“He said the abuse ended when one of the nephews told his family, but that it was agreed it would remain within the family and Vangheluwe says he paid millions of old Belgian francs to the victim.”
Why would the victim’s family – the ex-bishop’s family – keep silent? Where did the money come from?
The church should severe ties with this man, and do everything it can to make things right.
The Church can’t sever ties with Bishop Vangheluwe. He is a Catholic and a bishop ad-aeternum. Bishop Vangheluwe needs to repent and reconcile with the Church in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. He is subject to whatever civil and criminal laws are applicable.
I understand the church can’t disconnect spiritually with the man anymore than it can with any other sinner. But legally (in some respects), morally and ethically the church can demonstrate it will not stand with the disturbing (“no penetration”) comments made by him.
The church should not hide behind it’s own legalism, either. Like “bishop ad-aetemum”, although that is something you mentioned here, not a church official.
The man said he had repented, but his published public statements didn’t strike me as contrite, only infuriating.
Apparently, criminal charges are not in the cards, but I hope so. Let a criminal court decide. Civilally, I wonder who will foot the bill for him playing non-penetrating footsy with a child nephew.
Speaking of money… I still wonder where did the millions of francs come from?
The fact of the matter is that public perception matters. The scandal – and how it is handled – potential keeps souls from finding salvation. Deal with it truthfully and ethically in public as much as possible; the results will only be good.
It was, an possibly still is, common to keep this sort of thing “quiet” so as not to further traumatize the child by having to recount the crimes or perhaps even testify.
A lot of the Church’s actions were taken on then-current psychological advice regarding both victims and perpetrators.
Yes, in many cases that is true, at least to some degree. That fact should be explained and discussed. It should be because I think at times some perps and their enablers used it to avoid accountablity. We’re walking a fine line there.
I always love hearing the phrase "It’s not about the money"this is an obvious case where the parents didn’t want the scandal so took the money as a silencer and now the victims are old enough to talk for themselves and have noticed the huge monetary settlements in other countries , and feel cheated (by the way ,what did their parents use the original money for ?)…,.The litigation lawyers all over the world are having a field day with these accusations and in my opinion it’s not the Church they should be suing it’s their own parents ,because they were complicit in the coverups.Amazing how the family honor can be soothed with money blankets
You said what I was thinking but maybe was afraid to say. I think some parents cashed in on the tragedies.
Many parents, however, honestly believed it was best or were swayed, as poster StFrancis pointed out, with what was believed to be the correct information at the time.
But your opinion is one of the 800-pound gorillas in the room and one of my pet peeves in the scandal – why are not some parents not being taken to task for not protecting their kids from these pedophile priests. It is not just the church that should be blamed.
