Question about sex abuse scandals

[PaulinVA]

The Church’s moral authority does not stem from its members, but from Christ, who gave the Church His deposit of Divine teachings to share with the world. Whether any individual (including heirarchy) follows those teachings is what we’re here on earth for.

Yes, but as a witness to the world, the Bishops need to be spotless so that they can speak at times like this with authority to those who don’t believe but respect the Church.

 

[Rascalking]

Yes, but as a witness to the world, the Bishops need to be spotless so that they can speak at times like this with authority to those who don’t believe but respect the Church.

Your partially right. I’m so angry about the scandal-it’s so disgustingly abhorrent that it raises my blood pressure just to think about it-and I’m even more furious when Catholics try to dismiss or sweep it under the rug.

Bishops can’t be spotless-they’re human, like you or I. However, they must be open about it. And, if they covered it up anyway, they need to take their own medicine, and “take it like a man” (a saying so many catholics are found of) and resign. Period.

We are talking about priests molesting children (yes, a very small percentage of them, but a few too many). There is no gray here. We, as faithful catholics, have a right to be angry at anyone who perpetrated it and, those who covered it up.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Your partially right. I’m so angry about the scandal-it’s so disgustingly abhorrent that it raises my blood pressure just to think about it-and I’m even more furious when Catholics try to dismiss or sweep it under the rug.

Bishops can’t be spotless-they’re human, like you or I. However, they must be open about it. And, if they covered it up anyway, they need to take their own medicine, and “take it like a man” (a saying so many catholics are found of) and resign. Period.

We are talking about priests molesting children (yes, a very small percentage of them, but a few too many). There is no gray here. We, as faithful catholics, have a right to be angry at anyone who perpetrated it and, those who covered it up.

But we are NOT trying to discuss or cover up something by raising legitimate points.

As I have said–often-IF there is incontrovertable evidence that a deliberate coverup went on—yes, punish the offender.

BUT–too often people call something ‘coverup’ when it was not. . .or cannot be proven.

I’ll give an example. Back in the 1980s, when (legally), mandated reporting was not in place, and pedophilia was considered both treatable and curable, the then-bishop of Vermont ‘reassigned’ this priest to another venue without giving them details of his treatment and alleged offenses.

Now–thing is, this bishop is now dead and gone. We do not know–we CANNOT know–just what his understanding was. He MAY have been guilty of simply misplaced ‘charity’, thinking (and being assured by the doctors of the time) that 'all would be well. This is NOT a coverup. Obviously given how things panned out it was an error in judgment but it was NOT an error made by “The Catholic Church”. . .it was an error made by a man who acted in good faith, with expert ‘testimony’.

See the difference between that and the assumption that the bishop not only was fully aware of the ‘evil’, but that he deliberately ‘covered up’ out of a BASE, IGNOBLE desire to 'not be caught looking ‘bad’. . .shallow, vain, and ultimately uncaring and negligent behavior.

So many just assume that all the bishops were doing this out of base, evil intentions. . .and none want to admit that the bishops may have been tragically mistaken with nothing but ‘pure’ thoughts and hopes.

Honest to God, the sanctimonious ‘holier-than-thou’ attitude from some is sickening. Hindsight is always 20/20.

You know what? A heck of a lot of people who scream about ‘coverup bishops’ here are also remarkably ‘laissez faire’ about abortion. Many even support it.

Hindsight is 20/20. Years from now when you get called on God’s carpet, and He says, “Well, you know NOW how evil abortion was but you supported it, you spoke for it, you stood by while millions of children were killed and you never said a word against it”. . . then what?

"For with the measure of justice that you mete out, that measure will be returned to you. . "

 

[losh14]

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.

Agreed. But from a legal and disciplinary standpoint, what can be done? The Church can offer counseling, but an accusation alone should not be enough to bring someone to trial or cast them out of position. A cavalcade of accusations should raise eyebrows, but should a priest be barred from duty, suspended or defrocked on the basis of one victim alleging abuse?

Going forward, such cases need to be investigated thoroughly and immediately. Looking back, that’s much harder to do as time passes.

 

[Rascalking]

But we are NOT trying to discuss or cover up something by raising legitimate points.

As I have said–often-IF there is incontrovertable evidence that a deliberate coverup went on—yes, punish the offender.

BUT–too often people call something ‘coverup’ when it was not. . .or cannot be proven.

I’ll give an example. Back in the 1980s, when (legally), mandated reporting was not in place, and pedophilia was considered both treatable and curable, the then-bishop of Vermont ‘reassigned’ this priest to another venue without giving them details of his treatment and alleged offenses.

Now–thing is, this bishop is now dead and gone. We do not know–we CANNOT know–just what his understanding was. He MAY have been guilty of simply misplaced ‘charity’, thinking (and being assured by the doctors of the time) that 'all would be well. This is NOT a coverup. Obviously given how things panned out it was an error in judgment but it was NOT an error made by “The Catholic Church”. . .it was an error made by a man who acted in good faith, with expert ‘testimony’.

See the difference between that and the assumption that the bishop not only was fully aware of the ‘evil’, but that he deliberately ‘covered up’ out of a BASE, IGNOBLE desire to 'not be caught looking ‘bad’. . .shallow, vain, and ultimately uncaring and negligent behavior.

So many just assume that all the bishops were doing this out of base, evil intentions. . .and none want to admit that the bishops may have been tragically mistaken with nothing but ‘pure’ thoughts and hopes.

Honest to God, the sanctimonious ‘holier-than-thou’ attitude from some is sickening. Hindsight is always 20/20.

You know what? A heck of a lot of people who scream about ‘coverup bishops’ here are also remarkably ‘laissez faire’ about abortion. Many even support it.

Hindsight is 20/20. Years from now when you get called on God’s carpet, and He says, “Well, you know NOW how evil abortion was but you supported it, you spoke for it, you stood by while millions of children were killed and you never said a word against it”. . . then what?

"For with the measure of justice that you mete out, that measure will be returned to you. . "

Wow. If that was directed just at me, you are SO off my Christmas card list.

A lot of people who scream about cover up bishops also love their church and hate it when people try to make excuses defending them. And oh yeah-alot of us are pro-life admantaly as well.

You seem to give the bishops every benefit of the doubt. Do you give that to other sinners too?

 

[lax16]

I was a teenager in the 70s. We heard of priests being moved multiple times from parish to parish because they were ‘messing with the altar boys’. My own parish had to deal with such a priest. So, in the 70s, the Bishops already knew that the recidivism rate for molesters was very high, even after these men had been ‘treated’ at that place in New Mexico, or where ever it was.

At first, psychologists had told the Bishops that molesters could be ‘cured’. But the Bishops’ own experience proved that wrong. THEY had the facts, and they withheld them.

In trying to keep the Church from scandal, the Bishops (and the brother Priests who kept silent) caused the biggest scandal in the Church in a long time. The Bishops now have absolutely no moral ground to talk about marriage or gay rights or anything dealing with sexual ethics.

I am still a Catholic because I feel the Church is indeed the one true Church founded by Jesus. I have to be here. However, I am deeply disappointed at Bishops, Priests, and others worldwide who, through the entire 20th century, abused altar boys, orphans, and others entrusted to their care. They have made it entremely had to be a Catholic in the 21st Century.

Wouldn’t you just love to ask the Bishops and priests who covered up/ignored it/tried to brush it under the rug “WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?!” It would be very insightful to hear their rationale as to why they did what they did.

Did someone tell them to do it? Was it so common they didn’t think it was that big of a deal? Did they really think that it was curable?

I know that in my parents day (the 30’s and 40’s), sexual abuse against children was not talked about or reported. This silence had to stem from something.

Perhaps their (name removed by moderator)ut has been documented and I just haven’t seen it.

Do you think this is what Jesus was referring to then he said “the gates of hell?”

 

[Scoobyshme]

Wow. If that was directed just at me, you are SO off my Christmas card list.

A lot of people who scream about cover up bishops also love their church and hate it when people try to make excuses defending them. And oh yeah-alot of us are pro-life admantaly as well.

You seem to give the bishops every benefit of the doubt. Do you give that to other sinners too?

If she’s off your Christmas list, does that mean she also doesn’t get the new toaster or microwave either?

Many people who scream about “cover up” in my opinion have been conditioned by the media from the time of Richard Nixon’s cover-up, as if it’s the worse sin in the world. They look with 20/20 hindsight as if it was all crystal clear beforehand. Being a priest in this country is especially hard because Americans are so independent and stubborn. They want what they want when they want it. And if they don’t get it, they’re gonna cause trouble and run to the bishop! No humility at all.

I think people forget that the Church must be just and that everyone has the right to a fair trial and should be treated as innocent until proven guilty.

Can you imagine how many priests we would have left if all you had to do is make one accusation, regardless of how flimsy? We’d have none left because all the anti-Catholics would wipe 'em out in a week with false accusations.

 

[Scoobyshme]

Wouldn’t you just love to ask the Bishops and priests who covered up/ignored it/tried to brush it under the rug “WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?!” It would be very insightful to hear their rationale as to why they did what they did.

I think many bishops were very cautious in handling these cases because they were used to priests being railed against by pushy parishoners. I’ve seen many priests reassigned because the more affluent parish members went to the bishop to complain about petty things about the priest and requested a different priest.

Did someone tell them to do it? Was it so common they didn’t think it was that big of a deal? Did they really think that it was curable?

Yes, the psychiatric community, even up to the 80’s, I think ,believed that this could be cured and the only thing required was counselling and therapy. They would return the priest as “cured and ready for duty” again. Today, they know more about this problem and say it is incurable. Hindsight is 20/20, of course. Keep in mind, too, that if the bishop found out about the problem via sacramental Confession, he could do absolutely nothing about it, unless he was clever and told the priest he had to resign as penance.

I know that in my parents day (the 30’s and 40’s), sexual abuse against children was not talked about or reported. This silence had to stem from something.

Much of the “cover up” was because the parents insisted that it be kept quiet to “protect” the family name and the child from a public scandal. That was the culture back then when people were more humble and more easily embarrassed by sexual things. In other words, it was before the “sexual revolution” hit in this country.

Perhaps their (name removed by moderator)ut has been documented and I just haven’t seen it.

As one prelate from the Vatican said, the Church is not much for “showcase justice.” The Church usually operates slowly, behind the scenes. You might enjoy the following article: zenit.org/rssenglish-28634

Do you think this is what Jesus was referring to then he said “the gates of hell?”

He was talking about the deposit of faith, the doctrines of the Church, meaning that the Church would never teach doctrinal error.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Wow. If that was directed just at me, you are SO off my Christmas card list. No WAY was that directed at you. You’re one of my favorite people.

A lot of people who scream about cover up bishops also love their church and hate it when people try to make excuses defending them. And oh yeah-alot of us are pro-life admantaly as well. Absolutely granted. I never have–never will–said that those who truly abused should be ‘excused’. And I have also said that it was all right to be angry at those who abused. . .I’m angry as well. . .at the sins. . . and it takes all my strength and then I need God’s own love to not hate the sinner too.

You seem to give the bishops every benefit of the doubt. Do you give that to other sinners too?

Yes, I do, or I try to anyway. Again, I’m 53, I was ‘around’ and in the medical field from the late 70s on so I know what the MDs and the psychiatrists and even what some of the lawyers etc. were saying back then. They really did not know the extent of evil and they really thought these people could be cured. Heck, they thought alcoholics should be sent out to bars so they could prove they could either drink responsibly or be able to ‘cold turkey’ it surrounded by people and things that screamed “drink”. I SAW these things, I HEARD these things, this was the world view and the mindset of people living THEN.

 

[Rascalking]

Yes, I do, or I try to anyway. Again, I’m 53, I was ‘around’ and in the medical field from the late 70s on so I know what the MDs and the psychiatrists and even what some of the lawyers etc. were saying back then. They really did not know the extent of evil and they really thought these people could be cured. Heck, they thought alcoholics should be sent out to bars so they could prove they could either drink responsibly or be able to ‘cold turkey’ it surrounded by people and things that screamed “drink”. I SAW these things, I HEARD these things, this was the world view and the mindset of people living THEN.

Ok than. Back on my list. How about a fruitcake?

Ok, I’m sorry. That crossed the line. Giving fruitcakes for Christmas is truly a grave sin!

And your right. We should all give people a benefit of the doubt.

 

[tweetymom]

If we were talking about some other institution being a product of its time and cultural context, it would be a different story, but this defense doesn’t wash when it comes to the Catholic Church which claims to have access to Eternal Truth. If the Church itself can’t rise above the accepted sensibilities of modernity, what good is it as a moral authority?

As the story of the sex scandal continues to be revealed throughout the world, what should be clear to all of us (if it was not already obvious) is that the Catholic Church is an organization comprised of fallible human beings. Most of them, like most Jews, atheists, Lutherans, etc. are trying hard to do what is right as well to determine what “doing what is right” means. They are doing it, like the rest of us, without any special access to God’s Will.

Best,
Leela

Amen sister

 

[lufty]

Wouldn’t you just love to ask the Bishops and priests who covered up/ignored it/tried to brush it under the rug “WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?!” It would be very insightful to hear their rationale as to why they did what they did.

Did someone tell them to do it? Was it so common they didn’t think it was that big of a deal? Did they really think that it was curable?

I know that in my parents day (the 30’s and 40’s), sexual abuse against children was not talked about or reported. This silence had to stem from something.

Perhaps their (name removed by moderator)ut has been documented and I just haven’t seen it.

Do you think this is what Jesus was referring to then he said “the gates of hell?”

You may find this film interesting, it covers a Priest who actively prayed on children for 30 years in California. There are some interviews with the Arch Bishop and other Church leaders of that Diocese at that time. It’s available free on Netflicks watch now if you have an account.

netflix.com/WiMovie/Deliver_Us_from_Evil/70056962?trkid=438403

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliver_Us_from_Evil_%282006_film%29

deliverusfromevilthemovie.com/index_flash.php

 

[PassingThru]

You may find this film interesting, it covers a Priest who actively prayed on children for 30 years in California. There are some interviews with the Arch Bishop and other Church leaders of that Diocese at that time. It’s available free on Netflicks watch now if you have an account.

netflix.com/WiMovie/Deliver_Us_from_Evil/70056962?trkid=438403

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliver_Us_from_Evil_%282006_film%29

deliverusfromevilthemovie.com/index_flash.php

I saw this a while ago. It is a great film.

I will agree before the “bias” accusations fly that I can easily see this film as slanted. However, just listening to the priest, and more importantly the cardinal, talk first hand is chilling.

This is a case in point for what I have been saying. The priest is the predator, and everyone will say he is deplorable, and his “punishment” was not just. Just as with any predator in any situation. But, listening to the cardinal and the church lie, in a deposition, is what makes me upset. This is where I do not understand why the body of the Catholic Church doesn’t rise up and DEMAND that he be immediately be held to account. Whatever that may be. If it were my church/company, I would be incensed. Yet, no anger from the laity. Why? ( I would also add, I would expect the upstanding priests serving under this Cardinal to also demand immediate action. I would stand in front of my parish with my entire congregation and demand that he be removed. This is where, like the military, the “obedience” relationship comes into play. Which makes non-Catholics VERY weary of just how forthright any information is.)

 

[tweetymom]

I saw this a while ago. It is a great film.

I will agree before the “bias” accusations fly that I can easily see this film as slanted. However, just listening to the priest, and more importantly the cardinal, talk first hand is chilling.

This is a case in point for what I have been saying. The priest is the predator, and everyone will say he is deplorable, and his “punishment” was not just. Just as with any predator in any situation. But, listening to the cardinal and the church lie, in a deposition, is what makes me upset. This is where I do not understand why the body of the Catholic Church doesn’t rise up and DEMAND that he be immediately be held to account. Whatever that may be. If it were my church/company, I would be incensed. Yet, no anger from the laity. Why?

I have plenty of anger to go around and I agree with you.

 

[tjrr]

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 did these priests receive a “slap on the wrist"only”? The complication may have been the church’s need to forgive,no matter how grave the offense.Most probably the
“I’m sorry” came as part of the sacrament of confession. It seems to me however that there is something called conditional absolution. That a person who commits a sin that is also a criminal offense must, as a condition of there being absolved of that sin, also make the same confession to civil authorities. shouldnt the priests who said “I’m sorry” also be required to turn themselves in to the police. The church authorities would be well within their rights to defrock those priests who refused to abide by that requirement and
willfully remained in a state of mortal sin.

 

[kage_ar]

It seems to me however that there is something called conditional absolution. That a person who commits a sin that is also a criminal offense must, as a condition of there being absolved of that sin, also make the same confession to civil authorities. shouldnt the priests who said “I’m sorry” also be required to turn themselves in to the police. The church authorities would be well within their rights to defrock those priests who refused to abide by that requirement and
willfully remained in a state of mortal sin.

There is no such thing, that would violate the seal of confession.