The priest raped the kid, but he had no choice! The priest, not the kid.

This pretty much sums up why the Catholic church is evil (you hear that, Bill Donohue?)

A priest who assisted Monsignor William Lynn investigate clergy sex abuse claims testified Tuesday that it was not the archdiocese’s policy to contact law enforcement or other victims of abuse.

“Our legal counsel said there was not a requirement to report,” Monsignor Michael McCulken told jurors.

Hi!  We’re the Catholic church and we have supreme moral authority!  It’s also not our job to report child rapists to the police.

Defrocked priest Edward Avery was due to also go on trial with Brennan and Lynn, but pleaded guilty in March to involuntary sexual deviate sexual intercourse after admitting to sexually assaulting a 10-year-old altar boy during the 1998-1999 school year at St. Jerome Parish.

Involuntary?  Involuntary?  What, did the 10 year-old pin down the priest and demand to be raped?

If not for religion, where would these people get their morals, amirite?

Also taking the witness stand was Monsignor William Beisel, who was Lynn’s assistant from 1993-1994. Beisel and Lynn drafted an infamous list of 35 priests suspected of sexually abusing children

Beisel told jurors that he and Lynn reviewed the files of priests accused of sexual misconduct to draft the list.

“We did this after 5 o’clock. It seemed like forever, but took about two weeks,” he said. “I was happy the project was over.”

The list was later found inside a locked safe that was drilled open in 2006. Still, the list of 35 Catholic priests accused or found guilty of sexual misconduct, plus a memo ordering the shredding of the list of priests plus other personnel documents, did not come to light until February.

Although Beisel remembered penning the list, he confirmed for jurors that he told the grand jury in 2004, “I don’t recall seeing a priest that was guilty of sexual misconduct.”

Included on the list was defrocked priest Avery, categorized as “guilty of sexual misconduct with a minor.”

Allegiance to rapists rather than their victims, and we’re to believe not only that these people have a shred of moral integrity, but that they get to lecture we immoral atheists on our sins.  No respect for these people.  No respect for religion, only for compassion.

About JT Eberhard

When not defending the planet from inevitable apocalypse at the rotting hands of the undead, JT is a writer and public speaker about atheism, gay rights, and more. He spent two and a half years with the Secular Student Alliance as their first high school organizer. During that time he built the SSA’s high school program and oversaw the development of groups nationwide. JT is also the co-founder of the popular Skepticon conference and served as the events lead organizer during its first three years.

  • John Eberhard

    To commit a sex crime is at least understandable. Not justifiable, but understandable. To purposely cover up the crimes and perpetrators and allow them to continue their evil is monstrous.

    • brittanymays


      • brittanymays

        Please clarify. I’m hoping you were just trying to sound smart or had some other easily explained away brain malfunction.

        • Joven

          I think he means understandable in the way that there could be some person who is overcome by their urges and commits a crime like that (sort of like a serial killer, or something). By ‘understandable’ its possible in some way to possibly process how someone could be in a mental state to allow them to do that. (obviously he wasn’t saying that excuses it, or makes it better, just that its mentally able to be processed how someone could.)

          Whereas, to see someone do that or know about it, and then not just dismiss it, but actively help that person get away with it, is not something that can really be processed as to how someone could do that, because it requires that person actively and intentionally putting aside their compassion and conscience. And how someone who would probably otherwise be normal could do that…is not really understandable.

          At least thats how I took it.

          • John Eberhard

            I wish I had read your reply before I posted my own. You expressed my thought processes better than myself. Thank you.

        • brianpansky

          I hope by “understandable” he means “is a foreseeable problem” (because we know these predators are among the human population)

          in comparison to the behavior of the organization, which is rly like wtf why would this ever happen. the organization was supposed to handle this foreseeable problem.

        • John Eberhard

          I understand that seriously mentally/emotionally fucked up people do seriously fucked up things. Supposedly sane/somewhat emotionally balanced people shouldn’t cover up for them. As I pointed out, I don’t justify fucked up people doing fucked up actions, nor to I condone it, but, again, I understand it. I don’t understand those who cover for them who are supposedly not fucked up.
          Hope that works for you. Thank you for your kind comment and for your opinion of my brain function.
          Have a nice day.

      • brianpansky

        I’m pretty sure he means that this is a known occurrence in the general population. From this we can direct our attention to the malpractice of the organization itself. This is because the organization should know how to properly handle problems that are known to occur in the general population. They should know to notify the police etc.

        • brittanymays

          I get it…I still don’t agree. I’m a volunteer sexual assault advocate, which means I get called in to hospitals to provide support for victims,and have been for over a year now. I still don’t think I “understand” it and I’m not sure I ever will. And talking about it in terms of “overwhelming urges”, etc just makes it sound like something unavoidable, unescapable. I disagree with that strongly. Rape and sexual assault are usually not about sexual gratification but about exerting power and control over someone deemed weaker than yourself and always involves a choice. I can’t understand at all how someone can do something like that to someone else.

          Wanting to cover up scandal, avoid something horrible, avert your eyes, protect your reputation whatever you want to call it…that I find more understandable. Unconscionable and wicked, but I can see that as part of human nature more than I can some type of uncontrollable built-in tendency to rape.

          • brianpansky

            I agree with you. Also thanks for the reminder that a lot of rape is not about sexual gratification.

            As far as organizations “averting their eyes”, I think by now the problem of organizations doing this should be well known enough that governments and organizations themselves should do more to specifically prevent that failure. And be tougher on those that don’t reform/grovel.

          • sgo

            You’re wrong Ma’am. You can’t compare your “everyday” rape from someone outside the church to a rape committed by people who swore not to have any intimate relationship.
            If you really think that this is not the problem, why does all this happen mainly in the catholic church? I can tell you: Other churches allow their priests to marry, have an intimate relationship. If you really think that after years some urges don’t just get so big that you can’t think clearly anymore, then you’re mistaken. It can become almost uncontrollable. It’s a build in tendency to replicate. But priests suppress it for years. Anything they do is a sin. If they do something alone in their chamber, if they do it with a woman, … Also, they don’t learn how to deal with relationships at all. I bet they’re afraid of any kind of relationship. First of all because it’s a sin, second of all because they don’t have a clue how an intimate relationship works. How should they?
            So they choose kids because a) They’re around them all the time (the pure amount of exposure and access to the kids makes it more likely for priests to rape them) b) kids are much weaker then adults and easier to “control” ( what you said) c) those kids that help in church are probably closest to a normal relationship as it gets for a priest. Almost like a uncle + nephew/niece.
            If you want to state psychological facts, include all views of them. As a helper for rape victims you tend to be biased towards the victims anyway. But please try to understand the underlying problem: Priests don’t have an intimate life. And that’s against nature. So, to me, it’s clear why they do it, what drives them. And I bet it also is to the church, which is why they cover it up. Otherwise, they would run out of priests…

            So, you see, fix the church and you fix the majority of priest committed sexual abuses. As easy as that. And before you blame just one single person, blame the church and try to change their policies.

  • Jake

    By “involuntary,” could it be referring to the child?

    • brianpansky
      •!/Erulora Erulóra Maikalambe

        This shit’s confusing. With voluntary vs involuntary manslaughter, it refers to the defendant. So it would be natural for one to assume involuntary sexual intercourse would refer to the defendant as well. Why don’t they just call it what it is — rape?

        • Midnight Rambler

          I don’t find it confusing. Voluntary (on the part of the minor) sexual intercourse would also be a crime (on the part of the adult), i.e. statutory rape (because it can’t be genuinely voluntary), but presumably one with somewhat less severe penalties. What’s confusing to me is why JT’s headline seems to be hung up on the legalese of the criminal description.

  • unbound

    If the priests in question advocated birth control, they would have been excommunicated. But since they were only involved in covering up the raping of children and shuffling the priests to new grounds to continue their raping ways, it’s not so bad. /sarcasm

    When this got brought up with Cardinal Law a decade ago, it was the last straw that got me out of the church. It should have been a slam-dunk decision by the Church to not only immediately fire Cardinal Law, but to actually excommunicate him…but the Church didn’t do that. It doesn’t get more simple or straight-forward of a complete morale failure that you will ever encounter… t h e p r i e s t s a r e r a p i n g c h i l d r e n a n d t h e l e a d e r s h i p h e l p e d t h e c h i l d r a p i s t s.

    To all the Catholics that are left…why are you still associated with the church? Stop accepting the priest BS and start using your grey matter.

    • iknklast

      That’s exactly what Annie Laurie Gaylor asked in her full page ad: “It’s time to quit the Catholic Church”.

      In any other situation, aiding and abetting is a serious crime. In this situation, there are thousands, maybe millions, of Catholics who enable these priests by denying, by closing their eyes, and in some cases, by driving the accusers out of the church. That’s the worst of it – that the ordinary, in the pews Catholics will often take the side of the priest, even one that has confessed, against the accuser.

      It’s time to shut down the Catholic Church. If a school was behaving like this, it would be shut down. If a business was acting like this, it would be shut down, or the management would be changed. If the NIH or the NAS acted like this, the uproar would be so loud you would never be able to hear anything over it. But the Church? All the defenders pour out of the woodwork to make sure the church is unscathed. It’s disgusting.

      • Randomfactor

        “It’s time to quit the Catholic Church”.

        Which headline was, IIRC, modified to be more “iffy” before the paper would print the ad.

  • anteprepro

    This is fucking sick and the rabbit hole just goes deeper and deeper. And yet another testament to religious morality: Catholics just plug their ears, shrug, say “it’s not THAT bad” and go on to shill out money for churches that use their money to protect child molesters and rapists. Fuck every last one of them.

    • brianpansky

      but being True Christians in the Real Church is really important to them!

    • ed

      But but but…just think of all the GOOD the Church does!!!!

      Absolutely sickening.

  • Sue Cox

    I would just like to say thankyou to you all for your comments! It is so nice to hear decent honourable people simply saying how SICK this whiole issue makes them! I am a survivor of clergy abuse, the priest in question abused me first on the eve of my confirmation when I was ten, the last time, he raped me in my bedroom, in my home, when I was thirteen.My Mother caught him, and did NOTHING because she too was indoctrinated by this cruel church. It has taken me many years to work thriugh the legacy it gave me, alcoholism, addiction, eating disorder, self harm. I am now clean and sober 36 yeasr, and have become a respected health care professional.But this wretched church took away the bulk of my adult life. It was people like you who showed their hiumanity that helped restore me,many atheists and humanists, who simply are HUMAN beings, trying to do the right thing by their fellow man.Aanyone from inside the church will simply shun people like me (or pray for my salvation!) Along with their appalling cover ups, they do a nice line in ” victim blame!” Keep feeling sick about this, it is a crime against humanity!
    Sue Cox
    Survivors Voice Europe.

  • John Horstman

    I very seriously don’t understand how INTERPOL and ICE/FBI aren’t investigating the Catholic Church as an international crime syndicate. If any other organization was helping members rape children and then covering it up using threats against the victims (in this case, threats of eternal damnation, which they take seriously) and withholding information for law enforcement, it would be shut down. Yet we still give this organization tax exemptions.

  • patrick jlandis

    The prosecution of Lynn gives me some pride in my city. I only wish it was more than a symbolic victory because most of the actual pedophiles escaped any punishment because of Lynn and Bevliacqua.

    Google Bevilacqua’s grand jury testimony. The Inquirer released it originally, before a court order tried to have it sealed. Despite dodging the question repeatedly, he openly admits that he didn’t feel responsible for these children.

    It makes me tear up to think about the people who put faith in these men, only to have them show more concern for the Church’s reputation. I even think Lynn or Bevilacqua were trying to do what they thought was right, but this a very good example of how religion leads not-bad people to do horrific things.

  • kevobx

    From the children of Israel to the children of light? It ashamed why these earthly churches love laying hands on one another, but what happen when the people laid their hands on Jesus, or even when they put their hands on Paul? Jesus told us be aware of men in long robes and call no man Rabbi.