Report on Catholic Abuse = Cynicism Spreading?

[smac97]

Hmm.  Just saw this piece written by a Dominican priest:

Quote

It is time for clergy and laity to begin a movement for the purification of the Church. The shameful sexual sins and crimes of clergy—including cardinals, bishops, and priests—can no longer be tolerated. Tolerance is precisely what has allowed these problems to multiply for decades and persist up to today. 

A bold statement.  I wonder what he has in mind.

Quote

As Fr. Thomas Berg recently explained, the issue is sexually active priests and bishops. In the main, the persistent problem is with homosexually active priests.  Fr. Roger Landry argues—rightly, I think—that most priests who persist in infidelity with women eventually leave the priesthood, but priests who cheat on their vocation with men often continue to live a double life. Most of the issues stem from this kind of duplicity. Networks of active homosexual priests have developed: They protect and promote their own and others who will tolerate them. They become a major problem when they insinuate themselves into positions of power (in a seminary, in a chancery or diocese, in a religious order, in the Roman curia)—as occurred in the case of Theodore McCarrick. 

The second link above (Fr. Landry's article) has some rather startling points to make:

Quote

The sad revelations about the sins of former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, involving the sexual abuse of both male minors and seminarians, have brought the Church in the U.S. and beyond to a second recent phase in the necessary purification of the clergy of the Church. The first phase happened in 2002, after the disclosure that more than 4,000 (out of 110,000) priests had been accused in the U.S. of sexual abuse of minors in the previous half-century.

The U.S. bishops convened in Dallas and adopted what has overall been a heralded systemic response to root out those who have abused minors from the priesthood, protect children and care for survivors.

But there were several major problems with Dallas.

First, the phrase “credible accusations” was exceedingly vague and could encompass even accusations that were immediately demonstrably false.

Second, bishops exempted themselves from the policy.

Third, they didn’t have the courage to address what the data clearly showed was the main part of the crisis: It wasn’t pedophilia, or the sexual abuse of pre-pubescent girls and boys; rather, it was ephebophilia, the same-sex molestation of post-pubescent boys, encompassing more than four out of five accusations.

Fourth, they did not focus adequately on the corrupt culture that permitted such wide-scale abuse and the lack of determination to eradicate it: the practical toleration in many dioceses of priests living double lives, cheating on their vocations with men and women. As Father Thomas Berg recently wrote, “We can’t prevent the sexual abuse of minors or vulnerable adults by clergy while habitual and widespread failures in celibacy are left unchecked.”

...

These are not easy issues to talk or write about. They sicken and justly scandalize believers.

...

How should we respond to this?

First, by reparation, because God is the most offended of all.

Second, by demanding to get to the bottom of it, which is part of a firm purpose of amendment and will help to prevent its recurrence.

Third, by focusing on living the faith. Jesus told the Parable of the Wheat and the Weeds (Matthew 13:24-30) to teach us that our fundamental focus should never be on rooting out the weeds, but rather on the growth of the wheat. Every crisis in the Church is a crisis of saints, and God will respond to infidelity with many graces of fidelity to help bring the Church back to the holiness in earthen vessels that he wants to characterize it.

...

How bad is the problem of same-sex unchastity in the clergy? It varies among different dioceses and religious orders, and no hard numbers exist, but in various places, it’s big enough to do serious damage.

When priests cheat on their vocations with women, normally either the woman gets pregnant or gives the priest the ultimatum to choose her or the priesthood, with the result being that most priests who persist in infidelity leave the priesthood. It’s relatively rare, therefore, that an active priest has a long-term mistress, although when he does, it’s terribly corrosive.

Priests who cheat on their vocation with men or fellow priests, on the other hand, often continue to live the priesthood with a double life. When there’s a high enough incidence, it can dramatically impact the culture of Church institutions and presbyterates, because such infidelity in one area of priestly life often leads to infidelity and corruption in many others.

"Ephebophilia."  What a depressing word to add to my vocabulary.

Beyond that, I don't really have any comment.  I'm still trying to wrap my head around these things.

Back to the first article:

Quote

What, then, can be done to fix this problem? We should begin by articulating clearly what remedies are needed. (Getting the bishops and the Vatican to adopt these reforms is another question, but first we need to know what reforms are needed.) Here are five bullet points. 

• First, we need to investigate the past and have a transparent accounting of the failures.  How were known networks of active homosexual priests (and bishops) allowed to continue?  What structures of accountability were missing?  This investigation won’t fix the future, but it will begin to identify where the biggest problems are. 
• Second, every diocese and religious order needs to implement an affirmative program to screen out vocations applicants with a history of deep-seated same-sex attraction—and certainly those who have engaged in homosexual activity. Applicants should not be allowed to apply for the seminary unless they are already able to live as habitually chaste single men, without recurring falls into unchastity. Candidates in seminaries who act out sexually should be dismissed. This policy is not homophobic in any way. It is simply non-hypocritical: The Church has to cultivate vocations of men who live and practice what the Church professes. 
• Third, American bishops should enact, as “particular law,” the canonical norms from the 1917 Code of Canon Law (they were mostly dropped from the current Code of Canon Law when it was revised in 1983) dealing with the sexual acts of clerics (whether homosexual or heterosexual, and whether with minors or with adults). Those provisions made sexual activity by clerics, even with other adults, a canonical crime. The punishments included “being deprived of office, benefice, dignity, responsibility, if they have such, whatsoever, and in more serious cases, they are to be deposed.” 
• Fourth, there should be an apostolic visitation of all provinces of religious orders, diocesan chanceries, seminaries, the offices of vocation directors, and of the USCCB, to investigate whether they have networks of active homosexual priests, structures of manipulation, or other such misconduct.
• Fifth, there needs to be a system for reporting clerical sexual infidelity—even infidelity with “consenting adults”—akin to the system that currently exists for reporting clerical abuse of minors. The reports should not just go to the bishop or religious superior; they need to involve a review board and other lay outsiders.  Allegations should be investigated, using fair and just procedures, and should be concluded with a report of findings recommending canonical charges where warranted. This process needs to be instituted for both religious orders and dioceses alike. 

I really don't know what to say here.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, ALarson said:

I agree that the majority of the kids and youth would just as soon skip the one-on-one interviews.  I know that some we have to really chase down to get them into the office   Then they role their eyes and say "ok"....but most of the time interviews are set in advance now and this doesn't happen quite as often as it used to.  I have seen a few who are actually enthusiastic about meeting (usually the most out going youth), but admit that's kind of rare.

For those who are saying they enjoy the interviews as adults, that's not the point being made as we are discussing child/youth interviews.  I also enjoy most interviews now!

I think the majority of adults would prefer to skip them as well.  They can be awkward at any age, and without anything inappropriate taking place. 

And a lot of kids these days don’t enjoy having to talk to an adult in person. I’m not sure if it’s their reliance on Snapchat and texting or something else but I’m meeting a large number of 16-18 year olds that seriously struggle to hold coherent conversations on the phone with adults. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Of course she can sue the Church.  But can she win?  I think the chances of that are quite low.

Thanks,

-Smac

Smac, I know you are an attorney, and you see things differently. But the MTC President has admitted to inappropriate behavior, and at least one janitor has testified to some odd behavior, and his creepy behavior and  his "office" in the basement where he took young Sister Nissionaries for  "one on one" interviews. So maybe it is not money she is after, but vindication, to expose him (a published author, who made many believe him to be a good man) and the others who tried to cover his sins. This way she can lay t o rest the many who think she is just a gold digger, and a lair. 

Edited August 16, 2018 by Bill "Papa" Lee

[rongo]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And a lot of kids these days don’t enjoy having to talk to an adult in person. I’m not sure if it’s their reliance on Snapchat and texting or something else but I’m meeting a large number of 16-18 year olds that seriously struggle to hold coherent conversations on the phone with adults. 

This is a key thing that would be missing with LDS interview culture. I know that cynical non-believers or shaky-believers see LDS interview culture as a) intended to cement reliance and submission to the priesthood hierarchy, and b) grooming (intentionally or unintentionally) people for an "LDS normal" of "invasive" interviews. Because I really believe in a) real priesthood keys that matter, and b) the importance of safeguarding ordinances and temple from the scriptural unworthy (sacrament, too, not just temple), I think this is the most important reason not to abandon interviews.

You raise a really good point about the deteriorating social and competency skills among our youth, and how interviews beginning before 8 up into adult and beyond have value in teaching and imparting social, competency, maturity, etc. skills. That's an important secondary factor, besides what I consider to be the primary reason for interviews. 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Ever read the stories? http://protectldschildren.org/read-the-stories-2/

Ever read the fact Young doesn't check the stories for accuracy and one guy has falsified several stories of varying horror or absurdity to test the process and see if there is any line drawn?  

 

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Smac, I know you are an attorney, and you see things differently.

Not really.  I see the same things you are seeing.  I am just responding differently.

26 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

But the MTC President has admitted to inappropriate behavior,

"Inappropriate behavior" has a huge amount of wiggle room.  Anything from Bishop showing pornography to Denson (per Denson's YSA bishop) to violent rape (per Denson in her Complaint).

I am not excusing anything, but I think there are some legal and moral differences in the spectrum of things that can fall within the parameters of "inappropriate behavior."  

26 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

and at least one janitor has testified to some odd behavior, and his creepy behavior and  his "office" in the basement where he took young Sister Nissionaries for  "one on one" interviews.

Yes, the allegations are indeed creepy.  But the evidence is poor.

26 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

So maybe it is not money she is after, but vindication, to expose him (a published author, who made many believe him to be a good man) and the others who tried to cover his sins.

Maybe.  Or maybe not.  Maybe she's out to extract a sizable settlement from a deep-pocketed religious group by making embellished accusations that are virtually impossible to falsify or test.

Hence the need to look at the data.  The evidence.  Calmly.  Even-handedly.

26 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

This way she can lay to rest the many who think she is just a gold digger, and a lair. 

She has publicly admitted that she is dishonest.  She bragged at some length about the multitude of lies she told various people in order to get her "interview" with Bishop.  She also has a depressing criminal history that includes crimes of dishonesty (insurance fraud, false claims, etc.).  And she has admitted that she fabricated a rape claim when she was a missionary.

Her crebility is very poor.  That is why we need to look at the evidence.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Stargazer]

8 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Ever read the stories? http://protectldschildren.org/read-the-stories-2/

I have a sufficiently active imagination that I could make stories up, too.  And if sufficiently motivated, I could send them to him.  How do we know we can trust this person to be presenting us with actual, verified stories?  And just how representative are they, even if true?

AH, that's right.  We must believe everything.  I forgot.

Edited August 17, 2018 by Stargazer

[bsjkki]

My entire step-family is Catholic. I read through the articles about the Priests in Pennsylvania and it is very disturbing. I found the crux of the issues stemmed from  a desire for the Catholic church to protect the good name of the church more than providing care and safety for the victims and evicting and prosecuting these abusive Priests. I suspect, my step father was abused by Priests in his childhood. Going forward, I would hope our church would not have people sign NDA's and have secret monetary settlements for abuses that may happen in the church. We should not cover-up or hide problems that may arise but deal with them through law enforcement. As a church we should never try to hide or cover up illegal acts committed by members, whatever their calling may be. I do feel the church realizes this and is doing much better. The case of the Mission President who was quietly sent home comes to mind. We found out about that years later but it would have been better to make the abuse public while also withholding the names of the victims. This man was a predator and people should have been warned. In some cases, the higher the calling, the more public the announcement of wrongdoing should be in order to protect the flock from evildoers. 

Edited August 17, 2018 by bsjkki

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, rongo said:

This is a key thing that would be missing with LDS interview culture. I know that cynical non-believers or shaky-believers see LDS interview culture as a) intended to cement reliance and submission to the priesthood hierarchy, and b) grooming (intentionally or unintentionally) people for an "LDS normal" of "invasive" interviews. Because I really believe in a) real priesthood keys that matter, and b) the importance of safeguarding ordinances and temple from the scriptural unworthy (sacrament, too, not just temple), I think this is the most important reason not to abandon interviews.

You raise a really good point about the deteriorating social and competency skills among our youth, and how interviews beginning before 8 up into adult and beyond have value in teaching and imparting social, competency, maturity, etc. skills. That's an important secondary factor, besides what I consider to be the primary reason for interviews. 

Rongo, did you ever answer my question about whether you would support the Catholic Church IF it put in place a policy and practice for its clergy to meet one on one with children and youth, behind closed doors, where sxual topics may be raised? If you did, I missed it.

I'm curious if you'd support it because it seems absurd that anyone would, yet to be consistent it seems that you would need to support the Catholic church doing such a thing, like the LDS, Mormon Church does, because the benefits would outweigh the risks.

[rongo]

54 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Rongo, did you ever answer my question about whether you would support the Catholic Church IF it put in place a policy and practice for its clergy to meet one on one with children and youth, behind closed doors, where sxual topics may be raised? If you did, I missed it.

I'm curious if you'd support it because it seems absurd that anyone would, yet to be consistent it seems that you would need to support the Catholic church doing such a thing, like the LDS, Mormon Church does, because the benefits would outweigh the risks.

I didn't see a question about that. That doesn't mean there wasn't one, just that I didn't see it.

I would support that, for the obvious reason you mention (consistency). Hopefully not a foolish one that is the hobgoblin of little minds.   If the keys of salvation reside in the Catholic Church, and if interviews are part of what is necessary, then the benefit would outweigh the risk in my mind. But parents have the frontline responsibility to ensure that they raise children who won't allow that stuff to happen to them, in any setting, and by anybody.

Everyone acknowledges that actual molestation by Mormon bishops is rare. I'm not sure how the ratio of Catholic to Mormon clergy atrocities compares, but the optics are that they have a huge problem, and there is the impression that it may even be the majority of priests (fair and accurate or not). I may well feel very differently if I were Catholic and had children being interviewed alone by Catholic priests. But in principle, we ought to be able to trust clergy. I think that given the horrific public attention and outcry, it would be harder for Catholic priests to molest children, simply due to sheer scrutiny and attention. 

The complaint about Mormon interviews is different. It is practically impossible for a Mormon bishop to molest a child behind closed doors --- and if he did, he would almost certainly be caught quickly. The complaint is rather that the interviews themselves are inappropriate (whether or not anything unbecoming is said), they represent indirect, passive, institutional grooming, etc. I think the internal agitation and activism in the two churches is completely different, and the two situations are completely different as well. Apples and oranges. 

[HappyJackWagon]

11 minutes ago, rongo said:

I didn't see a question about that. That doesn't mean there wasn't one, just that I didn't see it.

I would support that, for the obvious reason you mention (consistency). Hopefully not a foolish one that is the hobgoblin of little minds.   If the keys of salvation reside in the Catholic Church, and if interviews are part of what is necessary, then the benefit would outweigh the risk in my mind. But parents have the frontline responsibility to ensure that they raise children who won't allow that stuff to happen to them, in any setting, and by anybody.

Everyone acknowledges that actual molestation by Mormon bishops is rare. I'm not sure how the ratio of Catholic to Mormon clergy atrocities compares, but the optics are that they have a huge problem, and there is the impression that it may even be the majority of priests (fair and accurate or not). I may well feel very differently if I were Catholic and had children being interviewed alone by Catholic priests. But in principle, we ought to be able to trust clergy. I think that given the horrific public attention and outcry, it would be harder for Catholic priests to molest children, simply due to sheer scrutiny and attention. 

The complaint about Mormon interviews is different. It is practically impossible for a Mormon bishop to molest a child behind closed doors --- and if he did, he would almost certainly be caught quickly. The complaint is rather that the interviews themselves are inappropriate (whether or not anything unbecoming is said), they represent indirect, passive, institutional grooming, etc. I think the internal agitation and activism in the two churches is completely different, and the two situations are completely different as well. Apples and oranges. 

I agree that we "ought to be able to trust clergy" but that doesn't mean we should.

I've gotta admit, I'm a bit surprised you take the position that a catholic priest should be able to hold one-on-one meetings, behind closed doors with youth and children. I would imagine that is a minority view in this country

[rongo]

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree that we "ought to be able to trust clergy" but that doesn't mean we should.

I've gotta admit, I'm a bit surprised you take the position that a catholic priest should be able to hold one-on-one meetings, behind closed doors with youth and children. I would imagine that is a minority view in this country

Yes, given the really bad press and all of the bad things that have come out over the years. I'm just saying if I were a believing Catholic, and if they had private interviews (do they? Confession is in a booth, and they are separated) and it were an important part of being Catholic, then I would. I would certainly fortify my children against any contingencies, but then, I do that anyway. 

My bishop asked us (boys. I don't know about the girls. I really doubt it) if we masturbated when I was 12. I didn't find it weird or awkward or traumatic at all. I was happy to tell him no!  

I had a very detailed interview for my second call as bishop (May 2015). The stake president said the Brethren had asked him to be specific about the things he asked me about. Also not awkward or traumatic. And, of course, the missionary questions are scripted to be more detailed now. 

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

Yes, given the really bad press and all of the bad things that have come out over the years. I'm just saying if I were a believing Catholic, and if they had private interviews (do they? Confession is in a booth, and they are separated) and it were an important part of being Catholic, then I would. I would certainly fortify my children against any contingencies, but then, I do that anyway. 

My bishop asked us (boys. I don't know about the girls. I really doubt it) if we masturbated when I was 12. I didn't find it weird or awkward or traumatic at all. I was happy to tell him no!  

I had a very detailed interview for my second call as bishop (May 2015). The stake president said the Brethren had asked him to be specific about the things he asked me about. Also not awkward or traumatic. And, of course, the missionary questions are scripted to be more detailed now. 

The reason for not trusting clergy to be alone with kids is about the actions of the clergy, not about bad press. Personally, I wouldn't trust a catholic priest alone with my kids. To be consistent, I won't let clergy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints be along with me kids either.

When my bishop asked me this (probably age 12ish) I had no idea what he was talking about. He had to explain it.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Rongo, did you ever answer my question about whether you would support the Catholic Church IF it put in place a policy and practice for its clergy to meet one on one with children and youth, behind closed doors, where sxual topics may be raised? If you did, I missed it.

I'm curious if you'd support it because it seems absurd that anyone would, yet to be consistent it seems that you would need to support the Catholic church doing such a thing, like the LDS, Mormon Church does, because the benefits would outweigh the risks.

I am not Rongo but I can say that I am okay with this supposed double standard. The Catholics have a pervasive history of coverups. Their clergy is infested with perverts, probably due to their sexual restrictions. Estimates are that only about 50% of Priests are true to their vows of celibacy (most of them with ‘legal’ women) so there is a culture of fear where everyone has dirt on the actions of others and many find it hard to condemn fellow priests for far worse crimes. I have to admit I am horrified when the Catholics speak in their defense of the 90% of them that are good. Is that tacit acknowledgement that a tenth of your priests are involved?

Meanwhile LDS bishops are almost universally married. They do not self-select themselves for the clergy. Almost all have children. There is nothing as pervasive as the culture of silence in the Catholic Church in the LDS faith or fertile ground for it to grow one. There is no guarantee of safety but it is a different situation.

I can believe that it is mostly safe for LDS bishops (and others) to speak one on one with youth in certain environments with a reasonable guarantee of safety while believing the Catholics have forfeited that level of trust.

Edited August 17, 2018 by The Nehor

[Tacenda]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

Not really.  I see the same things you are seeing.  I am just responding differently.

"Inappropriate behavior" has a huge amount of wiggle room.  Anything from Bishop showing pornography to Denson (per Denson's YSA bishop) to violent rape (per Denson in her Complaint).

I am not excusing anything, but I think there are some legal and moral differences in the spectrum of things that can fall within the parameters of "inappropriate behavior."  

Yes, the allegations are indeed creepy.  But the evidence is poor.

Maybe.  Or maybe not.  Maybe she's out to extract a sizable settlement from a deep-pocketed religious group by making embellished accusations that are virtually impossible to falsify or test.

Hence the need to look at the data.  The evidence.  Calmly.  Even-handedly.

She has publicly admitted that she is dishonest.  She bragged at some length about the multitude of lies she told various people in order to get her "interview" with Bishop.  She also has a depressing criminal history that includes crimes of dishonesty (insurance fraud, false claims, etc.).  And she has admitted that she fabricated a rape claim when she was a missionary.

Her crebility is very poor.  That is why we need to look at the evidence.

Thanks,

-Smac

(bold mine) Smac, you have to know the story behind the bold right? Remember she was having extreme anxiety over what she had just been through at the MTC?  And when the sisters came out to the parking lot they wondered what was wrong?  Mckenna did say that someone had tried to rape her, but in her mind it was true just didn't happen in the parking lot. McKenna just had to come up with a reason she was acting the way she was in order to not tell on the MTC president, because who would believe her, right?

Context and facts! I know how important they are to you Smac, but there are definitely good reasons for the line to be blurred in this case. 

I'd like to know more about the accusation of insurance fraud. But whatever she has done in her life might be because of the abuse she's experienced. 

Edited August 17, 2018 by Tacenda

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The reason for not trusting clergy to be alone with kids is about the actions of the clergy, not about bad press. Personally, I wouldn't trust a catholic priest alone with my kids. To be consistent, I won't let clergy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints be along with me kids either.

When my bishop asked me this (probably age 12ish) I had no idea what he was talking about. He had to explain it.

I don't  think a large number of Bishops have ever molested kids in the church but I don't trust them to discuss sexual matters with my kids in a healthy way. I don't want a Bishop to explain sexual topics to my kids. I don't trust Bishops to deal with assault and rape victims in a healhty way and I don't think many Bishops deal with the repentence process in a loving Christ-like way. They are human and not trained professionals. Many do an excellent job and it is hard to tell who will do well and who will not. I don't expect them to be perfect and they have a very hard job to do.  I would prefer Bishops stick to the questions they ask as outlined in the temple recommend questions and only answer questions that may be brought up by the youth. I was grateful when my daughter recieved a calling that the Stake Presidency member asked her if she would like me to come with her. She wanted me to come because she felt uncomfortable meeting alone in a room with a man she did not know. I am grateful for the new policy changes.

Currently in my sons ward, the former Bishop has been arrested and is facing abuse charges. He has always given my daughter-in-law a creepy vibe. What if this man was her Bishop? What do you do when you don't trust your Bishop and don't want to meet with them? The Stake President may or may not feel your concerns are valid. When I brought up to a stake presidency member some of the concerns I had...I never heard back from them. They really didn't want to hear it and I think they discussed it with the former Bishop I had concerns about and my opinion was deemed as lesser or not valid. 

Edited to add...my sisters old Bishop is doing 20 years for financial crimes. He even swindled his ward members. Sad days. 

Edited August 17, 2018 by bsjkki

[rongo]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The reason for not trusting clergy to be alone with kids is about the actions of the clergy, not about bad press.

Without a doubt. The bad press is because of the actions of the clergy (and the decades of cover-up).

Personally, I wouldn't trust a catholic priest alone with my kids. To be consistent, I won't let clergy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints be along with me kids either.

Part of me says I wouldn't, either. I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of a faithful Catholic, and I believe I would have to if I were. 

When my bishop asked me this (probably age 12ish) I had no idea what he was talking about. He had to explain it.

I knew what it was, but only vaguely (locker room and schoolyard talk, slang, etc.). Enough to know what he was talking about, and that I didn't do it, and wasn't going to. Even growing up, I knew what it was as a concept, but didn't dwell on it or give a lot of thought to it. 

It should go without saying, but these are things parents really should have already discussed with their children before they're twelve. Especially in this era of electronics, pornography, sexting, social media, etc. It should not be the bishop who broaches this subject for the first time ever. Why parents have (and still do) completely abdicate their responsibility to teach their children and set the stage and tone about important things in their formative years baffles me. My kids are fine even if they have a hypothetical creepy, inappropriate bishop. I wouldn't be, though, if they reported inappropriate things back to me . . .  But, they, themselves are fortified against anything happening to them in any situation. We can't hover over them at all times, after all. 

[smac97]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

bold mine....you have to know the story behind the bold right Smac?

Yes.  

Quote

Remember she was having extreme anxiety over what she had been through at the MTC and when the sisters came out to the parking lot?

Yes.

Quote

they wondered what was wrong, well Mckenna said that someone had tried to rape her, in her mind it was true but not in the parking lot.

That's her most recent spin, yes.  I think that's what she said during her podcast interview with Consiglieri.

But take a look at what she told Bishop during her "interview" with him:

Quote

Woman: "Pretended somebody in the [expletive] parking lot tried to rape me, because I was having an anxiety attack and I didn't want to tell anybody."

Here's what I think has happened:

1. Ms. Denson has repeatedly stated that she did tell anyone about the rape until 1987, when she allegedly told her bishop, Ron Leavitt, about it. 
2. So according to Ms. Denson, she told her missionary companions (and probably her mission president also, since he would have had to authorize her being sent back to Utah) that she had just experienced an attempted rape in a parking lot in Washington D.C. ("{I} pretended somebody in the [] parking lot tried to rape me...").
3. Many years later, in 2017, in an unguarded and emotional and heat-of-the-moment outburst, reiterated to Bishop that in 1984, she "pretented [that] somebody in [] parking lot [in Washington, D.C.] tried to rape [her]."
4. Then, many months after that (just a few weeks ago, in fact), after having hired an attorney and gone public and such, and perhaps recognizing the significant damage to her credibility caused by an admitted false rape claim, Ms. Denson participates in an interview with a plainly biased and partisan interviewer, and adds a bit of flourish and gloss to her previous admission.  As you put it: "McKenna said that someone had tried to rape her, [but] in her mind it was true but not in the parking lot."  
5. Well, mighty convenient, that.  "But not in the parking lot," despite the fact that she said "somebody in the [] parking lot tried to rape me."  Now her previously-admitted false rape claim is not a false rape claim because 34 years after declaring to other people that she had experienced an attempted rape in a Washington D.C. parking lot, we are now supposed to totally disregard what she actually said, and instead go with what she now claims was "in her mind."  And what was "in her mind" just happens to absolve her of having made a false rape claim.

So at which statements from Ms. Denson are we supposed to believe?

• Should we believe her 1984 statement to her missionary companion and others about experiencing an attempted rape in a parking lot in Washington D.C., which she repeated in her 2017 statement Joseph Bishop, where she told him that "{she} pretended somebody in the [] parking lot [in Washington D.C.] tried to rape [her]..."?
• Or should we ignore both of those statements, and instead go with her post-lawsuit and self-serving and embellished version to a biased podcaster that - as you pu it - "Mckenna said that someone had tried to rape her, in her mind it was true but not in the parking lot"?

I know these can come across has hard questions.  But lawsuits are hard.  Sooner or later Ms. Denson is going to be facing some very uncomfortable questions that center on her personal credibility.  And as you can see, her personal credibility on this point is very poor.  Subsequent embellishing explanations that her words should be disregarded in favor of what she says was "in her mind" only makes things worse. 

McKenna Denson lied about experiencing an attempted rape in a Washington D.C. parking lot.  Now she appears to be lying again to rationalize and excuse that false rape claim, to repair the damage done to her credibility now that she has a pending lawsuit in which she is making another claim of rape.

I believe something very traumatic happened to Ms. Denson when she was in the MTC.  And I believe it was done to her by Joseph Bishop.  I don't know if it was limited to a series of extremely inappropriate interviews and culminated in him showing her pornography, or if it instead culminated in him attempting to forcibly rape her.  We are talking about something that happened 34 years ago.  No forensic evidence.  Almost certainly no corroborating witnesses.  Some fairly limited and ambiguous circumstantial evidence.  Some vague admissions of misconduct from Mr. Bishop (some of which Ms. Denson denies happened).  Mr. Bishop is very old.  He may well have some mental impairments that will limit or eliminate his competency to testify. 

So that leaves McKenna Denson and her say so.  Her say-so only constitutes probative evidence if she is credible.  She is, in many ways, not credible.  She has many, many documented instances of dishonest behavior in her past.  And now here she is, even now, undermining her own credibility even further.

I have a lot of sympathy for Ms. Denson.  But that sympathy does not alter my attempted objective assessment of her credibility as a witness for the purposes of a civil lawsuit.  We can each draw our own conclusions about Ms. Denson's story, but my focus is on her lawsuit.  To paraphrase a famous line from A Few Good Men: "It doesn't matter what {McKenna Denson} believe{s}. It only matters what {she} can prove."

Quote

She just had to come up with a reason she was acting the way she was in order to not have tell on the MTC president, because who would believe that, right?

I'm not saying that she didn't have a motive to make her false rape claim.  She did.  But that doesn't negate the fact that she made a false rape claim.  And she admitted that she made this false claim as recently as last year.

Can you see how this is a problem for her?  From a legal standpoint, you can't really point to the righteousness of her motive for making a false claim and say that it excuses the false claim.  She was motivated to lie about an attempted rape in 1984 in a Washington D.C. parking lot because she had purportedly been previously traumatized.  But is it possible that she may now be motivated to lie about an attempted rape in the MTC because she stands to gain a ton of money and notoriety from it? 

These are the sorts of questions that will be asked in her lawsuit.  Lawsuits are hard.

Quote

Context, context, context. Facts!

Amen to that.  I'm doing nothing but addressing "facts."

You, on the other hand, are scolding me based on what McKenna Denson has said was "in her mind" in 1984, even though what she now says was "in her mind" contradicts what she actually said, both in 1984 (to her missionary companions and mission president) and in 2017 (to Joseph Bishop).

"Facts!", indeed.

Quote

You know better, as everyone has said about you. So why let this be said without some background?

I have addressed this issue many, many times.  And I am assuming that the participants here are fairly conversant in the factual allegations.

Quote

I don't mind that you like facts and need them because of your line of work, but there are definitely reasons for the line the be blurred, and in this case there was a very plausible reason for it.

"Line to be blurred?"  What does that mean?

Are you saying that her claim of having experienced an attempted rape in a Washington DC parking lot is not false?

Quote

I'd like to know more about the insurance fraud, I'll have to look into that. But whatever she has done in her life might be because of the abuse she's experienced. 

So McKenna Denson's gets a pass on damaging her own credibility?  Her lie about the attempted rape in Washington DC is not really a lie because of something "in her mind"?  I just can't go along with that.

And then there's the insurance fraud scam where she lied about "pistol-whipped and locked in the trunk of a car by two men outside a restaurant where she had worked," except that police "learned she had been fired [from the restaurant] shortly before the incident and had made inquiries about the restaurant's security liability" and concluded that her report was "unfounded." 

And the identity theft.

And all the lies she told to various parties in order to track down Joseph Bishop (which she laughingly bragged and gloated about in her podcast interview).

And her threat to murder Joseph Bishop.

And her lying about receiving cancer treatments.

And her forging prescriptions.

And a scam where she claimed a restaurant put razor blades in the icing of a chocolate cake.

Are you seriously suggesting that Ms. Denson gets a pass on all these things, which would pretty much obliterate anyone else's credibility, "because of the abuse she's experienced?"

Again, I have a lot of sympathy for Ms. Denson.  But that sympathy does not mean that she gets held to a totally different (that is, lower or nonexistent) set of legal/evidentiary standards when she files a lawsuit in federal court.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 17, 2018 by smac97

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Without a doubt. The bad press is because of the actions of the clergy (and the decades of cover-up).

 

 

Part of me says I wouldn't, either. I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of a faithful Catholic, and I believe I would have to if I were. 

 

 

I knew what it was, but only vaguely (locker room and schoolyard talk, slang, etc.). Enough to know what he was talking about, and that I didn't do it, and wasn't going to. Even growing up, I knew what it was as a concept, but didn't dwell on it or give a lot of thought to it. 

It should go without saying, but these are things parents really should have already discussed with their children before they're twelve. Especially in this era of electronics, pornography, sexting, social media, etc. It should not be the bishop who broaches this subject for the first time ever. Why parents have (and still do) completely abdicate their responsibility to teach their children and set the stage and tone about important things in their formative years baffles me. My kids are fine even if they have a hypothetical creepy, inappropriate bishop. I wouldn't be, though, if they reported inappropriate things back to me . . .  But, they, themselves are fortified against anything happening to them in any situation. We can't hover over them at all times, after all. 

Wouldn't it be wonderful if all parents fortified their children as you have. Really campaign, I know there has been a lot of them, to train children, youth, even adults how to spot a possible abuse situation. Teach the red flags to spot go full on in schools, churches, community. How would that be!

I can't believe that children/youth/adults still stay silent in this day and age. But when I was in a stiuation, around 11 yrs. old, an old man in the neighborhood that lived near the school, would entice girls to his house with candy/money, and was abusing girls. I witnessed it, he even exposed his genitals to us. I ran away and never went back but know that he took girls to his bedroom. I didn't tell anyone maybe I was too afraid to. This has scarred me for life and this man was a beloved LDS man, but I believe he must have had dementia or maybe not. All I know is, we kids were not fortified or empowered to spot the horribleness of what was occurring, we were too uninformed I believe.

We did go there, so that was the first mistake, and we didn't know then how this man would hurt our self esteem, and our innocent spirits. Now I know that looking back. I've often wondered if I should contact a couple of these women today and just talk about it. But then I don't know if that's good to do. And I remember my sister as well, being flashed by another man in our ward, he lived down the road. Crazy world out there. And it continually happens. 

Edited August 17, 2018 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  

Yes.

That's her most recent spin, yes.  I think that's what she said during her podcast interview with Consigliere.

But take a look at what she told Bishop during her "interview" with him:

Here's what I think has happened:

1. Ms. Denson has repeatedly stated that she did tell anyone about the rape until 1987, when she allegedly told her bishop, Ron Leavitt, about it. 
2. So according to Ms. Denson, she told her missionary companions (and probably mission president, who would have had to authorize her being sent back to Utah,  that she had just experienced an attempted rape in a parking lot in Washington D.C. ("{I} pretended somebody in the [] parking lot tried to rape me...").
3. Many years later, in 2017, in an unguarded and emotional and heat-of-the-moment outburst, reiterated to Bishop that in 1984, she "pretented [that] somebody in [] parking lot [in Washington, D.C.] tried to rape [her]."
4. Then, many months after that (just a few weeks ago, in fact), after having hired an attorney and gone public and such, and perhaps recognizing the significant damage that an admitted false rape claim could cause to her credibility, Ms. Denson now participates in an interview with a plainly biased and partisan interviewer, and adds a bit of flourish and gloss to her previous admission.  As you put it: "McKenna said that someone had tried to rape her, [but] in her mind it was true but not in the parking lot."  
5. Well, mighty convenient, that.  "But not in the parking lot," despite the fact that she said "somebody in the [] parking lot tried to rape me."  Now her previously-admitted false rape claim is not a false rape claim because 34 years after declaring to other people that she had experienced an attempted rape in a Washington D.C. parking lot, we are now supposed to disregard what she actually said and go with what she now claims was "in her mind."  And what is "in her mind" just happens to absolve her of having made a false rape claim.

So at what points are we supposed to believe McKenna Denson? 

• Should we believe her 1984 statement to her missionary companion and others about experiencing an attempted rape in a parking lot in Washington D.C.?  
• Or should we believe her 2017 statement to Joseph Bishop, where she told him "{I} pretended somebody in the [] parking lot [in Washington D.C.] tried to rape me..."?
• Or her post-lawsuit and totally self-serving and patently embellished version to a biased podcaster that - as you pu it - "Mckenna said that someone had tried to rape her, in her mind it was true but not in the parking lot"?

I know these can come acros has hard questions.  But lawsuits are hard.  Sooner or later Ms. Denson is going to be facing some very uncomfortable questions that center on her personal credibility.  And as you can see, her personal credibility on this point is very poor.  Subsequent embellishing explanations that her words should be disregarded in favor of what she says was "in her mind" only makes things worse. 

McKenna Denson lied about experiencing an attempted rape in a Washington D.C. parking lot.  Now she appears to be lying again to rationalize and excuse that false rape claim, to repair the damage done to her credibility now that she has a pending lawsuit in which she is making another claim of rape.

I believe something very traumatic happened to Ms. Denson when she was in the MTC.  And I believe it was done to her by Joseph Bishop.  I don't know if it was limited to a series of extremely inappropriate interviews and culminated in him showing her pornography, or if it instead culminated in him attempting to forcibly rape her.  We are talking about something that happened 34 years ago.  No forensic evidence.  Almost certainly no corroborating witnesses.  Some fairly limited and ambiguous circumstantial evidence.  Some vague admissions of misconduct from Mr. Bishop (some of which Ms. Denson denies happened).  Mr. Bishop is very old.  He may well have some mental impairments that will limit or eliminate his competency to testify. 

So that leaves McKenna Denson and her say so.  Her say-so only constitutes probative evidence if she is credible.  She is, in many ways, not credible.  She has many, many documented instances of dishonest behavior in her past.  And now here she is, even now, undermining her own credibility even further.

I have a lot of sympathy for Ms. Denson.  But that sympathy does not alter my attempted objective assessment of her credibility as a witness for the purposes of a civil lawsuit.  We can each draw our own conclusions about Ms. Denson's story, but my focus is on her lawsuit.  To paraphrase a famous line from A Few Good Men: "It doesn't matter what {McKenna Denson} believe{s}. It only matters what {she} can prove."

I'm not saying that she didn't have a motive to make her false rape claim.  She did.  But that doesn't negate the fact that she made a false rape claim.  And she admitted that she made this false claim as recently as last year.

Can you see how this is a problem for her?  From a legal standpoint, you can't really point to the righteousness of her motive for making a false claim and say that it excuses the false claim.  She was motivated to lie about an attempted rape in 1984 in a Washington D.C. parking lot because she had purportedly been previously traumatized.  But is it possible that she may now be motivated to lie about an attempted rape in the MTC because she stands to gain a ton of money and notoriety from it? 

These are the sorts of questions that will be asked in her lawsuit.  Lawsuits are hard.

Amen to that.  I'm doing nothing but addressing "facts."

You, on the other hand, are scolding me based on what McKenna Denson has said was "in her mind" in 1984, even though what she now says was "in her mind" contradicts what she actually said, both in 1984 (to her missionary companions and mission president) and in 2017 (to Joseph Bishop).

"Facts!", indeed.

I have addressed this issue many, many times.  And I am assuming that the participants here are fairly conversant in the factual allegations.

"Line to be blurred?"  What does that mean?

Are you saying that her claim of having experienced an attempted rape in a Washington DC parking lot was not false?

So McKenna Denson's gets a pass on damaging her own credibility. 

Her lie about the attempted rape in Washington DC is not really a lie because of something "in her mind."

But then there's the insurance fraud scam where she lied about "pistol-whipped and locked in the trunk of a car by two men outside a restaurant where she had worked," except that police "learned she had been fired shortly before the incident and had made inquiries about the restaurant's security liability" and concluded that her report was "unfounded." 

And the identity theft.

And all the lies she told to various parties in order to track down Joseph Bishop (which she laughingly bragged and gloated about in her podcast interview).

And her threat to murder Joseph Bishop.

And her lying about receiving cancer treatments.

And her forging prescriptions.

And a scam where she claimed a restaurant put razor blades in the icing of a chocolate cake.

Are you seriously suggesting that Ms. Denson gets a pass on all these things, which would pretty much obliterate anyone else's credibility, "because of the abuse she's experienced?"

Again, I have a lot of sympathy for Ms. Denson.  But that sympathy does not mean that she gets held to a totally different (that is, lower or nonexistent) set of legal/evidentiary standards when she files a lawsuit in federal court.

Thanks,

-Smac

My first post before editing is bad, hopefully you'll read it again. I post too quickly.

When I say blur the lines, I mean it's not black and white. Not every situation as you well know is like that. The blurred line, is McKenna, not saying what happened with her MTC president, maybe fearing she might be looked at like a crazy woman. And her actions stem from that. That's all. 

Wow, you bring up situations that I had never heard of, I'd like her side of the story too. Doesn't look good then, for her case, or her to be taken seriously. 

I appreciate that you side with her and believe her about some of what happened in the MTC. 

I guess we'll have to see what all comes out about it. And hopefully her bringing this to the forefront has done much to keep abuse from happening to others. Or more contentration by the church to avoid these situations. 

Thanks Smac, you always put a lot into your posts, and you probably don't have much time in your day.

Edited August 17, 2018 by Tacenda

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

My first post before editing, is bad, hopefully you'll read it again. I post too quickly.

When I say blur the lines, I mean it's not black and white.

I get that.  But in a legal context, a judgment must be made about factual allegations.

Ms. Denson fabricated a rape claim in 1984.  She admits that.  She is now attempting to evade the damage that does to her credibility, and hence her lawsuit, but claiming that what she said is different from what was "in her mind."

But what she said was false.  It was a lie.  It did not happen.  She admits this.

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Not every situation as you well know is like that. The blurred line, is McKenna, not saying what happened with her MTC president, maybe fearing she might be looked at like a crazy woman. And her actions stem from that. That's all. 

No, that's not all.

McKenna Denson has all sorts of credibility problems.  Having a troubled past does not giver her credibility a get-out-of-jail-free card.  Having a troubled past does not mean that we are obligated to take her every word as the pristine and unembellished truth.  Having a troubled past does not mean she gets to use a federal lawsuit to demand millions of dollars, but gets to do so without presenting any evidence or proving up her claims.

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Wow, you bring up situations that I had never heard of, I'd like her side of the story too. Doesn't look good then, for her case, or her to be taken seriously.

I get that you dislike me personally.  Not sure what I did to deserve that, but message received (a few times over, actually). 

But I hope that you can get around that dislike and just look at the substance of what I am saying.  I am trying to evaluate this matter dispassionately.  I don't claim to be utterly impartial.  I really love the Church, which is the defendant in Ms. Denson's lawsuit.  But I don't do the Church (or myself) any favors by looking at this issue through rose-colored glasses.  Hence my conclusions about Ms. Denson having been traumatized by Joseph Bishop while he was the president of the MTC.  I am saddened and angered that this happened.  Ms. Denson unfortunately has no legal remedy against Mr. Bishop, so all we can do now is hope she forgives, hope he repents, hope he is no longer a threat to others, leave potential church discipline to those who have authority over him, and otherwise leave everything else to God to sort out.  Justice and mercy will ultimately prevail.  That is what the Gospel is all about.

But in terms of looking at evidence, this is what lawyers do.  We aim for dispassionate analysis, because we need to be able to look at the facts of a case in the way the judge and jury will.  And as I see it, Ms. Denson's credibility is very poor.

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I appreciate that you side with her and believe her about some of what happened in the MTC. 

I "side" with her because I found sufficient evidence to reach that conclusion.

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I guess we'll have to see what all comes out about it. And hopefully her bringing this to the forefront has done much to keep abuse from happening. 

Thanks Smac, you always put a lot into your posts, and you probably don't have much time in your day.

Thanks!  I hope we can eventually get along.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I get that.  But in a legal context, a judgment must be made about factual allegations.

Ms. Denson fabricated a rape claim in 1984.  She admits that.  She is now attempting to evade the damage that does to her credibility, and hence her lawsuit, but claiming that what she said is different from what was "in her mind."

But what she said was false.  It was a lie.  It did not happen.  She admits this.

No, that's not all.

McKenna Denson has all sorts of credibility problems.  Having a troubled past does not giver her credibility a get-out-of-jail-free card.  Having a troubled past does not mean that we are obligated to take her every word as the pristine and unembellished truth.  Having a troubled past does not mean she gets to use a federal lawsuit to demand millions of dollars, but gets to do so without presenting any evidence or proving up her claims.

I get that you dislike me personally.  Not sure what I did to deserve that, but message received (a few times over, actually). 

But I hope that you can get around that dislike and just look at the substance of what I am saying.  I am trying to evaluate this matter dispassionately.  I don't claim to be utterly impartial.  I really love the Church, which is the defendant in Ms. Denson's lawsuit.  But I don't do the Church (or myself) any favors by looking at this issue through rose-colored glasses.  Hence my conclusions about Ms. Denson having been traumatized by Joseph Bishop while he was the president of the MTC.  I am saddened and angered that this happened.  Ms. Denson unfortunately has no legal remedy against Mr. Bishop, so all we can do now is hope she forgives, hope he repents, hope he is no longer a threat to others, leave potential church discipline to those who have authority over him, and otherwise leave everything else to God to sort out.  Justice and mercy will ultimately prevail.  That is what the Gospel is all about.

But in terms of looking at evidence, this is what lawyers do.  We aim for dispassionate analysis, because we need to be able to look at the facts of a case in the way the judge and jury will.  And as I see it, Ms. Denson's credibility is very poor.

I "side" with her because I found sufficient evidence to reach that conclusion.

Thanks!  I hope we can eventually get along.

Thanks,

-Smac

Smac, where in the post do you sense I dislike you? Maybe after you read it again, you'll see that is not the case. Maybe when you answer posts and break them into segments, it means you haven't read to the bottom yet?  I appreciate all the time you give to my posts, in fact, kind of worry that it eats up too much time for you. 

Edited August 17, 2018 by Tacenda

[MiserereNobis]

23 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

due to the "Vow of celibacy", which is unnatural and for many, unbearable, might be part of the problem.

Being celibate doesn't turn someone into a child molester and getting married wouldn't "cure" a child molester.

[USU78]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

(bold mine) Smac, you have to know the story behind the bold right? Remember she was having extreme anxiety over what she had just been through at the MTC?  And when the sisters came out to the parking lot they wondered what was wrong?  Mckenna did say that someone had tried to rape her, but in her mind it was true just didn't happen in the parking lot. McKenna just had to come up with a reason she was acting the way she was in order to not tell on the MTC president, because who would believe her, right?

Context and facts! I know how important they are to you Smac, but there are definitely good reasons for the line to be blurred in this case. 

I'd like to know more about the accusation of insurance fraud. But whatever she has done in her life might be because of the abuse she's experienced. 

Because of things like this:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory_syndrome, as well as the other items smac has listed, it is incumbent on us all to tread lightly and go slowly here.  Actual evidence, and her story, unfortunately, is the worst evidence of all because of her serial public statements putting her credibility in the crapper.

I sincerely wish she had spoken up when she should have spoken up, as the adult woman she was in 1984 upon the alleged occurrence so that the matter could have been dealt with then.  Loose ends bug me.

And, please forgive bluntness, but to excuse her failure to speak up is to infantalize her.  Both our memories are such that we know darned well what the public discussion had been like for rape, etc back in the '70s and '80s.  And there were resources available then.

A final note:  sometimes there is no remedy for a wrong but to have G-d Himself take care of it.  The abuse people suffered scores of years ago as children is remedyless.  People used to understand this.  G-d will requite.

[USU78]

17 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Being celibate doesn't turn someone into a child molester and getting married wouldn't "cure" a child molester.

I'm glad you showed up for this heartbreaking conversation.

People don't seem to get it that the Church itself is, arguably, the principal victim of the evildoers who wheedle and deceive so that they can use their positions to serve their own agendas. As JSJr reported the Master put it,

Quote

[T]he ^arights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and [***] the powers of heaven cannot be ^bcontrolled nor handled only upon the ^cprinciples of righteousness.  That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to ^acover our ^bsins, or to gratify our ^cpride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or ^ddominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens ^ewithdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

I imagine there is something to similar effect in Canon Law.

The mind boggles how one such can find forgiveness.  It's certainly above my pay grade.