed search engine 101, we will get to other more advanced research sites. From now on don't post anything you have not researched.

billnewbie, is this wording different enough for you? It's from your favorite paper, the Baraboo News Republic. It's from a later court action that affirmed the decision against Vosen.

By the way, two other people had accused Vosen of the same offenses.

----------------------

Judge: Verdict stands . [1989-91 Vosen] - RCC. Boy.
Baraboo News Republic, By Brian Bridgeford, ~ October 06, 2005
JANESVILLE (WI) - A Rock County judge Wednesday denied Father Gerald Vosen's request for damages in a defamation lawsuit.
Janesville attorney Patrick K. McDonald, who is representing the Baraboo Catholic priest, appeared in Janesville circuit court, according to court records. He asked the judge to overturn a jury verdict that found sexual assault allegations made against Vosen were credible. As a result of the decision in August, the jury rejected Vosen's demand for $1.1 million in damages against alleged sexual abuse victim Peter J. Arnold, and his parents, Leland R. and Nancy S. Arnold.
Court documents show the Arnolds contacted Catholic Church authorities in Madison during summer 2003. They testified Vosen sexually abused Peter while Vosen was a priest at St. John Vianney Catholic Church and school in Janesville between 1989 and 1991.
Vosen has denied having any sexual contact with Peter Arnold. In May of 2004 he filed a defamation civil suit charging the Arnolds' statements were untrue, damaged his reputation and resulted in his suspension from his work at Baraboo's St. Joseph Catholic Parish.

The same story would have similar wording. The wording here is similar but not the same. You're in trouble. Face it.

It's sad that you can't tell that's the same AP report as your previous paste published by a different AP client. Didn't you notice the identical wording and the identical publishing date?

Here's another report of the 1.1 million dollars. It's sad that you would try to nitpick this thing in the same way that has some people believing that OJ Simpson is innocent of killing two people.
----------------
Jury Decides Against Priest In Defamation Case. [Vosen] - RCC. Altar boy. United States of America flag; Mooney's MiniFlags
TheMilwaukeeChannel.com , UPDATED: 7:01 pm CDT August 5, 2005
JANESVILLE, Wis.-Jurors in Rock County have decided against a Catholic priest who said he was falsely accused of sexual abuse by a former altar boy.
After two hours of deliberations, the jury rejected claims that the 26-year-old man had concocted the story and that he had defamed Father Gerald Vosen, of Baraboo.
Vosen had sued the man claiming the allegations were false. His attorney asked jurors to award the priest more than $1 million in punitive damages.

I meant the following to be included on my post immediately below, but I was too verbose for the limits set by the Gazette.

As for it being “especially cruel of billnewbie to post the victim's name” I’ll note that his name is a matter of public record and has been previously published. I have revealed nothing new. I reject your contention of my cruelty which I accredit as yet more proof of your unreasonableness, particularly in light of the cruelty you exhibit towards anyone who disagrees with you.
I noticed that you have rejected the testimony of yet another poster with a personal knowledge of a party to this case (the accuser this time) (thediplomat). It’s quite unreasonable to reject evidence out of hand that doesn’t fit what you want to believe, you know. That seems to be a dominant personality trait of yours.
No need to bait me Gazettefan, If I see what you address to me, I’ll respond. If I don’t see it, feel free to e-mail me through the Gazette. I don’t check e-mail every day, sometimes not even every week, but I’ll get around to it.

There’s something in the water in Janesville and vicinity. We all seem to be afflicted with some mental illness which make us all impervious to “pure logic”, except Gazettefan of course who obviously uses bottled water when he diverges from his usual choice of beverage.

I realize that the following will mean nothing to you, Gazettefan, but it does illustrate your unreasonableness.
You pasted a story from a source that was identified as the following “Appleton Post-Crescent, The Associated Press, ~ August 05, 2005”. In it, the pertinent sentence was “His attorney asked jurors to award the priest $1.1 million in punitive damages”. That text was written by an AP reporter, not a direct quote, but perhaps a paraphrase. I point out this line from the story above as follows “He (Vosen) claims his accuser’s lawyer asked for $1.1 million.” I don’t have a transcript, but certainly Vosen or his attorney made that statement in court. Could it be that the AP reporter made a mistake? The figures are remarkably the same considering that they were made by different sources, Vosen and the AP reporter. It seems plausible to me that the AP reporter misunderstood and therefore misreported. I point out to you the pertinent line from the story I pasted from the Baraboo newspaper below as follows “Patrick K. McDonald of Janesville said that “he will ask the jury to decide an unspecified monetary judgment against the Arnolds if they reach a verdict that the family defamed Vosen”. That is a direct quote of Vosen’s attorney.
When you first made the allegation that Vosen “sued the victim for a million dollars and lost”, I challenged you thinking that you misread the story above. If you had included your source then, no such misunderstanding would have been possible.
Even if Vosen did intend to ask for $1.1 million as you say, your claim of his callousness due to that figure only makes sense if Vosen were known to be guilty of this rape. The circumstances you cite do not establish same in spite of the heinousness of the allegations against Vosen and what you feel is proof of guilt by his association with the Catholic Church as a priest, which you unreasonably assert has given license to its priests to indulge their lusts with children.
I don’t know the precise wording, but the jury did not find Vosen guilty, they found that Vosen could not establish that he was defamed by the accuser or that Vosen was not harmed by the defamation. The result was not the vindication Vosen was looking for, but the jury was not asked to assess Vosen’s guilt. Again you are unreasonable to draw that conclusion from the jury’s decision.

"When the Church discovers that a priest has been raping children, it doesn't inform the law. Instead it sends the priest to another Church where there is a fresh flock of victims"
-
When, Where? Some examples please.
-
It is you who needs to read all the posts below. (dub190 Nov 9, 2008 at 4:12 p.m.)
You're right Proudfighter, you are wasting your breath.

ProudFighter, read all the relevant posts before you come to a decision.

In case you two missed it, this is why the Catholic Church can be described as a place of institutionalized child rape:

When the Church discovers that a priest has been raping children, it doesn't inform the law. Instead it sends the priest to another Church where there is a fresh flock of victims. The Church does this despite the fact that the American Psychiatric Society and the American Psychological Society states that child rapists are incorrigible. That means a child rapist can not change his desires. The Church knows this.

The Church sends the priest to another Church, obviously, not for the protection of children but instead for the protection of the Church.

Why aren't you two angry about this?

Boy Gazettefan, you sure are a bitter one. You are taking away from the whole situation by being arrogant, and thinking you are better than just about everybody. Your thesaurus skills are impressing no one. I shouldn't even be wasting my breath, but I am new to this thing and it seems like you are just trying to pick fights all over this website.

Someone needs a different form of attention.

Just you buddy...

fldpan, your attempt to mimic an intelligent sentence indicates you have potential for redemption. Keep at it.

dub190, if you and your pal are trying to get this blog shut down, you are mirroring how priest-child-rapists bully their victims into silence.

Be careful, gfan will attack again. An animal which is cornered always strikes back with a fierce attack. I guess we're all for his so-called "institutionalized rape" since we don't agree with him.

Gfan, my sinewy little over achiever, I believe Fldpan asked you a question...

Anyone want to hear anything Gfan has to say? I didn't think so...

Gfan, do you realize that your disturbed mentality contrived a way to take pleasure from the idea of child rape by using it as a way to take out your own personal vendettas against Catholics??!!!!!

fldpan, do you realize that your disturbed mentality contrived a way to take pleasure from the idea of child rape by using it as an insult?!!!

upnorthwi, why don't you direct some of your anger toward institutionalized child rape?!!! It seems to be OK with you.

just like with the church sign that blinds the whole neighborhood, of course it had something to do with a church so he was all against it. The sign was a means to attract children to the church so they could molest them. Seiously, the guy has severe mental issues....

fldpan, no, gaz flat out said he's not a Catholic and never was molested by a priest, but he's the first one to jump on the bandwagon with his foolish rants!

gazfan, you make me want to vomit with you characterization of the church. Yes, I know that molestation happens, but NOT IN EVERY CHURCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I get so SICK and TIRED of you saying "institutionalized rape of children in the Catholic Church". Like the congregation agrees with it?!? If you don't go to church or belong to a church body, butt out! We all know you attended the trial because you revel in that crap. Always want to speak up about it, and nobody really wants to hear your nonsense anyways. You make me so mad I actually feel dizzy!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gfan, what were the dates you were at the trial? You're starting to make people think you were abused by a Priest. Use your energy for something productive.

And the one for about $1600 was from 1997. The one without a confirming birth date and without a middle initial can't be counted. The burden is on you to prove it's the same person. As you can see, the victim has other namesakes.

OK, there is another one for about $1600. It hardly makes your case.

Sharpen your skills at clear, cogent reasoning. You'd be laughed out of the court room with stuff like that.

There is more than one eviction case in there. Sharpen your computer skills.

thediplomat, I saw two violations for illegal parking, a small claims case in which the amount at issue is $199, and the case with Vosen in which the kindly man chose to also sue the victim's parents.

I hope you're not including the victim's namesakes in all this. You should get this cleared up.

By the way, Vosen chose to sue the family's insurance company. A classic case of going for the deep pockets.

A jury and two other formal bodies ruled against Vosen. None of that can be described as flimsy evidence. The three formal bodies that ruled against Vosen were finders of fact.

The issue of the victim wanting or needing money did not carry any weight during the trial.

All kinds of books, many of them full of baloney, are written for money. Vosen wrote a book for money. He also wanted 1.1 million dollars from the victim.

Consider the possibility that because Vosen knew that there was no "smoking gun" type evidence he could unjustifliably tap into the victim's income for life.

Also, consider this: the life long problems that come from the trauma of childhood rape could cause financial problems down the line.

I am saying do some research on your own. I bet you still have not looked up the accusers record yet. I find it really interesting that the victim waited until he had severe money problems to try and get money from the priest. While that is not concrete evidence that the abuse did not happen, it would be something to take into consideration before condemning the accused in a public forum. Unfortunately there is more to this story that I will not post because as stated before, it isn't fair to air "dirty laundary." The court records though are public information.

billnewbie, good, and don't forget this current issue is not whether the victim wanted 1.1 million (if he did, why shouldn't he?), it's whether Vosen wanted 1.1 million, which he did, you claimed he didn't.

Why does attending the trial mean I have a personal issue other than being repulsed by the institutionalization of child rape in the Catholic Church? Why isn't it a personal issue with you?

PS I'm not chagrined. I knew that saying you wouldn't be back was the only way of getting you back to answer for your distortion of the record.

--------

thediplomat, let's see, because someone who says that, while a child, he was a victim of rape by a priest and ends up having a troublesome life means that the rapes didn't happen? I'm not following you.

I'm back, much to your chagrin. I told you that I'll always have a response to you when you want one. I see a little light has broken through the clouds of your diatribe. So, you attended the trial. I knew you were grinding a personal axe. As I said, your reason is clouded. I'll be back later when I have more time.

gazettefan,

Now that you have the name, do some investigation for yourself. I have other information on the alleged victim, but since it is not documented by official records, I will not share as I don’t feel that it is fair to air “dirty laundary”. But next time you want to incriminate someone based on an accusation, take 2 minutes to do some research before condemning them. I know you have the time; you seem to be on here quite a lot.

None of that proves anything.

What's important is that Vosen sued him for over a million dollars and lost.

It was especially cruel of billnewbie to post the victim's name. He, like Vosen, wants to continue the torture.

I actually knew the accuser and don't believe him. All you have to do is look up his name on the Wisconsin Circuit Court website and you will see he was having some money issues (evictions and other lawsuits) around the time the allegations were brought forth. It is just a shame that because the Catholic Church hid real abuse for years (and probably still is), that this man is automatically assumed to be guilty and prove his innocence.

Don't expect billnewbie to be back. He clearly and disastrously stepped in his own pile.

upnorthwi, your post ignores all the painful and important details below. You didn't really read everything here, did you? And, worse, your post minimizes the criminality in the Church.

How many times do we need to hear Gazfan bash the church? Everyone who has ever followed any of his posts knows that he has a warped mind when this subject comes up. Yah, yah, the Cathoilic church is in business just to molest helpless children...whatever. It gets old, quit grouping the whole church when it is isolated incidents. FYI, I'm not Catholic either.

Rich....., you've hit on a very important point. The institutionalized child rape in the Catholic Church is inextricably and perversely attached to its rampant, horribly misdirected homosexuality. Along with all this is the Church's malignant misogyny. All this answers the question: What attracts these people to the priesthood?

It's not that the Church is a reflection of what's going on in society as whole, but instead the Church is clearly a magnet for something for which it should be the remedy. The Church is the sickness for which it purports to be the cure. It is like Heaven has become Hell.

billnewbie, where are you? While you're grappling with your personal morass below, here's another question: Do you think priests who are child rapists go around advertising what they are?

Although my family members were charter members of St Johns, I really have no valid opinion or knowledge on the specifics of this case. The whole unfortunate situation does highlight several valid views on the larger picture. There is no doubt that abuse took place regardless of whether it did or did not in this case. It is also reasonable to observe that lawyers and some people will always try to make money from the pain of others. Lawyers will always look for the money. It is also fair to observe a fact that is avoided by both sides sides of the argument. Celibacy in the Priesthood created a subculture of homosexuality in the Priesthood. The homosexual aspect is covered over in words that would imply that it is nothing more than child abuse. It is a certain type of child abuse. Hetrosexual abuse is the norm for these situations in Protestand churches and Homosexual abuse is the norm in the Catholic church.

Lemke10, this issue now is about institutionalized child rape in the Catholic Church and billnewbie's defense of it.

This is why I try to avoid religion as much as possible. It seems just to seperate people. I take my Grandfather to Catholic mass on occassion and all I ever seem to get out of it is "we Catholics are right, everyone else is wrong." I'm sure if I attended a different church or what have you I'd probably hear the same about how their religion is right and others are wrong. Still no matter what faith you are affiliated with they ask peace towards others. I figure if I can see a conflict like that right from the start, it's best to avoid it. There are other ways to be a kind caring person without defining yourself as a faith.

Yes, indeed, let's get it straight, billnewbie. The story above is about Vosen hawking his book and is full of pro-Vosen quotes and claims by, guess who, Vosen himself. One of Vosen's claims is that the victim's lawyers sought 1.1 million dollars. You, billnewbie, have failed to substantiate that claim.

Now read the story pasted below. The link to its source is at the end of this post. This is substantiation of what I said earlier. The story clearly states :

"His (VOSEN'S) attorney asked jurors to award the priest $1.1 million in punitive damages."

(Your cited quote of Vosen's attorney predates the Janesville trial.)

By the way, I attended the entirety of the Janesville trial; so you don't straighten me out, I straighten you out. Get it?!

The degree to which you are wrong about this renders the entirety of your post as nonsense. And yes, the post in question below is symptomatic of schizophrenia. Don't be foolish enough to challenge me on that too. End your defense of institutionalized child rape in the Catholic Church.

--------------

Priest loses defamation litigation. [Vosen] - RCC. Altar boy.
Appleton Post-Crescent, The Associated Press, ~ August 05, 2005
JANESVILLE (WI)- A jury on Thursday decided against a Catholic priest who said he was falsely accused of sexual abuse by a former altar boy, concluding the allegations were substantially true.
After two hours of deliberations, the jury rejected claims the 26-year-old man had defamed the Rev. Gerald Vosen of Baraboo by concocting the story of abuse to explain to his parents why he was gay.
John Casey, the man's attorney, said his client's credibility was attacked for more than a year, but it took a jury only two hours to substantiate his claims that the priest abused him while an altar boy and student at a Catholic elementary school in Janesville.
"My client has been vindicated. Now the public knows he is not a liar," Casey said.
Vosen, 71, had sued the man last year claiming the allegations were false. His attorney asked jurors to award the priest $1.1 million in punitive damages. Vosen's attorney, Patrick McDonald, said the jury may have been prejudiced by news coverage of the Catholic Church's sex abuse scandal.

http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:W0Yu...

Yes, Gazettefan,let’s do get something straight. The story above says that Vosen claims the alleged victim’s lawyer asked for $1.1 million. The story says nothing about the value of Vosen’s sought relief (which you claim was a million dollars) although in an article published in the Baraboo News Republic in July 28 of 2005, Vosen’s attorney, one Patrick K. McDonald of Janesville said that “he will ask the jury to decide an unspecified monetary judgment against the Arnolds if they reach a verdict that the family defamed Vosen” in an article that names the alleged victim as Peter Arnold. Asking for an unspecified judgment is typical of a lawsuit whose aim is vindication rather than enumeration or enrichment.
You have a warped sense of reason, pure or otherwise and therefore your assessment of the reasonableness of others is laughable particularly when you claim that the lack of a judgment in a civil action is tantamount to being “effectively found guilty”. I also notice that you give no weight to the statements written below in support of this priest by people who actually knew him and would have been his prospective victims if these accusations are true. Strange how you can assign unimpeachable credibility to some (the accuser for instance) while refusing any to others (such as Rocky and wHaTeVeR).
Your apparent compassion for the victims of child rape does not excuse your unreasonableness. If someone raped me and left no evidence behind, it would be unreasonable for me to expect to be unquestionably believed by reasonable people who would have to weigh the conflicting testimonies of an accused and an accuser without benefit of corroboration for either party. In such a case a reasonable person could not accept either testimony as proven. That’s also why I say you have a warped sense of reason.
I also doubt that you are qualified to speak for all therapists, let alone make diagnoses of severe schizophrenia based on what you consider to be reasonable about people you don't know other than that you don't like what they have written. Yet more evidence of your warped sense of reason.
Your unreasonableness disqualifies your opinion.

I have a question. Do Priest (clergy) also take an oath of poverty like the nuns/sisters do? And if so, how was this Fr. Vosen able to take children (chaperones) to his place on the lake for getaways? Also, if you have been abused...sexually or other ways, at that age...you may have tried to block out as much as possible to get on with life. Then to re-call details in a court room years later. Just knowing this happened to you with someone that no one would have believed back in those days is terrifying. But if there was not enough evidence, why was Fr. Vosen then punished and not allowed to work in the Catholic church and a jury refused his lawsuit against the victim?

Let's get something straight: Vosen sued the victim for a million dollars and lost. Vosen effectively put himself on trial and he was effectively found guilty of child rape.

To the person who posed the question of falsely accusing someone of rape: Ask yourself very sincerely how difficult it would be for you to make that false accusation.

Any therapist who reads Suzanne's post would consider her a candidate for the diagnosis of severe schizophrenia with intense features of religiosity. Especially when her blather is used to deal away the horrible problem of institutionalized child rape.

You can say anything can happen anytime in this world. But you can't use that to dismiss an accusation of rape. Vosen was effectively found guilty three times. If someone raped you and left no evidence behind, does that mean it didn't happen and that your accusation should be ignored especially after three formal bodies found the accusations to be true?

What I hate about the Catholic Church is its institutionalization of child rape. I proved that the church is guilty of institutionalized child rape with pure reason. People with faith in bizarre things will have trouble understanding how pure reason works.

Go ahead, keep making excuses that give aid and comfort to institutionalized child rape.

Pleeeeease, Gazettefan, you aren't seriously saying that no one would falsely cry rape if they thought there may be $1.1 million in it, or that the darker side of human nature is overridden by the feelings of shame a person may feel from being falsely identified as a rape victim by their own deception? Many rape victims may feel inclined to withhold the truth about being raped out of shame (real or imagined shame), but it stretches reason beyond the breaking point to claim that almost no one would falsely cry rape, particularly for profit as if shame would be an effective deterrent for such a lie.
I believe that your hatred of Catholics is clouding your judgment as your absurd claim of institutionalized child rape so clearly illustrates.
It’s extraordinarily pretentious of you to tell people with which you disagree that they need help as though you can tell that they are mentally ill or smitten with some other affliction and that you are in a position to know. But then, on this subject particularly (but not at all limited to this subject), pretentiousness is your predominant modus operandi.

Gfan. Why does Suzanne need help? Because she believes in God and Satan?
What IF I accused you of raping me? Would you just expect to be convicted?
This is one case. You can't ball it up with others. I believe there should be no statute of limitation, but you need proof.
In my opinion convicted child molesters should be neutered and locked up for good, but you need proof. This man asked for 1.1 million, had no evidence, or corroborating witnesses, and he contradicted himself.
If we can convict someone with no proof, we are all doomed.

I truly beleive that all child molesters, especially priests should be held accountable and punished to the fullest extent. What bothers me about this case, is that the "victim" only wanted money. Didn't try to file charges. You would think as a person trying to be vindicated, and have justice, you would care more about filing charges than money. I beleive some priests have hurt young children, but I think people need to realize, that anyone can say anything, with no evidence, and they are automatically considered credible because of the subject matter. Only 5% of accusations are false? Where would they get that estimate? How do they know the other 95% are completely credible, with no evidence what so ever? It's a dangerous game to ruin someones life, with what may just be a result of someone desperately needing money.

Unfortunately, there are many instances of people lying about being assaulted...sexually or otherwise. Just a few days ago, two students from UW Whitewater recanted their assault accusations. I am not claiming to know the truth in this matter. But as a Catholic christian, I must remember: "judge not lest ye be judged".

In this day and age people are more inclined to lie about sexual assault than at anytime in history. Do you know the number of people wrongly convicted in sexual assaults is now over 100. Why, because the jury just decided to believe the accuser. One case in point, the two recent cases in Whitewater where the girls lied about being sexually assaulted, and the police did nothing about it. The police didn't want "victims" to feel they couldn't speak about it. However, these girls weren't victims, they were liars. Vosen's case is always going to be just who did the triers decide to believe, and as long as people automatically assume priest's must be sexually assaulting kids no priest is ever going to be able to prove he didn't sexually assault someone years ago.

SUPPORT LEGISLATION THAT REMOVES ALL STATUTES OF LIMITATION REGARDING THE SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN AND PROVIDE A CIVIL LEGISLATIVE WINDOW FROM TWO TO FIVE YEARS TO BRING FORWARD PREVIOUSLY TIME BARRED CASES OF ABUSE -

BY ANYONE!

BISHOP MORLINO SHOULD BE SUPPORTING THIS,

THE WISCONSIN CATHOLIC CONFERENCE SHOULD BE SUPPORTING THIS,

THE KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS SHOULD BE SUPPORTING THIS AND

ALL GOOD PEOPLE SHOULD BE SUPPORTING THIS.

VISIT:

www.bishopaccountability.org
www.napsac.us
www.richardsipe.com
www.votfgp.org
www.abolishsexabuse.org
www.nationalcac.org
www.votf.org
www.snapnetwork.org
www.reform-network.net
www.polarisproject.org

It is clear that people are overwhelmingly DISINCLINED to lie about being raped. The lie to worry about is the UNTHINKING defense of the Catholic Church. Think about it.

My question is; "how do you provide proof that you were raped by a priest"? Do you keep your clothes that can be checked by DNA? It is your word against the church. If you don't have proof, I think the Priest should be exonerated due to insuffecient evidence. Too many gold diggers out there.

The bishops of the US have acknowledged that over 5,000 clergy have sexually assaulted children or minors over the past several decades. The percentage of false reports, according to a review of their records by John Jay College for Criminal Justice, is under 5 percent. You can see much of this data at bishops-accountability.org. This means that 95 percent of abuse reports are true. Yet, only 3 percent of any of these clergy were ever prosecuted because bishops covered up these crimes and then transferred the offenders to new and unsuspecting parishes. At least now canon law requires a bishop to remove a priest from ministry when it has been determined, after a professional investigation, that the allegation is substantiated -- that's no different a standard than for any other licensed professional. That’s what Morlino was required to do that's why he and the Vatican removed Vosen from ministry. What Morlino is not doing—and some of these posts demonstrate what happens when you don’t—is exercise pastoral leadership and to personally minister to the victims, families and congregations that are hurting. An offender priest, like any other sex offender, doesn’t wear horns and announce his intention to molest a child. Offenders come from all walks of life and backgrounds. Many of them, such as those in the ministry, are gifted speakers, charismatic personalities and talented administrators. Being nice or charming is not a character quality nor does it reveal moral integrity and much less criminal intent. Vosen has made his case before 3 professional church boards and a civil jury. He has been found guilty each time. That’s much greater deference and due process than teachers, social workers, pediatricians or any other professionals working with children in civil society are granted. It’s time for Bishop Morlino to come to St. John’s, explain his decision to the faithful, and bring truth and healing.

Peter Isely
SNAP Midwest Director
SNAPnetwork.org

I knew Fr. Vosen years before he came to Janesville. I was a young boy (one of many) that was in his "club" where he took (along with many adult chaperones) kids up to a place he had on Lake Wisconsin. In all the times I went, and with all the other kids I went with, I ABSOLUTELY NEVER witnessed, heard of, or experienced anything even remotely inappropriate. Fr. Vosen was an absolute picture of what a priest should be. Did he love kids? Absolutely. I find the accusations completely unbelievable.

Well, I don't know whether this man is guilty or not. I wasn't there and don't know the accuser. I will say that there have been false accusations of abuse, sexual and otherwise inside and outside the Catholic
Church, even before this crisis started. It is now to the point that being a man you are almost putting your life on the line working with children, as a teacher or counselor or in any other capacity. I agree that the Catholic Church did not do what it was supposed to do in reference to these priests, but that doesn't mean that every priest out there is a pedophile. This problem exists also in our society at large so it isn't only in the Catholic Church, but the Church should of handled this whole thing much better.

Answer: Institutionalized child rape.

"Victims of clergy sexual abuse have been urging Vosen’s bishop, Robert Morlino, to release Vosen’s file and speak to the parishes where Vosen served and explain why he considers Vosen so dangerous he will not let him be a priest. Morlino has exercised extraordinary deference to Fr. Vosen. If he was a member of any other profession, his ordination “license” would have been revoked years ago, he would not be receiving benefits, and he could not maintain the public use of his professional title or credentials."

Peter Isley raises a valid point when he mentions Bishop Morlino's "extraordinary deference to Fr. Vosen."

If the deference is "extraordinary," the question is, Why?

lovestoscrap, I didn't say "every priest." Why don't you get a comprehension level that will allow you to read plain English?!

You too, whatever.... Then the both of you should re-read peterisley's post below.

Your blind allegiance is not healthy.

----------------

Vosen, according to his own account, has had three victims and seven witnesses come forward to the diocese. A Catholic bishop is required under canon law to remove a priest from public ministry if he determines that priest has sexually molested a child or minor. He cannot publically present himself as a priest. But that is exactly what Vosen is doing anyway with his book, hoping, no doubt, to intimidate any more victims and witnesses from coming forward, call his bishop’s bluff, and turn a profit to boot off the misery of those harmed.

Vosen has had not one, not two, but three separate due process hearings where he has brought all his evidence: a lay review board of professionals and experts, a canon law trial composed of his priest peers, and a civil law trial before a civil jury.

He has been found guilty before all three hearings.

When a teacher, psychologist, medical doctor or any other of the dozens of licensed and certified professionals in the state of Wisconsin are found by their professional board to have committed ethical and especially criminal misconduct, the results of that investigation, including the revocation of his or her license, is publicized and the ruling and evidence is readily available, including being posted online by the State Department of Regulation and Licensing.

Victims of clergy sexual abuse have been urging Vosen’s bishop, Robert Morlino, to release Vosen’s file and speak to the parishes where Vosen served and explain why he considers Vosen so dangerous he will not let him be a priest. Morlino has exercised extraordinary deference to Fr. Vosen. If he was a member of any other profession, his ordination “license” would have been revoked years ago, he would not be receiving benefits, and he could not maintain the public use of his professional title or credentials.

Peter Isely
SNAP Midwest Director
Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests
SNAPnetwork.org.

This is not a topic I feel at all comfortable commenting on.
+
Except this one comment.

gazettefan...I see you still believe every catholic priest is guilty of child abuse. Sheesh...get a life. There was no evidence against this man...just one man's accusations, who never filed charges and just wanted money. There are a lot of people in this world who are looking for handouts every day by taking advantage of others. Like others have said here...this man was guilty until proven innocent. This is a travesty!

I went to St. John Vianney 1-6th grades. I also knew Father Vosen. He was always kind, decent, and caring. I don't know anymore than anyone else if the allegations against him are true. I don't believe it is up us to judge him. No proof, no stone can be thrown.

MrScott, what is it about you that needs to ignore the information in peterisley's post?

The fact that pedophile priests were not punished but instead were sent to other parishes with a fresh flock of victims all for the protection of the Catholic Church and not the children is prima-facie evidence of institutionalized child rape.

I am a non-Catholic who grew up in a largely Catholic area and witnessed the effects of what that church does to its children.

Wow gazettefan, one person accusing one man hardly appears to be institutionalized rape of children. No one knows whether or not it happened except the two parties involved. You've demonized the Catholic church every opportunity on this website, including comments in articles which had nothing to do with the Catholic Church. It appears you have a personal problem with the Church, especially pushing the notion that this gentleman is automatically guilty just because it has happened elsewhere.

Suzanne, you need help.

nomad, the victims are the solid evidence. It is infinitely more likely that the guilty will deny the truth than it is that someone will lie about being raped.

The institutionalized rape of children in Catholic Church depends on the disturbing mentality that the both of you share.

I believe Fr. Vosen.
These are evil times and Satan is laughing because people do not believe in evil power of deception and Satan is out to make minced meat out of Consecrated souls. The devils stategy is to confuse by coinciding authentic sexual abuse with false accusations against good and holy priests. Who would believe their innocence in view of the horrendous crimes of a few (who were false shepherds in the first place) especially when they no longer believe in the most powerful deceiver, the liar from the beginning, Satan? People do not understand his stategies.This is happening in the culture everywhere now, not just in priesthood, false accusations in the midst of authentic sexual crimes. Confusion is the devils business and families are being ripped apart everywhere. My own good father was falsly accused so I understand well this deceptive evil in our culture. I would encourage Fr. to trust completely in Christ, he is sharing in the same cross of accusation that the Lord withstood. Jesus was physically crucified, Fr. Vosen is being morally crucified. I would encourage him to offer his suffering for the millions of lost souls including the accusers.

Without solid factual evidence, I can not understand how a person can be convicted on an accusation. This case sounds like guilty before proven innocent instead of innocent before proven guilty.Makes one wonder how many priests who have been accused are truly innocent. I support criminal punishment for those who it can be proven without doubt that they are guilty.
Then there is the on going cases of public school teachers doing the same, no outrage from the media or society.

Vosen, according to his own account, has had three victims and seven witnesses come forward to the diocese. A Catholic bishop is required under canon law to remove a priest from public ministry if he determines that priest has sexually molested a child or minor. He cannot publically present himself as a priest. But that is exactly what Vosen is doing anyway with his book, hoping, no doubt, to intimidate any more victims and witnesses from coming forward, call his bishop’s bluff, and turn a profit to boot off the misery of those harmed.

Vosen has had not one, not two, but three separate due process hearings where he has brought all his evidence: a lay review board of professionals and experts, a canon law trial composed of his priest peers, and a civil law trial before a civil jury.

He has been found guilty before all three hearings.

When a teacher, psychologist, medical doctor or any other of the dozens of licensed and certified professionals in the state of Wisconsin are found by their professional board to have committed ethical and especially criminal misconduct, the results of that investigation, including the revocation of his or her license, is publicized and the ruling and evidence is readily available, including being posted online by the State Department of Regulation and Licensing.

Victims of clergy sexual abuse have been urging Vosen’s bishop, Robert Morlino, to release Vosen’s file and speak to the parishes where Vosen served and explain why he considers Vosen so dangerous he will not let him be a priest. Morlino has exercised extraordinary deference to Fr. Vosen. If he was a member of any other profession, his ordination “license” would have been revoked years ago, he would not be receiving benefits, and he could not maintain the public use of his professional title or credentials.

Peter Isely
SNAP Midwest Director
Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests
SNAPnetwork.org.

There are statutes of limatations on when a person can be convicted of sexually abusing a child. Sadly, that child will never have closure in their adult life.
As a victim, I know that sexual predators can get away with their crimes. If a child is in foster care, as was I, those children are extremely vulnerable.
I was unable to have justice. I carried hate with me for a long time.
I do not know if this man is guilty or not. If he is innocent, that is a horrible stigmata to carry indeed. If he is guilty, well that is at the very least, a miscarriage of justice.

If he is innocent -- he was never charged with a crime -- then he has my sympathies. Sadly, as Sr. Maureen's post below suggests, one of the biggest problems is the stonewalling of the Catholic church itself. For too many years they tried to be judge and jury for sexually abusive clergy, even moving them to new churches or schools knowing they had a history of molestation, and preventing criminal prosecutions from taking place by destroying records. This makes it more difficult to know the truth of any single case such as Vosen's.

This case in Wisconsin shows that the bishop there should be releasing all files and records on the Rev. Gerald Vosen but even more importantly, he should be proactive in his support of the Child Victms Law along with the Wisconsin Catholic Conference.

Removing all statutes of limitation in regard to the sexual abuse of children in the single, most effective means of holding sexual predators and their enablers, if they exist, accountable befor a court of law.

Sister Maureen Paul Turlish
Victims' Advocate
New Castle, Delaware
maureenpaulturlish@yahoo.com