Sadly, we've seen this before. Failures to report the sexual abuse of children is inexcusable and in some instances a crime. Just ask Bishop Robert Finn. He was indicted on a misdemeanor charge of failing to report child sex abuse.

While Paterno tried to limit the fallout by announcing earlier on the same day he was ousted that he'd resign at the end of the football season, the college's Board of Trustees did the right thing by telling him he had to go now. When an oncologist discovers an aggressive, cancerous tumor, he acts swiftly. If possible, the cancer is excised immediately. There is no time to wait lest it metastasize.

Paterno must know in his heart that back in 2002 he should have done more. When told by a graduate assistant that Jerry Sandusky, a former defensive coordinator for Penn State, was seen sodomizing a young boy in the school's shower area, he should have not hesitated and gone straight to the police. Many media pundits have correctly used the analogy that the situation was akin to witnessing a woman being sexually assaulted on the street. Immediate and decisive action is required. Paterno chose to inform the school's athletic director instead. When questioned about it earlier this week, Paterno explained that he didn't know the extent or the nature of the incident. That strains credulity. He was told Sandusky was in the shower with a young boy. Obviously, that's inappropriate and requires immediate action.

At the end of the day, Paterno's claim that he is personally devastated isn't nearly enough. His immediate action at the time he was told may have prevented countless boys from being abused. Instead, Sandusky had another nine years in which he could continue to use his position and authority at Happy Valley to abuse and sodomize more children. That's just unacceptable. Paterno should be thankful that so far the worst that's happened to him is the loss of his job and not serious criminal charges.

Making matters worse, the current head of the Archdiocese, Cardinal Justin Rigali escaped criminal charges himself but was seriously taken to task for his role in the priest abuse scandal. In the aftermath of the most recent Grand Jury Report, Rigali attempted to assuage worried parishioners by assuring them that no priest accused of the sexual abuse of minors was currently active in a Philadelphia parish. A few weeks later, Rigali suspended 21 active priests due to sexual abuse allegations.

Even some Catholic media outlets have called for the Cardinal's resignation. Rigali is already past the standard retirement age of 75, so it wouldn't come as a huge surprise if the Pope accepts Rigali's resignation in the coming months.

Most observers believe the Catholic Church priest abuse scandal was an institutional problem that requires an institutional response. Yet, none is forthcoming.

The exhibits released as part of the deposition reveal the extent to which Goedert as second in command under former Cardinal Joseph Bernardin and present Cardinal Francis George went to hide and downplay the clergy sexual abuse of minors.

The deposition itself is an interesting read. Goedert, now retired, parses his words carefully and consistently corrects the lawyer when the attorney uses the word secret. Goedert prefers the word confidential in discussing how priest abuse allegations and the admissions of priests accused of abuse in handling the scandal. Most importantly, Goedert admits that the abuses were crimes but no one including himself ever reported these crimes to law enforcement officials. Rather, Goedert as head of priest personnel preferred to handle the matters in consultation with diocesan attorneys. The only instances in which parishioners were informed of a priest's sexual abuse history occurred after the offending priest had been charged with a crime or the media obtained the story.

It's a sad history for the Catholic Church in Chicago, no less tragic and scandalous as the history in Boston or hundreds of other cities across the country. The clerical culture fomented secrecy in dealing with abuse thus enabling scores of abusers to continue abusing and children suffering the effects of abuse.

Is this tragic history over? Unfortunately, not by a long shot. Dioceses continue to cover up, obfuscate, and downplay what has happened and in some instances, continues to happen in Catholic communities around the country.

In the United States, survivors still fight to force the Catholic Church to hand over documents revealing the names and deeds of abusers. In some places, such as Los Angeles and Bridgeport Ct, the survivors have been successful. Yet, in many other states in our country, the struggle for justice continues.

The most shocking and disturbing aspect of the revelation is that the former Catholic bishop began abusing the woman when she was 16 years old. This is just another of the many, many abuse stories that continue to pour out of countries around the world. The sexual abuse crisis is not new and shows no signs of abating in spite of what the US bishops continue to parrot. Ireland's primate has warned that the sexual abuse report that will be made public later this month will rock the Catholic Church in Ireland.

The bill, if signed into law, would give victims of sexual abuse a one-year window (similar to the legislation passed in California and Delaware) to revive lawsuits and claims against the perpetrators of sexual abuse as well as the religious institutions that abetted them.

It's premature to start declaring victory for justice and victims' rights. The Catholic Church in New York is very powerful and its lobby in Albany is well organized and prepared to fight tooth and nail. Bishop DiMarzio of Brooklyn has thus far been leading the charging against victims' rights. Brooklyn is the largest diocese (not archdiocese) in the country and DiMarzio has formidable political skills.

So, stay tuned and if you live in NY, lobby your representative and Senator to pass this important legislation.

I wonder what Pope Benedict would think of Bishop Braxton's actions? It surely doesn't seem to be the pastoral approach which Benedict called for in his April trip to the United States.

As is typical in these cases, the priest used his position of authority to gain intimate access to the young boys. He took advantage of their youth, fear, and his God-like status as a priest to sexually satisfy himself.

Once again it's going to be a fight over the internal church documents. Fortunately, courts around the country are starting to the patterns of corruption and coverup and are granting motions to compel production of these church documents.

This suit was brought in 2002 and demonstrates how the wheels of justice can turn slowly at times, but they do turn. This is a victory for all survivors whose courage and strength have uncovered one of the greatest tragedies of the last 25 years: the abuse of power in the Catholic Church.

Hence, leaving them on duty or wandering from diocese to diocese is contributing to scandal or at least to the approximate danger of scandal....We find it quite common, almost universal with the handful of men we have seen in the past five years who have been under similar charges - we find it quite universal that they seem to be lacking in appreciation of the serious situation. As a class they expect to bound back like tennis balls on the court of priestly activity. I myself would be inclined to favor laicization for any priest, upon objective evidence, for tampering with the virtue of the young, my argument being, from this point onward the charity to the Mystical Body should take precedence over charity to the individual and when a man has so far fallen away from the purpose of the priesthood the very best that should be offered him is his Mass in the seclusion of a monastery. Moreover, in practice, real conversions will be found to be extremely rare. Many bishops believe men are never free from the approximate danger once they have begun. Hence, leaving them on duty or wandering from diocese to diocese is contributing to scandal or at least to the approximate danger of scandal." (Sept. 12, 1952, ).

1957:
Fr. Fitzgerald wrote to Bishop Matthew Brady of Manchester NH on September 26, 1957:

'From our long experience with characters of this type, and without passing judgment on the individual, most of these men would be clinically classified as schizophrenic. Their repentance and amendment is superficial and, if not formally at least sub-consciously, is motivated by desire to be again in a position where they can continue their wonted activity. A new diocese means only green pastures."