Los Angeles Personal Injury Lawyer - Bishop Steinbock

Cardinal(s) Wrong

Paul Kiesel — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 18:30:26 GMT

Cardinal George is wrong on his stance of Obama addressing this year's graduating class at Notre Dame University.

Ten priests in the Roman Catholic order that helps run the University of Notre Dame want the school to reconsider having President Barack Obama deliver this year's commencement address. They're wrong, too.

Why? Because it's not their graduation. It's the students' graduation. And what do the seniors who will be graduating from Notre Dame think: They appear to strongly back the university's invitation to Obama. The campus newspaper reports that 97 percent of the letters that have come in on the subject from graduating seniors are supportive.

So why does the American Life League, a Catholic pro-life organization, want to remove Notre Dame from future Catholic foundation funding? Because they don't think the students at the school are Catholic enough and, frankly, they likely disapprove of many of President Obama's policies.

This "political" and theological stunt by poorly advised cardinals and priests comes down to the disapproval of one's, in this case Obama's, political ideologies and they're turning a joyous occasion for many hard-working seniors into a publicity stunt, unfairly stealing the attention that should be focused squarely on the graduating class and the President's upcoming appearance.

However, this isn't the first time the Catholic church has had its priorities out of whack. Look at what took place in Fresno last week, as Bishop John T. Steinbock felt vindicated by a Fresno's jury verdict: Jurors unanimously agreed that Monsignor Anthony Herdegen molested two brothers from 1959 to 1972 while Herdegen was a priest at St. John's Catholic Church in Wasco. The jurors didn't find the church liable.

In a statement, Bishop Steinbock expressed regret that Herdegen had abused the Santillans, "even though the diocese learned that they were abused years after it occurred [FLAT OUT LIE]."

"Bishop Steinbock emphasized that if even one child is sexually abused, that is one child too many," the statement said. "Child sexual abuse afflicts all of society, and no community or institution is free from its effects -- even the church [SECOND FLAT OUT LIE]."

Steinbock's position on sexually abused children is sadly disingenuous: A little over two years ago, a Fresno jury found Father Eric Swearingen guilty (9-3) of molesting a former altar boy, however, Bishop John J. Steinbock has continued to allow this man to work with children at the Holy Spirit Parish in Fresno, California.

If this is the best the Catholic church has, when it comes to its leaders and rank and file members throughout the country, I'm unimpressed.

However, kudos to Rev. John Jenkins, Notre Dame's president, who said in a statement last month that the invitation does not mean the university supports all of Obama's positions but that he will be honored as an "inspiring leader."

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Kiesel

Closing Arguments at Fresno Clergy Sex Abuse Trial

Paul Kiesel — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 18:54:06 GMT

From CBS 47:

An emotional sexual abuse trial is nearing the end. Closing arguments are underway in the case against the Fresno Catholic Diocese.

Wednesday morning, the alleged victims' attorneys made their final arguments to the jury. The defense was scheduled to present their close after lunch.

Anthony DeMarco, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs said, “There were several moments in this trial I had chills running down my spine.” He said those chills were because of testimony by Bishop Joseph Madere, Bishop John Steinbock and Cardinal Roger Mahony.

In testimony, Bishop Madere said that when people came to him with complaints about their priests, he asked them to write down those complaints and then call the person they were complaining about and tell them what they were writing before they sent that letter. He said, “I don’t want to run the Diocese by rumors.”

Bishop Steinbock had told jurors that in 1995 he was contacted by Monsignor Anthony Heredigen, the priest in the case, who said there were rumors about him sexually abusing a child. Herdegen admitted to the Bishop that he had been indiscrete but would not specify what indiscrete meant so the Bishop did not investigate.

In Cardinal Mahony's testimony, he told the jurors multiple times, “that is not what I would have done” referring to the way things were handled by others involved in the case.

(Stay tuned.)

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Kiesel

AP: Catholic Hierarchy was Aware of Pedophile Priest Problem in the 1950s

Paul Kiesel — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 20:10:02 GMT

From The Associated Press:

The founder of a religious order that treats Roman Catholic priests who molest children concluded in the 1950s that offenders were unlikely to change and should not be returned to ministry, according to his letters, which were obtained by plaintiffs' lawyers.

The Rev. Gerald Fitzgerald, founder of the Servants of the Paraclete, was so sure of the priests' inability to control themselves that he tried to buy an island to isolate them.

Fitzgerald discussed the issue with Pope Paul VI and in correspondence with several bishops, according to the National Catholic Reporter, an independent newspaper that reported the full content of the letters Monday.

The documents challenge recent statements by U.S. bishops that before the clergy sex abuse scandal erupted in the 1980s and again in 2002, they were unaware of the risks of moving predators among parishes.

"I myself would be inclined to favor laicization for any priest, upon objective evidence, for tampering with the virtue of the young, my argument being, from this point onward the charity to the Mystical Body should take precedence over charity to the individual," Fitzgerald wrote in a 1952 letter to Bishop Robert Dwyer of Reno, Nev.

"Moreover, in practice, real conversions will be found to be extremely rare," he continued. "Hence, leaving them on duty or wandering from diocese to diocese is contributing to scandal or at least to the approximate danger of scandal."

The Los Angeles law firm Kiesel, Boucher & Larson, which has brought many abuse cases against California dioceses, persuaded a judge in New Mexico to unseal the letters in 2007, according to Helen Zukin, an attorney at the firm.

The attorneys then verified that the documents were authentic during depositions with Fitzgerald's successor as the Paracletes servant general, the Rev. Joseph McNamara, Zukin said.

Leaders of the Servants of the Paraclete could not be reached for comment Monday.

Fitzgerald set up the Paraclete treatment center in the late 1940s in Jemez Springs, N.M., mainly to help clergy struggling with alcoholism and emotional troubles. Soon, bishops began sending him priests who had molested young people or could not keep their celibacy vows.

In a 1957 letter to Bishop Matthew Brady of Manchester, N.H., Fitzgerald wrote that abusive priests only pretended to repent and change "to be again in a position where they can continue their wonted activity." He said eventually the church would have to establish "a uniform code of discipline and of penalties" to protect the priesthood.

More than four decades later, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops did just that. It created a national discipline and child protection policy after news reports and court files unsealed in 2002 showed that many bishops had moved guilty priests from assignment to assignment without notifying parents or police.

Under the new plan, offenders are barred from church work or ousted from the priesthood altogether. American dioceses have paid more than $2.6 billion in abuse-related costs since 1950, according studies commissioned by the U.S. bishops.

By the 1960s, Fitzgerald was losing control over the direction of the religious order, and medical and psychological professionals began working at the center — a change he had resisted. Those experts said some abusers could return to ministry.

The New Mexico treatment center closed in the 1990s in the face of lawsuits over priests who had molested children while staying at the Jemez Springs site or after being treated there.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Kiesel

Governor Paterson Opposes Sex Abuse Bill, More Worried with Churches Going Bankrupt

Paul Kiesel — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 19:59:02 GMT

For reasons that are seemingly illogical, New York Governor David Paterson told Newsday that he opposes an Assembly bill that would allow sex abuse victims to have their day in court.

In siding with the Catholic Church, Gov. Paterson told Newsday, "These types of cases could go back, 20, 30, 40 years, and since the evidence probably doesn't exist in any way to convict the perpetrator [. . .] the accusation would hinder the career of any person who was accused."

Probably? How would the governor know that each case filed would PROBABLY have no evidence to back any claims of sexual abuse by priests? He doesn't know that and is speaking rather glibly.

In fact, a clergy sex abuse case involving the Fresno Diocese has exhibited evidence that is 20 and 30 years old (many other sex abuse cases have admitted evidence that is 30 or more years old, too). The evidence has shown several instances of sex abuse by the priest who abused two brothers, Father Herdegen, and that other bishops and priests had knowledge of some of the molestation that was taking place.

If Gov. Paterson's only concern is that lawsuits may bankrupt certain dioceses in New York State, then maybe the Catholic Church should have been more accountable and tried eradicating this problem 20, 30 or 40 years ago. If and when the bill passes, hopefully churches that were complicit in child molestation (at the very least, they allowed it to occur and the perpetrator priests went unpunished) will have to reap what they've sowed.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Kiesel

CBS News: Father Craig Takes the Stand in Fresno Clergy Sex Abuse Trial

Paul Kiesel — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 19:59:29 GMT

From CBS 47:

On Thursday, attorneys for the church called a key witness to the stand. Father Rod Craig grew up in Wasco and attended the church where two brothers claim they were sexually abused by a priest for 14 years.

Father Craig said he not only knew George and Howard Santillan but was good friends with them and grew up with them.

On the stand, Father Craig said that he didn’t believe then and still does not believe today that for 14 years the brothers were being abused by their Wasco priest, Monsignor Anthony Herdegen. He said that he too was an alter boy and never saw any suspicious behavior but at one point he conflicted himself on the stand after some probing by the plaintiff’s attorney. Father Craig said, “Sometimes Monsignor would give us long hugs after serving mass... It was longer than I was comfortable with but never inappropriate."

That statement also conflicts with a statement Father Craig made in his deposition where he said he did find Monsignor Herdegen’s behavior suspicious and he had feelings but never had any proof that anything suspicious was going on.

Closing arguments could begin in the case as early as next Wednesday.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Kiesel

Bishop Madera: People Came to Him with Complaints of Priest Abuse and He'd Suggest They Write and Send a Letter to the Abuser

Paul Kiesel — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:06:44 GMT

From CBS 47 in Fresno:

MISTRUTHS WATERED-DOWN

The former Bishop of the Fresno Archdiocese takes the stand in the sexual abuse trial against the Catholic Church.

Bishop Joseph Madere told jurors on Wednesday that he never knew of alleged abuse by a Wasco priest.

The topic for much of the morning’s questioning was about the priest file for Monsignor Anthony Herdegen. The Bishop told jurors that during his time as Bishop, he never knew of or never received any complaints about the Monsignor and alleged sexual abuse by the Wasco priest.

The plaintiff’s attorney questioned whether or not he didn’t know about the allegations because of his handling of complaints of priests. The Bishop told jurors that when people came to him with complaints about their priests, he asked them to write down those complaints and then call the person they were complaining about and tell them what they were writing before they sent that letter. He said, “I don’t want to run the Diocese by rumors.”

The plaintiff’s attorney say this brings to mind the question of whether the Bishop didn’t receive complaints because people were deterred by his process or even intimidated by it. They were afraid of complaining because they would have to confront the person they were complaining about.

The Bishop was on the stand most of the morning and was expected to return after the lunch break.

MORE FACTS

In what had to be one of the more bizarre moments in court proceedings this morning, one of the plaintiff's attorneys was allowed to question Bishop Madera regarding the existence of the Ramierez documents (documents that would contradict Madera's earlier testimony), but was not allowed to ask about the actual documents, refer to the documents' contents or discuss any details of the complaints, including when the letters were written. This led Bishop Madera to deny any memory of these documents, but the Bishop constantly challenged the plaintiff's attorney by answering, "If such documents exist, why don't you show them to me?" The attorney then held up the document in front of the Jury, prompting the Defense to object that the document was not in evidence. The Judge, based on his earlier instructions, was forced to sustain all objections regarding this individual matter. This occurred for 45 minutes.

When the morning session was over, the Judge finally ruled that Delgado, a key witness for the prosecution, would be allowed in, which, on the surface, would be a major, major turning point in this trial, but only if the Judge allows the Ramierez documents to be admissible as evidence. If the Judge allows for the Ramierez documents to admitted, along with Delgado testifying, Bishop Madera will wish he wasn't so wily with Mr. Santillan's attorneys earlier today.

Comeuppance, anybody?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Kiesel

Bishop Steinbock Continues to Blur Belief and Fact in Fresno Clergy Sex Abuse Trial

Paul Kiesel — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:57:44 GMT

BELIEF:

Bishop Steinbock continues to give "seemingly" contradictory statements in the Fresno Clergy Sex Abuse Trial, like "I have never returned anyone to ministry that I believe was guilty of sex abuse."

FACT:

In 2006, a Fresno jury found Father Swearingen guilty (9-3) of molesting a child. The case ended in a mistrial because the jurors could not agree on whether the church ignored the abuse.

Despite jurors believing Swearingen molested a child, Bishop Steinbock allowed Swearingen to remain a priest.

BELIEF:

Bishop Steinbock stood by Swearingen saying, "I do not believe that was credible at all [. . .] I believe he was absolutely innocent."

FACT:

Father Swearingen is still a pastor at Holy Spirit and continues to work with children.

Click here to see a photo of Swearingen unfortunately surrounded by children, in December 2008.

The Piety Problem

The reality is that Steinbock and the defense team continues to make an argument based on blind faith: That the church, until recently (meaning within the past 15 years), alleges that it was unaware of cases of child abuse throughout the 1950s, 60s, 70s and 80s.

Any reasonable, fact-based individual will know: 1.) That's a lie and 2.) The Catholic Church has been using sex as a means of intimidation that predates the Middle Ages.

People are entitled to their own beliefs, but those beliefs should never supersede fact. And the fact is: Church employees who prey on and abuse children and the churches that are complicit in this abominable behavior by doing or saying nothing, are all due to get their comeuppance, whether they believe that to be true or not.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Kiesel

Rick Santorum and Bishop Steinbock: "Secular" Society is to Blame for Rampant Clergy Sexual Abuse

Paul Kiesel — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:24:03 GMT

These two guys, former Republican senator Rick Santorum and Bishop John T. Steinbock, claim that society, in particular secular or liberal society, is to blame for all of the "recent" sex abuse scandals that have rocked the Catholic Church.

Wrong. Their logic is wrong. Their interpretation and understanding of Catholic Church history is completely wrong: These sex abuse scandals are not a "recent" problem, in fact, sexual abuse in and of itself is tied to the origins of the Catholic Church. But before we get to that, let's look at their disgusting comments and mistruths first:

Rick Santorum on "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos (7/31/05)

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let’s move on to another controversy you stirred up, the question of the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic church. You made a statement in July 2002 which has drawn a lot of fire. You said, in a publication called Catholic On-Line, When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While there’s no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.

You’ve reaffirmed that just a couple of weeks ago. Ted Kennedy, John Kerry say you have to apologize. Mitt Romney, Republican governor, says basically you don’t know what you’re talking about. Do you still stand by that statement?

SANTORUM: Look, the statement I made was that the culture influences people’s behavior. I don’t think anyone…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Isn’t that what conservatives used to say about liberals, when they used to say they were trying to excuse criminals?

SANTORUM: I think what I’m saying is that the culture of liberal sexual freedom and the sexual revolution of the 1960s and ’70s had a profound impact on everybody and their sexual mores. It had a profound impact on the church.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you singled out Boston in…

SANTORUM: I singled out Boston in 2002. In July of 2002, that was the epicenter. We did not know…

(And clearly this guy still doesn't know what's going on within his church and what's been going on within his church for centuries, but more on that in a second.)

Bishop John T. Steinbock addressing sexual abuse within the Fresno Diocese to Central California Catholic Life, in a 2004 letter

[. . .] Society itself simply did not understand the grave harm to children caused by sexual abuse nor know how to respond to child abuse. In fact it was rarely spoken about publicly, and this is true not only in the church but in all of society. Since the mid 1980’s, some bishops may have failed to respond in a way we now know is appropriate, usually out of ignorance of the grave harm caused by child abuse, but most bishops took immediate action when news of an abused child came to their attention [. . .]

[. . .] The way society has understood child abuse and responded to child abuse has evolved over the years. Only in the early 1980’s did society as a whole begin to become aware of the scope of the problem, and begin to speak publicly of it. The bishops began to take action in the mid 1980’s, as they also grew in this societal awareness of the problem. Most bishops did their best to protect children. If a priest was known to have a problem with minors, he would be sent to a program for therapy, directed by a psychiatrist or a psychologist, and only put back into ministry when there was a professional opinion by a psychiatrist or psychologist that there was little risk by that individual of being a danger to children. Often that priest would be put into a ministry where he would not be in direct contact with children.

Are These Guys Serious?

1. They've assumed all people who hold "liberal" values are not religious. I don't need to start naming names, but anybody reading this could list off a dozen names of friends who are politically or socially liberal and who are also theistic.

2. I would dare either one of them to write one of the many definitions of the word "liberal" or "secular" in the comment section of this blog, without referencing a dictionary, and see if either men come close to the correct definition(s) of the two words.

3. Santorum is apparently an intellectual lightweight and it shows in his interview with Mr. Stephanopoulos and Steinbock is lying: Swearingen, a man who was found guilty of molesting a young boy (9-3) by a jury of his peers, is currently in direct contact with children.

Below is an example of how dead wrong both Santorum and Steinbock are in their belief that society is to blame for the "recent" rampant sexual abuse of minors by Catholic Clergymen:

One Richalmus, abbot of Schonthal, around 1270 penned an entire treatise on demons [the church would use demons during the Middle Ages as a reason or source for the growing frequency of sexual transgressions committed against women and children], rich in first-hand experience: He sees (but only when his eyes are shut) countless malevolent demons, like motes of dust, buzzing around his head -- and everyone else's. Despite successive waves of rationalist, Persian, Jewish, Christian, and Moslem (sic) world views, despite revolutionary social, political, and philosophical ferment, the existence, much of the character, and even the name of demons remained unchanged from Hesiod through the Crusades.

Demons, the "powers of the air," come down from the skies and have unlawful sexual congress with women. Augustine believed that witches were the offspring of these forbidden unions. In the Middle Ages, as in classical antiquity, nearly everyone believed such stories. The demons were also called devils, or fallen angels. The demonic seducers of women were labeled incubi; of men, succubi. There are cases in which nuns reported, in some befuddlement, a striking resemblance between the incubus and the priest- confessor, or the bishop, and awoke the next morning, as one fifteenth-century chronicler put it, to "find themselves polluted just as if they had commingled with a man." There are similar accounts, but in harems not convents, in ancient China. So many women reported incubi, argued the Presbyterian religious writer Richard Baxter (in his Certainty of the World of Spirits, in 1691), "that 'tis impudence to deny it."

Carl Sagan, "The Demon-Haunted World" (1997)

The evidence (most of which is too voluminous to relate and would bore you even further if I listed it all within this blog) shows that it's not society's fault for the Catholic Church's inability to protect children and women, but the Church's fault.

However, I'm certain that Santorum and Steinbock would have the impudence to deny any and all of the evidence that contradicts their ignorant beliefs.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Kiesel

Fresno Diocese Continues to Let "Accused" Child Molester Work with Children

Paul Kiesel — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:20:46 GMT

A little over two years ago, a Fresno jury found Father Eric Swearingen guilty (9-3) of molesting a former altar boy, however, Bishop John J. Steinbock has continued to allow this man to work with children at the Holy Spirit Parish in Fresno, California.

What is Bishop Steinbock thinking? Would a school district allow a teacher faced with the same situation as Swearingen (I find it inappropriate to refer to him as "Father," as it shows deference to a man who, frankly, doesn't deserve it) to continue working with children? As a parent, would you want your children around a man like that?

Bishop Steinbock, based on his actions, could care less about the future safety of children within any of his parishes and this was especially punctuated yesterday, as he waltzed into a Fresno courtroom, for another clergy sexual abuse case involving one of his former priests, and casually winked at the jury. His attitude, though, changed almost immediately after being questioned by the plaintiff's attorney, Jeff Anderson.

Jeff Anderson: Bishop, when did you first realize or learn that when an adult lays his hands on the genitals of a child and manipulates the genitals of a child and places them on the body of a child for sexual purposes, it was a crime? When did you first realize that?

Bishop: You know, it's really hard for me to say. I think society --

Anderson: No, you.

Bishop: Me?

Anderson: You.

Bishop: I think I thought along with society for so many years it was --

Anderson: Bishop, I'm going to ask you to focus on the question. When did you first learn that it was a crime for an adult, a person over the age of 18, to engage in sex with a kid?

Bishop: Well, I think we would all think that was always a criminal case.

Anderson: If you knew that, then why didn't you turn it over to the law enforcement for them to determine whether or not a crime had been committed and the statute of limitations had passed or not?

Bishop: Because I do not have an allegation of that against him. This is way back in 1995. As I said, I had no cause to take his faculties or away. There was no allegation.

Anderson: You were concerned about a civil suit because you go on to say [in the Bishop's own notes from 1995], "There can always be a civil suit," right?

Bishop: Well, there can always be a civil suit. But I'm also thinking of his, you know, that might be a civil suit against him. I mean, I wasn't aware that they'd probably just come at the Diocese alone. I figured they would also go after the priest.

Wow! Steinbock's responses at one point show that back in 1995, when the current allegation was brought to his attention, he was more concerned with a civil suit than turning over any evidence of wrongdoing by his clergymen to the authorities.

Again, what is Steinbock thinking and who above him (i.e. the Pope, Cardinal Mahony) would allow for this type of behavior to continue in ANY Catholic diocese throughout the world?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Kiesel