Chicago Tribune Finds Joliet Bishop Guilty - That's Guilty, I Say!
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Chicago Tribune Finds Joliet Bishop Guilty
The Chicago Tribune, from its earliest days as Chicago's best fish wrapper, has had a tradition of joyfully condemning the Catholic Church and Catholics. As a Whig and later Republican paper, the Chicago Tribune has never missed an opportunity to hit Catholics and the Archdiocese of Chicago as foreign, criminal, puritanical, clannish, racist, anti-semetic, Political Machine driven, drunken, licentious, corrupt, and devious. From Medill, through McCormick, to its current Board of Directors, the Chicago Tribune never misses an opportunity to bash the Catholic Church, its ministers, and its congregants. But Chicago is a Catholic city and Catholics make up a heavy portion of the Tribune's readership. Why? I do not and have not bought a Chicago Tribune in years, but I read it. My neighbors always throw it out and it is available on-line. Today's editorial is another such example.America's leading clerical-abuse ambulance chaser, Jeffery Anderson of Minnesota, is hard at work in Illinois to rake in millions of dollars from people who claim to have been abused by priests. The Chicago Tribune's tack on Herr Anderson is that he is a fearless dragon-of-Babylon slayer and champion of helpless victims. That's nice. I read the news. Anderson is always in the News - CNN, Times-Picayune, Boston Globe, and etc.
Lawyer Anderson was broke in the early eighties until he took up the case of a drifter who wandered into a Catholic Church in order to relieve himself. Anderson won a huge settlement by portraying the Catholic Church as hostile to the homeless and deflecting the the charge of unlawful entry. Sharp guy.From there it was gravy. Taking cases that allowed huge settlements from individual dioceses around America, Anderson amassed millions of dollars in fees and with the sexual abuse cases pouring in, Anderson made more millions.Let's pause there .
The Catholic Church in America was devastated by the size and scope of priest sexual abuse cases that were swept aside by Chancery nit-wits and monstrous asses like Boston's Cardinal Law - who skulked off to the Vatican. The Catholic Conference of Bishops convened to combat abuse and with their usual aplomb screwed the pooch by an inability to understand the anger of the Catholic laity.
Nevertheless, sexual abuse cases began to see the light of day. But I am no lawyer and can only imagine the dent that reform will make in the coffers of a pettifogging crumb like Anderson. So after a breather - it's full charge against the Church.The Chicago Tribune has decided to bring its artillary down on Bishop Joseph Imesch of Joliet. They don't have the grapes to openly criticize Chicago's Cardinal George but at least they can get a few licks in on the Bishop of Joliet.
I detest the the Tribune and I happen to like Bishop Joseph Imesch. Bishop Imesch is a Christian gentleman. What the ambulance chasers and ink-slingers believe about him I care not a wit. The Tribune would howl down Bishop Imesch if he discovered a cure for cancer - 'Sure Bishop Imesch - Now, you find the correct cure! Where have You been up until now? Where were you when, Dr. King was assasinated? Reading up on cancer, we are to presume?'
When The Trib wants someone 'dead' in the media, it takes the leash off its dogs. Sheriff Michael Sheahan was a frequent target but he punched back and theTribune yelped its way back under the couch. The Tribune wanted to destroy Sheahan professionally and personally in the press and when the Tribune's orchestrated Cook County Jail assault straw-man went to the jury , it only took the sober judgment of 12 good people twenty minutes to toss the charges. I hope that Bishop Imesch diplays the same toughness as Mike Sheahan. When asked by reporters from the balance of Chicago's mediums about the quality of Chicago Tribune investigative powers, Sheahan succinctly and accurately summed up ' Tribune invesitgative journalism is BS.' Chicago agreed.But that does not stop the paper that declared Dewey a Winner! Take a look at what the Chicago Tribune's editorial brain-trust opines:
Bishop Imesch, in his wordsPublished February 9, 2006
Americans curious about the failure of many Roman Catholic bishops to report sexual abuse by clerics owe gratitude to Joliet Bishop Joseph Imesch. During a deposition given last August and unsealed by a judge last week, the bishop put words to the code of silence that insulated his subordinates--if not the innocents they allegedly exploited:- In one deposition excerpt, attorney Jeffrey Anderson quizzed Imesch about a deacon's report to diocesan officials in 1985 that a Woodridge priest, Rev. Edward Stefanich, might be having an improper relationship with a 14-year-old girl. Did Imesch contact police? "I would not do that," the bishop said. "There is no verification. There is no hard evidence that this was happening. And I'm not going to go say, `Hey, police, go check on my priest.'"Anderson: "If you had reported this to the police in 1985 to investigate the suspicion ... this girl wouldn't have been raped?"Imesch: "I'm not going to go to the police and say I've got a suspicion that one of my priests is dating a young girl. I'm not going to do that."Anderson: "She was a 14-year-old girl."Imesch: "We didn't know that at the time."Anderson: "You didn't ask."Imesch: "We didn't know who to ask."The deacon, sensibly, did go to the police. Stefanich pleaded guilty in August 1987 to criminal sexual abuse and was sentenced to 6 months in jail. He also left the priesthood.- Anderson asked about Rev. Larry Gibbs, accused of abusing boys in Lombard. Imesch said Gibbs acknowledged skinny-dipping with the boys and playing games while they were nude--conduct Imesch called "inappropriate." Imesch moved Gibbs to a Lockport parish, where he again was accused. When Anderson asked Imesch if he considered the 1980 Lombard allegations against Gibbs credible, the bishop replied: "Well, I think what happened happened. It was not considered a crime or a criminal activity so there was no reason for me not to transfer him."- In the late 1970s, a Michigan priest confided to Imesch that he had sexually abused an altar boy there. The admission came after the priest, Rev. Gary Berthiaume, had been arrested, but before he was convicted of molesting the boy. Why hadn't Imesch reported Berthiaume's admission to Michigan investigators? "Well, I don't think that was my responsibility," the bishop said. "He is charged with a crime. He has to be given a trial. My going to the police doesn't have anything to do with whether he's guilty or not." Years later, Imesch invited Berthiaume to work at a retreat house in the Joliet diocese.Imesch's words eloquently explain why this abuse crisis is not a matter for the church alone to resolve. Many of the bishops who covered up crimes, and who enabled predators to hurt new victims, still face no formal consequences.Imesch said in a weekend letter to his flock that these incidents occurred "before psychologists recognized that behavior of that kind was indicative of a severe problem that could not be adequately treated." The diocese now notifies civil authorities of any abuse allegations, he said. "The media reports tend to portray me as someone who doesn't care about the safety of children. Nothing could be further from the truth. All of us can look back on our lives and find things we should have done differently."No, it's not the news media that portray Imesch in a troubling light. His words suffice.A diocesan spokesman told the Tribune that Imesch, who is 74 and plans to retire at 75, has asked the Vatican to look for his replacement.So Bishop Imesch, it appears, will be allowed to leave on his terms. How convenient for him.The people molested by criminals he didn't report will continue to live with the consequences.And the many honorable, selfless priests of the Joliet diocese can soon begin rebuilding the trust that Bishop Imesch has destroyed.Copyright © 2006, Chicago Tribune
I am stopping at DiCola's for some fresh cat-fish after work. I know I'll find a Trib in the parking lot there.
posted by Hickey @ 5:29 AM
29 comments:
I have said this before, but I guess I'll have to say it again: What do you expect from an editorial page run by a former college jazz show producer (Bruce Dold)? I worked at Northwestern University's student-run radio station WNUR-FM in the mid 1970s while a student there, as did Dold. While I became the station's chief government and political reporter, Dold was the jazz show producer (and later became music director).
So without passing judgement one way or another on the clergymen mentioned in the Tribune editorial, I will simply note the foolowing. I'll conceed Dold may have superior knowledge on matters of music. But the day he writes more knowledgeably than me on matters of government and politics will be the day after the Tribune prints my obituary. Perhaps now I should add religion to that subject list.
Randall ,
Remember, these are the same people who opened the door for Allan Keyes. The Trib is great for 'unsealing' court documents and then playing Malvolio in public.
I sure that poor son of a gun in Cal-City was thrilled to have tin-foil-hat Al as a tenant coutesy of the World's Greatest Numbskulls.
Unbelievable.
The Bishop tolerates and condone sex abuse and people like you blame the Tribune?
Is that the case, Skeeter? You should be on their Board.
So there's no sex abuse crisis in the Catholic Church, then, hickey? What's next--blaming the victims?
Thanks, Hickey.
I note that your comment was not responsive though.
You apparently dislike the Chicago Tribune for wanting to see the Bishop punished, but have provided no defense of the Bishop.
If you have a defense, make it. Otherwise, you are simply supporting a Bishop who ignores clearly outrageous behavior.
Skinny dipping with children didn't seem to him to be a problem for the Bishop? Does he suffer from an undisclosed head injury? Is just a really dumb guy? What possible defense can be raised?
Skeeter - What is the purpose of a sealed deposition?
Go back and read the whole post.
Where is there a defense of child-abuse or abusers?
The Tribune condemned Bishop Imesch in print based on a few sentences taken OUT of a deposition and adding commentary?
As an avowed advocate of 'inteelectual curiosity' and intellectual honesty' I know that you will get busy on this.
Regards,
Pat
Pat,
The purpose of the sealed deposition I suspect was to protect the names of the children. I do not see how that is relevant to our discussion.
I don't consider the Bishop's admissions to be minor. I consider them to be absolutely crushing.
The Bishop knew that a priest was skinny dipping with children, but did nothing. He admitted that. He knew about it. That was sworn testimony. He didn't do anything to stop it.
He protected the Church and not the children.
The Tribune was absolutely right on this one.
They could not agree more with you.
Hickey said...
"They could not agree more with you. "
Of course. Any reasonable person would.
Not to let the facts get in the way of Hickey's latest rant, but it wasn't the Trib that got the records unsealed, it was the Illinois Coalition Against Sexual Assault.
That is all. Carry on with non-fact based rants.
"In another instance, Imesch admitted being aware that a priest in Lombard, the Rev. Larry Gibbs, went swimming in the nude with pre-teen boys, and then played "boys' games" with them while naked. Still, after seeing a psychiatrist, Gibbs was transferred to another parish in Lockport. Imesch admitted he didn't alert parishioners to the priest's past, although he claims he told the pastor at the new church. Gibbs was later accused of abusing a child at the new church."
Sun-Times 2-5-06.
Sounds very much like what Law did in Boston. I guess you'll have to start only reading the S-T out of garbage cans too.
To the two Annonymous posters and champions:
PLease read the following article about who challenged the DuPage County judge to reverse his decision to seal the 268 page deposition:
Imesch testimony public
• Judge rules: Bishop addressed how diocese dealt with abuse claims
By Ted Slowik
staff writer
WHEATON — A judge's ruling Thursday makes public the testimony of Joliet Bishop Joseph Imesch about how Catholic Church officials handled some reports of clergy accused of sexual misconduct with minors.
DuPage County Judge Stephen Culliton reversed his earlier decision that a broadly worded protective order would keep secret the bishop's testimony and other documents related to a claim against former priest Ed Stefanich of Joliet.
"We're going to go in the opposite direction," Culliton said in court. "There's nothing here to lead me to the breadth of the order I signed previously."
Outside the courthouse, supporters of people sexually abused by priests said the ruling is the latest in a trend of court decisions that favor abuse victims.
"The Catholic Church has traditionally kept secrets," said Barbara Dorris, victim outreach coordinator for the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. "The bishops promised us openness and transparency.
They promised us the safety of children would come first. If Bishop Imesch has nothing to hide, there should have been no reason to keep his deposition secret."
Culliton accepted the Chicago Tribune's argument that there was a keen public interest in learning how church officials responded to allegations of sexual abuse of minors by some priests.
"I think the rule is clear, that the burden is on the person seeking the protective order, both under the rule of law and the constitution," Tribune attorney Don Craven told the judge.
Culliton said he determined that making the documents public would not create "unreasonable annoyance or embarrassment" for the diocese. He rejected diocesan attorney James Byrne's arguments that released the documents would cause a trial in the media and create a chilling effect that would discourage people from making reports to the bishop about subjects other than sexual abuse.
"People giving depositions frequently talk about hearsay. They say things they probably shouldn't say," Byrne said.
Culliton declined to allow constitutional law attorney Marci Hamilton to plead on behalf of the Illinois Coalition Against Sexual Assault, saying a private-interest group didn't have the same stake in the case as a media company.
Culliton's ruling keeps in place two aspects of the protective order. The names of alleged abuse victims shall be kept confidential, and a videotape of Imesch's five-hour deposition shall remain under wraps for now. Byrne argued that he didn't object to the deposition being videotaped because the protective order was in place at the time.
Culliton also rejected Byrne's plea to stay his ruling until the diocese had a chance to appeal. Later Wednesday, attorneys for the alleged victim made available copies of the 247-page transcript of Imesch's Aug. 11 deposition.
The alleged victim is a Glen Ellyn man in his 40s who claims he recently recalled repressed memories of sexual abuse by Stefanich while at Christ the King parish in Lombard about 35 years ago.
- Contact Ted Slowik at (815) 729-6053 or at tslowik@scn1.com.
Time to cook the catfish - The Trib kept it fresh.
I read the 4:33 post and do not have the slighest clue as to your point.
Are you arguing that it is right and proper for the Bishop to hide his conduct?
Are you claiming that the Bishop acted properly?
I understand that you do not like the Chicago Tribune. Beyond that, your point escapes me.
This one is easy. The Bishop is a disgrace and should at the very least, be defrocked. As an Irish Catholic, I am ashamed that my Church would allow somebody like him to get to a position of power.
There isn't any reason other than a pathalogical need to pretend that there is not a sex abuse scandal in the church to post something like this. I imagine if you had a kid in a public school and the principal and administration failed to inform the parents that there was a teacher who was dating a 14-year-old, you'd be rightly outraged. You might even call the Trib to look into it.
As for the Trib's role, they only stepped in after there was an obvious miscarriage of justice and the chance existed for those records to remain sealed. I can't imagine any fellow Catholic who wouldn't want to know what's been going on in the church.
Skeeter,
My point from the get-go is an has been that the Tribune has decided to fry Bishop Imesch. I do not not know of any quilt or misconduct on the part of Bishop Imesch. What I do know is that a deposition - matter of public record to be sure - is a component of the process of justice.
This fragment and the inquiry coducted on Bishop Imesch is being used to end-run the justice process. Today's editorial damns the Bishop.
I am not a friend of the Bishop, but I have had first-hand opportunity to witness his character on several occassions. He is a Christian gentleman.
The Tribune sued to get the record unsealed close on the heels of the Sun Times blockbuster headlines concerning another priest in Chicago. The DuPage County judge is quoted above as believing that his reversal would not create 'unreasonable annoyance or embarassment' for the diocese. Well that dog won't hunt no more.
The Tribune's lawyer argued that the public has a keen interest in learning how Church officials react to the charges of abuse. They are hoping that we will accept their spin on the matter.
Abuse of children is too terrible a sin to be a mere exercise for lawyers and news hawkers. Bishop Imesch deserves a fair judgment. When the new Pilates are done washing their hands, I hope that I have the grapes to help carry the guy's cross - he's carried one for a good many people that are not news to the Trib.
"The Tribune's lawyer argued that the public has a keen interest in learning how Church officials react to the charges of abuse. They are hoping that we will accept their spin on the matter."
Why is this spin? The public does have a right to know how the church has handled abuse cases. Had they had a system in place to handle them correctly we wouldn't be at the point we're at now. How exposing the awful way this whole scandal has been handled by the church can be seen as anything but a public service is the same type of enabling that set this in motion.
The Church has shot itself in the head in the hadling of the abuse scandals. Bishop Imesch and Cardinal Law are poles apart as men and as prelates.
The Tribune does not seem to be able to find any other path to reform than the public execution of person's character. That's wow TV and Boffo News! But, I do not feel that the abused or accused are served very well.
For all those who desire to see a man destroyed in the public eye, these lads are more than willing to serve him up hot and steamy.
I'm hoping raise some questions about the motives and methods behind those so willing to create a pariah.
You still haven't addressed the issue. How do Imesch's words not reflect that he knowingly witheld information about priests, information that might have prevented further incidents of abuse? How does a newspaper seeking out those quotes, reporting them and editorializing about them constitute anything other than serving the public's right to know?
For you to smugly suggest that this is simply a "desire to see a man destroyed in the public eye," demonstrates an incomprehensible insensitivity in general towards the hundreds who have been abused by priests and specifically towards those who were abused when Imesch could have prevented it.
Smug, my fat wrinkled, Irish rump!?!
Read the editorial - or have it read to you, you sensitive and caring person.
I have read it, and not out of other people's trash, and he hangs himself with his words. The Trib didn't put words in his mouth. I am very sensitive and caring, particularly about the children who will never totally recover from the trauma they endured on his watch. How about just a little compassion for them?
Does that hair-shirt come in an XL? I got to get one.
Got to go roller derby's on.
Nice answer. Shows how much you care about abused children. Interesting how rather than addressing questions you prefer to make stupid statements. You probably don't even understand the irony of the hairshirt reference when used in relation to the the systematic coverup of child abuse over the last five decades.
But hey, at least the roller derby has found their key demographic.
Hickey said:
"My point from the get-go is an has been that the Tribune has decided to fry Bishop Imesch. I do not not know of any quilt or misconduct on the part of Bishop Imesch. What I do know is that a deposition - matter of public record to be sure - is a component of the process of justice."
Interesting. I know of some guilt or misconduct.
I know that under oath the Bishop admitted that he knew a priest went skinny dipping and played naked games with children, but then did not react.
The Bishop ADMITTED that. That was not a mere allegation. That is something that he ADMITTED. Those were his words.
Maybe we just differ on that issue.
Personally, I think it is wrong for adults to go skinny dipping and to play naked games with children. You apparently think that conduct is acceptable. It looks like we are at an impass.
We are. I won't take the soup.
Skeeter,
Your crack about my finding sexual misconduct in any way acceptable should be beneath you - a crack like that at Loyola back in '74 would get your puss slapped by a less tolarant type.
Be well.
In response:
Then please explain your post.
The Bishop admitted the conduct. It was not an allegation. It was an admission.
The conduct that he admitted is absolutely abhorent. He admitted that he knew what the priest was doing.
Yet you blame the newspaper for reporting it and others for condemning it.
What sort of response did you expect?
I still fail to see your point, if any. The conduct was admitted. What remains to debate, other than the point I thought was obvious, i.e. that the conduct of the Bishop was an absolute shame?
What point were you trying to make?
Skeeter,
Embrace your beliefs. Hold them tightly to your breast. God Love You!
But if you need to have what I wrote explained to you, you had better ask Loyola for your dough back.
Hickey,
You can't make a point and blame me?
Interesting approach for a writer.
I don't blame you for taking that approach. It is much easier than admitting that you have done nothing more than to stand up for child molesters. That is your point, isn't it? That somebody who knows about child abuse but hides it really might not be a bad guy?
You are doing the right thing. Run away from your idea. It is the best thing you can do.
Post a Comment