Bishop says "I will go to jail before I will obey," as California proposes law requiring priests to report to police what they heard in confession

[CTBcin]

I wish you were correct, but I reach the opposite conclusion. Reports of abuse of minors typically lag for years, and often are never public. The recent cases, including the high profile cases involving bishops and cardinals, suggest to me that the changes of the last 17 years have been mostly cosmetic. I think we are at the beginning of the resolution of this issue, and not nearing the end.

I think one thing to consider is that many abuse cases were reported years ago, but were often ignored or hidden by bishops and superiors, for various reasons. Only years later did they come to light publically. Now, with modern understandings of how to handle abuse and mandatory reporting, new cases (as rare as they are) are immediately reported to police. There was much reform made in the seminaries from the 80s-2000s which helped with this, particularly with psychological evaluations. Furthermore, the 2002 policy strengthened the Church’s response.

I don’t have any stats, but it seems that in America, rare new cases of abuse are usually made against foreign priests working in the US, who come from countries where reforms to seminarian formation have often been more lax. So, I think this says something about how far the Church has come, at least in America.

I certainly wouldn’t say that the problem is “solved,” but I think we’ve come a long way, perhaps farther than you think.

 

[TMC]

I certainly wouldn’t say that the problem is “solved,” but I think we’ve come a long way, perhaps farther than you think.

I wish this were true, but I do not think it is. I hope that juvenile victims are more likely to come forward then they were in the past, but I fear many crimes still go unreported. Same for the way church officials are handling incidents. I think we will know one way or the other in the next 5 years or so, because I don’t think that either the laity or civil authorities will be giving church officials a pass as they did in the past.

 

[tafan2]

You believe the opportunities for the crimes to be committed are still prevalant also?
Tell me, what should the Church do in addition to what it has done?

 

[Zaccheus]

(I’m still going with “they know it’ll fail, so it’s merely a circus act, intended to get positive attention for themselves.”)

Still a power grab.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

With a big serious crime, let’s say, murder, is confessed to, don’t you think there is also usually a cover-up involved? The killer / penitent doesn’t usually stand there red-handed waiting to be caught. Wouldn’t you say the cover-up (lying, etc) is a separate crime? If the person doesn’t / hasn’t gone to law enforcement, then isn’t that intending to continue the crime of covering up, and that the penitent doesn’t have a firm purpose of amendment?

 

[TMC]

You believe the opportunities for the crimes to be committed are still prevalant also?
Tell me, what should the Church do in addition to what it has done?

We are drifting way afield of the thread topic, but in short…

The Church should increase transparency at all levels.
The Church should give the laity a real and substantial role in Church governance, particularly at the parish level. (I do not mean theological control, I mean personnel and finances.)
The Church should actually hold both transgressors and their enablers responsible. (The first two will help enable this.)
The Church likely needs to reform priestly formation significantly. I think this should begin with a serious study of the current process and how it has gone wrong. That study should include both clergy and lay professionals in both education and psychology.

Those things would be a start.

 

[TheLittleLady]

I think one thing to consider is that many abuse cases were reported years ago, but were often ignored or hidden by bishops and superiors, for various reasons.

And at times the family requested the secrecy. People did not used to want their personal tragedies to be made public, they wished for things to be dealt with quietly.

The Church should give the laity a real and substantial role in Church governance, particularly at the parish level. (I do not mean theological control, I mean personnel and finances.)

In my part of the country, Parish councils, lay parish managers, lay staff, lay staff at the Diocese, have been the SOP for a long time. Lay Finance Councils are required by my Diocese and have been for as long as I’ve been involved beyond “Mass attending”.

 

[JoeFreedom]

That is exactly how much oppression, government intrusion and socialism starts. Just ban this one gun. Just tax people who make this much. Just this one law. Just this one…

 

[Zaccheus]

That is exactly how it works.

 

[TMC]

In my part of the country, Parish councils, lay parish managers, lay staff, lay staff at the Diocese, have been the SOP for a long time. Lay Finance Councils are required by my Diocese and have been for as long as I’ve been involved beyond “Mass attending”.

I think this is important.

 

[CTBcin]

The Church likely needs to reform priestly formation significantly. I think this should begin with a serious study of the current process and how it has gone wrong. That study should include both clergy and lay professionals in both education and psychology.

Meh. I’m currently studying in seminary and I’d say that seminary formation is fine, at least in my seminary (can’t speak for every seminary though.)

Pre-Vatican II seminary formation had many faults and often wasn’t set up to properly form men in matters of sexuality and celibacy. Add to this the fact that seminaries were often de facto cloisters, and you have priests getting ordained who were often sexually stunted in one way or another.

Post V-2, the pendulum swung dramatically the other way, leading to seminaries full of open sexual immorality. Also not good.

Over the past 20-30 years, things have slowly been coming to a healthy balance. A big step was John Paul II’s letter Pastores Dabo Vobis, which significantly reformed seminary formation. Current seminaries, in my experience, are seriously committed to forming healthy, balanced men.

 

[meltzerboy2]

This religious requirement should and must be protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. Otherwise, it is not only a violation of religious rights, but also sets a most dangerous precedent both within and without the Catholic faith.

 

[TMC]

Meh. I’m currently studying in seminary and I’d say that seminary formation is fine, at least in my seminary (can’t speak for every seminary though.)

Pre-Vatican II seminary formation had many faults and often wasn’t set up to properly form men in matters of sexuality and celibacy. Add to this the fact that seminaries were often de facto cloisters, and you have priests getting ordained who were often sexually stunted in one way or another.

Post V-2, the pendulum swung dramatically the other way, leading to seminaries full of open sexual immorality. Also not good.

Over the past 20-30 years, things have slowly been coming to a healthy balance. A big step was John Paul II’s letter Pastores Dabo Vobis , which significantly reformed seminary formation. Current seminaries, in my experience, are seriously committed to forming healthy, balanced men.

I am glad to hear you are happy with your seminary experience. Regardless, I think that a system that has resulted in the situation at hand needs serious review. If the seminary system is fine, great. But that would mean we have to look elsewhere to find the source of the problem.

 

[tafan2]

The Church should give the laity a real and substantial role in Church governance, particularly at the parish level. (I do not mean theological control, I mean personnel and finances.)

Can. 537 In each parish there is to be a finance council which is governed, in addition to universal law, by norms issued by the diocesan bishop and in which the Christian faithful, selected according to these same norms, are to assist the pastor in the administration of the goods of the parish, without prejudice to the prescrip

Will address your other ideas later.

 

[CTBcin]

I think that the seminaries were in part the source of the problem for a long time, but the Church has slowly been addressing that over the past few decades. Change takes time, and that’s frustrating. Psych exams and a better understanding of sexual disorders and how to confront them has been part of the solution. I agree that we have a long way to go, though.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

Those whose sins you forgive are forgiven. Those whose sins you do not forgive are not forgiven. This was handed down from God to priests.
Taking responsibility and owning up to one’s wrongdoing. This is what making a true act of confession and asking for forgiveness is all about.
How can absolution be given to someone who is not sorry enough to accept punishment for the wrong that he or she has done?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

You don’t get to set the criteria for “sorry enough” or decide what the “punishment” is for people. God is the judge, not you, me or the priest.

With all due respect, I think you are having some pride about this, like you know what the criteria for repentance should be, or you know what punishment should be. I’m not buying it.

 

[HeDa]

Did you read post 55 which I was replying to?

 

[Gorgias]

Wouldn’t you say the cover-up (lying, etc) is a separate crime? If the person doesn’t / hasn’t gone to law enforcement, then isn’t that intending to continue the crime of covering up, and that the penitent doesn’t have a firm purpose of amendment?

Interesting question. What it boils down to is the suggestion that “covering up a sin” is a continuous – rather than a single-instance – sin itself. Couldn’t we look at it as a single-instance, though? “I committed a sin, and I failed to admit to it.” Once. Period. (The effect of the sin persists, of course, but can we say that it’s an active and ongoing effort?)

And, can we say that it’s a sin at all? You ID’ed it as “the cover-up is a separate crime”. And yet, that’s not the case at all, is it? After all, one is not required to incriminate himself, and therefore, that’s not a crime whatsoever!

So, if that person later goes to his priest and confesses, then he receives divine forgiveness for his sins. Doesn’t mean, however, that there is necessarily a secular justice component, right?

The Church should increase transparency at all levels.

That sounds good. What does it actually mean, though? What kind of ‘transparency’ are you asking for?

The Church should give the laity a real and substantial role in Church governance, particularly at the parish level. (I do not mean theological control, I mean personnel and finances.)

You realize, of course, that finance councils are required at each parish by canon law? You know, don’t you, that business managers are often hired by parishes to run the personnel and financial aspects of parish management, right? So… unless there’s something in particular that you’re asking for, this has already been part of parish life for a very long time!

The Church likely needs to reform priestly formation significantly. I think this should begin with a serious study of the current process and how it has gone wrong.

Take a look at the USCCB’s “Program for Priestly Formation.” I think they’re on it. And have been, for quite a while.

Regardless, I think that a system that has resulted in the situation at hand needs serious review.

Already had been, and continues to be, addressed. Why would you presume that it has not?

that would mean we have to look elsewhere to find the source of the problem.

If the source of the problem were the seminary experience, then this would be an exclusively Catholic problem. It isn’t. I think you’re barking up the wrong tree, here…

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

T_B, I get what you are saying, but if a person does not take responsibility for what they do, how can they truly be repentant?
It would seem to be like asking for forgiveness, but not truly being sorry for the wrongdoing.
Render unto Ceasar and render unto God.