More coverup in the Catholic Church for child rapists.

There’s a particular crime, let’s call it “protecting and abetting child rapists”, which most human beings (including those evil atheists) can immediately discern is a very, very bad thing.  However, the organization which claims to be a moral beacon to the world, the followers and leaders of which often insisting that one cannot be moral without submitting to the dictates of this organization, has a real problem with this crime.

Like an abusive husband who keeps telling us he only hit us out of love and he’ll never do it again, the Catholic Church keeps telling us they’re going to lock this problem down.  But then it happens again.

Six years ago, to avoid retrial on charges that he groped a teenage boy, the Rev. Michael Fugee entered a rehabilitation program, underwent counseling for sex offenders and signed a binding agreement that would dictate the remainder of his life as a Roman Catholic priest.

Fugee would not work in any position involving children, the agreement with the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office states. He would have no affiliation with youth groups. He would not attend youth retreats. He would not hear the confessions of minors.

But Fugee has openly done all of those things for the past several years through an unofficial association with a Monmouth County church, St. Mary’s Parish in Colts Neck, The Star-Ledger found.

He has attended weekend youth retreats in Marlboro and on the shores of Lake Hopatcong in Mount Arlington, parishioners say. Fugee also has traveled with members of the St. Mary’s youth group on an annual pilgrimage to Canada. At all three locations, he has heard confessions from minors behind closed doors.

What’s more, he has done so with the approval of New Jersey’s highest-ranking Catholic official, Newark Archbishop John J. Myers.

And make no mistake: Fugee certainly violated an underage boy, even while believing in the morality-enabling scriptures of the Catholic faith.

Under questioning by police, Fugee confessed to touching the boy, acknowledging it was a “violation” and offering that it sexually excited him, a transcript of the confession shows. A jury convicted him two years later, and he was sentenced to five years’ probation.

In 2006, an appellate panel vacated the verdict, ruling that a portion of the confession — in which Fugee described himself as bisexual or homosexual — should have been withheld from jurors because they might have drawn “an unfounded association between homosexuality and pedophilia.”

The rest of the confession was not called into question.

However, the ironically-named Jim Goodness, who is the spokesperson for the Newark Archbishop, has identified the real victim in this case.

Goodness, speaking for the archdiocese, has characterized Fugee in the past as a victim in the case, and Myers has repeatedly drawn criticism from advocates for his handling of the priest’s case.

If we’d all just sympathize a little more with the convicted sex offender who wanted to keep working around kids, we’d probably see who the real victim is too.  It was out of sympathy for the poor fallen priest (wait, he didn’t fall, he was still serving in a position of moral authority) that the Archbishop had to ignore the law and let the man keep working around kids.

Catholics will read this and get all bent out of shape, as though bringing this type of thing up is a greater crime than covering it up.  Fuck you if you’re one of those Catholics.  You’re what’s wrong with the world.  If you were in the room when any of the gobs of child-raping priests were forcing themselves on children, you would’ve done everything in your power to stop it.  If you were in the room when your last pope decided to shuffle those priests around, enabling them to find fresh victims, you would’ve tried to stop it if you are at all decent or good.  Well, god was in the room, and did nothing.  It follows that the god you worship is neither decent or good, and even if he does exist you should stop worshiping him as though he were.

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.

  • Glodson

    What’s more, he has done so with the approval of New Jersey’s
    highest-ranking Catholic official, Newark Archbishop John J. Myers.

    That’s the fucking problem with this fucking church. It isn’t that there are priests who abuse their power. There will be members of any group that will try to abuse their position in grossly vile ways.

    It is that there’s no real consequence for this. The church doesn’t deal with it. They say the words, but the actions are lacking. They cover it up. They deflect blame. And when one agrees to have no more contact with boys, they don’t just turn a blind eye when he does so, but they approve of his actions in sidestepping his agreement.

    This was to be the man’s punishment, and the assurance that he would not again abuse children. It would be one thing if the priest had just done this on his own. That would be the fault of the priest alone. He would be an asshole that just ignored his agreement to be close to children.

    But no. The Archbishop was complaisant in this. He fucking approved.

    Goodness, speaking for the archdiocese, has characterized Fugee in the past as a victim in the case, and Myers has repeatedly drawn criticism
    from advocates for his handling of the priest’s case.

    How the fuck is the man the victim? That’s like saying it was the fault of the rape victim. What kind of people paint the abuser as the victim?

    Shitty people.

    • kagekiri

      How the fuck is the man the victim? That’s like saying it was the fault of the rape victim. What kind of people paint the abuser as the victim?

      Shitty people.

      Or, another acceptable answer: “Fellow abusers.”

  • baal

    “In 2006, an appellate panel vacated the verdict, ruling that a portion
    of the confession — in which Fugee described himself as bisexual or
    homosexual — should have been withheld from jurors because they might
    have drawn “an unfounded association between homosexuality and
    pedophilia.””

    Here I thought the RCC and RWA christians were accusing gays of being pedos as a problem of sloppy thinking (all non-god non-good things are the same). Turns out they were laying the ground work for their legal defense teams when accused of child rape.

  • islandbrewer

    What, no Catholic trolls showing up, yet?

    Let me try:

    *ahem*

    “You’re just a bunch of anti-Catholic bigots full of bigotry and hate and you’re not happy unless you’re tearing someone down and your full of hate!!!

    And I hate you!

    The Catholic church (peace be upon her) does lots of good, and you just want to kill babies in abortion mills, and you’re a bigot with bigotrous bigotry. It’s very offensive!

    You have no idea of all the good that the Catholic church does, and it’s done a lot of good, because Jesus!

    And you don’t understand our sophisticated theology, which I won’t bother to try to explain to you! Here, read the collected works of Thomas Aquinas, and I’ll get back to you.

    Won’t someone please think of all the poor unborn murdered babies, you evil remorseless baby-killers?

    It’s the gay’s fault, too.”

    /Theodore Seeber-Mark Shea

    • RobMcCune

      I’m sure they’ll wait till the thread is a ghost town then meekly peek their heads out to whisper about how atheists lack the courage of their convictions to engage in a conversation a week after everyone has left.

  • Beutelratti

    I also found this gem today:

    ‘Fabio Martínez Castilla, Archbishop of Tuxla Gutiérrez sparked some controversy over remarks made on Tuesday
    at a homily in the Metropolitan Cathedral of San Marcos, by claiming
    that “abortion is much more serious than rape of children by priests.”’

    http://www.policymic.com/articles/39225/fabio-martinez-castilla-abortion-is-worse-than-child-rape-says-mexican-archbishop

    He apparently also said that the future of sexually abused children was dying, but hey, at least they weren’t murdered. Neat, eh?

    • Glodson

      It is like he’s trying to break the brains of rationally thinking people with that one statement.

      • islandbrewer

        It’s working. I can feel the cracks. Or maybe it’s caffeine withdrawal.

      • Beutelratti

        He did call for punishment and excommunication for child abusing priests, I’ll give him that.

        I just don’t understand why it is so hard to call for punishment for the crime’s sake without automatically saying that it’s not as bad as another crime.

        Murder and child abuse are both crimes, they are both terrible, why the need to emphasise that one is worse than the other if you don’t have some hidden motive? Like, say, downplaying the role of your institution in enabling one of the crimes?

        Of course there’s the other problem of abortion not being murder, but even if you think that it is, would anyone actually say “Child abuse is a crime, but murder is much more serious, because people die. They should both be punished though!” and expect to get away with it?

      • Nox

        I’m sure they’d consider that a side benefit, but the statement wasn’t meant for a rationally thinking audience. It was meant to distract that audience who will believe whatever their priest tells them.

        The goal was to paint the thing the church opposes as worse than the thing the church gets caught doing so he can make the church look better (‘That problem we’re causing isn’t a real problem. That problem we’re complaining about is what people should be focusing on’).

        Saying whatever ridiculous bullsh*t they need to say to support the church is always the first job of every catholic priest. And those priests have had a couple thousand years to get used to being able to say anything without the adherents questioning it.

        When a priest says “abortion is much more serious than rape of children by priests” or “the wine becomes the actual blood of Jesus” or “anyone who dies in this crusade will go straight to heaven”, there will be some who will believe them. Not because the statements make any sense, but because they have been trained to not think about whether the statements make any sense. That is who those statements are for.

        In the past, they had the power to simply kill those who weren’t willing to believe nonsensical statements, thus ensuring everyone would believe anything they said. Now that the option of force is mostly denied to them, shameless bullsh*t is all that is left in the catholic arsenal. Those who will summarily believe everything their church tells them are the only ones the church still has any credibility with, and they are gonna squeeze that demographic for everything they can get out of them.

  • Gehennah

    Hmm, so in the Catholic Church you can molest little boys, they protect you, make you sign a little piece of paper in which they have no intention on enforcing, and then allow you to keep your job.

    You know, if the church actually did something to help prevent such abuses, and to help put the abusers in jail, then maybe there would be some sort of defensible position for the church, but as of now they seem to pretty much be laughing in the faces of all of the victims.

    I mean, if you can get excommunicated for marrying a protestant, but not for molesting a boy, something is really messed up.

    • Compuholic

      I wouldn’t even care if they are excommunicated. Excommunication is just an imaginary punishment. The priests should be turned over to law enforcement and the church should cooperate in the invenstigations like every other organization has to.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X