NorthJersey.com
The diocese’s message, which followed a similar one issued Wednesday by the Paterson Diocese on its website, urged victims of clergy sex abuse to report any allegations to the diocesan abuse hotline. But victims’ advocates … On Friday, he said his …
Sydney Morning Herald
A senior figure within the Catholic Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle has
warned that ”some bitter truths are coming” for the church as a special commission of inquiry into the handling of child sex abuse allegations ontinues. Father Brian Mascord, the …
ABQ Journal
Six more unnamed men have filed lawsuits against the Archdiocese of Santa Fe and some of its parishes, claiming that they suffered sexual abuse as teenagers at the hands of the Rev. Michael O’Brien in the 1970s and ’80s.
That brings the total to 10 …
May 4, 2013 By Sara Lin Wilde
By now, you’re probably aware that the sexual abuse of minors by molester priests is quite possibly the biggest open secret in Catholic history. But just in case you had any doubts, here’s the latest from the Aussie press: Catholic Church Insurance, the insurance provider for the entire Australian arm of the institution and a Church-owned business in its own right, has a list of high-risk priests it refuses to cover because they’re just too likely to trigger abuse-related compensation claims.
The Catholic Church’s own insurance company says it has a list of people who it has refused to cover because of their actions. People who would have exposed the Church’s insurer to compensation claims. Today the big insurer admitted the list is used to directly reduce its liability.
That’s right. We’re talking about working priests who are able to serve in diocesan environments, even though the Church has enough information to flag them as uninsurable.
It’s not all bad news, though. Peter Rush, CEO of Catholic Church Insurance, has agreed to provide the Parliament of Victoria its list of Church staff the company refuses to cover. That will help the child abuse inquiry in the state pin down what the Catholic Church knew and when they knew it, helping to clarify the extent of the Church’s cover-up. It will also help investigators learn about past abusers who are still active in Australian parishes, which means potential victims might be saved from the anguish of abuse.
That Catholic Church Insurance is being helpful rather than obstructionist is certainly a step in the right direction, and probably more than the Church’s prior track record would have let us to expect. Still, it’s a bit disheartening to know that even when Australia’s in-house Catholic insurer considers Father So-and-So too big a liability to cover, it’s not enough to keep him out of a job and away from Catholic children.
Mon May 13, 2013
Texas legislators appear to have too much time on their hands. Members of the House of Representatives just passed legislation protecting everyone’s right to say "Merry Christmas."
That’s right. It’s mid-May, and some Lone Star lawmakers are worried about Christmas and how it might be acknowledged in public schools. They’re so worried, in fact, that they’ve passed a bill guaranteeing the right to say "Merry Christmas" and display certain holiday symbols in schools.
According to the Associated Press, Rep. Dwayne Bohac (R-Houston) says the bill seeks to protect schools from "ridiculous" lawsuits. He asserted that, "Teachers are fearful of calling a Christmas tree a Christmas tree."
Bohac pre-filed the legislation last December. At that time, he asserted in a press release, "This bill originated when I picked up my first grade son from school last year and asked him how his day went. He told me that his class had decorated their holiday tree with holiday ornaments. When I asked what a holiday tree was, he told me it was the same as a Christmas tree. After inquiring with school officials as to why the term `Holiday Tree’ was being used, it became apparent that the school was fearful of litigation."
Horrors! The poor kid actually had to hear the phrase "holiday tree"? I’ll bet his entire Christmas was ruined. But then again, I’ll bet he was hearing the term "Christmas" used at home and at church plenty of times.
Here’s the thing: Despite the claims of Rep. Bohac, the Christmas-obsessed gang at the Fox News Channel and the Religious Right’s teeming masses, I’m unaware of any lawsuit that has actually been filed anywhere over a public school’s use of the term "Christmas."
Nor am I aware of any attempt to sue public schools for using religious symbols in class in a manner that furthers legitimate educational goals.
It is true that some public school officials, aware that children and families come from a variety of religious and philosophical traditions, are using more neutral language these days. It’s also true that some schools have been sued (or warned by groups like Americans United) if they use the December holidays as an excuse to lapse into devotional activities.
But by and large, many of the stories I’ve heard about the "war on Christmas" over the years tend to be greatly embellished or sometimes wholly false. In one case from 2006, a Wisconsin public school district demanded that Liberty Counsel correct its false claims about a Christmas play and reimburse the district for the time and money spent responding to the phony allegations. To no one’s surprise, Liberty Counsel never set the record straight and didn’t send a check.
So much of this is just shameless posturing. It’s an attempt to drum up yet another tiresome "culture war" for the legions of the Religious Right. It’s also an obnoxious effort by what I call the "Christmas Police" to force all of us to celebrate the December holidays in the proper, religiously correct way.
I hate to upset anyone’s wassail bowl, but this is America, and if some people want to celebrate Christmas in a secular manner or use neutral terms they have that right. In addition, government needs to respect all of our rights and remember that not everyone wants to take part in the religious aspects of certain holidays.
I’d also suggest that the legislators of Texas go home if they have nothing better to do than pass laws like this. (Although, from what I’ve been reading lately, they should have enough real work to tend to. Didn’t I read something about a fertilizer factory blowing up recently?)
Finally, to Rep. Bohac: Merry Christmas!
Are you happy now?
FROM: http://www.talk2action.org/story/2013/5/13/145010/301
By Alia Beard Rau
The Republic | azcentral.com
Wed May 15, 2013
Supporters of a bill that would change the state’s religious-protection law say it would strengthen Arizonans’ ability to defend their “practice or observance of religion.”
But critics of the legislation, particularly in the gay and transgender community, say it’s so broadly worded that it could have dangerous implications, particularly in providing a legal defense for those who ignore state law or city ordinances meant to protect groups such as same-sex couples and transgender individuals from discrimination.
The Arizona House on Wednesday passed Senate Bill 1178 in a 32-24 vote, with most Republicans supporting it and all Democrats opposing it. The bill still needs final Senate approval before going to the governor. The Senate has not yet scheduled a vote.
The conservative advocacy group Center for Arizona Policy authored the bill. Its attorney says the bill does not expand the definition of exercise of religion in a way that adds new protections. Rather, the group contends it clarifies an individual’s right to make a legal argument by allowing him or her to claim in lawsuits that a state action is a burden on a religious exercise, even when the government is not a party.
“It is shocking the claims that have been made about what this bill does,” said Josh Kredit, legislative counsel for the Center for Arizona Policy. “We just want to clarify the state law.”
Kredit said the bill is aimed at preventing problems like those encountered by a New Mexico photographer who was found guilty of violating that state’s anti-discrimination law after refusing to take photos of a same-sex couple’s commitment ceremony.
With SB 1178, he said, an Arizona photographer in such a situation would have a legal defense if same-sex marriages or civil unions were ever allowed in the state. He said several states are adjusting their religious-protection laws based on this concern.
In a House debate, Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, R-Gilbert, used a similar example of a pastor who may refuse to marry a same-sex couple. “If we decide we have a state that decides you can have same-sex couple marriages and somebody decides not to do it and they get sued, that’s what this can protect against,” Farnsworth said.
But opponents say the bill could protect people who discriminate.
“It’s giving business owners sort of the go-ahead to choose not to provide services for the LGBT community,” said Seráh Blain, executive director of the Secular Coalition for Arizona.
Rep. Chad Campbell, D-Phoenix, opposed the bill. He said during the House debate that small businesses could face the brunt of additional litigation if individuals use SB 1178 to sue them for following a state law someone believes conflicts with their religion. “Litigation could now be directed at the private sector even though the private sector is acting in good faith with a law they should be following,” he said.
Blain said part of her opposition stems from how the bill has moved through the legislative process. Farnsworth and Sen. Steve Yarbrough, R-Chandler, introduced it as an amendment to an unrelated bill in the House after the bill had already passed its assigned Senate committee, meaning it only got one public hearing instead of the usual two.
“It really didn’t have a vetting process where stakeholders were able to look at what this might do,” Blain said.
And there are still a lot of questions about what the bill could do, she said.
The organization’s website offers examples of doctors refusing to prescribe medically necessary medications and therapists suggesting patients try religious worship instead of other treatments. Others have said they fear it could be a tactic to fight a controversial new Phoenix ordinance that bans discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender residents.
Opponents of the ordinance, including the Center for Arizona Policy, have alleged it could lead to individuals using gender identity as a “ruse” to gain access to opposite-sex bathrooms and requiring businesses to let it happen.
“My organization is particularly concerned about any kind of legislation that allows the religious beliefs of people in power to marginalize vulnerable groups of people,” Blain said. “We are concerned about the transgender community, LGBT individuals, women, anyone who is vulnerable to discrimination.”
She said she believes it gives business owners the go-ahead to ignore laws and rules requiring equal services for minorities. “This seems very akin to the ways in which states tried to avoid desegregation,” she said.