Child abuse crisis

[Tis_Bearself]

I think for priests, their knowledge is likely limited to their own diocese, or even their own area of the diocese, because some dioceses are huge. Also, when the accused priests are from a particular order, I doubt that priests not part of the order are keeping track, especially since the orders run their own affairs.

 

[Wm777]

With all of the criminal background checks, the “I am not a pervert” checks, the video instructions, the required clearances–the Catholic church is now the very last place an abuser is likely to show up.

I used to think that too… around the same time as I served as lector at a mass the “then-Cardinal” McCarrick celebrated… and this was before the second, more recent round of scandals…

It is now much safer than any other religious or public institutions.

I was once standing in line for confession joking with the person next to me, saying - “With all these sinners seeking forgiveness - Jesus really knew what business to go into…”

It always drew a chuckle.

Then, I realized, while they were in line with me seeking forgiveness, I really didn’t know what they had done.

I tend to frown upon my earlier quips now.

Jesus said, “I didn’t come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it…”; also saying our virtues must surpass those of the Scribes and Pharisees.

We’re all bound to fail, but the idea isn’t to forgive everything in order to enable sin. It’s to ultimately find grace through a union with God.

Nevertheless, while the church is probably becoming a safer place now - collusion is possible in any environment, and we must always keep reverently striving (for the rest of our lives, as this issue will stay with the church til kingdom come) to rebuild trust in a very, very broken community…

 

[SeekSalvation]

Respectfully, I disagree. God bless.

 

[Wm777]

Respectfully, I disagree. God bless.

That’s a very general statement, but I thank you (and Fr Mike) for the blessings. I hope God Blesses you both, too.

If you glean consolations from Fr Mike’s presentation, then it is’t my intention to detract from those blessings.

My point was, Fr Mike could have and should have done better for the primary and other secondary and tertiary and even quaternary victims on this particular issue.

If that’s the best he can do, then okay. But I know Fr Mike can do better for everyone, including himself, and he (or, perhaps, Ascension) probably should have been more careful for the victims in forming the presentation.

That actually seems to be more the point of the OP’s concern.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

That’s more of a misunderstanding than actual teachings from the Catholic Church.

 

[jack63]

I know.

Perhaps priests just don’t talk much among themselves about such things. They just do their own thing like Fr. Mike said and leave well enough alone…what they perceive as well enough. It is just that on some small level I see this as a failure.

When I worked in industry, employees know everything that went on at a national and even international level in relation to multiple companies we worked with or who might buy our unit. It was impressive how quickly a group of mostly married men and a few woman (some single men like me too) could get detailed information about everything that could possibly affect their livelihoods and reputations. These men had a lot to conserve.

So I guess I’m just not excited to see another priest talk about how he had no idea, and how he is secondary victim. I’d rather see him talk about what can do in the future to better understand the world around him and how he specifically could potentially play a role in preventing this abuse in the future.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

how he specifically could potentially play a role in preventing this abuse in the future.

He already said that the seminaries are now screening out abusers, that the diocese has developed programs to prevent abuse, that he presumably follows. I am guessing since he seems to be a good guy and there are also now reporting processes in place, that he would report any sort of child abuse that he was aware of.

Not sure what else you expect him to be saying he’ll do.

 

[Lifeisbeautiful3]

Is some of the past behavior confessed and not shared under a seal of confession?

 

[Lion_IRC]

Why wouldn’t the Church that Jesus founded be the focus of satan’s efforts?
satan wouldn’t waste his time trying to destroy Scientology or Unitarianism.

Isn’t it true that satan will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered? Look at what happens when people forget Jesus’ warning about things done in darkness. (Atheists masquerading as priests. Pedophiles masquerading as priests.)

Everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come into the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.

 

[laylow]

The Catholics I know that left because of it, decided they would no longer contribute financially to an institution who for many years intentionally covered up the abuses and has yet to prove successfully that they are not still doing so.

It is hard to get around the reality that if you contributed financially to the RCC, you in a small way helped drive the engine of this rather large criminal conglomeration.

 

[Wm777]

jack63:

how he specifically could potentially play a role in preventing this abuse in the future.

He already said that the seminaries are now screening out abusers, the diocese has developed programs to prevent abuse, that he presumably follows. I’m guessing since he seems to be a good guy, there are also now reporting processes in place, and he would report any sort of child abuse that he was aware of.

Not sure what else you expect him to be saying he’ll do.

After posting last night, it occurred to me…

If we posit uninvolved, innocent Priests as inevitably being (secondarily) victimized, perhaps like a crucified Christ, we still run into the problem of trust. Due to the sins of their peers, esp in the upper eschelons of the church, the entire clergy becomes suspect (and this is where the secondary victimization occurs); it’s simply because of their vocation they’re being secondarily hurt - which is exactly the opposite of what the church aims to do. The church aims to instill faith and virtues, lead one back to God’s grace and salvation; it’s mission is to build trust (as in a community of faith in God) through evangelizing and works of mercy. But the trust has been compromised, which makes it seem as if the very heart of our mission has failed. But that’s not completely true, since God is still God and He’ll always be God. On a human level - culpability in this particular scandal was pervasive, but still only true on some accounts; and, it was never-not-true that any man, including a Priest, was incapable of sin.

This is really where discernment really becomes an issue. Social media outlets are anything but discerning or sympathetic to the Catholic faith. They generally do not see the goodness in evangelization. The sermons can “offend” special interest groups, who aren’t Catholic and have no wish to hear temperance lectures.

But let’s focus on the innocent Priests and laity - and even the Catholic victims themselves - who are in another way still being persecuted and secondarily and even primarily victimized by the outrages of these scandals. WWJD? In the passion, He actually said very little, if anything. Christ’s silence in some ways seems contemptible to the human ear, but, then, He is being put in a situation, where He’s expected to defend Himself. If Christ seemed “contemptible”, then - in defending Himself - it’s like the hypocritical accusations of His rivals actually made Him appear contemptible - as his innocence and Divinity gave him every right to be.

Christ’s defense was, “You’ve already heard what I said and seen my deeds. Judge for yourselves.” And, as a Healer, who worked miracles on the sabbath for so many, He stood by His convictions, regardless of the traditional laws of the day.

The best I can make of what the innocent Priests, laity and the victims should do is to continue following Jesus’ example and stand by their beliefs. The victims were in church trying to uphold their duties and love of God, and still have every right and duty to remain in the good graces of God.

 

[Wm777]

It would seem there’s not much they could really say, but - on the contrary - it is through the truly innocent souls the church will really find salvation and redemption…

Thus, the church should not try to suppress those voices… by paying them off to keep silent… That would be like when Jesus got punched in his first trial and basically told to shut up… But, no, the good graces of the humble and innocent “voices” should come forward and carry the cross as best they can - by speaking in terms of good deeds… and leading by example…

Although human words will fail us… Fr Robert Barron has many pro-active videos on this subject… I haven’t seen them all, and some of it seems more of the same-old-same, but the one thing he does say is to come forward and fight the good fight…

Again, it’s difficult, especially for the innocent, who actually end up caught in the middle… but, really, if someone truly loves God, Jesus and cares about their faith - while they’re going to get nailed to a tree… (figuratively speaking in today’s society)… They’re just going to have to make their light shine before others through honest and true acts of redemption - one simple step at a time for the rest of eternity… which is how Jesus rose to Heaven…

That’s the mission of evangelization. The angel asked the apostles, “Why are you looking at the sky?” This Jesus, who you saw rising, will return the same way a you saw Him going."

It’s kind of a paradoxical comment the angel made. I’ve always wondered, “well, since he ascended, they should keep looking at the sky because that’s the way they saw him going.” But, in fact, what the angels statement means is for the apostles to carry forward with their own missions, for it is in doing those awesome works of God (and in carrying their own cross) that they would encounter Jesus again…

God’s Blessings to all.

 

[Wm777]

I dont know if any of that made a whole lot of sense, but with respect to Fr Mike - who ministers to Youth and Young Adults at the college where he works full-time - I sense an even greater need to be proactive and uber-sensitive to the whole situation.

 

[Seeksadvice]

People are pleasure seekers. Give them some power, and well… you might have problems. The Southern Baptists are experiencing similar issues, just small scale because of the smaller organization. Religious or secular, it makes no difference.

For me, the biggest problem is that the upper management really seems to have grabbed the “idiot ball” and spiked it in the end zone with regard to handling the matter. Sun-Tzu had it right: kill 1 teach a 100. Priest, bishop, cardinal gets convicted of stuff… boot him out on the street. Don’t go asking him to do what he thinks is best, we’ve already seen that.

I recognize the concerns about revisiting witch trials and stuff like that. However, there are situations where the evidence is simply overwhelming it seems.

This failure to manage the situation has led secular authorities to do some drastic things with their laws, changes that probably give people false hope more than help the situation. Getting rid of statutes of limitation, or massively increasing them, is not the solution. We can all remember the farce that the Kavanaugh proceedings were. Imagine being asked to prosecute a 30 year old case with no DNA, nobody who remembers anything, etc…

Frankly, it is embarrassing how badly this has been handled and the resulting downstream effects on both the criminal and civil law. It makes priests who have nothing whatsoever to do with the mess look bad.

 

[Neithan]

For some reason the mid to late 20th century saw a large increase in the number of priests committing sexual abuse. This has abated somewhat, but we should not think that sexual abuse of children, or adults, in the church, does not still occur. This scandal is also not something new, and if we read St. Peter Damian’s expose from the 11th century, for example, we can see that there have been earlier clerical scandals with all types of sexual sins. There were also widespread denunciations of clergy behaviour prior to and during the Protestant Reformation. It’s disheartening that the Church is not a more sacred space, safe from sin — or at least sins like these; but this unmasks the inevitable corruptness of what is largely a human institution. Child sexual abuse is an ancient evil and thank God we at least live in a time when it is not “accepted” by the wider culture as it has been in some places and at some times. The clergy, tragically, have tried to hide that many priests committed this crime (the vast majority perhaps not realizing the extent of it themselves) and now we should never imagine that they or anyone in the Church are immune to any kind of sin, no matter how destructive. We should not imagine that children are perfectly safe from predatory adults anywhere.

 

[jack63]

Not sure what else you expect him to be saying he’ll do.

Something like the following…

There was another article in the Washington Post about whether or not the screening of priests actually works. He could have said something along the lines of the article, acknowledged the inherent difficulty in screening priests, and talked about what he and other priests might do if abuse continues even with the screening.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/reli...t-scientific-endeavor/?utm_term=.621d3dec8fe1

From the article…

“From a scientific point of view, it’s useless,” said James Cantor, a Toronto researcher who is a leading expert on pedophilia. “There does not exist a pen-and-pencil test [to diagnose pedophilia]. Just asking someone isn’t going to help.”

 

[jack63]

The follow-up video was far better than his initial video. I liked how he acknowledged that God is using governments and media to purify the church, and that the governments and media are not really enemies of the church.