Question about sex abuse scandals

  • Thread starter Thread starter FromTheAshes777
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FromTheAshes777

Guest
Why does the church not simply report priests who commit these crimes to the local authorities and have them arrested and put in jail like any other pedophile or rapist? I can understand if they are never found out by anyone, but if a local bishop knows about this then why isn’t that priest put in jail, he’s a criminal plain and simple.

This is something I really don’t understand. Is there a scriptural or Church Tradition reason for this policy? How does the church normally deal with this internally as far as punishing and/or rehabilitating such a person. Really confused on this one, and I know it’s a sore topic, but really need an answer to this as I am being questioned about it by a friend of mine and am trying to defend the Church here. Thanks to all who respond. I really need a good answer to give.
 
Why does the church not simply report priests who commit these crimes to the local authorities and have them arrested and put in jail like any other pedophile or rapist? I can understand if they are never found out by anyone, but if a local bishop knows about this then why isn’t that priest put in jail, he’s a criminal plain and simple.

This is something I really don’t understand. Is there a scriptural or Church Tradition reason for this policy? How does the church normally deal with this internally as far as punishing and/or rehabilitating such a person. Really confused on this one, and I know it’s a sore topic, but really need an answer to this as I am being questioned about it by a friend of mine and am trying to defend the Church here. Thanks to all who respond. I really need a good answer to give.
It is a huge blunder not reporting these priests to authorities. Some of them are in jail though, but there was an effort to cover things up and just relocate these priests…and then they preyed on more children. The church was more worried about their reputation than about the children. It is disgusting.
 
Please remember that there was a time of naivete back in the 50’s or 60’s when priests thought that when the offender said “I’m sorry”, he got a slap on the wrist and was re-located, thinking that the problem was solved.

We now know better about such things, and they do not go away that easily.
 
Why does the church not simply report priests who commit these crimes to the local authorities and have them arrested and put in jail like any other pedophile or rapist? I can understand if they are never found out by anyone, but if a local bishop knows about this then why isn’t that priest put in jail, he’s a criminal plain and simple.

This is something I really don’t understand. Is there a scriptural or Church Tradition reason for this policy? How does the church normally deal with this internally as far as punishing and/or rehabilitating such a person. Really confused on this one, and I know it’s a sore topic, but really need an answer to this as I am being questioned about it by a friend of mine and am trying to defend the Church here. Thanks to all who respond. I really need a good answer to give.
I think like many, you are falling for the slant given you by the bigoted, anti-Catholic media.

Most of the stuff currently being reported happened quite some time ago. For example, the effort by some to blame the Pope while he was archbishop for relocating an abusive priest happened 30 years ago. But the way it’s being reported, you’d think it happened yesterday. And they don’t have the facts to back it up.

They also like to group it all under the heading of “pedophilia” when in fact, about 80% of it is homosexual acts with teens. Not that either is okay. It’s not.

Plus, keep in mind that a bishop who found out about this through sacramental Confession is bound by the seal of Confession from using that information in any way. He must remain silent.

And, it was also the case where many families who found out about this pressured the bishop into silence to, in their opinion, protect their childrena and family name from getting into public light about all this. They wanted it kept quiet.

In my opinion, any priest accused and proven guilty should be defrocked and sent to jail. And I think that’s what they’re doing now. The Church has instituted a program to deal with these things, but you’ll probably never hear about that in the media.

I also think that if the media was SO intent on “protecting children” then they should go after the public school systems, where this sort of thing is 6 times more prevalent, and STILL going on. But they won’t. In fact, there was a case recently where an elementary school counsellor was arrested for molesting a child. He was an employee of the school system. But he happened to have been a defrocked priest. Guess what the headline read? Yep, it was all about him being an ex-priest. Nothing about the responsibility the school system should have had to do a background check on this guy! Abusive teachers in many places are just shuffled around and can’t be fired because they belong to the teachers’ union and have tenure. They’re just given office jobs in some cases, and just sent to other schools in other cases. Where’s the outrage about that?!
 
I think like many, you are falling for the slant given you by the bigoted, anti-Catholic media.

Most of the stuff currently being reported happened quite some time ago. For example, the effort by some to blame the Pope while he was archbishop for relocating an abusive priest happened 30 years ago. But the way it’s being reported, you’d think it happened yesterday. And they don’t have the facts to back it up.

They also like to group it all under the heading of “pedophilia” when in fact, about 80% of it is homosexual acts with teens. Not that either is okay. It’s not.

Plus, keep in mind that a bishop who found out about this through sacramental Confession is bound by the seal of Confession from using that information in any way. He must remain silent.

And, it was also the case where many families who found out about this pressured the bishop into silence to, in their opinion, protect their childrena and family name from getting into public light about all this. They wanted it kept quiet.

In my opinion, any priest accused and proven guilty should be defrocked and sent to jail. And I think that’s what they’re doing now. The Church has instituted a program to deal with these things, but you’ll probably never hear about that in the media.

I also think that if the media was SO intent on “protecting children” then they should go after the public school systems, where this sort of thing is 6 times more prevalent, and STILL going on. But they won’t. In fact, there was a case recently where an elementary school counsellor was arrested for molesting a child. He was an employee of the school system. But he happened to have been a defrocked priest. Guess what the headline read? Yep, it was all about him being an ex-priest. Nothing about the responsibility the school system should have had to do a background check on this guy! Abusive teachers in many places are just shuffled around and can’t be fired because they belong to the teachers’ union and have tenure. They’re just given office jobs in some cases, and just sent to other schools in other cases. Where’s the outrage about that?!
Many teens are still children according to the law. Not talking about public schools has nothing to do with what the church did. The church messed up by trying to cover this up. EXTREMELY UN-CHRISTIAN. They thought of themselves first, and didn’t think of defiled children. They didn’t care at all.

As for why they talk about priests so much, it is because priests are supposed to be some of the most moral people in society. They are supposed to be an example for the public. THAT is why it is such a big deal.
 
A-hem.

I really get fried with people screaming ‘cover up’.

Cover up is what we would have NOW if a bishop were informed of a priest abuse case occuring NOW.

But in all areas of life in the Western world–and that includes your local protestant churches, schools, banks, police stations, and homes–30 years ago and earlier, the legal and MEDICAL accepted way of dealing with any kind of sexual issue was to above all protect the good name of the **victim.

**For those of you under 40, raised with the Oprah Spinger mindset, you can’t imagine that people don’t ‘let it all hang out’. But. . .surprise–that’s a very modern outlook.

Even today we women still find that if we come in to court to testify to rape, people will ask, “What were you doing, what were you WEARING” as though a woman ‘asked for it’ if she was wearing anything other than a burkha, or if she happened to be out after dark. And that is in ‘enlightened’ 2010. Back in the day, it was assumed that bad things only happened to ‘bad people’. . .so it was considered kinder to keep the victim’s name private.

And if you’re keeping the victim private, and considering that the U.S. law is still 'innocent until PROVEN guilty". . .well, you kept the ALLEGED offender name private too. I know, what a concept.

**For heaven’s sake, people, please, learn a little bit of history and stop assuming that people living in 1970 knew everything you do now.

**My father died in the 1960s. Less than 5 years later, the standard treatment for his disease would have been open heart surgery. Less than 10 years after that, the survival rate would have been like 90%.

Do I go back and sue the doctors because they didn’t perform open heart surgery on my father (which they would do without question if he were alive today?) Um, no, DUH, how could they do something which was not KNOWN or done then, even if it is known and done today???
 
A-hem.

I really get fried with people screaming ‘cover up’.

Cover up is what we would have NOW if a bishop were informed of a priest abuse case occuring NOW.

But in all areas of life in the Western world–and that includes your local protestant churches, schools, banks, police stations, and homes–30 years ago and earlier, the legal and MEDICAL accepted way of dealing with any kind of sexual issue was to above all protect the good name of the **victim.

**For those of you under 40, raised with the Oprah Spinger mindset, you can’t imagine that people don’t ‘let it all hang out’. But. . .surprise–that’s a very modern outlook.

Even today we women still find that if we come in to court to testify to rape, people will ask, “What were you doing, what were you WEARING” as though a woman ‘asked for it’ if she was wearing anything other than a burkha, or if she happened to be out after dark. And that is in ‘enlightened’ 2010. Back in the day, it was assumed that bad things only happened to ‘bad people’. . .so it was considered kinder to keep the victim’s name private.

And if you’re keeping the victim private, and considering that the U.S. law is still 'innocent until PROVEN guilty". . .well, you kept the ALLEGED offender name private too. I know, what a concept.

**For heaven’s sake, people, please, learn a little bit of history and stop assuming that people living in 1970 knew everything you do now.

**My father died in the 1960s. Less than 5 years later, the standard treatment for his disease would have been open heart surgery. Less than 10 years after that, the survival rate would have been like 90%.

Do I go back and sue the doctors because they didn’t perform open heart surgery on my father (which they would do without question if he were alive today?) Um, no, DUH, how could they do something which was not KNOWN or done then, even if it is known and done today???
IMO is that there was a problem with the law then. Why didn’t the law investigate and do something about this then. Why now 30-40yrs later and using todays standards. Just my thoughts.
 
Going forward there needs to be accountability and attentiveness. The episcopate owes that much to the faithful.

Looking back, it seems like there should have been culpability assessed on the priest at the time. I don’t know and can’t know why there wasn’t in all cases. Ultimately the Lord will judge them for these actions.

Tantum makes a good point that things were done differently back in the day. There may very well have been other cases that were handled correctly but discretely - a suspected pedophile or hebephile (one who likes teens) priest defrocked and evidence turned over for prosecution. It’s more sensational now. That doesn’t excuse those who did knowingly transfer problem priests elsewhere where they could cause more damage - and I think this is ultimately what feels like a betrayal of trust to the faithful.

Consider that we will have bad priests. Whether it’s the fallen nature of man or satanic invasion, there will be priests and clergy who abuse and distort their position. These should be dealt with as soon as they are known. When it becomes a matter of smoothing over the issue without addressing it, that’s not justifiable and the persons responsible should be held to account for what is known.

That is really hard to do on a cold case. Believe me it’s frustrating to empathize with victims who kept silent for 40 years and now their abuser is dead and there’s no trail of evidence. I’m happy with the policy changes made by dioceses to remedy this and I hope it works. I don’t know how much consolation that offers the afflicted.

The reality is that in cases of abuse (regardless of the source) today, as in old cases, few actually go to trial. Part of it is lack of evidence. Part of it is the difficulty in prosecuting such cases. While I was in college I worked as a journalist and got to interview the country prosecutor. I grilled him over why so few rape cases go to trial, in particular why two assault cases on campus were being handled out of court. He expressed frustration at how difficult they are to prosecute. This was a college town where the progressive mindset of students clashed with that of the locals who had a different understanding of women. Where students could say “She wanted to look good for herself and wanted to have a drink” the locals (who comprised the jury, after all) would say “She dressed like she wanted it and she drank so she wanted it.”

In abuse cases it often comes down credibility. Do we know this kid isn’t making this up? Are we sure it’s this priest and not the other one, or a teacher, or a parent who did this to their own child and told the kid to blame the priest?

As much as I like to hear charges dismissed because the accuser recants and said they made it all up (especially against priests whom I know) I also know that has to frustrate the process further for those legitimate cases.
 
If you know anything about sex abuse, you would know that how long ago the act or acts occurred has nothing to do with anything. A victim suffers permanently from the damage – whether it occurred yesterday or 30 years ago.

In public schools, if a child claims to have been sexually or physically abused, it is against the law to NOT report the incident.

Also claiming that sex abuse happens in schools, other relgions etc. does not make it right for us. It is a sin against the Child, Society and the Church. Plain and simple!
 
Most of the stuff currently being reported happened quite some time ago. For example, the effort by some to blame the Pope while he was archbishop for relocating an abusive priest happened 30 years ago. But the way it’s being reported, you’d think it happened yesterday. And they don’t have the facts to back it up.
That may be true, many were long ago. But, many were not. This continued into the 80s, 90s and 2000s. The “old” argument, while valid, only a portion of the problem. I can accept this argument, but the problem still exists.
They also like to group it all under the heading of “pedophilia” when in fact, about 80% of it is homosexual acts with teens. Not that either is okay. It’s not.
Blame it on the gays. Wow. Way to fall into that stereotype. By the way, up until 18, it is still rape, and classified as pedophilia. One line turned rape of a minor into gay sex. Well played.
Plus, keep in mind that a bishop who found out about this through sacramental Confession is bound by the seal of Confession from using that information in any way. He must remain silent.
So, using this logic, if I ran the church of Cheese-Whiz, and one of my tenants was the same, you would be OK with me not reporting your child being raped? It is not even that I think they should not have the right to expect privacy, it is that no one stopped and decided that in these specific cases, the welfare of the children is more important. It shows where the priority lie.
In my opinion, any priest accused and proven guilty should be defrocked and sent to jail. And I think that’s what they’re doing now. The Church has instituted a program to deal with these things, but you’ll probably never hear about that in the media.
You think that is what they are doing now? Hmmm. I am sure you can dig up a handful. But, at this point we should have a huge list posted of all the 10s if not 100s of priests that the Church has help send away to jail. I won’t hold my breath for that list to appear. If it did exist, the Church would hold it up at every news conference they hold. Please prove me wrong, but I don’t think you can.

But, at the end of the day, molesters exist everywhere, and the Church is no different. I accept that. I do not accept that the Church has done almost nothing to hold the bishops/cardinals and up responsible. Unless I am mistaken, only a handful of men responsible for executing the cover up have been charged with anything meaningful. And that was not because the Church took the lead in prosecuting its own. It was actually in spite of them.

Also, this whole “letter of apology” thing. What the he!! is up with that? Are we supposed to take that seriously? If the head of the school board wrote some letter saying how bad he/she felt for covering up his employee raping someones child, would you actually take that seriously?
I also think that if the media was SO intent on “protecting children” then they should go after the public school systems, where this sort of thing is 6 times more prevalent, and STILL going on. But they won’t. In fact, there was a case recently where an elementary school counsellor was arrested for molesting a child. He was an employee of the school system. But he happened to have been a defrocked priest. Guess what the headline read? Yep, it was all about him being an ex-priest. Nothing about the responsibility the school system should have had to do a background check on this guy! Abusive teachers in many places are just shuffled around and can’t be fired because they belong to the teachers’ union and have tenure. They’re just given office jobs in some cases, and just sent to other schools in other cases. Where’s the outrage about that?!
Please post an example or two of a teacher, after being accused of raping a child, is merely “shuffled off” to another school. I have no problem believing pedophilia is just as prevalent in teachers, if not more so, than priests. Show me when a school covers up a rape and transfers a teacher. Ill wait.
 
To PassingThru,

Let me start at the end and work my way back up…

Please post an example or two of a teacher, after being accused of raping a child, is merely “shuffled off” to another school. I have no problem believing pedophilia is just as prevalent in teachers, if not more so, than priests. Show me when a school covers up a rape and transfers a teacher. Ill wait. (Your post.)

The American Medical Association found in 1986 that one in four girls, and one in eight boys, are sexually abused in or out of school before the age of 18. Two years later, a study included in The Handbook on Sexual Abuse of Children, reported that one in four girls, and one in six boys, is sexually abused by age 18.[Michael Dobie, “Violation of Trust,” *Newsday, June 9, 2002, p. C25.]

It was reported in 1991 that 17.7 percent of males who graduated from high school, and 82.2 percent of females, reported sexual harassment by faculty or staff during their years in school. Fully 13.5 percent said they had sexual intercourse with their teacher.[Daniel Wishnietsky, “Reported and Unreported Teacher-Student Sexual Harassment,”]

In New York City alone, at least one child is sexually abused by a school employee every day. One study concluded that more than 60 percent of employees accused of sexual abuse in the New York City schools were transferred to desk jobs at district offices located inside the schools. Most of these teachers are tenured and 40 percent of those transferred are repeat offenders. They call it “passing the garbage” in the schools. One reason why this exists is due to efforts by the United Federation of Teachers to protect teachers at the expense of children.[Douglas Montero, “Secret Shame of Our Schools: Sexual Abuse of Students Runs Rampant,” *New York Post, July 30, 2001, p. 1.]

Another is the fact that teachers accused of sexual misconduct cannot be fired under New York State law.“Schools Chancellor: Four Teachers Barred from Classroom,” Associated Press, June 12, 2003]

One of the nation’s foremost authorities on the subject of the sexual abuse of minors in public schools is Hofstra University professor Charol Shakeshaft. In 1994, Shakeshaft and Audrey Cohan did a study of 225 cases of educator sexual abuse in New York City. Their findings are astounding.

All of the accused admitted sexual abuse of a student, but none of the abusers was reported to the authorities, and only 1 percent lost their license to teach. Only 35 percent suffered negative consequences of any kind, and 39 percent chose to leave their school district, most with positive recommendations. Some were even given an early retirement package.[Charol Shakeshaft and Audrey Cohan, *In loco parentis: Sexual abuse of students in schools, (What administrators should know). Report to the U.S. Department of Education, Field Initiated Grants]

Moving molesting teachers from school district to school district is a common phenomenon. And in only 1 percent of the cases do superintendents notify the new school district.

According to Diana Jean Schemo, the term “passing the trash” is the preferred jargon among educators.[Diana Jean Schemo, “Silently Shifting Teachers in Sex Abuse Cases,” *New York Times, June 18, 2002, p. A19.]

You think that is what they are doing now? Hmmm. I am sure you can dig up a handful. But, at this point we should have a huge list posted of all the 10s if not 100s of priests that the Church has help send away to jail. I won’t hold my breath for that list to appear. If it did exist, the Church would hold it up at every news conference they hold. Please prove me wrong, but I don’t think you can. (Your post.)

According to a survey by the Washington Post, over the last four decades, less than 1.5 percent of the estimated 60,000 or more men who have served in the Catholic clergy have been accused (not proven guilty…just accused) of child sexual abuse.[Alan Cooperman, “Hundreds of Priests Removed Since ‘60s; Survey Shows Scope Wider Than Disclosed,” *Washington Post, June 9, 2002, p. A1.]

Blame it on the gays. Wow. Way to fall into that stereotype. By the way, up until 18, it is still rape, and classified as pedophilia. One line turned rape of a minor into gay sex. Well played. (Your post.)

Almost all the priests who abuse children are homosexuals. Dr. Thomas Plante, a psychologist at Santa Clara University, found that “80 to 90% of all priests who in fact abuse minors have sexually engaged with adolescent boys, not prepubescent children. Thus, the teenager is more at risk than the young altar boy or girls of any age.” [Thomas Plante, “A Perspective on Clergy Sexual Abuse,” A Perspective on Clergy Sexual Abuse, by Dr. Thomas Plante”]www.psywww.com/psyrelig/plante.html.]

The American Psychiatric Association defines pedophilia as sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Therefore, as I said, the majority of the abuse was between gay priests and teenagers.
 
First off, let’s admit that the bishops utterly blundered on the appropriate response to a priest accused of molesting a child. Morality is not time dependant or situational.

But you DO have to have mercy and examine situations to determine the CULPABILITY for a sin / crime. The bishops blew it, but do not assume they were merely looking to cover up for their buddies and avoid scandal that would hurt the collection basket. That’s an evil, uncharitable assumption. Wrong or not, people did not understand sexual abuse until fairly recently. Bishops naively trusted secular psychologists instead of their own moral authority and made the mistake of disbelieving that men they knew and trusted could ever really do such a thing.

Those who doubt that there was really such a misunderstanding should go back and watch old “Family Ties” episodes. Rember that show? Michael J Fox? I recently had the TV on while doing some paperwork and my head jerked up when I realized what the show was about. A longtime family friend made sexual advances on the oldest teenage girl in the family, doing classic grooming behavior first. She eventually told her folks and they confronted the man, but the final resolution was that he agreed to go see a counselor. Nothing more!! This was the 1980’s, already into the PC era and even the media hadn’t made the connection!! The bishops essentially did the SAME thing that this TV show producers held up as the GOOD outcome and look what happened.

Our society at large had a problem in that we didn’t want to believe it was possible, so we looked the other way and assumed the best when clues arose. Bad move, but it was not just in the Church that this bad move was made. It was universal. Remember, conduct of priests and bishops is not guaranteed by the Holy Spirit. Heck, one of the apostles sold Jesus for 30 pieces of silver…

And by the way, those ready to throw stones at the bishops in question will one day be asked “why didn’t you do anything when you knew ______.” Hope you have a REALLY good answer.
 
A-hem.

I really get fried with people screaming ‘cover up’.

Cover up is what we would have NOW if a bishop were informed of a priest abuse case occuring NOW.

But in all areas of life in the Western world–and that includes your local protestant churches, schools, banks, police stations, and homes–30 years ago and earlier, the legal and MEDICAL accepted way of dealing with any kind of sexual issue was to above all protect the good name of the **victim.

**For those of you under 40, raised with the Oprah Spinger mindset, you can’t imagine that people don’t ‘let it all hang out’. But. . .surprise–that’s a very modern outlook.

Even today we women still find that if we come in to court to testify to rape, people will ask, “What were you doing, what were you WEARING” as though a woman ‘asked for it’ if she was wearing anything other than a burkha, or if she happened to be out after dark. And that is in ‘enlightened’ 2010. Back in the day, it was assumed that bad things only happened to ‘bad people’. . .so it was considered kinder to keep the victim’s name private.

And if you’re keeping the victim private, and considering that the U.S. law is still 'innocent until PROVEN guilty". . .well, you kept the ALLEGED offender name private too. I know, what a concept.

**For heaven’s sake, people, please, learn a little bit of history and stop assuming that people living in 1970 knew everything you do now.

**My father died in the 1960s. Less than 5 years later, the standard treatment for his disease would have been open heart surgery. Less than 10 years after that, the survival rate would have been like 90%.

Do I go back and sue the doctors because they didn’t perform open heart surgery on my father (which they would do without question if he were alive today?) Um, no, DUH, how could they do something which was not KNOWN or done then, even if it is known and done today???
There have been more recent cover ups.
 
If you know anything about sex abuse, you would know that how long ago the act or acts occurred has nothing to do with anything. A victim suffers permanently from the damage – whether it occurred yesterday or 30 years ago.

In public schools, if a child claims to have been sexually or physically abused, it is against the law to NOT report the incident.

Also claiming that sex abuse happens in schools, other relgions etc. does not make it right for us. It is a sin against the Child, Society and the Church. Plain and simple!
👍👍👍👍👍
 
To PassingThru,

Let me start at the end and work my way back up…

Please post an example or two of a teacher, after being accused of raping a child, is merely “shuffled off” to another school. I have no problem believing pedophilia is just as prevalent in teachers, if not more so, than priests. Show me when a school covers up a rape and transfers a teacher. Ill wait. (Your post.)

The American Medical Association found in 1986 that one in four girls, and one in eight boys, are sexually abused in or out of school before the age of 18. Two years later, a study included in The Handbook on Sexual Abuse of Children, reported that one in four girls, and one in six boys, is sexually abused by age 18.[Michael Dobie, “Violation of Trust,” *Newsday
, June 9, 2002, p. C25.]

It was reported in 1991 that 17.7 percent of males who graduated from high school, and 82.2 percent of females, reported sexual harassment by faculty or staff during their years in school. Fully 13.5 percent said they had sexual intercourse with their teacher.[Daniel Wishnietsky, “Reported and Unreported Teacher-Student Sexual Harassment,”]

In New York City alone, at least one child is sexually abused by a school employee every day. One study concluded that more than 60 percent of employees accused of sexual abuse in the New York City schools were transferred to desk jobs at district offices located inside the schools. Most of these teachers are tenured and 40 percent of those transferred are repeat offenders. They call it “passing the garbage” in the schools. One reason why this exists is due to efforts by the United Federation of Teachers to protect teachers at the expense of children.[Douglas Montero, “Secret Shame of Our Schools: Sexual Abuse of Students Runs Rampant,” *New York Post, July 30, 2001, p. 1.]

Another is the fact that teachers accused of sexual misconduct cannot be fired under New York State law.“Schools Chancellor: Four Teachers Barred from Classroom,” Associated Press, June 12, 2003]

One of the nation’s foremost authorities on the subject of the sexual abuse of minors in public schools is Hofstra University professor Charol Shakeshaft. In 1994, Shakeshaft and Audrey Cohan did a study of 225 cases of educator sexual abuse in New York City. Their findings are astounding.

All of the accused admitted sexual abuse of a student, but none of the abusers was reported to the authorities, and only 1 percent lost their license to teach. Only 35 percent suffered negative consequences of any kind, and 39 percent chose to leave their school district, most with positive recommendations. Some were even given an early retirement package.[Charol Shakeshaft and Audrey Cohan, *In loco parentis: Sexual abuse of students in schools, (What administrators should know). Report to the U.S. Department of Education, Field Initiated Grants]

Moving molesting teachers from school district to school district is a common phenomenon. And in only 1 percent of the cases do superintendents notify the new school district.

According to Diana Jean Schemo, the term “passing the trash” is the preferred jargon among educators.[Diana Jean Schemo, “Silently Shifting Teachers in Sex Abuse Cases,” *New York Times, June 18, 2002, p. A19.]

You think that is what they are doing now? Hmmm. I am sure you can dig up a handful. But, at this point we should have a huge list posted of all the 10s if not 100s of priests that the Church has help send away to jail. I won’t hold my breath for that list to appear. If it did exist, the Church would hold it up at every news conference they hold. Please prove me wrong, but I don’t think you can. (Your post.)

According to a survey by the Washington Post, over the last four decades, less than 1.5 percent of the estimated 60,000 or more men who have served in the Catholic clergy have been accused (not proven guilty…just accused) of child sexual abuse.[Alan Cooperman, “Hundreds of Priests Removed Since ‘60s; Survey Shows Scope Wider Than Disclosed,” *Washington Post, June 9, 2002, p. A1.]

Blame it on the gays. Wow. Way to fall into that stereotype. By the way, up until 18, it is still rape, and classified as pedophilia. One line turned rape of a minor into gay sex. Well played. (Your post.)

Almost all the priests who abuse children are homosexuals. Dr. Thomas Plante, a psychologist at Santa Clara University, found that “80 to 90% of all priests who in fact abuse minors have sexually engaged with adolescent boys, not prepubescent children. Thus, the teenager is more at risk than the young altar boy or girls of any age.” [Thomas Plante, “A Perspective on Clergy Sexual Abuse,” http://www.psywww.com/psyrelig/plante.html”]www.psywww.com/psyrelig/plante.html.]

The American Psychiatric Association defines pedophilia as sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Therefore, as I said, the majority of the abuse was between gay priests and teenagers.

" Fully 13.5 percent said they had sexual intercourse with their teacher."

That CAN’T be true. I have a feeling a lot of high school students thought it would be funny to write that they had sex with their teachers.
 
You SAY that there have been ‘more recent cover-ups’.

As if by saying it, you’re somehow not only proving the validity that anything that took place before was ‘also’ a cover up’, but that there are even more now, and that this somehow proves. . what? What, exactly?

Tell you what. You find me where, in the Catholic Church (like, say, the catechism), it says that the Church teaches that priests should abuse and that anybody should lie.

And then find me the place where it says that anybody who makes a mistake in judgment (whether they knew it was a mistake or not) is automatically proven to have done so with malice and full knowledge. That it wasn’t an error, but a deliberate, gross sin. Find where it says that following the law is wrong, and that if the law or science ‘change’, that the previous following of the ‘old’ law is thereby proven to be malicious and deliberate sin instead of obedience to the law.

The problem with a lot of people who come with screams of outrage is that they have already decided that ‘any’ case of alleged abuse is a case of the Catholic Church having a set policy to lie and ‘coverup’. And so rather than acknowledge that people in the church–AND in the schools and the hospitals too!–were mistaken in the MEDICAL BELIEF that pedophilia could be cured AND that the abusers needed a ‘clean slate’ and a ‘second chance’–they just keep harping and harping, “It’s wrong now, they should have known, they still do it, blah blah.”

They can’t prove it but they keep screaming it as if, by saying it loudly enough and often enough, they’ll get it accepted as truth.

It is not the truth that the majority of Catholic priests and bishops who knew about abuse, in the majority of the cases for the majority of the time period, knew that the abusers were incurable and deliberately sent them off to wreak havoc. But that’s exactly what many people say happened. Why do they not speak the truth?

And the thing is, that you just can’t get people to accept that truth. They WANT to believe that the ‘authority figures’ were evil people who did unspeakable things and that the WHOLE CHURCH is like that.

Because what do you see? You see emblazed, "The CATHOLIC CHURCH DID THIS. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DID THAT.’

You don’t see, "Bishop A of the Catholic diocese of X is accused of this SPECIFIC case dating from year ****. You see, “THE CATHOLIC CHURCH COVERED UP ABUSE.”

So tell me, is the U.S. government guilty of abuse because Bill Clinton had an affair with Monica Lewinsky? Was it Bill who propositioned her or was it “THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT TRIED TO COVER UP AN AFFAIR WITH MONICA”.

All you people screaming about “THE CATHOLIC CHURCH COVERUP” --I sure hope that you are pursuing ‘justice’ and going after the U.S. GOVERNMENT with the same fervor you go against the CATHOLIC CHURCH, ya know? I mean, the PRESIDENT of the U.S. LIED and engaged in EXTRAMARITAL SEX. . .but we aren’t trying to take down the government because of THAT, are we???

I don’t condone any abuse… But it’s a disservice to every person abused to compound what they have already suffered by making false claims about the Catholic Church ‘in their name’.
 
You SAY that there have been ‘more recent cover-ups’.

As if by saying it, you’re somehow not only proving the validity that anything that took place before was ‘also’ a cover up’, but that there are even more now, and that this somehow proves. . what? What, exactly?

Tell you what. You find me where, in the Catholic Church (like, say, the catechism), it says that the Church teaches that priests should abuse and that anybody should lie.

And then find me the place where it says that anybody who makes a mistake in judgment (whether they knew it was a mistake or not) is automatically proven to have done so with malice and full knowledge. That it wasn’t an error, but a deliberate, gross sin. Find where it says that following the law is wrong, and that if the law or science ‘change’, that the previous following of the ‘old’ law is thereby proven to be malicious and deliberate sin instead of obedience to the law.

The problem with a lot of people who come with screams of outrage is that they have already decided that ‘any’ case of alleged abuse is a case of the Catholic Church having a set policy to lie and ‘coverup’. And so rather than acknowledge that people in the church–AND in the schools and the hospitals too!–were mistaken in the MEDICAL BELIEF that pedophilia could be cured AND that the abusers needed a ‘clean slate’ and a ‘second chance’–they just keep harping and harping, “It’s wrong now, they should have known, they still do it, blah blah.”

They can’t prove it but they keep screaming it as if, by saying it loudly enough and often enough, they’ll get it accepted as truth.

It is not the truth that the majority of Catholic priests and bishops who knew about abuse, in the majority of the cases for the majority of the time period, knew that the abusers were incurable and deliberately sent them off to wreak havoc. But that’s exactly what many people say happened. Why do they not speak the truth?

And the thing is, that you just can’t get people to accept that truth. They WANT to believe that the ‘authority figures’ were evil people who did unspeakable things and that the WHOLE CHURCH is like that.

Because what do you see? You see emblazed, "The CATHOLIC CHURCH DID THIS. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DID THAT.’

You don’t see, "Bishop A of the Catholic diocese of X is accused of this SPECIFIC case dating from year ****. You see, “THE CATHOLIC CHURCH COVERED UP ABUSE.”

So tell me, is the U.S. government guilty of abuse because Bill Clinton had an affair with Monica Lewinsky? Was it Bill who propositioned her or was it “THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT TRIED TO COVER UP AN AFFAIR WITH MONICA”.

All you people screaming about “THE CATHOLIC CHURCH COVERUP” --I sure hope that you are pursuing ‘justice’ and going after the U.S. GOVERNMENT with the same fervor you go against the CATHOLIC CHURCH, ya know? I mean, the PRESIDENT of the U.S. LIED and engaged in EXTRAMARITAL SEX. . .but we aren’t trying to take down the government because of THAT, are we???

I don’t condone any abuse… But it’s a disservice to every person abused to compound what they have already suffered by making false claims about the Catholic Church ‘in their name’.
Are you saying that no bishop or church figure ever tried to cover up sex scandals involving priests and children?
 
Are you saying that no bishop or church figure ever tried to cover up sex scandals involving priests and children?
Sigh. Why would you even ASK such a thing? You didn’t read my post carefully or you’d have seen that I said no such thing. It is possible that a bishop was guilty of more than a mistake in judgment (in trusting the medical figures who gave poor advice). In 2000 years of history, I’m sure that there could be someone who truly did engage in real wrongdoing on the subject.

But there is a huge difference between the inferences and the outright claims that ALL bishops who had cases of abuse brought up ‘tried to cover up sex scandals involving priests and children.’

First. . .some of the cases involved priests who were falsely accused. In some cases, the priest accused AND the bishop under whom it happened are both dead. . .so we really don’t know the state of mind of either, do we?

And many (that’s why I said “majority”) took place decades ago when nobody knew that pedophilia could not be ‘cured’, that some sexual predators could not change. In a time when it was not considered a ‘cover up’ to keep silent, but was considered normal and healthy and indeed helpful, especially to the victim.

I’m saying that unless you can prove, 100%, that the bishop knew that it was wrong to send the man away to a different place without giving the new place ‘all the facts’- but he did it anyway-you simply can’t go around and scream" Cover up". . .because it wasn’t a cover up. Furthermore, even if you found a bishop who absolutely did all the above–that is still one bishop acting ALONE–and in fact, acting AGAINST the Catholic Church, because the Catholic Church absolutely does not teach, and never did, that it is all right to deliberately send people off, when you know that it is illegal and immoral, to let them sin again.

It’s the constant equating of “if ONE priest sins, it’s the whole CATHOLIC CHURCH at fault”, or "If one bishop is being accused of a coverup, then all bishops dealing with abuse cases are guilty of coverup, and it’s the ENTIRE CATHOLIC CHURCH at fault’ that I object to.

Guilt by association is wrong. Presumption of ‘guilty until proven innocent’ is wrong. Taking the actions of one person–who is breaking the law of a particular group–and then accusing the entire group of breaking the law ‘by association’ is wrong.
 
Sigh. Why would you even ASK such a thing? You didn’t read my post carefully or you’d have seen that I said no such thing. It is possible that a bishop was guilty of more than a mistake in judgment (in trusting the medical figures who gave poor advice). In 2000 years of history, I’m sure that there could be someone who truly did engage in real wrongdoing on the subject.

But there is a huge difference between the inferences and the outright claims that ALL bishops who had cases of abuse brought up ‘tried to cover up sex scandals involving priests and children.’

First. . .some of the cases involved priests who were falsely accused. In some cases, the priest accused AND the bishop under whom it happened are both dead. . .so we really don’t know the state of mind of either, do we?

And many (that’s why I said “majority”) took place decades ago when nobody knew that pedophilia could not be ‘cured’, that some sexual predators could not change. In a time when it was not considered a ‘cover up’ to keep silent, but was considered normal and healthy and indeed helpful, especially to the victim.

I’m saying that unless you can prove, 100%, that the bishop knew that it was wrong to send the man away to a different place without giving the new place ‘all the facts’- but he did it anyway-you simply can’t go around and scream" Cover up". . .because it wasn’t a cover up. Furthermore, even if you found a bishop who absolutely did all the above–that is still one bishop acting ALONE–and in fact, acting AGAINST the Catholic Church, because the Catholic Church absolutely does not teach, and never did, that it is all right to deliberately send people off, when you know that it is illegal and immoral, to let them sin again.

It’s the constant equating of “if ONE priest sins, it’s the whole CATHOLIC CHURCH at fault”, or "If one bishop is being accused of a coverup, then all bishops dealing with abuse cases are guilty of coverup, and it’s the ENTIRE CATHOLIC CHURCH at fault’ that I object to.

Guilt by association is wrong. Presumption of ‘guilty until proven innocent’ is wrong. Taking the actions of one person–who is breaking the law of a particular group–and then accusing the entire group of breaking the law ‘by association’ is wrong.
I like how you are running with the extremes of either there is basically no wrongdoing, or, we are all out to destroy the Church, and everyone is in on a grand conspiracy. How about a middle ground: Likely hundreds, maybe thousands, of cases of rape/pedophilia, many from 30+ years ago, some more recent, with a very (very!) low chance that the Church, on her own and with knowledge, prosecuting the case. Is that fair?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top