NYT Issues Another Slanted Attack Against Catholic Church
An analysis of the New York Times' response (a May 19, 2011 editorial ) to the Vatican's recent clergy abuse guidelines reveals yet another ill-informed and skewed attack on the Catholic Church. 1. The Times writes that bishops once oversaw “hush payments to victims and relocation of abusive priests.” “Hush payments” are yet another popular falsehood in the reporting of the narrative of the clergy abuse scandals. They have become somewhat of an urban legend that the media continues to propagate. The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz , now a U.S. District Judge in Minnesota, has had as much experience as any individual with clergy abuse cases. Discussing the issue of settlements with victims, Judge Schiltz has said, “I have been involved in hundreds of settlements, and I literally cannot recall one that required the victim not to talk about his or her abuse.” In the uncommon instances that there were secrecy components, Schiltz has noted that it was usually the victim who requested secrecy. “There is a reason why victims often sue as 'Jane Doe' or 'John Doe' and often seek protective orders from courts,” wrote the jurist. “Victims are understandably concerned to protect their privacy.” As far as the issue of bishops relocating abusive priests: Yes, bishops indeed did not always remove abusive priests. That is a sad, undeniable fact. Yet there is another side to this truth that the media has not reported. Here is Judge Schiltz once again: These stories were horrible because what the bishops did was often horrible. It should be noted, however, that something rather important was usually left out
Posted by
on May 22, 2011. Filed under