Even without details, one can imagine this woman’s recurring pain; one can speculate that she was not the only victim; one can wonder what else was locked into secrecy or denial in a very different era. But all these unknowns from the first half of the twentieth century seem well beyond the bounds of what presents itself as a rigorous legal investigation.      
Is this example exceptional? Yes, but not unique. One can say the same of some examples the report spotlights.
In fact, one could find similar examples where the investigation’s span of more than seven decades—and gaps of half a century between likely abuse and the first word of it to reach church officials—raise questions about the report’s concept of accountability.
But the report’s chosen timespan and unexplained notion of accountability are merely symptoms of a larger issue. What is missing from the report, above all, is any sense of history. The report treats the more than seven decades from 1945 until yesterday as a block. That is a long time in the life of even the most basic institutions. Could you inquire into family breakdown since 1945 or patterns of sɛҳuąƖ activity over that timespan without giving considerable attention to demography, single parenthood, feminism, contraceptives, the “Sixties,” gαy rights, and changing norms regarding autonomy, privacy, and personal fulfillment? Or, for another instance, race relations? Could you accurately describe the period from World War II to yesterday without highlighting the civil-rights movement, the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, and the election of Barack Obama?


https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/pa-grand-jury-report-not-what-it-seems?utm_source=Press+List&utm_campaign=f098968bc0-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_01_09_05_22&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_01bf0cc1e6-f098968bc0-92468121

This latest incarnation of the accusations hurled at the Novus Ordo Church reeks of a political stunt.  I think this is a means by the politically influential to box the Novus Ordo Church into a defensive position and a cornered one at that.  These Novus Ordo clerics have been doing the bidding of the enemy since the end of Vatican II so it shows to us, although never figured out by evildoers, is that you can't team up with evil because once it no longer needs your support it discards you.

I don't engage in defense of the Novus Ordo but this latest much publicized storytelling is a planned event for either political expediency (we did see a sitting governor in one large state further liberalize abortion laws and a different sitting governor give what seemed to be approval for infanticide (although he was clear about making the baby comfortable - just what the world needs, merciful executioners).  With the Novus Ordo chasing after every fad that comes it's way, it just isn't capable of leading the flock, at least not leading the flock anywhere good.

I think it is a prelude to a persecution.

Don't overlook the fact that the Novus Ordo Church is a proverbial cash cow for the leftists in the U.S.  In addition to donations to leftwing causes (organizations that would, pre-Vatican II, be considered enemies of the Chuch) these faux-outrages usually lead to very large cash settlements that go directly to either the State (which in America circa 2019 is a force for evil) or leftist trial lawyers and anti-Catholic advocacy groups. 

Billions in dollars exchanged between the Novus Ordo Church and the same group of enemies in that last go around (2002-2005). 

One clear sign that these charges are all manufactured is the complete lack of any demand for evidence from the press.  The charges are just assumed to be true and the Novus Ordo is assumed to be guilty. 

It's such a simple fix.  Any seminarian who shows any signs of sɛҳuąƖ depravity should be screened out.  But I think it's pretty common knowledge that the Novus Ordo seminaries are only screening out Traditionalists.

Here's a good question:  Why are these charges being recycled?  There is certainly no new evidence.  What's the reason?

 

Very interesting incite, it all makes sense now.  They, the counterfeit Vatican II church and the NWO, are are colluding in the milking of the ignorant faithful, it is all about keeping the money stream going and the redirecting of the true faith to a powerless false sect, like all of the other false religions of the World.

If they are such a cash cow, then why kill the goose that is giving you all that gold? 

Indeed, that was my point, why kill the goose that is giving you all that gold, keep milking it forever. That is why ALL the Vatican II church hierarchy has not left as Martin Luther did.

Maybe things are not really as you think.

The writers of the report from the attorney general’s office struggle mightily to discount this reality. The report’s conclusions about abuse and coverup are stated in timeless fashion. Whenever change is acknowledged, the language is begrudging.
Readers who persevere to page 297 will find a mere eight pages devoted to “The Church and sex abuse: past and present,” i.e., before 2002 and after. Four pages simply expand on the opinions attributed to FBI “experts” cited in the introduction. These are said to demonstrate that euphemisms for sɛҳuąƖ abuse found in church records (and evidently not elsewhere) are part of a “playbook” for concealment. This claim culminates in a half-page full-color chart illustrating this “circle of secrecy.” The phrase “circle of secrecy” and the corresponding analysis are attributed to then-Pittsburgh Bishop Donald Wuerl, who went on to serve as cardinal archbishop of Washington. (He recently resigned.)
If curious or determined readers turn to page 1,124 of the report, they will discover that the words “circle of secrecy” are (a) not Wuerl’s and (b) have nothing to do with the way that the report uses them. Scribbled on a 1993 request from an offending priest for a return to ministry, the phrase signaled that despite his apparent recovery, the priest could not have an assignment without full public disclosure of his past conduct and treatment. As it happens, the priest’s request was refused. And the jotting wasn’t Wuerl’s. Before the report was issued, Wuerl informed the attorney general of this. His correction was ignored. The “circle of secrecy” concept and impressive chart appear to be entirely the concoction of the report’s writers.


https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/pa-grand-jury-report-not-what-it-seems?utm_source=Press+List&utm_campaign=f098968bc0-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_01_09_05_22&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_01bf0cc1e6-f098968bc0-92468121

As evidence, he and each of the other dioceses docuмented detailed policies, some dating from the mid-1990s but constantly updated and tightened, especially since the 2002 Dallas Charter, for facilitating and investigating allegations; suspending accused priests and removing them from all ministry if accusations prove credible; prompt reporting of allegations to law enforcement; establishing and empowering lay review boards with professional expertise to guide the bishop; offering outreach and assistance to victims; screening seminarians; instituting extensive preventative measures including rigorous background checks and mandatory training for all church workers and volunteers dealing with children and adolescents; education of parents; and opening all such programs to regular auditing by independent agencies. After 2002, some dioceses combed their files or opened them to district attorneys to make sure no abusing priests were still in ministry.
There is no reason, of course, why a grand jury has to take such diocesan testimony at face value. Perhaps the impressive policies for handling and reporting allegations or assisting victims exist only on paper rather than in practice. Perhaps the impressive numbers of clergy, educators, youth workers, and employees vetted and trained, parents and students informed, dollars spent, and audits conducted are false, flimflam trumped up for public-relations purposes. Perhaps these impressive safeguards, many of which are less than two decades old, operate effectively in some dioceses, but not in others. These are serious possibilities that a serious grand-jury investigation might have looked into. There is not the slightest indication, not the slightest, that the grand jury even sought to give serious attention to the kind of extensive, detailed testimony that the dioceses submitted regarding their current policies and programs.
The lack of historical consciousness blinds the grand-jury report to two other factors essential to understanding church officials’ responses to accusations of abuse. One was the recourse to therapeutic treatment. The other was the frequent gap between the time of abuse and the time of accusation. For both factors, the year 2002 was critical.   


https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/pa-grand-jury-report-not-what-it-seems?utm_source=Press+List&utm_campaign=f098968bc0-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_01_09_05_22&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_01bf0cc1e6-f098968bc0-92468121

The Lyon court handed Cardinal Philippe Barbarin, Archbishop of Lyon, a six-month suspended prison sentence for not reporting the cases in the period between July 2014 and June 2015.
The 68-year old cardinal was not present in the Lyon court on Thursday to hear his conviction. His lawyer, Jean-Felix Luciani, said he will appeal: “The court’s reasons do not convince me. We will therefore contest this decision,” the lawyer said, adding that the court had been under pressure as a result of docuмentaries and a film about the case.
At the end of the trial in January the prosecutor had not sought punishment for the cardinal or the five other church officials accused alongside him.

https://www.vaticannews.va/en/church/news/2019-03/cardinal-barbarin-suspended-sentence-lyon-abuse-vatiab.html

Isn't he the one the prosecutor wanted to acquit?