The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Gingrich the Defense Weakling

By on 1.25.12 @ 5:47PM

In his diaries, Ronald Reagan wrote that Newt Gingrich “would cripple our defense program.” Elliott Abrams, key Reagan lieutenant on defense and foreign policy, writes that “Gingrich was voluble and certain in predicting that Reagan’s policies would fail, and in all of this he was dead wrong.” (Gingrich did, however, propose to bust the budget by increasing the spending at the State Department — not exactly a bastion of conservatism — by an astonishing 50 percent!)

Of course, Gingrich’s anti-Reaganism was nothing new. Back in 1968 he had helped run the southern effort in favor of Nelson Rockefeller to block Reagan’s late bid for the GOP nomination.

View all comments (68) |

Interested conservative| 1.25.12 @ 6:27PM

"Of course, Gingrich's anti-Reaganism was nothing new. Back in 1968 he had helped run the southern effort in favor of Nelson Rockefeller to block Reagan's late bid for the GOP nomination."

I thought he supported Rocky due to civil rights issues?

Is there any evidence of anti-Reaganism, as opposed to select policy disagreements? Did he support Ford in 1976 or 1980? That would seem telling.

Hobbes| 1.25.12 @ 10:18PM

When Obama landslides Newt in the general election, conservatives may finally realize the "let's invade everyone" NeoCons have destroyed the GOP, and get back to traditional conservatism. Just kidding. They will never learn.

SpiralArchitect| 1.25.12 @ 6:38PM

Nap time, Quinnn.

Reg| 1.25.12 @ 6:58PM

Reagan said freezing the budget would hurt defense, not Newt. This is just lies.

Jeff Lord is running rings around these absurd anti-Newt arguments.

http://spectator.org/archives/.....nant/print

Reg| 1.25.12 @ 7:01PM

Reading this again is just infuriating. Hilyer is destroying his credibility with this garbage.

Follow the link. It plainly does not say what Hilyer says it does.

aware| 1.25.12 @ 7:02PM

http://newtexposed.com/

John - TMF| 1.25.12 @ 7:15PM

So on defense, Gingrich wasn't a "Yes man"? Hummm... sounds like maybe Reagan needed a few Gingrich types around when the "brilliant" idea of Dutch treating the Iran/Iraq War and sending the proceeds to the Contras was floated and approved... (1. I fully supported the concept of aiding the Nicaraguan Contras, but the methods were dicey and problematic. 2. I still admire Ollie North for the effort of trying to make pearls out of turds.. He was disloyally shafted for the whole thing too... Reagan's darkest mark.) But maybe a little dissent in the den of good time back slapping would have been a good thing.

The State Department being a den of Establishment Ivy League Progressive French School Diplomats is the fault of who hires those diplomats, and allows them to populate the agency - (pull a clearance... career over...) War is diplomacy by other means, and better more complete State Department programs net critical things, good will, and more importantly on the ground intelligence. That intelligence and good will costs money. When the Reagan Administration took office the State Department had a mint tea sipping glad handing limp method of doing business. State is one of our most important FIRST Defenses... before we go to arms. To starve it of funds and turn it into a weak ceremonial organization (as it had become in the post Vietnam years) was tragic. Gingrich thinking out of the box, and the box dwellers being angry about it again, I suppose.

Eliot Abrams as a source of any information on anything is problematic. I will not cast stones, but his observations are tainted by his "experience" and I will leave it at that. (See Dutch Treats... iHawks, and other adventures..)

Ronald Reagan was no saint. He was a super President, and the right man at the right time for the job; however only the sanguine memory remains. We all tend to forget the ugly parts.

Last, so Newt supported Rochefeller in the primaries because of old Nelson's civil rights stances. My mother and father supported him, too. To his credit, he supported Goldwater when the cranky one gained the nomination. That was far more than I can say about a seriously large number of the Establishment voters, who bolted for Johnson at the sight of that awful commercial.

Did the Mittster even vote for Reagan? I don't have a clue, he's been bragging about how he was so independent back then.

We have the candidates that we have:

Establishment Liberal Romney, who stands for nothing and everything in the same sentence.

Hated by the Establishment Gingrich, who fights and ticks some people off.. but they weren't going to like us anyway.

Social Conservative Sweater Vest wearing Catholic School boy who looks like he spent high school stuffed in a locker Rick Santorum. (who I do like by the way... just his fighting is largely amounting to kicking, screaming and banging at the inside of the locker door...

And those are the only choices...

I'll pick Newt... warts, ADHD, and all... at least he fights.

r/TMF

Conservative Bob| 1.25.12 @ 7:37PM

I used to think this was a good place to read conservative thought.
Recently the cadre of former government officials that are significantly represented on the staff here seem more like a bunch of old women ( no offence meant to old women) bitterly harping about the slights from their long past associates. So you knew someone or were in a room when someone said something over 30 years ago, back in the time when you were really really important. And someone obviously did not pay proper deference to your importance back in the day. Get over yourself. And I am sure none of the players described, neither you nor the protagonist in your recollections, has changed in any way what so ever since those dark days.
I read the diary quote and you miss cast it completely. But why am I surprised at that.
Newt is flawed, Mitt is flawed, Rick and Ron are also flawed. All are flawed in one way or another but each is better than the current pretender.
So if we want to beat Obama how far back do we need to go in our criticism of our own candidates? 1968?
What is clear is that old scores will never be settled, the establishment will trot out all manner of old scores to take down anyone but their anointed choice, and then if he falters will wax eloquent about those who should have gotten into the race, or beg someone on the basis of a single speech to get into the race.
The group we will choose from is set. Our challenge is pretty clear select from among them who has the communications skills and fire in their belly to win this thing. I care not a bit for what one of these clowns may have said 30 years ago. Who has the stones to fight this fight and win? Until we cross that significant threshold questions of governing are purely academic.
We have allowed ourselves to be pushed into this box such that this is an existential election. If we lose America as we have all been privileged to know it will cease to exist. At precisely the moment when we face this challenge the RINO elite are fighting us for control of the party as seen in the serial attacks on anyone not Mitt Romney making their way to the front of the pack.
Clinton had a sign on the bus to remind him every day it’s the economy stupid… someone please make a sign for our candidates and the anointed conservative (or pseudo conservative) press our mission is to beat Obama.

Bob K.| 1.26.12 @ 1:11AM

Exactly!

IT'S OBAMA, STUPID!

Bob K.| 1.26.12 @ 1:11AM

Exactly!

IT'S OBAMA, STUPID!

C Bowen | 1.25.12 @ 8:11PM

Quin;

This post is quite misleading. Gingrich was posing as a superhawk, much like Al Gore did back then.

The neocons, National Review, and segments of the fringe Right (Howard Phillips) were all drunk on Anti-Communist cum Russophobia in their rhetoric.

I think what you are afraid to suggest or figure out on your own is that Reagan was not a superhawk, but quite a benign President who understood elite power politics better then he gets credit for. (BTW, the French give Reagan credit for it.)

And quoting a felon that shamed the Reagan Administration, that is a little much, and I really don't care for Newt at all.

Clint| 1.25.12 @ 8:27PM

" The New Hampshire Gazette

The Chickenhawk Hall Of Shame.

name:
Newton Leroy "Newt" Gingrich
rank:
Chickenhawk First Class with Distinguished Fleeing Cross
date-of-birth:
June 17, 1943
home state:
Georgia
missed opportunity:
Vietnam War
preferred activity:
Attending grad school
occupation:
Congressman

A virtuoso in the art of hypocrisy, the former Speaker of the House now claims the Vietnam War was a splendid idea, but at the time he opposed going himself. Newtie also speaks highly of morality, but as a serial adulterer he doesn't want to get too close."

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

Oldefarte| 1.25.12 @ 9:12PM

Want to debate the Catholic Church clergy's abuse of children, and their cover up of same???????????????????????

Clint| 1.25.12 @ 9:50PM

Do Your Homework Anti-Catholic Coward, Shit Pants.

"According to a draft report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education, in compliance with the 2002 "No Child Left Behind" act signed into law by President Bush, between 6 percent and 10 percent of public school children across the country have been sexually abused or harassed by school employees and teachers.
Charol Shakeshaft, the Hofstra University scholar who prepared the report, said the number of abuse cases—which range from unwanted sexual comments to rape—could be much higher.
To support her contention, Shakeshaft compared the priest abuse data with data collected in a national survey for the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation in 2000. Extrapolating data from the latter, she estimated roughly 290,000 students experienced some sort of physical sexual abuse by a school employee from a single decade—1991-2000.That compares with about five decades of cases of abusive priests.

Such figures led her to contend "the physical sexual abuse of students in schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests."

Catholic Clint Steps On The Anti-Catholic Coward, Shit Pants.

Oldefarte| 1.25.12 @ 11:35PM

'.....The Catholic sex abuse cases are a series of convictions, trials and ongoing investigations into allegations of sex crimes committed by Catholic priests and members of religious orders.[1] These cases began receiving public attention beginning in the mid-1980s.[2] There have been criminal prosecutions of the abusers and civil lawsuits against the church's dioceses and parishes.
Sexual abuse of minors by priests receives significant media attention in Canada, Ireland, the United States, the United Kingdom, Mexico, Belgium, France, and Germany, while cases have been reported throughout the world.
In addition to cases of abuse, much of the scandal has focused around members of the Catholic hierarchy who did not report abuse allegations to the civil authorities. In many cases they reassigned those accused to other locations where they continued to have contact with minors.[3] In defending their actions, some bishops and psychiatrists contended that the prevailing psychology of the times suggested that people could be cured of such behavior through counseling.[4][5] Members of the church hierarchy have argued that media coverage has been excessive.[6] In response to the widening scandal, Pope John Paul II emphasized the spiritual nature of the offenses. He declared in 2001 that "a sin against the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue by a cleric with a minor under 18 years of age is to be considered a grave sin, or delictum gravius."[7] With the approval of the Vatican, the hierarchy of the church in the United States said that it instituted reforms to prevent future abuse including requiring background checks for Church employees and volunteers, while opposing extensions of the statutes of limitations in sex abuse cases.[8]

[edit] Scope and natureSee also: Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country
Allegations of and convictions for sexual abuse by clergy has been subject to public debate in many countries (see Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country). After the United States, the country with the next highest number of reported cases is Ireland. A significant number of cases have also been reported in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and countries in Europe, Latin America, Africa and Asia.[9]

In 2001, lawsuits were filed in the United States and Ireland, alleging that some priests had sexually abused minors and that their superiors had conspired to conceal and otherwise abet their criminal misconduct.[10] In 2004, the John Jay report tabulated a total of 4,392 priests and deacons in the U.S. against whom allegations of sexual abuse had been made.

Although the scandals in the U.S. and Ireland unfolded over approximately the same time period, there are some significant differences between them. In the United States, most of the abusers were parish priests under diocesan control.[citation needed] While there were also a significant number of abuse cases involving parish priests in Ireland, another major scandal involved criminal abuse committed by members of religious orders working in Catholic-run institutions such as orphanages and reform schools.[citation needed] In the United States, the abuse was primarily sexual in nature and involved mostly boys between the ages of 11 and 17; in Ireland, the allegations involved both physical and sexual abuse, and children of both sexes were involved, although a large majority were male.[citation needed]

In a statement read out by Archbishop Silvano Maria Tomasi in September 2009, the Holy See stated "We know now that in the last 50 years somewhere between 1.5% and 5% of the Catholic clergy has been involved in sexual abuse cases", adding that this figure was comparable with that of other groups and denominations.[11] A Perspective on Clergy Sexual Abuse by Dr. Thomas Plante of Stanford University and Santa Clara University states that "approximately 4% of priests during the past half century (and mostly in the 1960s and 1970s) have had a sexual experience with a minor" which "is consistent with male clergy from other religious traditions and is significantly lower than the general adult male population which may double these numbers".[4][12] Additionally, according to Newsweek magazine, the figure in the Catholic Church is similar to that in the rest of the adult population.[13]

[edit] Statistics on offenders and victims This article's factual accuracy is disputed. Please help to ensure that disputed facts are reliably sourced. See the relevant discussion on the talk page. (August 2011)

[edit] United StatesMain article: John Jay Report
See also: Catholic sexual abuse scandal in the United States
The 2004 John Jay Report commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) was based on surveys completed by the Roman Catholic dioceses in the United States. The surveys filtered provided information from diocesan files on each priest accused of sexual abuse and on each of the priest's victims to the research team, in a format which did not disclose the names of the accused priests or the dioceses where they worked. The dioceses were encouraged to issue reports of their own based on the surveys that they had completed.

The 2004 John Jay Report[14] was based on a study of 10,667 allegations against 4,392 priests accused of engaging in sexual abuse of a minor between 1950 and 2002.

The report stated there were approximately 10,667 reported victims (younger than 18 years) of clergy sexual abuse during this period:

Around 81 percent of these victims were male.
22.6% were age 10 or younger, 51% were between the ages of 11 and 14, and 27% were between the ages to 15 to 17 years.[15][16][17]
A substantial number (almost 2000) of very young children were victimized by priests during this time period.
9,281 victim surveys had information about an investigation. In 6,696 (72%) cases, an investigation of the allegation was carried out. Of these, 4,570 (80%) were substantiated; 1,028 (18%) were unsubstantiated; 83 (1.5%) were found to be false. In 56 cases, priests were reported to deny the allegations.
More than 10 percent of these allegations were characterized as not substantiated. (This does not mean that the allegation was false; it means only that the diocese or order could not determine whether the alleged abuse actually took place.)
For approximately 20 percent of the allegations, the priest was deceased or inactive at the time of the receipt of the allegation and typically no investigation was conducted in these circumstances.
In 38.4% of allegations, the abuse is alleged to have occurred within a single year, in 21.8% the alleged abuse lasted more than a year but less than 2 years, in 28% between 2 and 4 years, in 10.2% between 5 and 9 years and, in under 1%, 10 or more years.
The 4,392 priests who were accused amount to approximately 4% of the 109,694 priests in active ministry during that time. Of these 4,392, approximately:

56 percent had one reported allegation against them; 27 percent had two or three allegations against them; nearly 14 percent had four to nine allegations against them; 3 percent (149 priests) had 10 or more allegations against them. These 149 priests were responsible for almost 3,000 victims, or 27 percent of the allegations.[15]
The allegations were substantiated for 1,872 priests and unsubstantiated for 824 priests. They were thought to be credible for 1,671 priests and not credible for 345 priests. 298 priests and deacons who had been completely exonerated are not included in the study.
50 percent were 35 years of age or younger at the time of the first instance of alleged abuse.[15]
Almost 70 percent were ordained before 1970.[15]
Fewer than 7 percent were reported to have themselves been victims of physical, sexual or emotional abuse as children. Although 19 percent had alcohol or substance abuse problems, 9 percent were reported to have been using drugs or alcohol during the instances of abuse.[15]
Many of the reported acts of sexual abuse involved fondling or unspecified abuse. There was also a large number of allegations of forced acts of oral sex and intercourse. Detailed information on the nature of the abuse was not reported for 26.6% of the reported allegations. 27.3% of the allegations involved the cleric performing oral sex on the victim. 25.1% of the allegations involved penile penetration or attempted penetration.

Although there were reported acts of sexual abuse of minors in every year, the incidence of reported abuse increased by several orders of magnitude in the 1960s and 1970s. There was, for example, a more than sixfold increase in the number of reported acts of abuse of males aged 11 to 17 between the 1950s and the 1970s. After peaking in the 1970s, the number of incidents decreased through the 1980s and 1990s even more sharply than the incidence rate had increased in the 1960s and 1970s.

[edit] International public awarenessAlthough nation-wide enquiries have only been conducted in the United States and Ireland, cases of clerical sexual abuse of minors have been reported and prosecuted in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and other countries.

In 1994 allegations of sexual abuse on 47 young seminarians surfaced in Argentina.[18]

In 1995 Cardinal Hans Hermann Groër resigned from his post as Archbishop of Vienna, Austria over allegations of sexual abuse, although he remained a Cardinal.[19]

Since 1995, over one hundred priests from various parts of Australia were convicted for sexual abuse.[20]

On April 7, 2010, it was revealed that a former bishop of the Norwegian Catholic Church, Georg Müller, had confessed to the Norwegian Police in early January 2010 that he had sexually abused an underaged altar boy 20 years earlier. The Norwegian Catholic Church was made aware of the incident but did not alert the authorities. Müller was made to step down as a bishop in July 2009. As a reaction to this news, the Bishop of Oslo, Bernt Eidsvig, admitted to the Norwegian Press that he was aware of a total of four cases of child sexual abuse in the Norwegian Catholic Church.[21]

In November 2010, an independent group in Austria [22] that operates a hotline to help people exit the Catholic Church released a report documenting physical, sexual, and emotional abuse perpetrated by Austrian priests, nuns, and other religious officials. The report is based on hotline calls from 325 victims - 91 women (28%) and 234 men (72%), who named 422 perpetrators of both genders - 63% of whom were ordained priests.[23]

[edit] United StatesMain article: Catholic sexual abuse scandal in the United States
Although bishops had been sending sexually abusive priests to facilities such as those operated by the Servants of the Paraclete since the 1950s, there was scant public discussion of the problem until the mid-1960s. Even then, most of the discussion was held amongst the Catholic hierarchy with little or no coverage in the media. The first public discussion of sexual abuse of minors by priests took place at a meeting sponsored by the National Association for Pastoral Renewal held on the campus of Notre Dame University in 1967, to which all U.S. Catholic bishops were invited. Various local and regional discussions of the problem were held by Catholic bishops in later years.

However, it was not until the 1980s that discussion of sexual abuse by Roman Catholic clerics began to be covered as a phenomenon in the news media of the United States. According to the Catholic News Service public awareness of the sexual abuse of children in the United States and Canada emerged in the late 1970s and the 1980s as an outgrowth of the growing awareness of physical abuse of children.

In 1981 Father Donald Roemer of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles pleaded guilty to felonious sexual abuse of a minor. The case received widespread media coverage. In September 1983, the National Catholic Reporter published an article on the topic.[24] The subject gained wider national notoriety in October 1985 when Louisiana priest Gilbert Gauthe pleaded guilty to 11 counts of molestation of boys.[25] After the coverage of Gauthe's crimes subsided, the issue faded to the fringes of public attention until the mid-1990s, when the issue was again brought to national attention after a number of books on the topic were published.[26]

In early 2002 the Boston Globe's Pulitzer Prize winning coverage of sexual abuse cases involving Catholic priests drew the attention, first of the United States and ultimately the world, to the problem.[27][28][29] Other victims began to come forward with their own allegations of abuse, resulting in more lawsuits and criminal cases.[10] Since then, the problem of clerical abuse of minors has received significantly more attention from the Church hierarchy, law enforcement agencies, government and the news media.

[edit] IrelandMain article: Catholic sexual abuse scandal in Ireland
Starting in the 1990s a series of criminal cases and Irish government enquiries covered allegations that priests had abused hundreds of minors over previous decades. In many cases the abusing priests had been moved by senior clergy to other parishes. By 2010 a number of in-depth judicial reports had been published, but with relatively few prosecutions. The abuse was occasionally made known to staff at the Department of Education, the police and other government bodies, who have said that prosecuting clergy was extremely difficult given the "Catholic ethos" of the Irish Republic.

In 1994 Micheal Ledwith resigned as President of St Patrick's College, Maynooth when allegations of sexual abuse were made public. The June 2005 McCullough Report found that a number of bishops had rejected concerns about Ledwith's inappropriate behavior towards seminarians "so completely and so abruptly without any adequate investigation" although his report conceded that "to investigate in any very full or substantial manner, a generic complaint regarding a person’s apparent propensities would have been difficult”.[30]

One of the most notorious cases of sex abuse in Ireland involved Brendan Smyth, who, between 1945 and 1989, sexually abused and indecently assaulted 20 children in parishes in Belfast, Dublin and the United States.[31] Controversy over the handling of his extradition to Northern Ireland led to the 1994 collapse of the Fianna Fáil/Labour coalition government.[32]

[edit] CanadaMain article: Catholic sexual abuse scandal in Canada
In the late 1980s allegations were made of physical and sexual abuse committed by members of the Christian Brothers, who operated the Mount Cashel Orphanage in St. John's, Newfoundland. The government, police and church colluded in an unsuccessful attempt to cover up the allegations, but in December 1989 they were publicized in the St. John's Sunday Express. Eventually more than 300 former pupils came forward with allegations of physical and sexual abuse at the orphanage.[33] The religious order that ran the orphanage filed for bankruptcy in the face of numerous lawsuits.[34] Since the Mount Cashel scandal a number of priests across Canada have been accused of sexual abuse.

In August 2006, Father Charles Henry Sylvestre, of Belle River Ontario plead guilty to 47 counts of sexual abuse on females, aged between nine and fourteen years old between 1952 and 1989.[35] Sylvestre was given a sentence in October 2006 of three years, and died January 22, 2007 after three months in prison.[36]

[edit] BelgiumMain article: Belgian pedophile priests scandal
In June 2010, Belgian police raided the Belgian Catholic Church headquarters in Brussels, seizing a computer and records of a Church commission investigating allegations of child abuse. The authorities are investigating accusations that some Belgian clerics sexually abused children. Hundreds of such claims had been raised since April 2010, when the Bishop of Bruges, Roger Vangheluwe, admitted to molesting a boy and resigned.[37] The Vatican protested against the raids,[38] which Belgian police stated that were in response to complaints of deaths threats against witnesses and magistrates.[39]

[edit] Effects of lawsuits on diocesesOutside Church circles, most sex abuse cases are subject to the law of each state. As of April 2010[update], many sex abusers associated with the Church in several countries have been tried by secular authorities and, where appropriate, convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. In earlier times, the Church itself could punish offenders under canon law by imprisonment, sequestration of property, and worse, but now only the secular system of criminal justice is suitable.

[edit] Germany[edit] Third Reich 1933–1945During the Nazi era, false cases of sexual abuse were fabricated to malign the Catholic Church. The "immorality trials" (Sittlichkeitsprozesse) of Catholic priests in April and May 1937 are the prime examples of this phenomenon.[40] In these trials, innocent priests and members of religious orders became the target of accusations of luring children and youth into sexual acts. Staged trials of Franciscan friars held in 1936 did not receive the media attention the National Socialist regime hoped for; and this was not the only problem. In a case that would eventually be dismissed as baseless the alleged victim, when asked at trial if the offender was in the courtroom, pointed to the president of the court.[41] Hence, in order to show that the "offences against morality" were a massive problem within the Catholic Church, the regime ordered that individual cases should be accumulated at a more opportune moment. A large number of cases were brought to trial in the spring of 1937. Stefan Micheler writes:

Over the course of eight weeks between April and June, the daily and party newspapers and radio devoted extensive, front-page coverage to the trials... The coverage focused on the seduction of children and youth, the exploitation of relationships of dependence, and the abuse of rank and office. The press ignored cases where investigations were dropped or trials resulted in acquittals due to lack of evidence or ill-founded accusations.[42]
In a speech at Berlin's Deutschlandhalle on May 30, 1937, Joseph Goebbels stated in front of 25,000 people that the "criminal aberrations of the Catholic clergy threaten the physical and moral health of our young people." He declared that the "plague" would be "radically extirpated." The speech was spurred on by the crowd's repeated cries of "Hang them! Massacre them!"[41] Florence Tamagne writes: "The anti-Catholic campaign continued until 1941. By 1936, all the Catholic youth organizations had been closed down." However, she also notes that, of approximately 20,000 German priests, "57 were convicted; of 4,000 members of the regular clergy, 7 were convicted. Lastly, of 3,000 lay brothers, 170 were convicted, mostly Franciscans."[41] According to reports published by SoPaDe, the propaganda nature of the trials was widely recognized by both Catholics and Protestants. Nevertheless, as a result of the trials, children and youth would often avoid socializing with Catholic priests.[42]

[edit] Post-war GermanySee also: Peter Hullermann
According to The Economist and the Sydney Morning Herald, many Catholics are leaving the church in Germany due to the sex abuse scandal.[43][44] The number leaving in one month increased by a factor of four, to 472, in the Munich diocese since the start of 2010.[43] Additionally, the Germans' trust of the Pope dropped significantly; At the end of March 2010, 39% of Catholic Germans trusted the Pope, whereas in January 2010 62% did.[43]

Norbert Denef founded Netzwerk Betroffener von Sexualisierter Gewalt, briefly netzwerkB, in April 2010.[45] Denef was abused as a child by Catholic clerics.

[edit] United States[edit] Settlements, bankruptcies and closuresMain article: Settlements and bankruptcies in Catholic sex abuse cases
According to Donald Cozzens, "by the end of the mid 1990s, it was estimated that [...] more than half a billion dollars had been paid in jury awards, settlements and legal fees." This figure grew to about one billion dollars by 2002.[46] Roman Catholics spent $615 million on sex abuse cases in 2007.[47]

As of March 2006, dioceses in which abuse was committed or in which abuse allegations were settled out of court had made financial settlements with the victims totaling over $1.5 billion.[15] The number and size of these settlements made it necessary for the dioceses to reduce their ordinary operating expenses by closing churches and schools in order to raise the funds to make these payments.[10] Several dioceses chose to declare Chapter 11 bankruptcy as a way to litigate settlements while protecting some church assets to ensure it continues to operate.

By 2009, U.S. dioceses have paid more than US$2.6 billion in abuse-related costs since 1950.[48][49]

In many instances, dioceses were forced to declare bankruptcy as a result of the settlements. At least six U.S. dioceses sought bankruptcy protection. In some cases, the dioceses filed bankruptcy just before civil suits against them were about to go to trial. This had the effect of mandating that pending and future lawsuits be settled in bankruptcy court.

[edit] Resignations, retirements and defrockingsMany of the accused priests were forced to resign. Some priests whose crimes fell within statutes of limitation are in jail. Some have been defrocked. Others — because they are elderly, because of the nature of their offenses, or because they have had some success fighting the charges — cannot be defrocked under canon law. Some priests live in retreat houses that are carefully monitored and sometimes locked.[50]

Bernard Francis Law, Cardinal and Archbishop of Boston, Massachusetts, United States resigned after Church documents were revealed which suggested he had covered up sexual abuse committed by priests in his archdiocese.[51] On December 13, 2002 Pope John Paul II accepted Law's resignation as Archbishop and reassigned him to an administrative position in the Roman Curia naming him archpriest of the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore, and he later presided at one of the Pope's funeral masses. Law's successor in Boston, Archbishop (later Cardinal) Seán P. O'Malley found it necessary to sell substantial real estate properties and close a number of churches in order to pay the $120 million in claims against the archdiocese.

Two bishops of Palm Beach, Florida resigned due to child abuse allegations. Resigned bishop Joseph Keith Symons was replaced by Anthony O'Connell, who later also resigned in 2002.....'

Oldefarte| 1.25.12 @ 11:56PM

PS: Learn to tell the TRUTH, Sandusky-for-Paul-Boy!!!!

Oldefarte| 1.26.12 @ 12:00AM

Keep steppin' in it dummie!!!!!!

Bob K.| 1.26.12 @ 1:17AM

What does all this personal acrimony have to do with getting rid of Obama?

IT'S OBAMA, STUPID!!!

JmsA| 1.26.12 @ 10:23AM

Exactly!

Oldefarte| 1.26.12 @ 12:38PM

It was due to Clit's previous critisism of me for [in his opinion] inappropriate critisizing the Catholic Church over their sexual abuse of children issue. In response to his typical falsehood-lies concerning same above, I thereafter corrected his bullexcrement appropriately. It was not 'personal acrimonony' but simply an opportunity to expose his usual falsities postied here concerning various issues. As you state.....IT'S THE DEMOCRATS [AND OBAMA] STUPIDS!!!!!!

Clint| 1.29.12 @ 3:36PM

You Learn To Tell The Truth Lapsed Catholic Ax Grinding Anti-Catholc Fart Pants.

Religious Sex Abuse Index:
http://www.eurekaencyclopedia......buse_Index

Occam's Tool| 1.26.12 @ 10:52AM

So, why is Catholic Catamite Clint Contesting Catholic Candidates?

Oldefarte| 1.26.12 @ 12:38PM

Who knows....who cares?????

Nancy in NC| 1.26.12 @ 1:59PM

Be glad that I don't own the American Spectator. I would ban Clint and Jack...just too much like a broken record and not worth the time to read.

Mike w| 1.25.12 @ 10:04PM

The chicken hawk argument has no imact on republicans. Dick Cheney had five deferments. Bush had daddy get him in the air guard. Do you really think newt's disgusting hypocrisy really bothers these "conservatives"?

Dai Alanye | 1.26.12 @ 1:53PM

Thank goodness! I was beginning to miss the chickenhawk slurs from our mighty warrior Clint.

Ken (Old Texican)| 1.25.12 @ 8:30PM

Quin,
we get it. You want to destroy Newt. You want Santorum. You have lost all credibility with your posts recently.

Get your head out of your butt...or be ignored henceforth.

Drek| 1.25.12 @ 9:07PM

His support of Santorum is fictional, theoretical, whereas the assistance he lends the Romney campaign is REAL, concrete, practical and useful.

The race has narrowed to two men.

Gingrich and the other guy who isn't conservative.

In that race, Hillyer chose the other guy.

Those inside the Beltway are like in an enlarged echo chamber, and the only things to be heard are the cries for Romney.

Democrats cry out for him because their entire Sumner campaign of urban unrest is predicated upon Romney, and is built for no one else.

As for the establishment, they fear Gingrich, ------------- which tells us all we need to know about Gingrich.

The more they cry out against Gingrich, the more must we impose Gingrich upon them.

They must be shattered.

The Northeast grip upon the GOP must be obliterated.

WL| 1.25.12 @ 10:43PM

I couldn't have said it better myself....

Three Cheers for Drek!!!!

Right on the money!! By the way...I am glad that others see this farce for what it is!!!

Bob K.| 1.26.12 @ 1:19AM

What does all this have to do with getting rid of Obama?

IT'S OBAMA, STUPID!!!

Occam's Tool| 1.26.12 @ 10:56AM

Bob K: yes, it is Obama, and nothing matters as much as getting rid of him---except keeping Ron Paul away from control of our foreign policy, as he is to the LEFT of Obama.

Oldefarte| 1.26.12 @ 12:42PM

OT, IMO we don't have to worry about Paul [other than possibly taking his movement on the Independent Party route and destroying a Republican's chance at becoming the next president], but we certainly have to worry about Obama!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nancy in NC| 1.26.12 @ 2:00PM

Ron Paul should take over the FED.

Occam's Tool| 1.26.12 @ 10:53AM

Drek: you are not. Clint is. You, on the other hand, are water in the desert.

Clint| 1.25.12 @ 8:38PM

" Gingrich isn’t much more popular among Freedom Works than Romney. In May, when Gingrich sharply criticized Paul Ryan​’s Medicare reform plan, FreedomWorks Chairman Dick Armey reminded National Review that Gingrich had been a serial offender:

Citing Gingrich’s support of Dede Scozzafava in the 2009 congressional election in New York’s 23rd district, his backing of Medicare Part D and TARP, and his commercial with Nancy Pelosi​ about climate change, Armey observes that “Newt entered the race with serious ground to make up with these 2 million Tea Party activists.”…

Brendan Steinhauser, director of Federal and State Campaigns for FreedomWorks, reports that the Tea Partiers he’s talked to are “irate” at Gingrich… “I never met a single Tea Party activist that supported Newt Gingrich for president,” he adds."

The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.

Oldefarte| 1.25.12 @ 9:14PM

Let's discuss the Catholic Church?????

Oldefarte| 1.25.12 @ 9:39PM

What about the $billions that the Church has paid out to victims because of this abuse...wanta discuss this?????????

steve| 1.26.12 @ 7:09AM

You now the new antiCatholic bigot?

Oldefarte| 1.26.12 @ 12:52PM

steve, I know you don't have knowledge of this, but the definition of bigot is INTOLERANT, NARROW-MINDED. The word you should have used is TRUTHFUL. Learn the difference. Oh, and I have 16 years of membership/education within the Catholic religion.....how many years do you have?????????????

Oldefarte| 1.25.12 @ 9:29PM

Even though Michael Reagan may not be a tea partier, does he count, dumbars?????????

Oldefarte| 1.25.12 @ 9:30PM

PS: Or what about Todd Palin and possibly Sarah as well???????

Bob K.| 1.26.12 @ 1:20AM

IT'S OBAMA, STUPID!!!

Oldefarte| 1.26.12 @ 12:55PM

You repeatedly said that above.....so??????

WY| 1.25.12 @ 8:50PM

Give it up Quin...we don't want your boy Romney OR Santorum...(Well, I could live with Santorum, I guess)....

Boy oh Boy....

Watching you get your marching orders and turning it on thick is fun to watch OVER AND OVER AGAIN!!!!!

It's kinda sad.

Drek| 1.25.12 @ 9:03PM

The race has narrowed to Romney v. Gingrich.

And in that race, ---------------- Hillyer chose Romney.

Bob K.| 1.26.12 @ 1:20AM

IT'S OBAMA, STUPID!!!

Oldefarte| 1.26.12 @ 12:56PM

Okay, I understand now [but it's more than that......IT'S THE DEMOCRATS, STUPIDS]!!!!

Drek| 1.25.12 @ 9:01PM

Just think about this for a second.

Hillyer holds it against Gingrich that in the primary battles of 1968, ---------- NOT 1988, NOT 1998, ----------- but the primary battle of OVER FORTY YEARS AGO, when Reagan wasn't even yet the guy he would become by years of reading and preparation for higher office, that in that primary battle Gingrich didn't immediately side with Reagan.

Meanwhile, this disclosure, now that the race has narrowed to Gingrich v. Romney, helps who?

So who is Hillyer helping now?

Who does Hillyer KNOW for a dead certainty that he is helping now?

Romney.

So in the Quixotic quest for the absolutely purest of the pure, we're about to shoot ourselves in the foot and then the head, by saddling ourselves with Romney.

Meanwhile that very same Romney, one of whose chief advisers just came out and blurted out that there isn't going to be any repeal of Obamacare in a Romney administration, that very same guy campaigned against the Contract with America.

And when Gingrich used that Contract to nationalize the Congressional elections that year, and translated that to a majority, it was George Will who said of that victory, WHICH ROMNEY STRUGGLED AGAINST, that it "Ronald Reagan just won his fourth term."

Perhaps Hillyer will recall that accolade from Will.

But Hillyer isn't of a mood to say much of anything positive about Gingrich...........

WL| 1.25.12 @ 10:45PM

You and I need to start a blog...you obviously have broken the code as well...

And I am not talking about Clint's bilderberg, trilateral commission code...

I'm talking about our "conservative" commentator CODE!!!

Oldefarte| 1.25.12 @ 9:15PM

It's amazing that in the next sentence, Reagan states that IT'S AN INTERESTING IDEA!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 1.25.12 @ 9:26PM

'....Reagan's Young Lieutenant..By Jeffrey Lord on 1.24.12 @ 6:09AM...'

Mender| 1.25.12 @ 9:32PM

Right, this is just getting funny. Are there really no senior Republicans who weren't in the feeding trough? No wonder the crash took so long coming.

Oldefarte| 1.25.12 @ 9:35PM

Many of us have not made up our minds yet as to which candidate would be most beneficial towards defeating Obama/Democrats, but that should be the ultimate goal of all of us [and not Lewinskification or Sanduskification of a praticular candidate to the exclusion of all others]. As Ginguich originally indicated, the opponent is Obama/Democrats, not other Republicans. Isn't it said of Reagan's commandment something about not attacking other Republicans????????????

somnolence| 1.25.12 @ 9:46PM

I have the same position about Newt Gingrich that Bob Tyrell, the publisher of this magazine does. Read his article in the New York Sun.

Reg| 1.25.12 @ 10:12PM

Another substanceless smear job. Screw these guys, another subscription to cancel.

I'm not fond of Newt, but the lies and misrepresentation being used against him forces me to defend him. Romney and his supporters have been despicable. I'll vote Gary Johnson before I vote Romney.

John - TMF| 1.25.12 @ 10:09PM

Nice little hit piece... sounds personal to me.

1. Romney has no values. He has no core beliefs... He spins like a weathercock in a tornado... He manages to be on both sides of an issue in a very short period of time, multiple times.

Norm Colman let the cat out of the bag. Romney hasn't the stomach to repeal Obamacare. Romney is playing you and Bob Tyrell for suckers. You actually believe what he says, even though there is not one shred of evidence in his past that he has ever kept his political word.

His governorship was a failed one term exercise in how to get rolled by the Dems repeatedly and often, but claim you were a leader, but couldn't actually lead.

2. Newt went where the cowardly Establishment Helot Caucus did not want to go, so they stabbed him in the back and left him to bleed out.

3. 75 endorsements cost some serious coin, I will guarantee... Betcha you check the donor list for all of those august members of club senate and house and you will find enough Romney direct, and PAC money to make everything just peachy keen... and make Romney look like the next coming of Ronald Reagan.

Talk about Beer Goggles... wow.

Romney is a disaster. Newt might be too... who knows? But with Newt you get fight and fire... with Mitt you get eggroll.

Newt is head and shoulders better than The One... Romney.. well well just say that today he says that he is... tomorrow he might be saying that he is the next coming of the One... you never know, the breeze hasn't kicked up yet.

r/TMF

somnolence| 1.25.12 @ 10:35PM

Don't talk to me about true conservatives, then. That description fits Santorum more than the other 3, and where is he thus far? Regardless of who succeeds Obama my prediction is for health care to inevitably end up as a single payer program anyway, regardless of how SCOTUS rules in June, and the Chief Executive not even getting close to erasing the deficit. By 2015-2016 we will be another France or Greece fiscally, captives of a motionless rudder without a course. This will happen no matter who sits in the Oval Office, but of course the trajectory is swifter and more predictable with Obama there. The true intercession will be other worldly.

somnolence| 1.25.12 @ 11:13PM

He's tanned, rested, and ready-------DAN QUAYLE FOR PRESIDENT 2012!

Margaret| 1.26.12 @ 1:50AM

Just another Newt Hit Piece. *yawn*

Scott McInnis| 1.26.12 @ 1:50AM

Monday, January 3rd, 1983

" A tough budget meeting & how to announce the deficits we'll have - the are horrendous & yet the Dems. in Cong. are saying there is no room for budet cuts. Met with a group of young REpub. Congressmen. Newt Gingrich has a proposal for freezing the budget at the 1983 level. It's a tempting idea except that it would cripple our defense program. And if we make an exception on that every special interest group will be asking fro the same." - Ronald Reagan Diary

Wow! sounds like now. From this we know that Newt has had a desire to balance the budget his whole life. Isn't that what we want as republicans. Newt seems to be to the right of Reagan on financial issues!

martin j smith| 1.26.12 @ 7:54AM

Stop the smearing--let Gingrich and the others make thei9r case --that is show the can defeat Obama and give the Americal People an alternative and let voters decide. ,I have had enough.

Worried Hoosier| 1.26.12 @ 8:15AM

The adulterer has had more time on television than all the candidates combined. I wouldn't trust him with my dead dog. Why is his wife usually within 20 feet of him? Why don't we see the other candidates wives like his? Is she running for vp? He can look you in the eye and lie. I put him down there with former President Clinton. I do not believe him when he says he is a reborn again Christian. I have heard, seen, and met people claiming to be this and most of them are not!!!

Oldefarte| 1.26.12 @ 1:02PM

Wait, are you talking about Newt, or about Wild Bill, John the INSURANCE COMPANY SUE'ER; WACKO ENVIRONMENTALIST AL, or one of the Camelot Gang [at least Newt's indiscretions ended in marriage and now with the hookers Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb, a massage therapist, and underage babysitter or a gold-digging videographer with a bastard in tow, huh] ??????

JimH| 1.26.12 @ 9:02AM

I’m surprised at how when conservatives realize that throwing money at the Education dept. does not make our children any smarter and throwing money at the EPA does not make our air and water cleaner, they can then think that the more money sent to the Pentagon the safer we are. Our service people are brave and dedicated and ought to be given everything they need to do their job. At the same time the Pentagon contains a large bureaucracy with its own rice bowl and like all bureaucracies, an agenda to perpetuate and grow itself. This bureaucracy is the enemy of our service people as much as the Education dept. gets in the way of dedicated teachers.

Nancy in NC| 1.26.12 @ 2:07PM

I'm with you, brother. I get ill and pissed off every time I see a Wounded Warrior commercial. Why the heck aren't they getting the help they need from the military? Why are they forced to depend on charity to have their needs met? They give their limbs for their country, and this is the best we can do? Instead they promote another general or buy another old piece of equipment or computer...the military industrial complex gets richer and our military gets poorer. How evil is this?

Oldefarte| 1.26.12 @ 2:10PM

OMG, Clit's gonna have a heart attack over this TRUTHFUL one:
'.....Massive Poll: Half of Tea Partyers Support Gingrich Thursday, January 26, 2012 01:28 PM
By: Martin Gould...Tea partyers overwhelmingly back Newt Gingrich to be the Republican presidential nominee, a huge poll of 29,000 people shows.And despite claims that rival candidate Ron Paul is the grandfather of the grass-roots conservative movement, the Texas congressman comes out with the worst ratings in every single question asked in the survey.More than half of the respondents said they believe Gingrich will win the nomination. Even more say he has the best chance of defeating President Barack Obama in the fall, while slightly under 50 percent say the former House speaker is their choice, according to the Grassfire Nation poll.“Newt Gingrich appears to have solidified strong support from just under half the tea party movement. Now the question is no longer one of who has the most support within the movement, it’s more a matter of the movement’s ability [or inability] to outperform the traditional GOP primary voter base,” wrote Grassfire Nation media director Eric Odom.
When it came to stating which of the candidates is their least favorite, those surveyed picked Paul by an overwhelming majority over Mitt Romney, Gingrich, and Rick Santorum, in that order.
“For all the messaging we’ve seen about Ron Paul being the tea party granddaddy, it’s amazing that he fails to shine at any point in the survey,” Odom said.“Ron Paul is clearly the least favorite out of the 29,000 surveyed, he’s perceived as the least likely nominee, and the tea party base views him as having the worst chances at defeating Barack Obama.“This flies in the face of the argument that Ron Paul’s foreign policy isn’t damaging to his brand. On domestic policy one could easily assume Ron Paul wins hands down. It’s the foreign policy that immediately yanks him to the back of the line.”
When asked which candidate they would vote for in a primary or caucus, just over 48 percent said Gingrich, with Santorum at 25 percent; Romney, 15; and Paul, 12. When asked who ultimately would be the candidate, Gingrich had 55 percent, Romney 32, Santorum 7 and Paul 6.
But Gingrich really shone on the question of who is the best candidate to beat Obama, getting 57 percent, compared with Romney’s 23, Santorum’s 12, and Paul’s 9.
Gingrich and Santorum were the only two who more than half of the tea party supporters feel would be acceptable candidates. Gingrich scored 69 percent support; Santorum, 61; Romney, 43; and Paul, 22.“That means every other tea party voter finds Romney totally unacceptable,” Odom said. “That’s a big problem for Romney in that the tea party movement is currently the most energized part of the Republican voter base.”
On the question of the least favorite, Paul easily outstripped the others with 57 percent; Romney scored 25; Gingrich, 13; and Santorum, 5.
The tea party supporters showed their allegiance to the Republican Party with 79 percent saying they would not support a conservative third-party candidate. Sixteen percent said they would and 5 percent said they were undecided.“Hands down — no questions asked — there simply is no interest or support for such an effort,” Odom said......'

Zbigniew Mazurak| 1.30.12 @ 10:05AM

Both Quin Hillyer and Elliott Abrams have done a great job. But this quote from Ronald Reagan's diary is not surprising to me. I've already known for a long time that Gingrich is a defense weakling.

After all, it was the Republican-controlled Congresses of the 1990s (1995-2001) that dramatically cut defense spending and gutted with the military together with Clinton. They passed budgets that were only slightly larger than what Clinton had requested. They cut defense and didn't care. Just like today's Republicans and libertarians. BTW, defense spending was the ONLY kind of spending cut during the 1990s (or recently).

And last year, during the HF/AEI/CNN debate, when asked by Allison Acosta Fraser whether he would rule out any further defense cuts after the sequester, Gingrich said no.

More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer

http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/25/gingrich-the-defense-weakling

ADVERTISEMENT

The Spectacle Blog

Elijah Harper, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 5.18.13

If Only the Tsar Knew!

F.H. Buckley | 5.18.13

Low-Level IRS Staffer: No, We Didn’t Mastermind This Entire Thing

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

UPDATED: IRS Acting Chief Apologizes, But Defends His Actions

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Voter Fraud Affected Election Results in Missouri

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Purple Privacy Push Persists in House Drone Hearing

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.17.13

IRS Director: ‘Some People Call Me Maurice’

Kyle Peterson | 5.17.13

Laughing to Keep From Crying

Ross Kaminsky | 5.17.13

Latest Headlines

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn|95 comments

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple|117 comments

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg|58 comments

Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report

Mark Tooley|104 comments

Treasure State Treasury

Bill Croke|3 comments

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy|60 comments

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman|16 comments

USPS: Radical Surgery Needed

Peter Hannaford|19 comments

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy | 5.17.13

The Liberal Union Behind the IRS

Jeffrey Lord | 5.16.13

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn | 5.17.13

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg | 5.17.13

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman | 5.17.13

USPS: Radical Surgery Needed

Peter Hannaford | 5.17.13

From Bimbos to Benghazi

Jeffrey Lord | 5.9.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.