I have one last thing to say. In nearly any other job, an employee known to engage in such behavior would be terminated on morals and/or legal grounds immediately.
Seeker1961:
Exactly. The reason the Church can’t get past these issues is because they won’t deal properly with the offenders.
The question, of course, is, “what’s the ‘proper’ way to deal with clergy who have committed these offenses?”
(NB: I don’t know anything about this case. I don’t know whether it’s even proper, in this particular case, to discuss this in terms of this man’s culpability. Clearly, he was accused of an offense. It seems he wasn’t convicted. Do we castigate all who have been accused, without regard to whether they have been convicted? That seems unjust. Nevertheless, my comments here ask a different question: what do we do in the case of those who have been
justly accused?)
epan:
If the behavior was with other employees
And if clergy were simply ‘employees’, your point would be well taken…
epan:
If a physician does such a thing with a patient, the expectation is revocation of his or her medical license, in addition to any other legal proceedings.
And if clergy were simply ‘civilly licensed professionals’, your point would be well taken…
And yet, both of the corrections you suggest, point to the same remedy: remove the person from the
role that they perform.
Why is this not similar in the Catholic Church? I priest or minister is in a trusted position of confidence and authority. Every other profession which is similar in that sense has strict ethical guidelines.
This is the problem. ‘Teacher’, ‘police’, ‘physician’, ‘military officer’ all are jobs. So is ‘pastor’, by the way. Yet, ‘priest’ is not a job – neither is ‘Christian’. Both ‘priest’ and ‘Christian’ are states of life. If a lay minister acted in a way abusive of children, we’d (rightfully) scream, “get him out of that ministry, and away from children!” Yet, we wouldn’t scream, “excommunicate him and make him a not-Christian!”… and chances are, if someone said that, we’d look at him incredulously and say, “umm… what??? That doesn’t even make sense…!”
You will never hear on the news (I hope) that Colonel Smith (fictitious name), a known child molester, has been promoted and will be taking over a new prestigious command. More likely you will hear that the person in question has received a reduction in rank, disciplinary action, and a dishonorable discharge.
This is an apples-and-oranges comparison. Military officers are in an “up or out” profession – if they act in a way that makes them unpromotable, they’re out, even if they’re given a ‘demotion’ which makes their retirement something that happens later rather than now. Trust me – a priest who is convicted of crimes against children is ‘unpromotable’: he’ll never be given the opportunity to become a bishop. That is true now, and it’s been true far longer than this current crisis has been in play.
This is where the ‘disconnect’ comes in. Priesthood is not a ‘profession’. It’s not a ‘job’ or a ‘position’ or a ‘career’. It’s a
vocation, just like being a Christian is a vocation we receive at baptism. In living out our lives as Christians, within our parishes, if it’s found out that it’s not appropriate for us to carry out certain duties, we’ll be shunted away from those roles. Same thing with priests, in the context of the current scandal. Yet, these decisions do not turn us away from our sacramental identity.
As the baptized, we’re ‘Christians’. As ordained, they’re ‘priests’. In this case, it seems that the priest involved was placed in a position that keeps him away from minors: his new role has to do with educational programs for adults. Are we really suggesting that he’ll initiate programs that encourage priests to molest children? Puh-leeze!
On the other hand, if what you’re suggesting is
vengeance, rather than
justice, and
retaliation, rather than
retribution, then I’d suggest you consider the question of splinters and beams, and what Christian vocations are all about…
