Giuliani Defends, Employs Priest Accused of Molesting Teens

Source: ABC News Blotter

Presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani hired a Catholic priest to work in his consulting firm months after the priest was accused of sexually molesting two former students and an altar boy and told by the church to stop performing his priestly duties.

The priest, Monsignor Alan Placa, a longtime friend of Giuliani and the priest who officiated at his second wedding to Donna Hanover, continues to work at Giuliani Partners in New York, to the outrage of some of his accusers and victims' groups, which have begun to protest at Giuliani campaign events.

"This man did unjust things, and he's being protected and employed and taken care of. It's not a good thing," said one of the accusers, Richard Tollner, who says Placa molested him repeatedly when he was a student at a Long Island, N.Y. Catholic boys high school in 1975.

At a campaign appearance in Milwaukee last week, Giuliani continued to defend Placa, who he described to reporters as a close friend for 39 years.

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3753385&page=1

so a priest can work for a pro-choice pro gay GOP candidate..just not a democrat...

I.e. "told by the church to stop performing his priestly duties." That is as far as the Church can go, given that private organization can NOT jail they employees in this country. Now under Canon law once a Priest always a Priest. A priest can be De-flocked and forbidden to wear the Collar AND perform the mass (and even Ex-communicated), but he technically stays a Priest.

My point is this priest is no longer under the Jurisdiction of the Catholic Church. Under Church Doctrine he remains a Priest, but there is little more the Church can do. The Church has Published the fact the Priest can NO LONGER PERFORM ANY PRIEST'S FUNCTIONS, and is no longer has any function within the church. What he does at that point is up to him.

so that a priest is no longer a priest after they are defrock or excommunicated?

If the Catholic vote wasn't already in the tank ("I Wed Three Wives, One of Whom Was My Cousin"), this should do it...

:rofl:

Doesn't that kind of go against the teachings of the church?

Nice to see the old double standard is alive and well in the good ole U S of A.

:sarcasm:

That's a valid excuse for tossing the poor gal over the side. What a sport, eh?

He wanted to SPREAD HIS SEED, doncha know!! So he picked himself out a nice looking horse woman, to counterbalance his own genetic shortcomings (kinda like the royal family does) and he was off to the races!!! That's the way he looked at #2, as breeding stock...and then he cheated on her like a madman, finally settling down with Tiara Judy.

forbid marriage between second cousins. Therefore it was a legitimate marriage, however much Rudy suggests otherwise. Not bearing children is also not grounds for an annulment, as Henry VIII found out.

She didn't KNOW she was infertile, HE didn't know she was infertile, or she knew and she didn't TELL him she was infertile--you can find a canon that fits. Easily. They've made it much easier since Henry VIII--guess they didn't want any more royals starting their own religions...!!!

Cross that priestly palm with silver, and you're off to the races. I've seen people get annulments for MUCH less. Ted Kennedy got one, despite a boatload of kids, because Joan wouldn't get off the sauce. John Kerry and his first wife got one using the "disease" argument, too.
http://landru.i-link-2.net/shnyves/grounds_annul.htm

The grounds given below can give you an idea of what the church will be looking at. They do not give a full explanation of how the canons apply. If you wish to marry in the catholic church but there is a prior marriage, call the nearest parish and ask for an appointment with the person who handles marriage cases. This is usually one of the priests. You will need your marriage and divorce records, and a current baptismal certificate. In most dioceses the person who will interview you, your advocate, will ask you to give a detailed account of what happened. This information is held in confidence, but is not under seal like a confession. He will write a report to be sent in with your other papers suggesting to the tribunal why you should receive a declaration of nullity. Often there will be additional paperwork or an interview with a psychological counselor. Your former spouse will be notified, and you will be asked for the names of witnesses who can give information about the marriage. There will be some cost which will vary among the dioceses. It may be possible to ask for a reduction. No marriage can be scheduled until the declaration of nullity is granted.



Error about a quality of a person (Canon 1097, sec. 2)
You or your spouse intended to marry someone who either possessed or did not possess a certain quality, e.g., social status, marital status, education, religious conviction, freedom from disease, or arrest record. That quality must have been directly and principally intended.


Fraud (Canon 1098)
You or your spouse was intentionally deceived about the presence or absence of a quality in the other. The reason for this deception was to obtain consent to marriage.

Willful exclusion of children (Canon 1101, sec. 2)
You or your spouse married intending, either explicitly or implicitly, to deny the other's right to sexual acts open to procreation.

All I can think of is her cancer, but that seems so heartless on his part...

There was no rancor or protestations. She was mentally ill--bipolar, I think. She was also close to PHOBIC about the campaign trail. She just couldn't handle it or do well on it, even in easy venues. She was the opposite of an asset, if you know what I mean.

Unless someone has concealed something, I find it outrageous that an annulment would be granted based on an illness, mental or otherwise. If a person is mentally ill, may not be capable of consenting to the dissolution of their marriage.

She was marrying a politician, she knew it, and she knew he had ambitions well beyond being the Congressman from District 5 (a race he lost--she sure didn't help--his sister and brother had to pull double duty). She just didn't like the life, she didn't want to participate, when he went back to law school, that was one thing, but when he wanted to keep on with the political ambitions, well, they parted.

No 'fault.' It just didn't work out. She was the one with the cash (she's very wealthy) and she was the one who moved away, out of state. He didn't object. It happens sometimes.

That's what I am objecting to. I do not have a problem with the Catholic Church taking the position that divorced people cannot remarry. I do not agree with it but it is a legitimate position that has some scriptural support (actually more support in the sense that Jesus is quoted on it than the church position on homosexuality). So my quarrel is with playing the semantics game. If the Church is ok with second cousin marriages, then one can't turn around and say a second cousin marriage is grounds for an annulment. And getting sick, mentally or otherwise, is not grounds either - nor is not wanting to participate in a political campaign. They got divorced and no kind of tortured ecclesiastical reasoning can turn it into an annulment.

They distinguish between the "I'm sick of you, don't like your casserole, I'm screwing the secretary or pool boy" type divorces, and divorces that result from these "errors"--sure, the result may be the same, but they don't see it that way.

The SECOND COUSIN aspect was NOT the grounds for annulment. She got the toss because they married so Rudy could have KIDS, make more Catholics, and she couldn't produce. That's the stated reason, anyway. She agreed to it (probably got a decent payday, too) otherwise, it would not have happened.

You can call it divorce to your heart's content. Rome won't agree with you though.

she refuses to do the dirty with Rudy - or secretly uses contraceptives. Otherwise, in the words of the Church (I just went to a Catholic wedding so the words are still in my feeble brain), "children are to be welcomed into the marriage as a gift from God." Now the flipside of that is that if God chooses not to give the gift of children to the happy couple - that is his right. He is God, after all. So annulling the marriage for that reason would be going against God, no?

And that's all she'd have to say to the investigating authority. POOF, annulment time!

to die first of course. Bummer. He may have to settle for being a 9/11 "hero" if he doesn't make POTUS.

I guess I always thought they had been young and in love but there was not lots of money involved until Teresa.

I don't feel so good about this...

The rightwing already went after him for this shit. It's old news. Stop feeling bad.

He had name and fame, she had money. It's not uncommon. He moved in a slightly more rarified air because he was famous, and so did she, because she was rich.

Remember, he was head of VVAW and after the Congressional testimony, was a very popular guest on the Dick Cavett show and other venues in his charmed and Brahmin-accented youth. He was a catch, an item, a CELEBRITY, a lad who was GOING PLACES, with the added cachet of being a TRUE Democrat, since he was a Nixon Enemy. She was young, lovely, rich, and at one time, not angst-ridden.

It's not like he had nothing to bring to the table back in those days--and he didn't come from poverty, either, he just didn't come from 'big money.'

It produced a couple of great kids, so it wasn't a waste.

Regina S. Peruggi (born c. 1947<1>) is an American educator, who is the President of Kingsborough Community College, the first woman to hold that position in the college’s 40-year history.<2> She is also known as the first wife of Rudy Giuliani, who would subsequently become Mayor of New York and a U.S. presidential candidate. <3>

Peruggi grew up in a middle class family in The Bronx<4> in New York City.<5> She attended Roman Catholic parochial schools.<4> She gained a Bachelor of Arts in sociology from the College of New Rochelle in 1967.<5><4>

She married Rudy Giuliani, who is her second cousin once removed and whom she had known since childhood, on October 26, 1968 in a large Roman Catholic ceremony in Bedford Park, The Bronx.<3> She started her career as a drug abuse counselor in a state jail.<5><6> She worked as a teacher at the elementary school, college, and graduate school levels.<5> In 1974 she joined York College of The City University of New York,<5> then moved to Washington, D.C. with Giuliani and worked as a coordinator at the Psychiatric Institute of Washington.<7> The couple returned to New York in 1977, but had become separated to some degree.<8><9> Then around 1980 she went back to school,<10> and then earned an Master of Business Administration from New York University.<5> Giuliani filed for legal separation from Peruggi on August 12, 1982;<8> a civil divorce was issued by the end of the year.<4> A Roman Catholic Church annulment of the Giuliani-Peruggi marriage was granted at the end of 1983<8> on the grounds that they had not obtained a church dispensation for second cousins once removed to marry;<11> Giuliani later said he had believed they were third cousins.<12> The two had no children.

more…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regina_Peruggi

Her name I believe was Julia Thorne.

And even the Vatican has complained of this. The purpose of the Annulment rules was to acknowledge people do make mistakes. If the mistake is true, why should the person who made the mistake be forbidden access to the church? Given that God is All Forgiving, so must be the Church, IF SOMEONE IS TRULY SORRY FOR HIS OR HER ACT. Thus the requirement for a meeting with the Chancellor (A position held by a Priest within the Diocese) to make sure that is the case. IF the Chancellor agrees with the proposed annulments, it is sent to Rome where it is approved (Rome almost NEVER reject an annulment, relying on the Chancellor to filter any false claims).

Thus the rules you cite are often used to show a justification for an annulment. Annulments are NOT automatic, but if the Chancellor supports one, you are almost sure to get one. In Europe the Chancellors are less willing to approve an annulments, so Europeans who want one often travel to the US and get one. More a difference as to what someone should know when they marry then any source of Cash.

hears the tinkle of a cash register bell...

I met a woman a few months ago who was married to a man who isolated her from her friends and family, and beat her almost to death. When she tried to remarry in the Catholic church (have the first marriage annulled), they refused to do so without contacting this very dangerous guy, thereby revealing her location to him. No amount of medical/psychiatric input would move them. She was legitimately terrified of having any contact with him; it had taken her years of therapy to overcome the psychological scars.

She is now a happy Episcopalian.

I was born into the Catholic faith, and I will die a happy Buddhist.

The only option left, if there isn't an agreement by both parties, is to switch religions or wait for the bastard to die.

It's in that link...

My brother in law's uncle is an ex-priest, married, has a regular job -- but he officiated at the non-church wedding of my sister and BIL. He has the license, it's all legal, and it was a lovely wedding.

My sister, a non-Catholic, married into a large Catholic family but she and her husband agreed beforehand they were not raising any kids they had in the Church, so having her convert was a non-issue. At my suggestion they looked into the Unitarians about the time they had kids, and have found a spiritual home there.

Hekate

If this story has "legs" it could sink Rudy.

It's been brought up several times before and gotten little attention, fading rapidly except among democratic activists. It might be a little different when the great unwashed starts paying more attention.

biting a politician in the ass at an inoppurtune time - like when it looks as if he is going to get the nomination, for example - better yet, after he has the nomination locked up.

Really, none of them are world beaters, are they--I can see the "Catholic vote" being split six ways to Sunday.

Rudy, Three Wives, and now this.

McCain, Two wives, whoremaster between the two (probably the best of the bunch from their viewpoint)

Fred Thompson, two marriages, and a shit load of 'partners' out there who might talk.

Mitt the Shitt Romney, who, per the Hierarchy, is a member of a cultish religion that DARES to call themselves SAINTS, and wears funny underwear--they won't have that. Especially after the lousy job he did in Massachusetts!! Fool me once, and all that!

Hell, at this point, Huckabee is probably looking "not so bad" to them!!!! At least he's pleasant and isn't too didactic about religious matters!

And, shades of past elections, he's the one, I think, who, as governor, insisted on allowing a convicted rapist out of prison, whereupon the miscreant promptly raped and murdered another victim.

Romney's genteel appearance on the stump masks an overwhelming, shocking even, arrogance. He's going through the motions.

Oh, well, it doesn't take much to fool "conservatives."

used to be a fatboy, and he lost weight (message--you can, too!!! And I liked sweets and snacks, just like everyone else!!!) and he's the King of 'disagreeing without being disagreeable.' He's one of those "Awwww, shucks...let's have some lemonade and move on to a more pleasant topic!" types.

Romney is actually BUYING straw poll delegates to create his buzz--I think his entire candidacy is a shell of cash, liberally dispensed. What a fucking hambone!!!

He'll probably do well in NH, though--he spent more time there than he did in MA when he was governor of my state!!!

I agree with your thesis that they're easily fooled. I can't wait to see which fool they pick in the early contests...!

Nothing worse than a child molester. But of course, IOKIYAAR.

I really have to wonder what Rush Limbaugh (Jeff Christie) was doing in the Dominican Republic with all that viagra.

I mean, Al Gore flubbed the identity of the FEMA official he visited a disaster area with in Texas, and became "Mr. Serial Exaggerator." Meanwhile, Giuliani hires and defends creep after creep, yet there doesn't seem to be any similar commentary from the media that Rudy likes to hire felons, molesters and other assorted scumbags. Such odd behavior from our liberal media.

The Church must have had SOME evidence or they wouldn't have forbidden him doing his priestly duties.

Lookin' good, Rudy!

In fact the Vatican when the Vatican Approved the rules Question them as to the rights of Accused Priests (The Vatican had concerns as to Due Process if the accusation is false, made comments to that affect, but approved the rules nonetheless). These Rules REQUIRE suspension of any accused Priest until they is evidence one way or another. The Vatican Concern was a false accusation would sideline a Priest as fast as any valid Accusation. These rules Should reduce the number of claims against the Catholic Church (and appears to have done so) by making sure accused Priests are kept away from Children. Since most victim are 10 years old or older and most states have four years statute of limitations (But these do not start to run till the child turns 18) for any lawsuits, these rules should lead to a drop in lawsuits (and apparently have, most of the lawsuits you hear about today go back to the early 1990s and were filed before the victims turned 22, i.e. four years after the potential victims turned 18).

My point is the Priest may or may not have molested the alleged victims. The accusation is enough to kick in the suspension under these rules. The fact that during his suspension he decided to work for Rudy is more a comment abut Rudy then anything else.

PLEASE SEND THIS TO LETTERMAN, LENO, COBERT, ETC...
IT CAN GET LEGS IF WE KICK IT....

10 REASONS RUDY SHOULD KEEP ALAN PLACA ON HIS TEAM....

10) WON'T EVER GET CAUGHT MAKING A PASS AT MRS G
9) A DIRECT LINE TO THE GOP GOD OF YOUNG BOYS
8) ENTERTAINING GAMES OF PULL MY BELT WHILE ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL
7) GOING FOR THE BOY-TOY VOTE
6) TAKES THE FOCUS OFF OF RUDY'S OTHER FAULTS
5) GET A FREE MARRIAGE CEREMONY WITH EVERY THREE PURCHASED
4) CHANGE THE FIRM NAME TO DEWEY SCREWEM AND HOWE?
3) OBVIOUSLY QUALIFIES AS A REPUBLICAN IN WIDE STANDING
2) IS THAT A WAFER IN YOUR MOUTH OR YOU JUST GLAD TO SEE ME
1) SOMEONE ON HIS TEAM TO CHECK OUT THE MEN'S ROOM AT THE 2008 GOP CONVENTION IN MINNEAPOLIS AIRPORT

with stuff like this, Bernie K., the wives, the kids, Donald Trump nuzzling him in his drag costume, etc., etc., etc.? If he's the candidate, the ads will write themselves.

amazing what desperation will bring about when your party is in the crapper.

He's mistaken, but he stays in such protected venues that this thesis has never really been challenged. He's believing his own publicity, in essence.

I can seem him getting their nom, then saying something so callous in the debates that it will seal the deal for our candidate.

it sounds like the family tree has more than hubris:

Mr. Giuliani was responding to ''Rudy! An Investigative Biography of Rudolph Giuliani'' by Wayne Barrett, an investigative reporter at The Village Voice. In the book, to be released next week, Mr. Barrett writes that Mr. Giuliani's father, Harold, spent a year and a half in Sing Sing prison for armed robbery, and provided documents this week to substantiate the findings.

Mr. Barrett, citing an unnamed family friend, also writes that Mr. Giuliani's father was for a time a bat-wielding enforcer of a loansharking and gambling operation run by his brother-in-law Leo D'Avanzo, who was Mr. Giuliani's uncle. In addition, Mr. Barrett cites F.B.I. documents to assert that Mr. Giuliani's first cousin, Lewis D'Avanzo, was a ''ruthless and widely feared mob associate in charge of a massive stolen car ring,'' who was killed by F.B.I. agents in Brooklyn in 1977

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE7DA1638F934A35754C0A9669C8B63&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/O/Organized%20Crime

But I guess that "enforcer" attitude IS hereditary.

I know the guy made his bones working as an anti-mafia AG, but I always held the impression that he was the flip side of the same brutal and bullying coin. I imagine there are more than a few black residents of NYC who might agree with me, too...!

Brilliant catch and refresh, that article, BTW. It's PRE-Nahn Wun Wun, but it deserves to be spotlighted again. It certainly explains where the push and shove, tough guy, my way or the highway demeanor comes from, if nothing else.

Placa served as a lawyer for the diocese in dealing with allegations of abuse against other priests and, according to the grand jury report, claimed he had saved the church hundreds of thousands of dollars in his handling of possible litigation.

Lawyers for alleged victims say Placa would often conduct interviews, in his priest garb, without making it clear he was the church lawyer.

"He was a wolf in sheep's clothing," said Melanie Little, a lawyer for several alleged victims of sexual abuse by other priests in the diocese.

"He was more concerned with protecting the priests, protecting the reputation of the diocese and protecting the church coffers than he was protecting the children," said Little.

during the National Anthem?!?!




:sarcasm: