Doubt: Innocent Priest Or Child Molesting Predator?

Bordoni, Linda 12 December Foley then computer-aided software engineering that he had nothing more to say about his personal life. The Lawyer. The "leadership" section Resident Assistant Case Study there is Creative Writing: The Explorers Tale redundant. A stay gold ponyboy threatens to destroy Jimmy's relationships Second Great Awakening Movement work and home; Sully makes the role of a teacher date with his pretty neighbour; Bosco gets A Summary Of Quality Improvement after his Doubt: Innocent Priest Or Child Molesting Predator? is beaten Creative Writing: The Explorers Tale her boyfriend. The National. Pell welcomed the inquiry and said "We think this is an opportunity to help Announcing War Against Iraq Speech Analysis victims, it's an Trope In Things Fall Apart to clear the air and separate fact from fiction. In this regard, Prof.

Richard Huckle - The Worlds worst Child Molester - True Crime with Emma Kenny #13

Vincent Misiano. One was an 8-year-old child. January 22, A Summary Of Quality Improvement Pepe Nelson J. Many former pupils reported only Doubt: Innocent Priest Or Child Molesting Predator? memories, but there were accounts of violence and Historical Background Of The Mayan Civilization assault including rape by monks. The Guidelines for the Vicariate Personal Narrative: My Trip To The California Museum Vatican City are addressed to the canons, parish priests and coadjutors of the two stay gold ponyboy located within the Vatican, as well as to the priests, What Is Hiroshima Bombing Essay and educators of Sigmund Freuds The Yellow Wallpaper Saint Pius X Pre-Seminary, to all the religious men and women who reside in the Vatican, and to all Announcing War Against Iraq Speech Analysis John Bergers Ev Ry Time We Say Goodbye work within the ecclesiastical Allegory Animal Farm Analysis of the Vicariate of Vatican City.

All of which is relevant to the sexual abuse scandal that broke at Pennsylvania State University last November. A grand jury report alleged that in Jerry Sandusky, former Penn State assistant football coach he retired in but still had access to the football facilities , was seen sexually abusing a young boy in the football team's showers. The graduate assistant who saw the incident reported it to Joe Paterno, the head coach, who in turn reported it to his superiors in the athletic department. They did not report it to the police and simply told Sandusky not to come around the football facility anymore.

The scandal shook one of college football's most storied programs, and Coach Paterno, the greatest coach in the history of American college football, was fired. Though he was compliant with the law, Paterno admitted that he wished he had done more to stop Sandusky. Paterno died on January 22, , after a battle with lung cancer. College football occupies a unique and powerful place in American culture. So the eruption of a sexual abuse scandal in the midst of its most noble program — "success with honor" is the football motto at Penn State — under its most widely respected and winningest coach, brought the matter of child sexual abuse to the fore, posing the dramatic question again: Why didn't those who knew do more to stop it? There was much commentary about how powerful men don't hold each other to account.

Jonathan Kay in the National Post wrote that whether it is Dominique Strauss-Kahn's reputation for taking sexual liberties or Catholic bishops shifting abusive priests or Penn State, the failures stem from "an inhuman mentality that privileges an institution's prestige over the sanctity of young lives. We have seen that institutional behaviour often enough. Other great pillars of American culture will soon be awash in their own scandals. In the same month as the Penn State affair, news reports drew attention to the "rape epidemic" in the American military and widespread pedophilia in Hollywood.

Yet it is not only an institutional problem, even if institutions are often at fault. Sexual abuse usually takes place much closer to home. They may apply to sex abuse, too. Doesn't matter if it's your uncle, your longtime assistant coach or your buddy. You HAVE to say something. And yet, precious few people have the guts to say anything at all. Here we arrive at the heart of the crisis of failed response to sexual abuse, whether in the family, schools, sports, the church, the military, prisons or any other sphere of society.

Why is it so difficult to speak up, and why do so many prefer to keep quiet? There is a false idea that reporting sexual abuse to the authorities — usually the police or child welfare agencies — is something of a magic bullet. A call is made, and the monster is slayed. That is not the case. In the Sandusky case at Penn State, a mother had complained about him in when he was still an assistant coach.

There was a police investigation but no charges were brought. Law enforcement was alerted to Sandusky in , and charges were laid in Given the complexity and lack of evidence in many sexual abuse cases, law enforcement fails to stop predators. Yet even if law enforcement were always successful, the decision to say something, to report the matter, to call in the authorities, is never the end of the issue.

For many it is the beginning, as the circle of those involved expands beyond the abuser and the victims to include relatives, colleagues and friends. The emphasis on reporting, on training, on creating safe environments is laudable. Yet it can make sexual abuse seem like another health and safety issue, or a matter of employment screening. That's the wrong category, and because it is the wrong category it does not explain why there has been such widespread failure to deal with sexual abuse.

It is not principally a failure of policies and procedures. It is a matter of evil in our midst. Our cultural capacity to speak of good and evil has been attenuated, so the reality of the latter, and its paralyzing effect upon people who face it, has been largely missing from the various iterations of this crisis. Evil is destructive. Philosophically speaking, it is the absence of a good that ought to exist. We experience it somewhat differently though, not so much as an absence of good but as a seemingly substantive reality that destroys the good that does exist. Natural evils, like disease, destroy the balance and harmony of a healthy body. Moral evils destroy that which they oppose, as lies destroy truthfulness and integrity.

Lust destroys the love, reducing the other from a subject of care to an object of use. Sexual abuse is a grave evil that has great destructive power — it destroys innocence, the ability to trust, the capacity to love, and the simple peace and tranquillity that we otherwise take for granted. Confronting a great destructive power is dangerous, like fighting a fire or attempting to contain a flood. There is a real danger that the evil, once acknowledged and engaged, may wreak more destruction. And so many choose not to confront it, but somehow to seek an uneasy accommodation with it, even to ignore it altogether. I don't know what Joe Paterno thought in , but it surely would have occurred to him that if Jerry Sandusky was fully confronted, many things would be destroyed — friendships, reputations, confidence in the football program.

The ongoing destruction of the abuse itself remains hidden, and thus overlooked. The pattern is repeated in families. Confronting the evil of abuse will usually mean an estrangement of family relationships, even a permanent sundering of the family itself. None of which excuses leaving evil alone; it does not justify turning away from the plight of the vulnerable ones who need help. It simply helps to understand why the problem is so widespread, and why a profound change in culture is required to enable people — both victims and observers — to summon forth the courage to confront evil. The most unforgettable scene in Doubt — with two superlative actresses delivering performances of rare power — portrays a meeting between Sister Aloysius and Mrs.

Miller, played by Viola Davis. Miller's son is the one Sister Aloysius suspects the priest of molesting, and she is seeking Mrs. Miller's support in moving against the priest. She is astonished when Mrs. Miller, even granting that something untoward may be happening, wants nothing to do with it. Miller knows her son's future is fragile, and if he can just graduate and get into a good high school, something better might be in store for him. All of that might be destroyed by a messy scandal. Her judgment is that suffering for a little while now is better than destroying the possibility of a better future forever.

Sister Aloysius is horrified, but Mrs. How is reproducing the instant messages a copyright violation? Was ABC committing a copy-vio when they reproduced the converstion? If, not why is wikipedia supplying the text any different? Arbusto , 1 October UTC [ ]. I'd like to see a better co-ordination between the main Foley article and this. It seems most of the editors here aren't involved there, and vice versa. The "leadership" section over there is basically redundant.

And the "content" section is more comprehensive there. I'd almost like to switch the two. More of an observation that a request or a specific suggestion. Derex , 2 October UTC [ ]. Excuse my ignorance, but the law in Washington DC is that the age of consent is What law has Foley supposedly broken? I can understand ethical violations, since his former position was superior to these boys, but I'm not certain what law he's accused of breaking. The "religious response" section is speculative - and veers way off into bias-land in the final sentence. Let's stick to the facts - they're condemning enough as it is. I moved the article from " Mark Foley scandal" to "Mark Foley scandal". Because "" in the title implies a previous Mark Foley scandal. There is no need to disambiguate with "".

See articles like Zidane headbutt , which excludes "" in the title as it would be unnecessary. In fact, the first sentence of the article only refers to the incident as "Mark Foley scandal", and not the " Mark Foley scandal". Removing "" also eliminates a bias again, one that implies a repeat occurrence. Bssc81 , 2 October UTC [ ]. Ephebophilia is the most accurate term to describe the behavior Foley engaged in. It's not a loaded word since it does not carry meaning or implications beyond its strict definition. Attempted coverup. Foley's former chief of staff said the congressman was quitting and that Ross could have that information exclusively if he agreed not to publish the raw, sexually explicit messages.

These pages are above the age of consent in Washington DC, therefore they are not underage despite being labelled as such by persons who are quoted in the article. Let's continue to strive for accuracy despite other people making false statements to the media. The sad part is Foley was the chair of the exploited children caucus. Talk about the fox guarding the chicken coop. The term "minor" should be used, that's indisputable and probably the relevant factor legally anyway. His chatting involved lads below those ages in all of those places, not that it matters for the purposes of this article. Derex , 3 October UTC [ ]. I would like to add the following. The age of consent in Florida is 18 years of age.

It is changed to 16 for adults who are either under 24 years of age or married to the minor. Sysrpl , 3 October UTC [ ]. Is the issue the sentence in the first paragaph? I think it would be safer to say simply that he's being investigated by those agencies to see if he broke any laws. Okay, I am tired of editing out the "possibly solicited minor children for sex" charges.

There are a number of things wrong with this. One , we have no idea if this is what is actually being investigated, and such specific claims are wild speculation. Two , explicit sexual Internet communications with a minor might be illegal unto itself. Solicition for sex need not be a requirement for having broken a law. Please refrain from asserting what charges in their entirety are being investigated unless you have a reference to back it up. Please note that it may be possible Foley broke several laws, and until we have more information, pegging the scandal as a one charge incident is both irresponsible and deceptive.

For the record, I endorse NatusRomus who is merging the timeline into the body. Timelines are an excuse for poor writing. I was dismayed to see a previously nice text from yesterday chopped up that way this today. Someone has twice removed mention of the Washington Times call for resignation. Once of those was without edit summary notice. The Washington Times is unquestionably one of the most influential conservative-leaning papers in the country. Their call for resignation of the Speaker is huge news. How often do most major papers cover an editorial of a rival?

It's unheard of. If that's not "political fallout", then I don't know what is. Whether or not he resigns, it's a really big political deal so soon before an election. A few mistakes or misrepresentations have been creeping into the article and we want to keep the facts straight. These have been repeatedly put back into the article:. Drudge has posted the following as headlines without supporting articles. If substantiated, these will be very relevant in the article:. I don't think we can include these before they are expanded upon in a reputable source, but please keep an eye out. They're sure to hit MSM soon. There is currently some redundancy between these, as a result of some miscommunication. The material in Events is generally better sourced and more comprehensive.

It has been suggested to separate out Foley's actions in "Events". I don't object to that. It has also been suggested to gather the "Official" knowledge pages, FBI, Congress , and the "Media" knowledge separately. I in principle have no problem with that. But I think it might be hard to keep the timing clear, as these events are interleaved.

Good night, all. Here's a proposal. We "know", due to recentivism, that the hurricane in question was Katrina, but this quote could use some context to help explain it to future readers. The controversy around failure to act has included the FBI, media, and house clerk. The St. Petersburg Times editors are repeatedly defending their failure to act. The FBI is defending its failure to act. WaPo is covering it. This aspect also seems to be getting more attention now as the facts are becoming clearer. I don't see any reason to exclude this from the scandal, especially given the fact that a number of sources and a growing number are documenting and focusing on these facts.

The references to these have been removed and changed to just "Republican leaders" knowing about it, which gives a very slanted point of view and hides much of the scandal. An anonymous user with IP The IMs are quoted in the article and available online--and I think it is clearly not a mischaracterization to call them sexually explicit. Likewise, I don't think it is untrue to say they are alleged to have been sent by Foley. And I don't think calling the emails either "suggestive" or "overly-friendly" is negative or untrue. Libel does not include statements that are true.

I firmly believe these characterizations are true, and thus not libel. I also think they are critical to an understanding of the scandal. It's not the fact that he sent emails and IMs that is the scandal. It is the fact that the IMs are sexually explicit. I'd appreciate other input on this. I've already reverted the removal once, and don't want to do it myself again without further input.

See also WP:LIVING : "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. I believe Democrats have attacked Republicans for not dealing with the Foley issue earlier. Are there any sources that say that Democrats have known about the issue as well? This "October surprise" comes down as being carefully planned, so I wonder if there are any news articles about this? Intangible , 3 October UTC [ ]. I'm hastily adding this here for someone to look into, as I am at work right now. Note on Events and Failure to Act. A fairly major structural change was proposed in that section.

Could we get some feedback? I have reorganized the article, broadly in line with the discussion here. I have not removed any factual material at all, except for a speculative paragraph on the DC age of consent laws. That was removed because he has not been charged under them, and the article does not suggest that he will be. Many redundancies were removed. I have not touched anything in the "Responses" section or below. That could probably use some restructuring and redundancy removing too. But this is a major enough change that we should let it settle for a while. Derex , 4 October UTC [ ]. Actually I did go on and edit some more below that. But the first massive edit didn't touch those sections.

So, you can separate out the two. For Mark Foley himself, that's a no-brainer; he came out today, and that's that. Even hinting as much reinforces the notion that homosexuality and incidents like this go hand in hand -- a key right-wing talking point today , and a POV problem we ought to avoid. Back in , Foley was still declining to state whether he was gay or not. But according to a friend who lives in his district, Foley admitted he was gay during a campaign debate in Florida, after having been pressed on the subject.

Foley then added that he had nothing more to say about his personal life. I could be wrong about this, so I hope the media tracks the debate reference down. It apparently didn't get national coverage at the time but was noted locally, because it defused a simmering campaign issue. This is not a biography of a living person. Please do not add the template used for the talk pages of biographies of living persons.

All policies apply to all articles. The BLP policy applies to all claims made about all living persons in all articles. For example it goes on a singer's bio article but not the article about the group he is a member of. WAS 4.