I wish you would stop that. You don’t have to be an abuse victim to have a strong opinion in this area. The whole Church was wounded profoundly by the scandals, and that’s why priests need to be condemning abuse, not making imprudent and ill advised attempts to hold them up as some example of God’s mercy.
Your answer said, “I’m not going to absolve you. Maybe you’ll seek absolution once you’re in jail.” That’s not what a confessor says to a penitent. Heck… it doesn’t even encourage them to seek absolution. So, again: glad you’re not my confessor.
Folks with half a brain need to do the research, then, and look at the whole story, and not just the reports of abuse in the previous decades.
Firstly I’m not in a position to absolve anyone of anything, as I’m not a priest. If I was I’d be happy to hear the confession of anyone. That doesn’t mean I would necessarily hold up a paedophile who repented as a public example of mercy.
It seems like a stretch to suggest that people who take a hard line on clerical sex abuse are some kind of pharisaical, unforgiving people who are too focused on the sins of others. I don’t personally have to forgive any paedophiles because I’m not an abuse victim.
I’m not talking about treating anyone as an “unforgivable pariah”. But I mean you can’t exactly welcome a paedophile priest back to his role as parish priest after he’s done a stint in prison. He pretty much does have to be removed from the community to ensure the protection of children. It’s not about being a pariah, it’s about common sense and child protection. You can have forgiveness in your heart and still say “you know what, having this guy close to kids is not a good idea.”
Missed this. That’s an interesting statement for someone who is all about mercy. I mean, do you think a false allegation warrants this action?
Yes… and no. Yes, he must be removed from his role of leadership, and not returned to ministry. No, he doesn’t have to be removed from the community of Catholics.
You don’t think that was hyperbole? Jesus did use that mode of speaking, you know. “Better to pluck out your eye”, and all that…?
Yes but as Jesus’ sayings go, there were only two times he talked about someone being better off dead, or not having been born. Some people are going through all kinds of mental gymnastics here to defend a priest who actually made a comment that was, at best, imprudent. The fact is that there are many many better examples of mercy to draw on.
Well if he’s convicted he should be removed from society at large. But sure, if he wants to keep practicing the faith and repent there are prison chaplains. And if he’s released then he should be able to go to mass but he also needs to be monitored so he doesn’t re-offend.
Yeah, but reintroduced into society after serving his time.
Usually, the way it’s handled is that he’s forbidden from exercising any kind of ministry in the parish, especially those in which there is contact with children.
That is not what I said. In fact, I said the opposite, as far as what the law entails.
I would not say a false allegation, but one that might be false, might be true, does. Sin affects not just the sinner, but those around the sinner as well. That is why there is a statement from the Old Testament about God visiting judgement into future generations. The consequences of sin, back then, meant your children bore the consequences. The consequences of the sin of priest who abuse children means that all priests are considered more at risk for injustice through false accusations, and unfortunately, the protection of children means they will bear some of the consequence. A priest in this situation will have to suffer for the sins of others - yet another case of persona Christi, but one we all bear at times.
Let’s not forget the Church’s ministry extends to prayer, arguably our most critical ministry. But even someone who is not contemplative by nature can find more mundane administrative functions. God will always provide a role for the willing.
Wait – what??? How did we go from “punish the pedophiles” to “punish some innocents in the hope of punishing more of the guilty”??
Personally, I’d like to know where the OP got “punish the pedophiles” (a clinically specific term) from “punish those in the Church who sexually abuse minors”. (Which applies much more aptly to the actual cases we’ve had).pnewton:
Wait – what??? How did we go from “punish the pedophiles” to “punish some innocents in the hope of punishing more of the guilty”??
Yeah I was thinking that too. Apparently it’s ok if a few innocent people get destroyed along the way as long as the sex abusers can still “be part of the catholic community”.
I did not use the word punish…
…nor destroyed.
OK. Let’s see what you did write:
So… what’s this “restriction” of which you speak? Isn’t it the punishment of being stripped from ministry? From being able to wear clerics and identify oneself as a priest?
No, it is not punishment, at least not in the way the word is used in pretty much every context I can think of. The pacifist living in Hiroshima would not have been punished by the Enola Gay, but he would have suffered the consequences of the sin of Japanese leaders, even if he had opposed them. A new born babe is not punished by God and given original sin, but he does suffer the consequence of Adam’s fall.
OK, but I’m confused on the context you’re thinking of. Are you thinking of clerics who are removed from ministry although innocent? Or, are you thinking of clerics against whom a credible allegation has been raised, but who cannot be tried in court (due to statutes of limitations, or unavailability of witness, or such)? Or something else?