Did the Catholic Church really apologize for abuse?

by blondie 24 Replies latest jw friends

blondie

Previously posted definition of a true apology.
(also response by SNAP--Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. http://www.snapnetwork.org )
Apology from California Catholic Church....does it pass the "smell" test?
When an apology is not an apologyThe linguistic field of discourse analysis offers up an extensive body of research on what makes an apology an apology, and the first and most frequently cited work in that area is John Searle's 1969 book Speech Acts. Way back in the year of this idealistic pragmatist's birth, Searle laid out the criteria a statement has to fulfill in order to qualify as an apology, and in layman's terms, we can say that it requires two parts: 1) regret (the "I'm sorry" or "I apologize" part), and 2) responsibility (some explicit statement that you were the one who did the thing that's being apologized for). The statement "I'm sorry that I borrowed your jacket without asking," for example, meets both of those criteria. There are several other conditions which will disqualify a statement as an apology if they're not also met (for example, if you don't actually regret the thing you're apologizing for, and are only saying you do in order to curry favour with the apology's recipient), but I won't even get into that here. The basic form is pretty darn basic: regret, and responsibility. They've both gotta be there, or else it's not an apology.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19777192/
L.A. cardinal apologizes for sex abuse
‘It should not have happened,’ Mahony saysThe Associated Press
Updated: 6:30 p.m. CT July 15, 2007
LOS ANGELES - Cardinal Roger Mahony, leader of the nation’s largest Roman Catholic archdiocese, apologized Sunday to the hundreds of people who will get a share of a $660 million settlement over allegations of clergy sex abuse.
“There really is no way to go back and give them that innocence that was taken from them. The one thing I wish I could give the victims ... I cannot,” he said.
“Once again, I apologize to anyone who has been offended, who has been abused. It should not have happened and should not ever happen again.”
Mahony said that he has met in the past 14 months with dozens of people alleging clergy abuse and that those meetings helped him understand the importance of a quick resolution to what he called a “terrible sin and crime.”
The settlement will not affect the archdiocese’s core ministry, Mahony said, but the church will have to sell buildings, use some of its invested funds and borrow money. The archdiocese will not sell any parish property, he said.
“We gather today because this long journey has now come to an end, and a new chapter of that journey is beginning,” Mahony told reporters.
The deal between the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles and more than 500 alleged victims of clergy sexual abuse reached late Saturday is by far the largest payout since the nationwide clergy abuse scandal emerged in 2002 in Boston.
Release of confidential files
The settlement also calls for the release of priests’ confidential personnel files after review by a judge. According to Tod Tamberg, spokesman for the archdiocese, the settlement had not required Mahony to make his public apology.
Earlier Sunday, Mahony presided over Mass at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels in downtown Los Angeles without directly addressing the settlement. The service did include a prayer for victims of clergy abuse.
Mahony and all parties are expected before a Los Angeles Superior Court judge on Monday to enter the settlement into the court record, attorneys said.
“I think for those of us who have been involved in this for more than five years, it’s a huge relief,” said Michael Hennigan, archdiocese attorney. “But it’s a disappointment, too, that we didn’t get it done much earlier than this.”
Parishioners reacted with disappointment and relief to the settlement.
Vivian Viscarra, 50, who attends Mass at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels three times a month, said the victims deserve the payout even though it could hurt the church’s ability to deliver important services. The amount would average a little more than $1.3 million per plaintiff, although individual payouts will vary according to the severity and duration of the abuse.
“I am disappointed,” Viscarra said. “And it’s making me re-evaluate my views of whether people in the ministry should be married. People do have needs.”
Chris Parra, who attends Mass every Sunday, said she couldn’t help thinking about the settlement when she shook Mahony’s hand on the way out of the cathedral.
“Even when I was standing there, shaking his hand, I was thinking about how he’s finally going to release the priests’ personnel records and I wondered to myself why didn’t he do that sooner,” she said, holding her baby, Tomas.
Parra said she was upset that her tithing would go toward paying the settlement.
“I still want my children to follow the church’s guidelines and foundation because that’s how I was raised,” she said. “But there’s still a lot of healing to be done.”
The deal settles all 508 cases that remained against the archdiocese, which also paid $60 million in December to settle 45 cases that weren’t covered by sexual abuse insurance.
Under the latest deal, the archdiocese will pay $250 million, insurance carriers will pay a combined $227 million and several religious orders will chip in $60 million. The remaining $123 million will come from litigation with religious orders that chose not to participate in the deal, with the archdiocese guaranteeing resolution of those 80 to 100 cases within five years, Hennigan said. The archdiocese is released from liability in those claims, Tamberg said.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys can expect to receive as much as 40 percent of the settlement money — or $264 million — for their work.
‘Not a magic wand’
Standing outside the cathedral, Mary Grant, spokeswoman for Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, said the settlement did not end suffering for the thousands of victims of clergy abuse.
“This is not over,” she said. “Church officials would like to think that this settlement means everything is OK. ... But this is not a magic wand.”
The settlements push the total amount paid out by the U.S. church since 1950 to more than $2 billion, with about a quarter of that coming from the Los Angeles archdiocese. A judge must sign off on the agreement.
The Los Angeles archdiocese, its insurers and various Roman Catholic orders have paid more than $114 million to settle 86 claims so far.
Several religious orders in California have also reached multimillion-dollar settlements in recent months, including the Carmelites, the Franciscans and the Jesuits.
© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19777192/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MSN Privacy . Legal
© 2007 MSNBC.com

Apologies that are not apologies. (source below)
When an apology is not an apology
The linguistic field of discourse analysis offers up an extensive body of research on what makes an apology an apology, and the first and most frequently cited work in that area is John Searle's 1969 book Speech Acts. Way back in the year of this idealistic pragmatist's birth, Searle laid out the criteria a statement has to fulfill in order to qualify as an apology, and in layman's terms, we can say that it requires two parts: 1) regret (the "I'm sorry" or "I apologize" part), and 2) responsibility (some explicit statement that you were the one who did the thing that's being apologized for). The statement "I'm sorry that I borrowed your jacket without asking," for example, meets both of those criteria. There are several other conditions which will disqualify a statement as an apology if they're not also met (for example, if you don't actually regret the thing you're apologizing for, and are only saying you do in order to curry favour with the apology's recipient), but I won't even get into that here. The basic form is pretty darn basic: regret, and responsibility. They've both gotta be there, or else it's not an apology.
Often, people will use a rhetorical trick in which they make a statement that has a lot of the superficial trappings of an apology, but without one or both of those basic criteria of form. I call these statements "fauxpologies." One classic type of fauxpology is to say something like: "I'm sorry that you're upset about me borrowing your jacket without asking." This fulfills the regret criterion, but not the responsibility criterion, since the speaker is expressing regret not for an action, but for someone else's emotion. Another classic type of fauxpology is to say something like: "I'm sorry if I borrowed your jacket without asking." The responsibility criterion is similarly missing here, since the speaker is expressing regret only if a condition is true, but weaseling out of any admission that it is true. The effect of statements like these, if used skillfully, is to make recipients feel as if they should feel apologized to, despite the fact that no actual apology ever took place. They're not apologies, but rhetorical tricks for weaseling out of taking actual responsibility.
http://idealisticpragmatist.blogspot.com/2005/06/when-apology-is-not-apology.html
Mary

Hey----it's a hell of alot better than what the Watchtower's done. At least the Catholic Church has acknowledged that the abuse went on and, yes, I would take the statements you quoted as an apology. And at the very least, the Catholic Church doesn't excommunicate the victims for speaking publically about what happened to them.
blondie

Unfortunately, SNAP, does not agree that it is an apology. I don't think it is an apology but are weasel words where no one takes responsibility for what they have done. This man may not have abused anyone himself, but he and others like him in the Catholic Church have blocked all the efforts of the victims to get reparations for some time. Their apologies are false ones. It is enlightening to read the SNAP site and have attended some of their conferences. The fight is not over just because the Catholic Church has "admitted" there are abuse cases. How much money has actually made it to the hands of the victims? How many are still branded and refused communion at their local churches? How many are shunned by family and friends because they embarrassed the church? How many have received personal apologies from their abusers, direct abusers or indirect abusers like the ones that have tried to block SNAP efforts?
You can rest assured, that this is a victory for SNAP and every group fighting religions that block and revictimize those abused.
Blondie
AK - Jeff

IMHO, apologies are not enough. Most of the time, apologies by an organization are not particularly honest. Likely that includes this matter also.
Money is not the answer, though the often sought after 'proof' of wrongfulness committed. Reform, and transparency are strong indications of change and, if such a thing exists, institutional regretfulness over wrongs committed within.
I believe the Catholics have attempted to look like they are sorry. I am sure many of the Catholic hierarchy are truly pained at heart for the actions of it's elite. But an organization seeks to promote the organization primarily, and the individual who seeks to weaken it, is generally not accepted as heroic on any level by the management.
Jw's on the other hand, turn a blind eye at the R&F level - which is dispicable in my mind - and play false to it's claimed moral structure at the top - which is unpardonable. If God was really with them - as they say - who could be against them? So, they should admit the problem, settle the lawsuits, go bankrupt and fade into oblivion! If God is truly with them, they will still be around to announce it. Of course they would have to do it in the way they claim that Jesus did it - in sandals and walking - since there will be no more money left to keep the organization together.
So it's a matter of morals or money - which do you think the self-righteous GB will choose?
Jeff
Mary

I read the article again Blondie and you know what? You're right. I think because I've been so thoroughly disgusted with what the Organization has done regarding their pedophile problem, their refusal to admit they have a problem, that their actions were criminal, their DFing the victims instead of the perpretrators and their refusal to publically apologize, that anything resembling an apology from the Catholic Church for their own crimes, seems welcome.
blondie

Sorry, Mary, but too many xjws concentrate on the WTS in child abuse and miss the big picture.
I guess this topic is dead, but I just watched Larry King Live's first segment on this and it was perfectly illustrated by the Jesuit priest how the Catholic Church turns the problem around and blames the victims. David Clohessy, one of the heads of SNAP, turned it back around on the Catholic Church showing that while abuse has been around for a long time, the church's concealing of it and returning offenders to the companyof children was the real problem. It would be worth a look later tonight when CNN re-runs Larry King's segment.
If SNAP's work gets the laws changed, all children abused by religious leaders, and authority figures, will benefit, including those abused by the WTS. And they are getting the reporting laws changed and the statutes of limitations so we all benefit.
Ask how much has the church really paid out? Have they apologized directly to the individuals they have hurt or are they still shunned by family and fellow Catholics? What about the ones that committed suicide, a mortal sin per the RCC? What is their future? Going to my first SNAP conference was more than educational it was eye-opening about the people out there fighting just like we are against a religious monolith that has more money and power, seemingly, that we do. It would be good to see what SNAP does to achieve their goals and why they have been so successful in making this public. Of course, the RCC opened the door to disclosure by making statements of cooperation that the WTS has never made. They have learned their lesson, to CALL LEGAL, CALL LEGAL, CALL LEGAL. None of this pray to God crap.
Well, I'm sorry more haven't seen that the RCC is just doing an end run around the problem. They don't want to be in court explaining why these individuals in charge covered up. Wasn't it the Walsh trial that revealed the insanity of the WTS thinking? Yet, it has faded into relative obscurity in regards to active jws. What would a trial today of the leaders in the RCC or the WTS point up in regards to reality?
Blondie
blondie

Victims speak out re abuse and "apology"
'You Can't Put a Dollar Sign' on TraumaVictims of Abuse By Clergy Speak About L.A. Payout
By Paul Lewis
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 16, 2007; A03
Those alleging sexual abuse by clergy members in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles said yesterday that the record $660 million settlement from the church will go only part of the way toward healing their wounds.
Cardinal Roger M. Mahony, the archbishop of the nation's largest diocese, offered an apology for the abuses, saying yesterday, "It should not have happened and should not ever happen again."
Many victims said they welcomed his words, even as they expressed doubt about whether his regret was sincere.
"It's been such a long journey that, for many of us, [the apology] is just lip service," said Carlos Perez-Carrillo. "I'm not saying it's not genuine. I'm asking: How genuine is it when you're in my shoes?"
Perez-Carrillo, 41, said the combined settlement is "an important step that does bring healing." But he added: "You can't put a dollar sign on a lost childhood and a long life of trauma. There's no way to go back and regain what you've lost."
The apology came a day after the archdiocese, its insurers and several Roman Catholic religious orders agreed to pay an average of $1.3 million to each of the 508 alleged victims to settle their claims, rather than go to trial. The archdiocese also agreed to release confidential files that disclose how the church relocated abusive clergy.
The settlement, which will be formally announced before a Los Angeles judge today, means more than Mahony's apology in terms of vindicating victims' grievances, said David Clohessy, national director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests.
"The validation of a settlement -- a formal, clear acknowledgment that terrible crimes happened and could have been prevented -- that means far more to victims than just flowery words," Clohessy said.
"Many, many survivors have shown great patience and tenacity. They stuck their necks out, they reported terrible crimes, they took action, and they exposed predators. . . . But by the same token, some survivors clearly wanted their day in court to further expose the duplicity of the hierarchy. That won't happen."
Clohessy said most of the thousands of victims in touch with the survivors network are unwilling to speak publicly about their ordeals or the weekend's developments.
Mahony's apology, which was not part of the settlement, was made at Los Angeles's Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels, where he presided over the Mass earlier in the day.
"Over the past year, it has been my privilege and grace to meet with many, many victims, one by one . . . and during this time I have come to understand far more deeply than I ever could the impact of this terrible sin and crime that has affected their lives," Mahony said.
"So many of the victims told me in various ways that . . . there really is no way to go back and give them that innocence that was taken from them. It is the one part of the settlement process that I find the most frustrating, because the one thing I wish I could give the victims, I cannot."
Paul Livingston, 40, a plaintiff who claims he was molested repeatedly between 1973 and 1974, dismissed the cardinal's words. "He's apologized, he's made good with money, and this man hasn't seen a day in jail. Why is that? Where are the government officials who are supposed to regulate this stuff? He's apologized before. . . . For years he's been mouthing words," Livingston said.
Raymond Boucher, lead attorney for the victims, said, "Some of the victims clearly have lost all faith in the church and any representatives of the church, including the cardinal." He continued, "Some will find it to be a hollow gesture -- others will take it as a first step in an attempt to achieve reconciliation and healing."
Boucher added that he expects that Mahony will offer personal written apologies to each plaintiff in the coming weeks, with letters tailored to each individual's case, as the cardinal did with the 45 cases settled with a $60 million payout in December.
Mahony said that the archdiocese will have to sell some properties to help fund its share of the settlement and that some of its ministries and services will be impacted. But no parish properties or schools will be affected, he said.
No one from the archdiocese responded yesterday to telephone messages requesting a response to the victims' comments. But Mahony himself has acknowledged a limit to apologies.
"Apologies are vitally necessary," he wrote in a 2004 report on clergy sexual abuse in the Los Angeles Archdiocese, "but of themselves, are insufficient."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/15/AR2007071501384.html

blondie

http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_6384406

Mahony `sorry'

Religion: Cardinal apologizes to victims of clergy sexual abuse at news conference.

By Susan Abram, Staff writer
Long Beach Press Telegram

Article Launched:

Calling sexual abuse by clergy a "terrible sin and crime," Cardinal Roger Mahony apologized Sunday to hundreds of people who claim they were molested by priests in the nation's largest archdiocese.

The apology came during a news conference following Sunday Mass and a day after the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles agreed to pay a record $660 million in a settlement with 508 victims.

"There really is no way to go back and give them that innocence that was taken from them," Mahony said. "The one thing I wish I could give the victims ... I cannot.

"Once again, I apologize to anyone who has been offended, who has been abused. It should not have happened and it will not happen again."

Mahony said he has met with dozens of victims of clergy abuse in the past 14 months and those meetings helped him understand the importance of a quick resolution to the lawsuits.

The Cardinal is scheduled to be in court this morning to go over the final settlement. He said the church's decision to settle on the eve of the trials - which were set to begin today - had nothing to do with keeping him from testifying.

"My own testifying would not have been a problem," he said.

Mahony said the settlement will not have an impact on the archdiocese's core ministry, but said the church will have to sell buildings, use some of its invested funds and borrow money. He said the archdiocese will not sell any parish property.

Those claiming to be victims of the abuse have said the settlement was unsatisfying because they wanted their day in court. They also wanted a more sincere apology from Mahony, who they say helped transfer molesters from parish to parish and shield others.

"It's hard to take his apology seriously," said David Clohessy, National Director for the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, or SNAP.

"There's such a disconnect between his words and his deeds."

Addressing their accusations, Mahony said that if he had known then what he knew now, he would have made different decisions.

"I made mistakes," he said. "I wish I had known when we sent priests to treatment programs, they (those programs) didn't work."

Standing outside the cathedral, Mary Grant, a spokeswoman for SNAP, said the settlement did not end suffering for the thousands of victims of clergy abuse.

"This is not over," she said. "Church officials would like to think that this settlement means everything is OK ... but this is not a magic wand."

"This is a giant step, but there are people who want to go to court, to face the priest that abused them," said Carlos Perez-Carrillo, a 41-year-old Sylmar resident who said he was sexually abused by a priest in a parish in Playa del Rey.

"There's no amount of money that's going to return my childhood," Perez-Carrillo said. "There's been years of psychological damage. It's been a long road."

Mahony did not address the record settlement during his Mass Sunday, but during the intercessions asked that prayers be directed toward the sexual abuse victims.

The church also posted photos of children abused by priests in a chapel where parishioners could kneel and pray for them.

Most parishioners attending Sunday Mass at the city's cathedral reacted with sympathy for the victims, but opposed the settlement.

Los Angeles resident Sulvia Villeda, 25, said priests were being singled out for harsher treatment than other child molesters.

"The damage is done. The money is not going to fix anything," Villeda said.

Vivian Viscarra, 50, who attends Mass at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels three times a month, said the victims deserve the payout, even though it could hurt the church's ability to deliver important services. The amount would average a little more than $1.3 million per plaintiff.

"I am disappointed," Viscarra said. "And it's making me re-evaluate my views of whether people in the ministry should be married. People do have needs."

The deal was reached Saturday, said Ray Boucher, the lead plaintiff's attorney. It is by far the largest payout in the church's sexual abuse scandal.

Still, some parishioners like John Torres, who was visiting from New Mexico, blamed the victims for drawing negative attention to the church.

"I don't believe they should give anybody money," Torres said, adding that the victims, not the church, should be praying for forgiveness. "They are part of what is making this a nuisance."

Archdiocese attorney Michael Hennigan said he was glad an agreement had finally been reached.

"I think for those of us who have been involved in this for more than five years, it's a huge relief," he said. "But it's a disappointment, too, that we didn't get it done much earlier than this."

The settlement also calls for the release of confidential priest personnel files after review by a judge assigned to oversee the litigation, Boucher said. He said the documents could show whether archdiocese leaders were involved in covering up for abusive priests.

Chris Barra, 40, attends Mass every Sunday, said she couldn't help thinking about the settlement when she shook Mahony's hand on the way out of the cathedral.

"Even when I was standing there, shaking his hand, I was thinking about how he's finally going to release the priests' personnel records and I wondered to myself why didn't he do that sooner," she said, holding her baby, Tomas.

Barra said she was upset that her tithing would go toward paying the settlement.

"I still want my children to follow the church's guidelines and foundation because that's how I was raised," she said. "But there's still a lot of healing to be done."

The settlements push the total amount paid out by the U.S. church since 1950 to more than $2 billion, with about a quarter of that coming from the Los Angeles archdiocese. A judge must still sign off on the agreement.

The Los Angeles archdiocese, its insurers and various Roman Catholic orders have already paid more than $114 million to settle 86 claims.

Several religious orders in California have also reached multimillion-dollar settlements in recent months, including the Carmelites, the Franciscans and the Jesuits.

However, 508 other lawsuits against the archdiocese had remained unresolved despite years of legal wrangling. Most of the outstanding lawsuits were filed after a 2002 state law that revoked the statute of limitations for reporting sexual abuse, opening a one-year window to file suits.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Mulan

Here is something you might enjoy reading: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0707/16/lkl.01.html
It is the transcript of this subject being discussed on Larry King Live last night.
Here is some exerpts:
CARDINAL ROGER MAHONY, LOS ANGELES ARCHDIOCESE: I apologize to anyone who has been offended, who has been abused in the Catholic Church by priests, by deacons, religious men and women, or lay people in the church. It should not have happened and should not ever happen again.

KING: Before we get back, here's a statement released today by Cardinal Roger Mahony: "I wish to express my gratitude to all of those who participated in today's settlement meeting in Judge Haley Fromholz's courtroom. I again extend my personal apology to the victims, who suffered sexual abuse by clergy and repeat again my steadfast commitment to continuing all of the abuse prevention programs and policies currently in force in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles.

As Chief Shepherd of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, I also will continue to meet with any victim of abuse who wishes to meet privately with me. I'm very aware that this day in particular is a day for the victims to speak, so I'll refrain from further comment beyond the remarks I made yesterday during my press conference at the cathedral. I will spend the reminder of today in prayer for the victims."
I'm not defending them at all, but he did apologize. I watched this show, and it was powerful. A really good point was made here:
KING: Father Reese, are you embarrassed by all of this?

REV. THOMAS REESE, S.J. SENIOR FELLOW, WOODSTOCK THEOLOGICAL CENTER, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Oh, I am -- I'm in -- I'm angry. And I'm very sad for what happened to the victims. This has been a disaster for the victims. These kids have been scarred for life. The church needs to really apologize again and again for what happened. And we need to do everything possible to reach out and try and heal them, to try to help them in any way we can.

KING: As a Jesuit, father, you're the teaching arm of the church, right?

REESE: Well, we do have a lot of schools and universities in the United States. That's true.

KING: How well are they trained to -- so they can pick out the potential problems a priest might have and not let them be a priest?

REESE: This is a real problem. I think we were probably doing better at it. But, you know, your -- our companion here, Anna, can help us more on that. The difficulty of giving a psychological exam to someone and then predicting that they're going to be an abuser is very, very difficult.

I think we have to be on guard constantly. We have to train kids to -- to be sensitive by these things and to talk to their parents when anyone touches them inappropriately.

We have -- we have an epidemic of sexual abuse in the United States, you know, over 100,000 cases of sexual abuse in the United States. You know, this is not just a problem in the church. It's a problem in our schools, in our families, that we really, as a nation, have to be aware of and do something about.

Hopefully, one result of this crisis in the church will be that the church can become part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

KING: David is shaking his head.

CLOHESSY: Well, of course, abuse happens everywhere. But it's in the church context where the molesters continue to be recycled and the cover-up is the most extensive. And that's the real problem. There always have been and always will be pedophiles in teaching, coaching, the ministry.

The problem is not with training the kids, screening the volunteers. The problem is the men at the top continuing to cover it up.

KING: It's an organized cover-up.

CLOHESSY: Absolutely.

KING: It's an organized --

CLOHESSY: Which continues today.

KING: We found that true.
Isn't it true?

BOUCHER: Absolutely. I mean the records are very clear that this was an organized cover-up and these -- this church knew it for many, many years.And, you know, one thing very few people understand is that in 1948 an organization known as the Servants of the Paracletes were organized. It's a religious order. And they were organized specifically to deal with pedophile priests.

And since 1948, they have been putting out studies to the cardinals and bishops around the world saying very clearly that you can't put these priests back into ministry. You can't put them near kids. And so they have known this for decades. It is the civil justice system and the threat of jury trials and the courage of these young men that finally has brought the Catholic Church to the position where it has to admit that it has failed and failed miserably and that it needs to take significant steps, and that it's not taking enough steps.

KING: By the way, did the pope sign off on the settlement?

I'm assuming he would, right?

It's that much money.

BOUCHER: Absolutely. The Vatican signed off on this resolution.
Junction-Guy

I saw the apology on CNN and mom and I both agreed that you will never see the WT Society make an apology such as that.

I dont know the Catholic mindset, but from what I saw it was at least an attempt at an apology, something much more than the WT Society has ever done.

Did the Catholic Church really apologize for abuse?

Share this