Do you see any similiarity between these headlines?
Awake of 91:
SHIELDING PEDOPHILE PRIESTS?
"Some dioceses still shield priests accused of pedophilia," ran a recent headline in the U.S. newspaper National Catholic Reporter. The newspaper interviewed Jeffrey Anderson, a lawyer who specializes in cases of sexual abuse. He estimates that since 1985, when priestly pedophilia came under increased public scrutiny, there have been over a thousand cases in which priests molested children. Anderson had some harsh words for the church's response to the ongoing crisis: "It is a continuing saga of avoiding responsibility," he charges, decrying the church's focus on protecting the accused clerics. "As a general rule, the institutional response of the church has been willfully inadequate both in tending to victims and dealing with risks." --AWAKE 8/22/91 p.29
____________________________________________________________________
LOUISVILLE PAPER 8-7-01:
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES SHIELD SEXUAL ABUSERS, SUIT CLAIMS
By Peter Smith The Courier-Journal
The Jehovah's Witnesses church has shielded sexual predators from the law and humiliated their victims, according to a lawsuit expected to be filed today that challenges the church's policy on sexual molestation.
But attorney Jeffrey Anderson, who will file the Berrys' suit, alleged the Jehovah's Witnesses have a ''rigid patriarchal hierarchy that seems to believe it can operate above the law. ''This church is free to believe whatever they want, but this is about doing harm to children (and) giving sanctuary to pedophiles,'' said Anderson of St. Paul, Minn., whose firm has successfully sued the Roman Catholic Church and other religious organizations in cases of clergy sexual abuse nationwide.
____________________________________________________________________
Do you think the above blurb will make it to "watching the world"?
Its kind of funny when the shoe is on the other foot. Do you think the catholic magazines will run anything about the witnesses having the same problem as they have had in the past? Perhaps they would consider it unchristain to do so.