The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionSNAP leader: Testimony was 'fishing expedition'
Clohessy says he refused to turn over documents
Jan. 03, 2012
David Clohessy is seen in a 2007 file photo. (CNS photo/David Maung)
David Clohessy, the director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP), says his court-ordered testimony Monday in the case of a priest accused of sexual misconduct amounted to an "extraordinary fishing expedition" to try and get at the contents of "private communications" between him and sex abuse victims and whistle-blowers.
The testimony, which Clohessy said lasted about six hours and took place in a St. Louis, Mo., hotel, came after the Missouri Supreme Court refused to consider an appeal to stop the deposition.
The deposition, requested by lawyers defending Kansas City, Mo., diocesan priest Fr. Michael Tierney, was first reported late last week. Lawyers requested that Clohessy testify and turn over 23 years' worth of internal documents, correspondence and emails.
Victims' advocates said the deposition, the first of its kind for SNAP, would have wide-ranging impact on the ability of victims of clergy sex abuse to identify their accusers and tell their stories without revealing their names in public.
Speaking to NCR by phone Tuesday, Clohessy said while he couldn't talk about specifics of his testimony, "one consistent theme" of the questioning was that lawyers defending accused priests "want to get the contents of private communications between us and victims, witnesses, whistle-blowers, our members and our supporters."
Referencing that he was questioned by five separate lawyers -- one representing the Kansas City diocese, another Tierney, and three others representing other local priests accused of sexual misconduct -- Clohessy said there was "almost no mention or questions" about the specific lawsuit against Tierney among the "200-plus questions about SNAP members and supporters and donors and operations."
Clohessy also said while Jackson County, Mo., Circuit Court Judge Ann Mesle had ordered him to hand over a wide range of documents from SNAP's files, he refused, citing constitutional protections of free speech and Missouri state law protecting the confidentiality of rape crisis centers.
"We've produced hundreds of pages of records that we consider not confidential," he said. "But we refused to turn over hundreds or perhaps thousands more that we believe are private because of our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of speech and association and by Missouri's rape shield law, and other protections."
Asked whether he thought his organization's refusal to hand over certain documents contradicted its calls for transparency from diocesan offices regarding allegations of sex abuse, Clohessy said he believed there "are two standards of transparency."
NCR: February 17-March 1, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- Conscience Roundup
Hear what theologians, commentators, and our editors have to say about the contraception mandate
- Special Section: Religious Life
Work of missioners, past and future; African meetings; and more
- Tribute to a Peacemaker
New York's Pax Christi fetes Daniel Berrigan
"Our view is that agencies that counsel and help sex crimes victims should never be transparent about the people who call them desperately in pain and seeking guidance," Clohessy said.
"We believe that there are two standards of transparency," he said. "One for institutions that have enabled thousands of pedophiles to assault tens of thousands of kids and conceal the crimes. And another standard for organizations that enable kids to be safer and expose heinous crimes."
Recalling a question from one of the lawyers defending an accused priest against SNAP's position that bishops should suspend priests the minute they are sued for abuse, Clohessy said the lawyer asked if that meant SNAP should be shut down immediately if it is sued for defamation or libel.
Clohessy said he firmly responded, "No."
"One claim," he said, "affects the reputation temporarily of one adult. The other claim threatens the physical and emotional and psychological well-being permanently of perhaps dozens of innocent kids. And to try and equate them is beyond disingenuous. It's just stupid."
Meanwhile, one canon and civil lawyer well known for his work on issues of clergy sexual misconduct told NCR by email that he thought the request for Clohessy's deposition in this case was "not terribly unusual."
"The courts are open to everyone," said Nicholas Cafardi, dean emeritus of Duquesne University School of Law in Pittsburgh.
"If there is something wrong with Tierney's discovery request, the lawyer for the subpoenaed party can make that case to the judge. If the judge agrees, fine; if not, that's what appeals are for."
"I am sure that Clohessy and SNAP would prefer not to be embroiled in this case, but if they don't belong there, all they have to do is convince the judge of that," said Cafardi, who was also a member of the original National Review Board established by the U.S. bishops in 2002 to evaluate claims of sex abuse. "It really is that simple."
Tierney's lawyers first made the request for a deposition in November. They subpoenaed Clohessy, requesting him to testify regarding his knowledge of a lawsuit filed against Tierney on behalf of an abuse victim in September 2010.
Court filings indicate the subpoena came after defense lawyers were concerned that a party in the suit may have violated an August 2011 gag order from Mesle by revealing some information to SNAP that was included in one of the group's press releases.
The lawsuit, filed on behalf of an anonymous man, alleges that in 1971, Tierney invited the then-13-year-old to Tierney's mother's house to help Tierney move boxes. Once there, the victim alleges in the suit, Tierney wrestled with him and touched him sexually.
Clohessy was ordered to turn over all documents and correspondence, including emails, from SNAP's files referring to Tierney or the Kansas City-St. Joseph diocese. He was also ordered to submit all documents containing references to either Tierney or the diocese from:
- press releases or press release drafts;
- correspondence with members of the press;
- correspondence with the lawyer representing the alleged abuse victim;
- correspondence with members of the public.
The request for Clohessy to release correspondence with members of the press led the Missouri Press Association, which lists about 260 newspapers from across the state as its members, to write an amicus brief supporting Clohessy's arguments that his deposition and submission of documents were unconstitutional.
Citing nine separate state and U.S. Supreme Court cases that outline the rights of the press, the brief said Mesle's order would "eviscerate the free-press guarantee" by seeking "to discover the process by which the news is assembled and disseminated."
While Clohessy said he wasn't sure what the next move might be in the case, or what repercussions he might face because of his refusal to answer some questions, he said the effect on his organization has "already been devastating."
"We're spending tens of thousands on legal costs we never budgeted," he said. "More importantly, we've been cripplingly sidetracked from protecting kids and exposing predators and comforting victims."
[Joshua J. McElwee is an NCR staff writer. His e-mail address is jmcelwee@ncronline.org.]
"Two standards of
"Two standards of transparency?" Isn't that called a double standard? As long as we feel we're right, we don't have to comply?
Dear Robertg, I am not sure
Dear Robertg,
I am not sure if your remark is toward the Church or SNAP. One thing certain if the Bishops were open to the investigations of rapists, SNAP would not exist. Secondly, Missouri and other state laws recognize the need to protect those victimized by rape over the rapist and those who would protect them.
It is simply a horrible position lacking of all leadership that the Bishops (almost all the Bishops standing together) put what they thought was the good of the Roman Catholic Church ahead of the what is good for raped children. There is no getting around this. The one who should be deposed and called into court with all the records is Pope Benedict, himself.
The proper response of the
The proper response of the hierarchy to all this would be to 1) remove the pope and 2) send Cardinal Law packing! This would get the healing started.
The Pope has many failings
The Pope has many failings but I am not sure how much 'freedom' he has to act - even when he is El Supremo --- sort of like President Obama and closing GITMO.
Even to shipping Cadinal Law to GITMO.
Yes, we can all have The Dream.
Here is the underlying reason
Here is the underlying reason SNAP ex. director, David Clohessy was subpoenaed to give a deposition:
"While Clohessy said he wasn't sure what the next move might be in the case, or what repercussions he might face because of his refusal to answer some questions, he said the effect on his organization has "already been devastating."
"We're spending tens of thousands on legal costs we never budgeted," he said. "More importantly, we've been cripplingly sidetracked from protecting kids and exposing predators and comforting victims.""
Its probably a good bet that survivors, aided by SNAP, were being very effective in advocating for the Kansas City diocese's victims of sexual exploitation by its priests and bishops and the church's attorneys figured that they needed to throw a tactical grenade into the midst of their fiercest critics to throw them off track.
This is a favorite slimeball lawyer tactic where you try to bankrupt your opponents by trying to drain their financial resources. This is especially devastating because the Catholic Church has virtually limitless funds from its investments and cash stream emanating from the pews.
If you really want the Catholic Church to be held to account for its complicity in the rape and sodomy of children, all the donations that you would normally have given to the church should be sent to SNAP.
Remember, especially from the hierarchs point of view, this is still all about preserving their political hegemony of money and power over us spiritual serfs in the pews.
Sorry to disappoint you, Jim,
Sorry to disappoint you, Jim, but no judge would issue the subpoena based on those grounds.
The real reason for the subpoena was buried deep in the first NCR story about this on Dec. 29:
"Court filings indicate that the subpoena came after defense lawyers were concerned that a party in the suit may have violated an August 2011 gag order from Mesle by revealing some information to SNAP that was included in one of the group’s press releases."
Clohessy can't have it both ways. If he wants to inject himself and SNAP into ongoing litigation, then he should have been prepared to be deposed.
Thank you. Transparency is a
Thank you. Transparency is a good thing, even for SNAP.
As someone who is
As someone who is anti-catholic church, SNAP gives me the opportunity to donate to an organization that publicly attacks the corrupt church and its power. I only wish that it would be much simpler to lessen the influence of this church. At least its growth is halted in Europe. "New Evangelization" my foot!
Re: "This is a favorite
Re: "This is a favorite slimeball lawyer tactic where you try to bankrupt your opponents by trying to drain their financial resources." This is EXACTLY why SNAP claims against the Church as a whole and does not sue the individual priest! Wake up! The Catholic Church is perceived to have limitless funds while in actuality it is the funds of the faithful that are being drained in an attempt to destroy the Church. It is like saying that something went wrong in Russia and so one is entitled to sue all Russians because they should have done something about it .... or something..... Stupid reasoning!
The Pope, protected as he may
The Pope, protected as he may be by virtue of the institution, has only to answer to his conscience and God and the two, particularly in his case, are not necessarily exclusive.
What a positive signal his resignation would be to the world particularly for those who continue to suffer from his autocratic rule together with a lack of compassion and understanding, especially for the victims of sexual abuse by members of his appointed clergy.
The recent revelation of abuse within the Catholic Church in Holland demonstrates that the church has yet to address the systemic and endemic conditions that brought this crisis to the fore in the first place.
Until these issues are directly addressed the 'People of God' will continue to suffer from a lack of responsible and Christlike leadership.
Why? The reforms of JP the
Why? The reforms of JP the Great and Card. Ratzinger stopped the crisis.
It doesn't fit your narrative, but the US data show that the high tide of the crisis was 1982, before it's 90+ percent drop.
The entire crisis was an artifact of the 1960s and 1970s. Hmmm...what might have changed at that point?
An artifact of the 60s and
An artifact of the 60s and 70s? I was fondled by a priest in 1945 when I was 14 years old.
There is nothing Great about
There is nothing Great about JPII and his enabling and protecting of sexual abusers. The rush to beatify and the use of crowds smacks of how the CIA changed the government in Iran to the Shah.
The behavior of the Church as represented by the bishops et al is disgraceful. Rather than suffer the little children, it would seem that their motto is: Make the little children suffer.
While the high tide of
While the high tide of reporting may have been in 1982, the incidences themselves were from the 40's through the 70's. Eight and nine year olds don't report at eight or nine. That 90% drop will change as time passes. This is not a Vatican II problem no matter how much it strokes your faith to think so.
Pope Leo X is reported to
Pope Leo X is reported to have naked boys popping out of a cake. How pervasive is this sin?
Ooops. Correction - Pope
Ooops. Correction - Pope Alexander VI not Leo X.
Reported by whom? Where?
Reported by whom? Where? Based on what facts? You ask: "How pervasive is this sin?". Did you mean the sin of lying?
Actually, no. Read the John
Actually, no.
Read the John Jay report.
Correction: this problem
Correction: this problem existed way before the 60's and the church, society in general, have only just recently started to look at it. Abuse of children has been rampant for some time and any attempt to link it to the 60's or any thought of connecting it to Vatican II is way off base, and scapegoating.
My wife was fondled by an
My wife was fondled by an uncle in 1958. SNAP isn't interested because her uncle wasn't a priest.
Exactly. SNAP, despite its
Exactly. SNAP, despite its claims, is not interested in the victims. SNAP's interests are political. It wants to bring about structural change in the Church and for that it makes use of everything available, including the experiences of the victims of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church.
Except uncles go to jail, as
Except uncles go to jail, as do people who cover predatory persons.
Bishops who cover for pedophile priests get promotions to cushy positions in Rome.
The clue is in the title
The clue is in the title SNAP: Survivors Network of those abused by Priests. SNAP makes no claim to represent survivors of any other type of abuse, so do stop being silly please.
Ah, but they do want to
Ah, but they do want to "represent" those who claim to be abused by priests. Except they will refuse to go to court for them? Interesting.
It's not silly at all. It
It's not silly at all. It simply points to the fact that SNAP is not so much concerned about victims of sexual abuse as it is about discrediting the Catholic Church. Open your eyes!
Oh yes, and the fact that -
Oh yes, and the fact that
- over 90% of the abuse cases by RC clergy are at least 20 years old (from the 80s and before,
- since the 90s the number of new cases has fallen to close to zero (which in an organization of the size of the RC Church in the US is without parallel),
- while the RC Church is one of THE safest institutions (as far as child safety goes) in the US, the cases of child pornography, and other instances of sexual abuse of children is on a steady increase nationwide,
yet, SNAP does not even pause for a moment in its relentless effort to equate the RC Church with child sexual abuse. It even criticised and dismissed the latest John Jay report for presenting data about some of the real (probable) causes to the tragic phenomenon of child sexual abuse, which happened to be different from what SNAP has been pontificating about for the past number of years (celibacy, current RC ecclesiology and church structure, etc).
No, SNAP is not interested in the wellbeing of children. It is interested in high-stake political games to achieve certain political goals. If it would be interested in the victims, it would try to find out the real causes of child sexual abuse, whether it happen within or outside the RC Church.
And this is not ‘silly’ as you suggest. This is simply criminal.
You are right: child sexual
You are right: child sexual abuse existed way before the 60s and 70s. In fact, anybody with any sense of history knows that Child sexual abuse was present (practiced, tolerated and even in some cases encouraged) in virtually every culture throughout human history (just as the abuse of women).
Therefore, the attempt by SNAP and its cohorts to somehow attach this terrible practice in a specific way to the Catholic Church is simply outrageous. Anybody who is interested in statistics about this issue knows that while in the Catholic Church the number of abuse cases has dramatically fallen since the early 90s (90% of reported cases are from the 80s and earlier), child porn and child sexual abuse in society is on a steady increase.
The fact that despite all this, SNAP’s only interest is to paint the Catholic Church as a synonym to child sexual abuse shows the nature of its political agenda in a high stake political game with the unstated objective of bringing about structural reform in the Catholic Church. SNAP has no concern for the victims of child sexual abuse. It only makes use of pain and suffering of the victims of clergy sexual abuse of children to advance this agenda.
Now, when the same accountability is demanded from SNAP as it demands from the Church, SNAP is suddenly crying foul, because it might expose its obvious double standard, dishonesty, and most importantly, its ulterior political motivations.
Anonymous on Jan. 03,
Anonymous on Jan. 03, 2012.
You stated:
"Why? The reforms of JP the Great and Card. Ratzinger stopped the crisis.
It doesn't fit your narrative, but the US data show that the high tide of the crisis was 1982, before it's 90+ percent drop.
The entire crisis was an artifact of the 1960s and 1970s. Hmmm...what might have changed at that point?"
-------------------------------------------------
You are not a student of church history are you?
Sexual misconduct (a very mild name for it) is woven into the fabric of Catholic Church's history. I can cite at least 10 Popes who committed acts of sexual perversion with women as well as with underaged girls and boys. Those who knew about it then were just as shocked and angry as people are today----with clerical sexual abuses and the hierarchy hiding the perps.
The crisis in the last decades was MORE apparent and public---because of the availability of the media---print and internet. If the antics of the popes (and hierarchy ) from the past occured today----it would be on national and international news for weeks and weeks.
Besides, if the crisis was stopped by JP II and Benedict---there wouldn't be the disgust and horror occuring because of the
sexual abuse of youngsters in Ireland, Germany and, more recently made public, in the Netherlands.
Both of these popes did the LEAST that they needed to do to 'put out the fires'. But neither JP II nor Benedict did anything to remove/lessen the amount of fuel that began the fires in the first place.
Anecdotes don't mean
Anecdotes don't mean much
Read the John Jay Report, review the data, and tell me what it says.
not your opinion, the data.
Baloney. It's not the Pope's
Baloney. It's not the Pope's job to "put out the fire". In every single case with very few exceptions, there were breakdowns in reporting and communication and failure to recognize the symptoms of the abused at the ground level. That is where the problem starts, that is where it will be fixed. The pope cannot be concerned with plucking weeds, but he can tend to the soil to prohibit the growth of weeds in the first place. And if a weed does pop up, it's not his job to pluck it. It's our's. That is exactly what he has done in the ramping up of the vetting process for incoming seminarians and the clean up of seminaries and monasteries that have gone south. That is why the trends are dramatically going down in Catholic cases, while they remain the same or are even going up in other cases.
"state laws recognize the
"state laws recognize the need to protect those victimized by rape over the rapist and those who would protect them"
True, true, and rightly so.
But that's beside the point. The point at issue is the question of whether SNAP is primarily in the business of advocating for victims of abuse as Clohessy claims. Their track record clearly indicates that SNAP's primary business is something much less noble. Transparency is transparency is transparency. It's a matter of simple justice. Hiding behind a double standard won't be tolerated for long.
The good folks at SNAP have set their own trap. They and their wealthy lawyer friends have overplayed their hand too many times. The hammer will fall eventually. The truth will win out. SNAP will be exposed. It's just a matter of time. Better sooner than later to avoid chewing up more victims in their dirty game.
Actually, the point at issue
Actually, the point at issue is the question of whether the Catholic church is primarily in the business of advocating for God and being the leaders and role models for a Christian life, or if they are just in business, where money is more important than morals or God or anything.
The point is clear. Money is more important. The fact that they also produce and protect thousands and thousands of known pedophiles makes it clear that they are doing the work of the devil and not of God.
It seems to me that they (the
It seems to me that they (the Bishops) might have had similar intentions of shielding the victims in such a shameful situation. And who can read the heart of a man - who can predict his future actions and his falls from grace? When these things happen in secret, who can accurately claim knowledge and accountability? Twenty-twenty hindsight is a poor substitute. Whose judgement is completely unbiased? These people baying for the Pope's blood are only showing their hatred for a holy man and the Church in general - not to mention its Founder. Perhaps they should make a retreat and consider their own spiritual lesions and ask forgiveness for their hatred and false judgement before they are judged in the same manner.
I do not understand how the
I do not understand how the catholic lawyers can argue for total disclosure. The church still clings to confessional confidentiality for it's priests. Is the church not opening a much bigger "can of worms"? Serious replies only.
Thanks.
Absolutely not. The
Absolutely not. The "priest/penitent" privilege is well established. SNAP is now trying to call itself a "rape crisis center" which is laughable.
Exactly. I don't know of any
Exactly. I don't know of any other "rape crisis centers" parading victims around on tv, having news conferences weekly, or getting millions in kickbacks and bribes from trial attorneys.
SAD TRUTH IS... IF THE rcc
SAD TRUTH IS...
IF THE rcc HAD DONE THE RIGHT THING STARTING WAY BACK IN THE 1950's,
"WE WOULDN'T BE COMMENTING ON SUCH AN ARTICLE AS THIS"!
***Funny thing is..."the rcc commisioned and paid for the reports done by John Jay. I'm certain Al Capone would have paid big buck's to commision a report on the Mob as well". John Jay was only able to look at what the Bishop's gave them.
READ ANY "GRAND JURY" INVESTIGATION OF THE rcc.
YOU WILL SEE THEM(rcc) FOR WHAT THEY TRULY ARE.
THEY(rcc) HAVE POLICIES TO COVER-UP THESE CRIMES.
AND THESE POLICIES ARE STILL IN EFFECT TODAY
AND TRUMP THE "2002 BISHOP'S CHARTER FOR THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN".
NAME ONE PRIEST, BISHOP, CARDINAL or POPE that has alerted the proper civil authorities( since their 2002 Charter was written) of any child that was raped by a Priest?? Oh YES, 1 or 2 Lay church employee's have blown the whistle on suspected priests. Unfortunately, those Lay employee's have since lost their jobs.
Your point is well taken. It
Your point is well taken. It is outrageous that SNAP does not want to subject itself top the same accountability it demands from the Church. This double standard highlights that from the very beginning SNAP was not interested in the truth about child sexual abuse and/or in the well-being of present and future victims, rather it was pursuing a highly politicised agenda of bringing about structural changes in the Church. The victims of sexual abuse and their pain and suffering were simply used by SNAP to achieve this agenda.
The totally indefensible nature of the tragedy of clergy sexual abuse provided SNAP with an extraordinary and unexpected opportunity to make gains in the pursuit of its agenda. For this reason the SNAP:
1. Consistently resisted any suggestion or finding that the sexual abuse of children is not more common in the Catholic Church than any other organization, in any other country.
2. Consistently blurred the fact that 90% of all cases are dated prior to 1990, and that in fact the current rate of abuse in the US Catholic Church makes it actually more ‘child-safe’ than most other institutions, including schools, families, etc.
3. By stubbornly connecting sexual abuse of children to current Catholic ecclesiology, to the nature and structure of the church, greatly contributed to the global misinformation that only if the Catholic Church could be fixed (or done away with), child sexual abuse would stop.
4. By identifying child sexual abuse with issues of celibacy and the episcopal structure of the Church, by keeping the focus on decades old abuse cases by clergy, and by not trying to get to the real causes of child sexual abuse as a currently unfolding tragic historical, cultural and social phenomenon SNAP in fact helped and enabled the current sexual predators, who are not catholic celibate clergy, to quietly carry on.
5. This shows that the SNAP do not have as their primary interest the eradication of child sexual abuse in our society.
6. This was further underscored by the NCR calling the John Jay report flawed, simply because it did not stop at the dogma of identifying child sexual abuse of children with the church, and in fact tried to get to the root causes of sexual abuse of children.
It is about time that SNAP is held accountable for its actions and its double standards and political schemings are brought to light.
The alleged 'client' could be
The alleged 'client' could be reasonably after the alleged 'prostitute's' records so as to locate the 'pimp' because the 'pimp' unjustly set up the alleged 'client'. How and why the 'pimp' does this, and who is the 'pimp', is a proper inquiry. It is a very difficult inquiry since opposed by what is now becoming clearly recognizable as seriously occult.
Knowingly and deliberately abusing a sacrament for an illicit sexual purpose is always occult.
As recorded in writing by the police detective constable Tate with a report number provided by Tate at the Brisbane police HQ in mid 1998 to this alleged 'prostitute' complainant, Mrs Anne Norman, supported for this interview by a Brisbane Archdiocese Catholic parish priest, Fr Richard Pascoe, and at this interview by me as representing parents in general, a deceased Catholic Archbishop of Brisbane, Sir James Duhig (1917-1965), was alleged by the alleged 'prostitute's' statement that I read to have orally raped her when aged 8 in his Archbishop's house, Brisbane, in c.1948. This is not occult.
In 1952 the alleged client, Archbishop Duhig, is alleged by this same complainant, Anne Norman, to have sexualised, though without any physical contact, his interview in his preparation of this now 12 year old alleged 'client' for reception of the sacrament of Confirmation. This is occult.
An accredited priest exorcist, Fr Gregory Jordan SJ, arrived then in the Brisbane Catholic Archdiocese, Australia a few years later at the Jesuit community of St Ignatius, Toowong to begin the process of exorcism of the whole of the Brisbane Archdiocese. This increasingly successful process required that Fr Jordan and another priest in our Western Deanery, Fr S.Alec Wagner, keep unity with a married parent couple, my wife, Mrs Jane Elizabeth Clark, and me in this differentiated but shared responsibility of a priest with a married couple to ensure the integrity of faith education within the family for reception of the sacraments.
All this information is documented by the Brisbane Police and me and I would be delighted if it was all ordered by any court, church or civil, to be disclosed as a step to understanding how and why the 'pimp' remains concealed by both the 'cleints' and the 'prostitutes'.
Monsignor Robert Reykemper, the retired Vicar-General of the Diocese of Dallas, if correctly quoted from 1997 about the case of Fr Rudi Kos firstly in "The Dallas Morning News", USA, then in the New York Times, then by ex-Australian Catholic seminarian, Thomas Kennealy, and then in the book 'Vows of Silence', Hodder, 2004 by Jason Berry and Gerald Renner on page 242, got it right. Mr Oliver Clark, Job's Trust, KENMORE CATHOLIC COMMUNITY, OUR LADY OF THE ROSARY PARISH, Archdiocese of Brisbane, Australia, Ph. 61 (0)7 3878 6655; email admin@olr.org.au
Uh, Dave, it's not a fishing
Uh, Dave, it's not a fishing expedition when a court order is involved. When you HAVE to answer them, you're already hooked, caught, and in the frying pan. The law works the same way for you as it does for the bishops. Deal with it, playuh!
Well put.
Well put.
I'd like to add, "Welcome to
I'd like to add, "Welcome to the discovery phase of civil lawsuits, Dave."
Not once was SNAP concerned with the privacy of victims in the least when its plaintiffs' attorney friends were subpoenaing diocesan personnel records, trolling for more names of victims. Instead, SNAP was calling for release of those records and names in the interest of "transparency."
And now we find there are two kinds of transparency --- one for dioceses and another for Clohessy.
This is exactly what happens when you allow your self-righteousness to expand your ego to the point where you believe that the your ends justify your means.
Richard Nixon said it best, "When you're the president, then it's not illegal." Well, I guess if you are SNAP and David Clohessy, you can do know wrong.
I need desperatley for
I need desperatley for someone to explain to me how any decent human being or any human being for that matter can with clear conscious defend the behaviors, no crimes of the rc church, our teachers, people running charities, coaching and mentoring our children, all religious affiliations, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, clowns,counselors, principals, or any other monster who sexually abuses our most important peoples (the children) and use there position of power to accomplish such a heinous crime rather that position is as a priest, minister, preacher, clown or simply because that person happens to be taller, weigh more, know more, and just in general physical and mental abilities be overpowering to a child. in any way not know the only answer is to do whatever it takes to stop such deviant behavior (after all if every child in the world were loved all our problems would basically solve themselves in a short period of time) and as a mistakenly accused priest, father etc (bottom line adult) wouldnt it be each and every one of our duties to endure thetrials and tribulations to save even one child come on SNAP is trying to save children victims by priests and i do know first hand they care about all survivors but there mission is to save the next child victim at all cost through disclosure through the media or any other source available to let people be aware of accusations that are covered up and kept secret child sexual abuse can only continue in places of secrecy.
oh and i have left out our law enforcement and their sophisticated handlig of such matters come on people isnt the real issue being minimized greatly by arguements that really dont matter save the children i read everything i can and have yet read any arguement that leaves me with any other feeling than REALLY REALLY . the right thing doesnt matter im not sure it ever did when people can disregare the little children and speak of common men,priests, popes, bishops, clowns etc as though they are more important than our babies makes me ashamed to be a part of this society. my god people stand up and save our children snap is taking that on and not backing down from the real issue here. saving souls of the young.
It might be good for SNAP to
It might be good for SNAP to take seriously some of the adverse criticism the initial request generated among readers. I doubt this will happem but I wish that it would. SNAP is not infallible.
John Manahan
...and neither is Joseph
...and neither is Joseph Ratzinger.
rdp46 It's always
rdp46
It's always interesting on this site that the people who make charges never use their real names.
A question for you. Would you want to depose the President of the United States if the men of an Army squad were accused of committing a war crime? He is the Commander in Chief of all of the Armed Forces. What would you expect to learn from a President in that case?
What would expect to learn from a Pope about a priest or bishop in a small diocese 10,000 miles from Rome?
"What would expect to learn
"What would expect to learn from a Pope about a priest or bishop in a small diocese 10,000 miles from Rome?"
I would not expect to learn much; but when thousands of small dioceses around the world are involved, I would expect to learn a great deal. If I did not, I would be ordering a lot of people to Rome to teach me.
Amen. They are all cowards
Amen.
They are all cowards for the Catholic church, and must think God can't figure out their "fake name" scheme.
Google CRIMEN SOLICITIONUS
Google CRIMEN SOLICITIONUS !
Benedict is very aware of what'a going on in his church.
And what if a rape crisis
And what if a rape crisis center were ordered to turn over its files? Or the ACLU,etc. You'd never hear the end of it.
Good lordy! SNAP is anything
Good lordy! SNAP is anything BUT a "rape crisis center," and it is quite insulting to rape crisis centers and the people who work there for SNAP to claim that it is.
"what if a rape crisis center
"what if a rape crisis center were ordered to turn over its files?"
No worries, mate. No rape crisis centers are in danger here.
In the first place, SNAP is not a rape crisis center. Rather, SNAP has positioned itself to be a major power broker in a very high stakes game. Hopefully the jig is soon up.
Unfortunately, and in second place, the game SNAP is playing will probably lead to a number of more innocent victims who they will place on the block and sacrifice in efforts to protect Clohessy and the vast network of wealthy lawyers that SNAP enables. But the injustice of revictimizing the vulnerable and of trading one set of victims for another will end eventually. Better sooner than later. Watch, and mark my words.
The Catholic church is a
The Catholic church is a child rape center, and they should have to turn over all of their documents.
I don't know what is funnier.
I don't know what is funnier.
Clohessy claiming there is one standard of transparency for him, and another for dioceses, or him saying he can't discuss his testimony while discussing his testimony in great detail.
SNAP is always arguing for
SNAP is always arguing for transparency, and transparency should apply to overyone equally. Transparency is a really good idea because it brings everything into the sunlight.
If the deposition reveals nothing improper in SNAP's communications, it can be "sealed" by the court, which means no one else will know what is in it. I see nothing wrong with anyone fighting a deposition order. Depositions are inconvenient, expensive, embarassing, etc. But if the court feels the need, as it has in many sex abuse cases, then SNAP should be the first to willingly comply. During this type of deposition, names can be (and I assume they will be) redacted, and all persons other than the defendant and Mr Clohessy (and perhaps a few other already publicly known individuals) will be referred to be mutually agreed upon code names (this way every officer of the court involved knows who "John Doe 701" is, but no one else will know) which are also sealed. The code names in these cases are communicated among the diverse legal teams either verbally, in highly confidential paper letters, or encrypted emails. They are clearly marked "privileged- attorney work product" and are catalogued in a separate section of the court docket, which section is not available to non-parties. Since this is explicitly "lawyer work product," it is highly protected by the courts. It seems to me that the only individuals who will be "chilled" by this are people who may have violated gag orders.
Okay, Fr. Jim Smith, what
Okay, Fr. Jim Smith, what will you say when ordered to a deposition and asked "Did the defendant tell you in confession that he raped the plaintiff?" And when the Judge says, "Answer the question, Fr. Smith, or I will put you in jail for contempt until you do?"
GBullough, if Father Smith
GBullough, if Father Smith had an attorney he wouldn't spend 10 minutes in jail. And if he didn't, an army of them would be supplied to him by the US Conference of Bishops within seconds.
The priest/penitent privilege has been well-established and defined by both statute and legal precedent. Now unless you are claiming that Clohessy is a priest and the people who approach snap are seeking sacramental Confession from him, this case poses no threat to the priest/penitent privilege.
It's not quite that clear.
It's not quite that clear. Note that Ireland is debating whether the government will respect the Seal when it comes to abuse of children. I suspect that if you polled public sentiment across the gamut in the US, you'd find a lot of support for something similar. Does the First Amendment guarantee that a priest can keep silent about a crime because the Church says so? That assumption may be put to the test, especially since it is evident that the practice has helped abusers to hide.
Ireland is not the United
Ireland is not the United States.
And the priest/penitent privilege is not an "assumption." It is, once again, a very clearly and well-established privilege by both statute and legal precedent.
Though there may be exceptions in which a parishioner approaches a clergyman as a friend for advice, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have passed laws granting absolute privilege to sacramental Confession.
Now until those laws are repealed as well as every legal precedent behind them, it is utterly ridiculous to say that THIS case, involving a self-identified "advocacy group" holds the same privilege as a priest hearing Confession.
Perhaps the same should apply
Perhaps the same should apply to lawyer-client privilege and doctor=patient priviledged while the law makers are at it? Would you make a case for that too?
"affects the reputation
"affects the reputation temporarily of one adult". This is what Clohessy maintains happens when a priest is wrongly accused and SNAP shows up with its dog and pony show! Think again, Mr. Clohessy. That wrongly and falsely accused priest will never have his reputation restored.
SNAP, you too must follow the
SNAP, you too must follow the law as difficult as that may seem. You are not infallible. Yes, the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Nuns MUST be transparent, but of course SNAP should never have to be transparent no matter how much they broke the law. Me thinks there is something wrong with this picture.
He SHOULD turn it over.
He SHOULD turn it over. What's he hiding?
What is the Catholic church
What is the Catholic church hiding?
Oh yeah, rampant child rape by 4,392 "Jerry Sanduskys" that they admitted to.
How many times has someone on
How many times has someone on here accused the Church of "deflecting blame?" Now it seems like the SNAP defenders, such as yourself, are doing the same thing. There could be a billion or zero cases of wrong-doing by the Church--that has no bearing on unethical or illegal activities by SNAP.
If he doesn't comply with the
If he doesn't comply with the order he should go to jail just like any other criminal. Isn't this what he and his organization promote when it's a question of the Church? "Snap" to it, Davey, or suffer the consequences.
Only the Catholic church
Only the Catholic church would rape thousands and thousands of children and fight them when they come forward.
Only the Catholic church would hide thousands of documents about the child rapes that they committed, thanks to the richest lawyers in the world, and would fight to expose private documents from the victims.
Only the Catholic church practices the deeds of the wolf in sheep's clothing.
Pick a side. You will answer to God for whether you sided with the pedophiles or the victims, and doing nothing is a choice.
Bishop Finn refused, refused
Bishop Finn refused, refused and refused again to protect children. His arrest is monumental. He violated a previous agreement with survivors of clergy abuse with further coverups. Yet, even his criminal and immoral activity fails to draw one criticim from another bishop. In fact no bishop has every criticized another bishop for being complicit in covering up child abuse.
Further, no bishop has every criticized another bishop for sexually abusing children (see www.bishopaccountability.org)
On the the other hand, SNAP has provided support to thousands of survivors of clergy abuse. David Clohessy has worked over twenty years in supporting survivors, educating the community and protecting children. Protecting the privacy of survivors, whistleblowers, parents, and newssources is a worthy endeavor.
The effectiveness and power of SNAP throughout the twenty years of work prompted the lawyers of predators and their apologists to attack it. They have no moral or ethical standing so they use the law to attack.
Finn is a criminal. His predator priests belong in jail. Don't be mislead by legal attacks.
Dave and SNAP have done so
Dave and SNAP have done so much good--so what is a little breaking the law and unethical behavior between friends?
That sounds a lot like "Father has done so much good, so what if he acted out once." The hypocrisy on these pages is amazing.
Only documents having a
Only documents having a direct bearing on the individuals in this single case should be turned over...otherwise it IS a fishing expedition!
Post new comment