US orphanage abuse

[umsami]

As somebody who was in a "children's home" before I was adopted as an infant....this is hard to read. (It was Baptist FWIW).  Many other countries have looked into abuse that went on in orphanages in their countries.  It's time for the US to do so, too.

 

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/christinekenneally/orphanage-death-catholic-abuse-nuns-st-josephs?bfsplash&utm_term=4ldqpho

 

 

[HomeAgain]

That is horrific.  And yet I don't even find it surprising.  It just...is. 

I have come to the conclusion that any organization that relies strongly on submission as a tool will have wave after wave of abuse and horror within its walls.  Any.  Sports, religion, government...if blind obedience is valued, humanity will pay the price.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Saying that it is time for the US to look into abuse in their country is a bit misleading.  The US does look into reported abuse.  And they do monitor schools and other organizations.  Does horrific abuse still occur?  Yes.  Is the system inadequate?  Yes.  But it isn't like the government gives total free reign here with no provisions for trying to keep children safe. 

[scholastica]

It is awful and heartbreaking and never should have happened. It is scandalous to me as a person of faith that those who were supposed to reflect the love of God to these children harmed them.

I hope we've learned a lot more about child development and discipline in the intervening years. There is certainly an aspect of the understanding of childrearing in times past that influenced the behavior in many of these places. Many people engaged in practices all the time that would be considered abuse today, both in orphanages and their own homes. One would hope we are moving past that as a society. Yet, even so, we hear of horrific abuse by caregivers every day.

There always have been and always will be people who harm other people. In fact I heard a report the other day on Reveal looking into abuse at private care homes. Reveal: Trapped:Abuse and Neglect in Private Care. I don't know what the solution is.

 

 

[umsami]

2 hours ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Saying that it is time for the US to look into abuse in their country is a bit misleading.  The US does look into reported abuse.  And they do monitor schools and other organizations.  Does horrific abuse still occur?  Yes.  Is the system inadequate?  Yes.  But it isn't like the government gives total free reign here with no provisions for trying to keep children safe. 

No, not really.  We have not had a large, nationwide inquiry into systemic abuse in the 20th century carried out in orphanages and other organizations similar to what was done in Ireland , Canada, and Australia.  A nationwide examination.  It's not just Catholic orphanages.  Here in Florida, we had horrific things happen at the Florida School for Boys.  The abuse of Native American children at forced boarding schools is also horrific.  In order to truly address it, we need to find out just how systemic and widespread it was.    The recent grand jury report over the abuse in Pennsylvania is just that...recent.  

[Ausmumof3]

19 minutes ago, umsami said:

No, not really.  We have not had a large, nationwide inquiry into systemic abuse in the 20th century carried out in orphanages and other organizations similar to what was done in Ireland , Canada, and Australia.  A nationwide examination.  It's not just Catholic orphanages.  Here in Florida, we had horrific things happen at the Florida School for Boys.  The abuse of Native American children at forced boarding schools is also horrific.  In order to truly address it, we need to find out just how systemic and widespread it was.    The recent grand jury report over the abuse in Pennsylvania is just that...recent.  

In case you think Australia is in any way a shining example there have been horror stories out of care homes and foster care here that are very recent!  Gov privatised many care homes because some privately run care homes were having better outcomes.  If course that attracted those who were there with a profit motive.  At least two of the employees responsible for caring for foster kids have been convicted of child sex offences in the last 3 years.

 

[umsami]

39 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I thought wide spread abuse in orphanages was a major factor in why the US switched over to a system based on foster care? (not that the foster care system isn't without it own issues.)    I thought it was common knowledge how rampant abuse was.  I mean I keep visualizing the movie Annie in my head and while I know the abuse on screen is certainly a sugar coated depiction of the real abuse....I thought that was an understood aspect....that it was understood that it was sanitized for Hollywood.  

I don't think there was anything formal ever done.  I think the move to foster care was a general move away from institutions, similar to what happened with mental health.  The theory was that kids having an individual loving family would be better....but of course...the abuse in foster care here is horrific.  

Found this: https://www.americanadoptions.com/adoption/do-orphanages-still-exist

[scholastica]

What would be the desired outcome of such a review? Don't we already know that there has historically been abuse of children in virtually every setting, especially children of color? At some point it becomes voyeurism. Do I think people should be free to tell their stories? Yes. Possible compensation from those who were responsible and should have known better? Sure.  But to use resources to confirm what we already know? I'm not sure that's wise use. I'm open to changing my mind, but I'd much rather see resources put to helping children currently in care. Not that we can't do both. I'm just not convinced that it would provide helpful information. I'm pretty sure that there are laws in place to deal with current offenders, so it won't change that. I don't know.

[Wheres Toto]

The one article makes it sound like there are no more orphanages but there is an orphanage for boys not far from where I live.   Although the name is _______ Orphanage, the description says "...a residential treatment program for abused, abandoned or neglected adolescent boys (aged 9-17), with mild to moderate emotional, behavioral, social and/or learning problems. The New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services (D.Y.F.S.) refers all placements."  

I don't know what it may have been like in the past but I know for at least the past 30 years they've held activities for various holidays (like an Easter Egg Hunt) where they invite the community, the kids all go to school outside of the facility and it's a pretty open place.  

[TechWife]

2 hours ago, scholastica said:

What would be the desired outcome of such a review? Don't we already know that there has historically been abuse of children in virtually every setting, especially children of color? At some point it becomes voyeurism. Do I think people should be free to tell their stories? Yes. Possible compensation from those who were responsible and should have known better? Sure.  But to use resources to confirm what we already know? I'm not sure that's wise use. I'm open to changing my mind, but I'd much rather see resources put to helping children currently in care. Not that we can't do both. I'm just not convinced that it would provide helpful information. I'm pretty sure that there are laws in place to deal with current offenders, so it won't change that. I don't know.

The desired outcome? An opportunity for lament. For the church, the community and for all affected to openly acknowledge the damage done and to talk about it and grieve about it openly. An opportunity for those who were abused to tell their stories if they wish to and for them to be believed. An opportunity for repentance and meaningful restitution. An opportunity to understand the construction of a system that allowed all of this to happen and allowed it to be covered up. An opportunity to make sure that those systems are dismantled and that better, stronger systems are put in place that hold powerful people accountable. An opportunity to review the laws that you think are in place and determine if they are indeed, in place, if they are administered justly, if there are controls in place to make sure abusers aren't put in contact with children again. An opportunity to make sure we hold the gatekeepers accountable on multiple levels. An opportunity to understand history so that just maybe, we won't repeat it. So much opportunity.

[TechWife]

1 hour ago, Where's Toto? said:

The one article makes it sound like there are no more orphanages but there is an orphanage for boys not far from where I live.   Although the name is _______ Orphanage, the description says "...a residential treatment program for abused, abandoned or neglected adolescent boys (aged 9-17), with mild to moderate emotional, behavioral, social and/or learning problems. The New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services (D.Y.F.S.) refers all placements."  

I don't know what it may have been like in the past but I know for at least the past 30 years they've held activities for various holidays (like an Easter Egg Hunt) where they invite the community, the kids all go to school outside of the facility and it's a pretty open place.  

I agree with you that we still have orphanages today. Changing the name of something doesn't make it disappear. I think they are far different than they used to be, thankfully.

[umsami]

2 hours ago, scholastica said:

What would be the desired outcome of such a review? Don't we already know that there has historically been abuse of children in virtually every setting, especially children of color? At some point it becomes voyeurism. Do I think people should be free to tell their stories? Yes. Possible compensation from those who were responsible and should have known better? Sure.  But to use resources to confirm what we already know? I'm not sure that's wise use. I'm open to changing my mind, but I'd much rather see resources put to helping children currently in care. Not that we can't do both. I'm just not convinced that it would provide helpful information. I'm pretty sure that there are laws in place to deal with current offenders, so it won't change that. I don't know.

It would be huge for the survivors, and their families, for one thing.  To be heard.  To have someone hear their stories and know that they were not crazy.  To hold somebody accountable or at least to have people look at the scope of the abuse and put things in place to make sure it doesn't happen again.  Look at the scope of Larry Nasser's victims.  He was at MSU.   It was Olympic level gymnastics.  Yet the abuse went on for years, right under the eyes of parents. 

[scholastica]

2 hours ago, Thatboyofmine said:

In the Florida school for boys investigation, one of the goals was to unearth the remains of murdered children to give families closure and I think that is a noble goal.  I’m sure that particular school isn’t the only one with bodies buried.  

See that’s what I mean - a demonstrated purpose like looking for murder victims. 

[umsami]

Just now, scholastica said:

See that’s what I mean - a demonstrated purpose like looking for murder victims. 

Honest question.   Did you read the entire article and see how the Catholic church basically hid evidence and kept the victims from getting justice?  Or how they berated the victims and argued that the statue of limitations had run out?  

[TechWife]

14 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I guess my thought process is that...

That these victims are not crazy and that someone should be held accountable is kind of a given.  You mention Larry Nasser's victims....I feel like he IS being held accountable.  

He is being held accountable, but only after he pleaded guilty because there was so much evidence against him. He was sentenced only after over 160  women gave victim impact statements. After they were heard. But you know what has not happened? MSU has not approached a single one of those women to recognize and apologize for their role in allowing the abuse to occur and then covering it up. MSU has not made any changes in policy public that would prevent these things from occurring again, especially the cover up. They have hired a new athletic director from within their organization, not from the outside.  USGA has not offered one single apology to those women. They have not included any of these women, some of whom are still competing, in any of the supposed work they are doing to make sure this doesn't happen again. There are systemic issues at both MSU, USAG and USOC that need to be addressed out in the open, where we can all see them, so that we can all hold them accountable in the future.

ETA: Did you know that Larry Nassar is in court this week trying to get re-sentenced? It isn't over yet.

ETAA: Did you know that there is also a recent scandal at Ohio State about domestic violence? Penn State (Sandusky), MSU, Ohio State. All athletic powerhouses. Athletes who make money for the universities being abused right under their noses. Where is the accountability from the NCAA?

Edited August 28, 2018 by TechWife

[scholastica]

23 minutes ago, TechWife said:

The desired outcome? An opportunity for lament. For the church, the community and for all affected to openly acknowledge the damage done and to talk about it and grieve about it openly. An opportunity for those who were abused to tell their stories if they wish to and for them to be believed. An opportunity for repentance and meaningful restitution. An opportunity to understand the construction of a system that allowed all of this to happen and allowed it to be covered up. An opportunity to make sure that those systems are dismantled and that better, stronger systems are put in place that hold powerful people accountable. An opportunity to review the laws that you think are in place and determine if they are indeed, in place, if they are administered justly, if there are controls in place to make sure abusers aren't put in contact with children again. An opportunity to make sure we hold the gatekeepers accountable on multiple levels. An opportunity to understand history so that just maybe, we won't repeat it. So much opportunity.

In most cases, the creators of the systems and the perpetrators of the abuse are long dead and unable to offer restitution or repentance.  I’m all for victims being given space to tell their stories and be believed, but an investigation implies that there will be someone to hold accountable at the end. The people who actually perpetrated the crimes are no longer able to be held accountable. What do you do if the sponsoring organization no longer exists? Who is supposed to repent and pay restitution then? 

[scholastica]

8 minutes ago, umsami said:

Honest question.   Did you read the entire article and see how the Catholic church basically hid evidence and kept the victims from getting justice?  Or how they berated the victims and argued that the statue of limitations had run out?  

Yes, but I no longer have any faith in human beings to be decent to each other any more, so I guess I’ve lost my ability to be outraged. I’m just sad all the time. I expect organizations to do this now. Penn State did it, the Catholic Church did it, the Boy Scoits did it. It’s just what organizations do. 

[TechWife]

Just now, scholastica said:

In most cases, the creators of the systems and the perpetrators of the abuse are long dead and unable to offer restitution or repentance.  I’m all for victims being given space to tell their stories and be believed, but an investigation implies that there will be someone to hold accountable at the end. The people who actually perpetrated the crimes are no longer able to be held accountable. What do you do if the sponsoring organization no longer exists? Who is supposed to repent and pay restitution then? 

The systems are still in place. How do I know this? Because the truth is just coming to light. The conspiracy to hide the truth is alive and well. If not for a grand jury that insisted on spelling things out, we would still not know the extent of the depravity within the RCC in PA. The system is still there. The deceit and pain is ongoing. Individuals abused, the system that allowed the abuse is alive and well. Until the system is abolished, people within that system will still have the opportunity and freedom to abuse.

[hjffkj]

34 minutes ago, scholastica said:

In most cases, the creators of the systems and the perpetrators of the abuse are long dead and unable to offer restitution or repentance.  I’m all for victims being given space to tell their stories and be believed, but an investigation implies that there will be someone to hold accountable at the end. The people who actually perpetrated the crimes are no longer able to be held accountable. What do you do if the sponsoring organization no longer exists? Who is supposed to repent and pay restitution then? 

 

The organization that hid it, in this case the Catholic Church.  As a Catholic,  I am disgusted in the leaders of my institution not taking responsibility for the harm their people in leadership roles did.  It has actually shaken my belief in the Church greatly.  

[scholastica]

53 minutes ago, TechWife said:

The systems are still in place. How do I know this? Because the truth is just coming to light. The conspiracy to hide the truth is alive and well. If not for a grand jury that insisted on spelling things out, we would still not know the extent of the depravity within the RCC in PA. The system is still there. The deceit and pain is ongoing. Individuals abused, the system that allowed the abuse is alive and well. Until the system is abolished, people within that system will still have the opportunity and freedom to abuse.

That’s interesting because I heard an interview on NPR with AG from PA who issued the Grand Jury report and he said then that he felt things had changed since 2002. The case in the linked article also took place prior to 2002. It ended in 1998. I would like all of these organizations to come clean themselves, open their archives, air the dirty laundry and get it over with. I’m not sure yet another investigation detailing all the horrors and putting the salacious details of the horrible things that happened to these poor kids will actually accomplish anything. I want them all to do the right thing.

[JIN MOUSA]

5 minutes ago, scholastica said:

That’s interesting because I heard an interview on NPR with AG from PA who issued the Grand Jury report and he said then that he felt things had changed since 2002. The case in the linked article also took place prior to 2002. It ended in 1998. I would like all of these organizations to come clean themselves, open their archives, air the dirty laundry and get it over with. I’m not sure yet another investigation detailing all the horrors and putting the salacious details of the horrible things that happened to these poor kids will actually accomplish anything. I want them all to do the right thing.

Who decides what the right thing is?

 

I found the article absolutely heart-wrenching. I'm trying to remember that there was less understanding of childhood development and very different perspectives on children and discipline and such. But I just cannot see how acts like those described in the article could be justified in light of the Bible.

 

Also, I don't generally consider BuzzFeed to be a serious news source. 

Edited August 28, 2018 by JIN MOUSA
submitted before I was done with my thoughts

[TechWife]

12 minutes ago, scholastica said:

That’s interesting because I heard an interview on NPR with AG from PA who issued the Grand Jury report and he said then that he felt things had changed since 2002. The case in the linked article also took place prior to 2002. It ended in 1998. I would like all of these organizations to come clean themselves, open their archives, air the dirty laundry and get it over with. I’m not sure yet another investigation detailing all the horrors and putting the salacious details of the horrible things that happened to these poor kids will actually accomplish anything. I want them all to do the right thing.

I'm not sure why the AG would think things have changed. Cardinal McCarrick was a Cardinal until just last month. Pope Benedict put some restrictions on him, which Pope Francis lifted. There is an accusation by a former Vatican Ambassador to the US that he notified Pope Francis that there were issues with McCarrick long before he resigned.

When I say that the things that need to be examined include: How are these abusive people trained to think that this abuse is okay? That's what I mean by investigating and understanding the systems. We can't understand the flaws in the system until we understand the specific failures. Why was burning a child's hand okay? How is abuse in a seminary setting introduced to it's victims and perpetrated over decades? How does a system develop that allows church officials to trade information on their victims? In my view, the systemic abuse & coverup by the RCC very well may be a RICO violation. Why isn't anyone talking about that? The coverup was ongoing. It's not like they came out with this information on their own - they didn't volunteer it.

ETA: How will you know if they have done the right thing if they aren't held accountable for doing it?

Edited August 28, 2018 by TechWife

[umsami]

13 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

 

Yes, there's abuse in foster care. Is it horrific? Not usually. Tell my friends who have adopted children from institutions in other countries just how horrific foster care is. The U.S. most certainly has taken a look at abuse and does do things about it while in other countries the government literally doesn't care. I have numerous friends who have adopted children who were you know ten-years-old and the size of an infant. No, that's not even a bit hyperbolic. The children are starved and neglected when not being physically and sexually abused. They are denied life saving surgeries because they are orphans and not seen as worth it. One former friend adopted a child whose spinal cord was literally cut and removed for no reason. He wasn't paralyzed before that "surgery" but you better believe he was after. 

Yes, it is horrific.  We're talking about abuse in foster care in the United States.  Not about whether or not a child in an orphanage abroad is treated better or worse--or has a better life here than abroad.  (And since you brought up international adoptions, be sure to read about re-homing.)  

Children in state care are 10x more likely to be abused than in their own home living with both parents.

In the few state wide examinations, it is roughly 1/4 of all kids in foster care who are abused.  Remember, it doesn't necessarily mean that the foster parents are doing the abuse--there can also be child on child abuse.  I have four kids.  If all four of them entered care and were separated (large sibling groups are not always kept together), at least one of them would likely face abuse. I find that horrific.  

There are wonderful foster parents out there.  But there are some very horrible foster parents as well.  The state does not seem to do a good enough job in recruiting good foster parents and screening out the horrible ones.  Let's be honest.  It's an extremely tough job.  The kids who enter the system are traumatized.   They may need all sorts of services and help.  I know four DCF social workers.  Not one of them would say that a child is necessarily safe in foster care.  Not one.  

[TechWife]

38 minutes ago, hjffkj said:

 

The organization that hid it, in this case the Catholic Church.  As a Catholic,  I am disgusted in the leaders of my institution not taking responsibility for the harm their people in leadership roles did.  It has actually shaken my belief in the Church greatly.  

I am so sorry. As a former Catholic, I am lamenting with you.

[scholastica]

1 minute ago, TechWife said:

I'm not sure why the AG would think things have changed. Cardinal McCarrick was a Cardinal until just last month. Pope Benedict put some restrictions on him, which Pope Francis lifted. There is an accusation by a former Vatican Ambassador to the US that he notified Pope Francis that there were issues with McCarrick long before he resigned.

When I say that the things that need to be examined include: How are these abusive people trained to think that this abuse is okay? That's what I mean by investigating and understanding the systems. We can't understand the flaws in the system until we understand the specific failures. Why was burning a child's hand okay? How is abuse in a seminary setting introduced to it's victims and perpetrated over decades? How does a system develop that allows church officials to trade information on their victims? In my view, the systemic abuse & coverup by the RCC very well may be a RICO violation. Why isn't anyone talking about that? The coverup was ongoing. It's not like they came out with this information on their own - they didn't volunteer it.

ETA: How will you know if they have done the right thing if they aren't held accountable for doing it?

He said he found no evidence of ongoing attempts to cover up. That accusations today were being handled appropriately. The PA investigation covered from 1940-2018. The historical cover up is horrifying enough. I still don't get that. I never will. Again, it used to make me mad, now it just makes me sad. 

[scholastica]

11 minutes ago, JIN MOUSA said:

Who decides what the right thing is?

 

I found the article absolutely heart-wrenching. I'm trying to remember that there was less understanding of childhood development and very different perspectives on children and discipline and such. But I just cannot see how acts like those described in the article could be justified in light of the Bible.

 

Also, I don't generally consider BuzzFeed to be a serious news source. 

The right thing is to open the records. 

[TechWife]

11 minutes ago, scholastica said:

He said he found no evidence of ongoing attempts to cover up. That accusations today were being handled appropriately. The PA investigation covered from 1940-2018. The historical cover up is horrifying enough. I still don't get that. I never will. Again, it used to make me mad, now it just makes me sad. 

Did the RCC release this information either to the abused children, their families, the involved parishioners, the larger RCC or the public at large prior to the release of the Grand Jury report? If not, they covered it up. What have they done since the Grand Jury report was released? How have they changed things in the past few days? You realize that we are still in 2018, right? 

[scholastica]

Just now, TechWife said:

Did the RCC release this information either to the abused children, their families, the involved parishioners, the larger RCC or the public at large prior to the release of the Grand Jury report? If not, they covered it up. What have they done since the Grand Jury report was released? How have they changed things in the past few days? You realize that we are still in 2018, right? 

I mistyped it was through 2016. They changed things in 2002. So, In his findings for the years 2002-2016, things were being handled differently when accusations were brought by victims.

[TechWife]

1 minute ago, scholastica said:

I mistyped it was through 2016. They changed things in 2002. So, In his findings for the years 2002-2016, things were being handled differently when accusations were brought by victims.

Yet the RCC did not release any of this information to anyone prior to the release of the Grand Jury report. That is a cover up.

ETA: It's an ongoing cover up, no evidence has been offered that they have changed one single thing about the way they manage these pedophile and otherwise sexually abusive priests.

Edited August 28, 2018 by TechWife

[JIN MOUSA]

19 minutes ago, scholastica said:

The right thing is to open the records. 

And if the records implicate the organizations, then what? Or does opening the records fulfill their duty to do the right thing?

[Farrar]

30 minutes ago, JIN MOUSA said:

 

Also, I don't generally consider BuzzFeed to be a serious news source. 

They have a larger number of trained reporters imbedded and reporters doing this sort of investigative journalism than a lot of other outlets these days. They've been moving toward serious journalism for awhile. They're liberal leaning, but in carefully sourced stories like this that are about broad issues, I don't know that it matters  quite as much as their direct political reporting... just in case anyone missed it, they've been doing this sort of work for the last few years as a larger and larger part of their business.

[scholastica]

1 minute ago, TechWife said:

Yet the RCC did not release any of this information to anyone prior to the release of the Grand Jury report. That is a cover up.

Are there cases of abuse post 2002 that have been covered up in PA? I know there was a prosecution in Philly for that, but the conviction has since been overturned. I’m not in that state so I don’t know. The reporting on the Grand Jury report that I have heard has been very careful to state that the accusations detailed were prior to 2002. I usually get my news from NPR and BBC.

[TechWife]

More evidence of systemic issues, this in academia. https://deadspin.com/report-baylor-secretly-infiltrated-sexual-assault-surv-1828636656

According to a report from PR Week, Baylor officials placed a mole within several support groups for sexual assault survivors as a way to control their messaging and keep the university from looking bad.

"Baylor currently faces a Title IX lawsuit from 10 anonymous former students for their alleged serial mishandling of sexual assault cases over the past decade, and Baylor football players have been accused of committing 52 rapes over four years. Per PR Week, the school attempted to curtail the voices of sexual assault survivors by embedding an insider (identified as Matt Burchett, director of student activities at Baylor) into survivor groups and getting them to soften their stances."

Edited August 28, 2018 by TechWife

[scholastica]

3 minutes ago, JIN MOUSA said:

And if the records implicate the organizations, then what? Or does opening the records fulfill their duty to do the right thing?

If the people responsible are still there, prosecute them. The same AG in PA went after the higher ups at Penn State.

[TechWife]

Just now, scholastica said:

Are there cases of abuse post 2002 that have been covered up in PA? I know there was a prosecution in Philly for that, but the conviction has since been overturned. I’m not in that state so I don’t know. The reporting on the Grand Jury report that I have heard has been very careful to state that the accusations detailed were prior to 2002. I usually get my news from NPR and BBC.

I am talking about the incidents and perpetrators revealed in the Grand Jury report released last week. The RCC was/is involved in an ongoing coverup of that information. They did not release it. The Grand Jury had to release it. They may (or may not) be handling new cases differently, but the changes didn't extend to these past cases, did it? What else are they covering up? How many other diocese were involved? How many children? 

[scholastica]

3 minutes ago, TechWife said:

I am talking about the incidents and perpetrators revealed in the Grand Jury report released last week. The RCC was/is involved in an ongoing coverup of that information. They did not release it. The Grand Jury had to release it. They may (or may not) be handling new cases differently, but the changes didn't extend to these past cases, did it? What else are they covering up? How many other diocese were involved? How many children? 

I know when the GJ report came out. I have been following it. Didn’t we know all this in 2002? That the church had historically systematically covered up abuse? I guess my surprise is that people seem surprised by that report. The thing the RC bishops didn’t do in 2002 was to fess up to what was in their archives. They came up with a policy going forward, but were unwilling to hold themselves and each other to account for past accusations. They’re reaping the harvest of that inaction now. 

[TechWife]

17 minutes ago, scholastica said:

I know when the GJ report came out. I have been following it. Didn’t we know all this in 2002? That the church had historically systematically covered up abuse? I guess my surprise is that people seem surprised by that report. The thing the RC bishops didn’t do in 2002 was to fess up to what was in their archives. They came up with a policy going forward, but were unwilling to hold themselves and each other to account for past accusations. They’re reaping the harvest of that inaction now. 

Exactly. They did not "fess up to what was in their archives." AKA: Coverup. This coverup is evidence of ongoing systemic issues regarding abuse in the RCC. If they think it's okay to coverup all of this information from the past, what else are they covering up? To paraphrase Rachel Denhollander - Is this what children are worth?

Edited August 28, 2018 by TechWife

[Carrie12345]

12 hours ago, Where's Toto? said:

The one article makes it sound like there are no more orphanages but there is an orphanage for boys not far from where I live.   Although the name is _______ Orphanage, the description says "...a residential treatment program for abused, abandoned or neglected adolescent boys (aged 9-17), with mild to moderate emotional, behavioral, social and/or learning problems. The New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services (D.Y.F.S.) refers all placements."  

I don't know what it may have been like in the past but I know for at least the past 30 years they've held activities for various holidays (like an Easter Egg Hunt) where they invite the community, the kids all go to school outside of the facility and it's a pretty open place.  

My understanding is that, while technically an orphanage(ish),  these places are generally (not exclusively) for children who cannot be placed in a family setting for safety reasons. I am familiar with someone who had to resort to this option, and it was a nightmare to even get it approved.  Alternatives tend to be pushed first, with that being the final resort after a lot of really bad things happen.

[TechWife]

10 hours ago, scholastica said:

That’s interesting because I heard an interview on NPR with AG from PA who issued the Grand Jury report and he said then that he felt things had changed since 2002. The case in the linked article also took place prior to 2002. It ended in 1998. I would like all of these organizations to come clean themselves, open their archives, air the dirty laundry and get it over with. I’m not sure yet another investigation detailing all the horrors and putting the salacious details of the horrible things that happened to these poor kids will actually accomplish anything. I want them all to do the right thing.

Today the PA AG says they have evidence that the Vatican knew about the sexual abuse and covered it up. What would it take for you to recognize that the problem in the RCC is ongoing and must be addressed? 

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/08/28/us/pennsylvania-ag-claims-vatican-knew-of-coverup/index.html?adkey=bn&r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

[scholastica]

3 minutes ago, TechWife said:

Today the PA AG says they have evidence that the Vatican knew about the sexual abuse and covered it up. What would it take for you to recognize that the problem in the RCC is ongoing and must be addressed? 

https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/08/28/us/pennsylvania-ag-claims-vatican-knew-of-coverup/index.html?adkey=bn&r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

I already believe that there are problems. 

[hjffkj]

11 hours ago, TechWife said:

I'm not sure why the AG would think things have changed. Cardinal McCarrick was a Cardinal until just last month. Pope Benedict put some restrictions on him, which Pope Francis lifted. 

 

Is this a known fact or is this part of the accusation by the archbishop?  My understanding was that Benedict gave him restrictions that he never made public and McCarrick simply continued  as usual not following those restrictions. Do we know that Francis actually lifted the restrictions? I simply want to know for my own processing of this info.

[TechWife]

1 hour ago, hjffkj said:

 

Is this a known fact or is this part of the accusation by the archbishop?  My understanding was that Benedict gave him restrictions that he never made public and McCarrick simply continued  as usual not following those restrictions. Do we know that Francis actually lifted the restrictions? I simply want to know for my own processing of this info.

I believe it's part of the accusation by the ambassador.

[SamanthaCarter]

I read the WHOLE article. I found it interesting that only after the uncovering of RCC sexual abuse, a lot of these stories became plausible. You pull the threads and they lead you back to these orphanages. 

Also interesting was that an investigative journalist was able to put some of this stuff together with public records. The electrocuted boy. A baby girl born at the address next door where no one lived. I think we had our chance as a society to face this head on in the 1990s but the ship has sailed. No outrage - I was 19 at the time of this legal battle and I don’t remember it being in the news at all. Shame on us. 

[TechWife]

2 hours ago, hjffkj said:

 

Is this a known fact or is this part of the accusation by the archbishop?  My understanding was that Benedict gave him restrictions that he never made public and McCarrick simply continued  as usual not following those restrictions. Do we know that Francis actually lifted the restrictions? I simply want to know for my own processing of this info.

Catholic News Agency has verified the Archbishop's story with Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume, former first counsillor at the apostolic nunciature in Washington D.C..

“Viganò said the truth. That’s all,” he wrote to CNA.

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/former-nunciature-official-vigano-said-the-truth-38319

 

[TechWife]

4 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

My understanding is that, while technically an orphanage(ish),  these places are generally (not exclusively) for children who cannot be placed in a family setting for safety reasons. I am familiar with someone who had to resort to this option, and it was a nightmare to even get it approved.  Alternatives tend to be pushed first, with that being the final resort after a lot of really bad things happen.

They also place children for whom they are unable to find suitable foster homes due to lack of availability.

[hjffkj]

52 minutes ago, TechWife said:

Catholic News Agency has verified the Archbishop's story with Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume, former first counsillor at the apostolic nunciature in Washington D.C..

“Viganò said the truth. That’s all,” he wrote to CNA.

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/former-nunciature-official-vigano-said-the-truth-38319

 

 

That seems to say that Monsignor Jean-Francois was confirming that Vigano told the truth in regard to what he says about the conversation that they had, which was about Benedict imposed sanctions on McCarrick.  But it doesn't make it clear if those same sanctions were later revoked by Francis or if he was simply unaware of them, which I find doubtful, unless other's below him hid it from him.  But that seems unlikely logically.

This is all so sad and disgusting.

[TechWife]

4 minutes ago, hjffkj said:

 

That seems to say that Monsignor Jean-Francois was confirming that Vigano told the truth in regard to what he says about the conversation that they had, which was about Benedict imposed sanctions on McCarrick.  But it doesn't make it clear if those same sanctions were later revoked by Francis or if he was simply unaware of them, which I find doubtful, unless other's below him hid it from him.  But that seems unlikely logically.

This is all so sad and disgusting.

It is hard to untangle. It’s my understanding that the fact that McCarrick was allowed to travel after he met with Pope Francis, that meant that the sanctions had been lifted. 

So much was hidden and buried, that I think the chances are pretty much 50:50 that Pope Francis knew. He could be complicit in that he knew and did nothing, even perhaps lifted sanctions. I think it’s equally likely that he wasn’t told in order to both allow McCarrick to continue the abuse and to protect Pope Francis from being complicit. The fact that Pope Francis has said that he will not comment is disturbing, though. It seems like if he was not complicit, he would want to get information out about that pretty quickly. He seems to be in reputation protection mode, though.