You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

Factfinder2 ago

Great followup to the 60 minutes interview.

This part of the interview is important because she indicates the coverups seemed to be all about protecting the church's assets and reputation [and therefore ability to continue collecting donations]:

Bill Whitaker: What were they trying to do if not help the victims?

Siobhan O'Connor: Well, to my mind the overarching attitude seemed to be to protect the church's reputation and her assets.

Bill Whitaker: And the assets?

Siobhan O'Connor: Uh-huh. Very much so.

Covering for and relocating lawbreakers to protect income flow and assets smells a lot like racketeering. And that's besides the egregious offense of creating a new safe place for perpetrators to continue committing their crimes.

I hope the Feds put everything they've got into this. They need to think outside the box and pursue every possibility for conviction this time--precedence to the contrary be damned. The courts need to take a fresh whack at this problem.

Racketeering: https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Racketeering

think- ago

Thanks for pointing this out, @Factfinder2. Let's never forget that the Catholic Church has spent millions in the last couple years for paying lobbying firms to push against laws that would abolish the statute of limiations in cases of sexual abuse (in New York f.i.).

So, besides protecting perps, it's greed that motivates Bishops and Cardinals to cover up for child abuse.

@Vindicator