Ms. magazine  -- more than a magazine a movement

SIGN UP FOR MS. DIGEST, JOBS, NEWS AND ALERTS

FEMINIST WIRE NEWSBRIEFS

ABOUT
SEE CURRENT ISSUE
SHOP MS. STORE
MS. IN THE CLASSROOM
FEMINIST DAILY WIRE
FEMINIST RESOURCES
PRESS
JOBS AT MS.
READ BACK ISSUES
CONTACT
RSS (XML)
 
feminist wire | daily newsbriefs

February-08-02

Boston Archdiocese Identifies More Priests as Alleged Pedophiles; Archdiocese Influence in Legislation Wanes

During an ongoing review of church personnel records, the Boston Archdiocese identified at least 60 priests who have allegedly molested and abused children over the span of forty years. The names of these priests have been turned over to civil authorities and 38 names have been forwarded to a total of six district attorney offices. The Archdiocese had previously settled sex abuse cases for many of the priests identified. According to the Boston Globe, the Archdiocese has settled child molestation claims for at least 70 priests in the last decade.

The spotlight has been on the Boston Archdiocese since the prosecution of defrocked priest John Geoghan, convicted last month of indecent assault on a minor and facing two other charges of child rape and molestation. Geoghan’s trial resulted in increased publicity for numerous other reports of pedophilia among Boston-area priests. Cardinal Bernard Law then admitted that the Archdiocese was aware of allegations made since the 1970s against Geoghan, and now other priests, of child abuse and pedophilia and knowingly did not remove the priests from their posts or notify civil authorities. Law has since apologized for “mistakes in judgment.” Catholic parishioners are calling for his resignation.

Massachusetts legislators are now considering laws that would require clergy to report allegations of abuse to civil authorities. The Boston Archdiocese moral authority has been severely compromised since the allegations. Some political pundits suggest that this scandal coupled with the preoccupation of the Archdiocese may have played a role in the passage of another piece of legislation in the Massachusetts House. At the end of last month, Massachusetts passed a bill that would require insurance plans that already cover prescription drugs to cover prescription contraception. The House also rejected an amendment 106 to 49 that would have allowed religiously affiliated organizations to forego the requirement based on moral objections.

Media Resources: Boston Globe, 2/8/02; Associated Press, 2/8/02; Kaiser Daily Reproductive Health Report, 1/31/02; Feminist Daily News Wire


© Feminist Majority Foundation, publisher of Ms. magazine

If you liked this story, consider making a tax-deductible donation to support Ms. magazine.

 

 

Send to a Friend
Their
Your
Comments
(optional)


More Feminist News

10/30/2014 Medication Abortion Access Threatened by Oklahoma Court Ruling - An Oklahoma state district court judge has refused to block a state law restricting medication abortion, clearing the way for the law to go into affect on November 1. The Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice, together with a local abortion clinic in Tulsa, challenged HB 2684 in September, arguing that the law was an unconstitutional restriction on non-surgical abortion in the earliest weeks of pregnancy. . . .
 
10/30/2014 UPS Switches Pregnant Worker Policy Ahead of Supreme Court Case - The United Parcel Service (UPS) is changing its policy on light duty assignments for pregnant workers, even though the company will stand by its refusal to extend accommodations to a former employee in an upcoming Supreme Court case. UPS announced on Monday in a memo to employees, and in a brief filed with the US Supreme Court, that the company will begin offering temporary, light-duty positions to pregnant workers on January 1, 2015. . . .
 
10/30/2014 North Dakota Medical Students Speak Out Against Measure 1 - Medical students at the University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences are asking North Dakotans to vote no on Measure 1, a personhood measure on the state ballot this fall. The students issued published a letter in the Grand Forks Herald stating that they opposed Measure 1 in part because they are against "the government's taking control of the personal health care decisions of its citizens." Nearly 60 UND School of Medicine students signed the letter, citing concerns over the "very broad and ambiguous language" used in the proposed amendment, which has no regard for serious and life-threatening medical situations such as ectopic pregnancies. Measure 1 would change the North Dakota state constitution to create an "inalienable right to life" for humans "at any stage of development" - including the moment of fertilization and conception. . . .