T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Greenjean, sir or ma’am, with respect, please do not put words in my mouth. Your saying that
Some priests have indeed been jailed because of investigations which were assisted by their bishops. Some have not, even though there were investigations which were assisted by their bishops. Some have died, some have been defrocked or laicized for reasons that had nothing to do with their actions (which may indeed have been unknown), some remain ‘at large’ and if there exists a case, in the U.S. with mandated reporting, where a bishop actively assisted a priest to avoid the repercussions of the law while being fully aware of his guilt and capable of testimony, then they will face charges and with good reason. (IOW, if he heard in the confessional he cannot report it but can only urge the man to come forward, refuse him absolution, and send notice of the refusal–but not the reason–to the next ‘higher-up’ if one exists). You may not LIKE that but the seal of the confessional is sacrosanct. It is, after all, a sacrament.
Now, again, I invite you to give me all the cases where you know, absolutely, 100% with certainty, that a bishop, or two bishops, or whatever number that you must have (surely you aren’t pulling statistics and allegations from thin air?), at the time of mandated reporting, with full knowledge of the priest’s sin and with foreknowledge to boot that he was **not only not ‘cured’ **but would certainly abuse again, again, with full knowledge, kept that priest from being incarcerated for that sin.
Please. Let’s hear. And while we are hearing it, let’s hear that not only is this being done, it is being done with approval of the church, as mandated doctrine, and is not, if done at all, done by the bishop in defiance of what the Church requires.
Please do me the courtesy of responding to this, and not of telling me what ‘I believe’ as per your interpretation, or building a strawman, or going off on another tangent. Thank you.
Not only does this not address anything that I actually said, but it goes on to build a ‘strawman’ based on deliberate obfuscations and outrageous, egregious refusal to acknowledge the real facts of the cases.
Some priests have indeed been jailed because of investigations which were assisted by their bishops. Some have not, even though there were investigations which were assisted by their bishops. Some have died, some have been defrocked or laicized for reasons that had nothing to do with their actions (which may indeed have been unknown), some remain ‘at large’ and if there exists a case, in the U.S. with mandated reporting, where a bishop actively assisted a priest to avoid the repercussions of the law while being fully aware of his guilt and capable of testimony, then they will face charges and with good reason. (IOW, if he heard in the confessional he cannot report it but can only urge the man to come forward, refuse him absolution, and send notice of the refusal–but not the reason–to the next ‘higher-up’ if one exists). You may not LIKE that but the seal of the confessional is sacrosanct. It is, after all, a sacrament.
Now, again, I invite you to give me all the cases where you know, absolutely, 100% with certainty, that a bishop, or two bishops, or whatever number that you must have (surely you aren’t pulling statistics and allegations from thin air?), at the time of mandated reporting, with full knowledge of the priest’s sin and with foreknowledge to boot that he was **not only not ‘cured’ **but would certainly abuse again, again, with full knowledge, kept that priest from being incarcerated for that sin.
Please. Let’s hear. And while we are hearing it, let’s hear that not only is this being done, it is being done with approval of the church, as mandated doctrine, and is not, if done at all, done by the bishop in defiance of what the Church requires.
Please do me the courtesy of responding to this, and not of telling me what ‘I believe’ as per your interpretation, or building a strawman, or going off on another tangent. Thank you.