Sexual abuse claim dismissed by church foreshadowed years of allegations against Bishop Bransfield

[jack63]

I just read this in the Washington post tonight. It is pretty upsetting. It describes allegations against the former Bishop of West Virginia Michael Bransfield that were ignored. What can we do when reasonable allegations are made using the hotlines and these allegations are just ignored?

The former student, speaking to reporters for the first time, told The Post that church officials might have prevented Bransfield’s alleged wrongdoing in the years since if they had taken his claim more seriously. “They looked the other way,” he said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he has not told his family about his experience. “More people got victimized.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inve...4c118e-0659-11ea-a5e2-fccc16fa3576_story.html

 

[Tis_Bearself]

It doesn’t sound from the article like this claim was “ignored”. It was, according to the article, referred to higher levels of the Church up to the Vatican and also reported to the police. It also says that this incident apparently happened “decades ago” rather than close to 2007 when it was reported. If it was reported to the Archdiocese of Philadelphia in 2007, the Archdiocese at that time was dealing with a ton of such allegations since their grand jury investigation results had come out in 2005, and clerics actually got arrested for covering up, so I doubt there was any attempt to cover up. More like it was just another snowflake in the avalanche.

One has to question why the police didn’t do anything, given that the Church reported it to them. Perhaps the police didn’t think it was a strong enough case to pursue for some reason, such as lack of evidence, unreliable witness, or the alleged incidents happening decades ago (may have been statute of limitations problem). In any event, I don’t think one can accuse the Church of covering up or looking the other way when they actually inform the police about an allegation.

Given that this allegation against Bransfield is just another in a long parade of financial and sexual horribles that he reportedly committed, I am more concerned with how somebody who committed so many bad acts was permitted to continue serving as a bishop. Bransfield was buddies with McCarrick and perhaps had other “friends in high places” would be my guess, though it’s only speculation.

 

[jack63]

One has to question why the police didn’t do anything, given that the Church reported it to them. Perhaps the police didn’t think it was a strong enough case to pursue for some reason, such as lack of evidence, unreliable witness, or the alleged incidents happening decades ago

The thing is that the Catholic Church has got to be able to police themselves effectively. If we expect the authorities from the US government, European governments, Australian governments to police the Catholic Church, these governments will tear the church apart.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The Catholic Church cannot and should not be expected to “police itself” when it comes to actual criminal activities not related to some suppression of the faith. The Church can remove people from their posts in order to mitigate the damage, so they won’t hurt another child or steal more money from the collection. The Church cannot fully investigate a case for purposes of meting out civil punishment, and in countries where the justice system is not biased against the Church, there’s no need for the Church to do so.

The same is true of universities that try to maintain their own on-campus police and their own investigations separate from the police. Invariably there are problems because either the institution becomes concerned for its own reputation, or has some bias towards one or the other party, or the party who feels wronged in the end thinks they would have gotten a better deal from the civil authority and complains publicly or sues.

It may have made sense for the Church to police itself back in the days of warring chieftains in Europe who would unjustly persecute clergy if it served their political purpose to do so, usually for some type of power or economic gain. It does not make sense for the Church in this day and age to have the sole responsibility for policing sex abusers in the USA where such people and their victims are both entitled to due process by the civil authority, whose job it is to handle such cases. The Church can, like I said, remove the suspected offender from his position and report him to the authorities. That’s all the Church can or should do.

If an employee at my work embezzled from the company or assaulted another employee, I would expect that the company would fire or suspend the employee and report him to the police, who would take it from there. The Church needs to do the same for its offenders, and as far as I can tell, these days it does. We have had several priests with credible accusations of theft, sexual crimes, or drug crimes in our area since 2014, and they were removed from their parishes, reported to the police, arrested, and went through the criminal process. That’s what should happen.

 

[GiftofMercy]

This happened historically where many allegations were ignored by clergy and police on a global scale. Or clergy were moved around and sent for ‘re-education’ that historically has failed. And saw offenders repeatedly reoffending.

The article states that religious authorities claim it might now warrant further investigation.

Investigations should all be done in criminal mindsets and result in criminal courts . We should not be leaving it to the church to investigate and punish if warranted.

Just as any element of society , criminal allegations require the law to do the policing first and find innocent or guilty.
The Church has an appalling record of policing itself in all countries with this issue.

 

[GiftofMercy]

Criminal courts and enquiries should be tearing apart and exposing this behavior . Whatever the organization. Regardless of the popularity or not of their findings

I don’t see any country ripping the Church apart, do you have specific examples?

 

[Rau]

The thing is that the Catholic Church has got to be able to police themselves effectively.

Evidence of Criminal acts should be reported to the police who have the primary responsibility to investigate them. Keeping investigations in-house is unwise as history has amply demonstrated.

The other activities of Bransfield including the expenditure of huge sums of money on gifts and lifestyle should have been addressed by the Church. Perhaps even the ordinary people who knew of his activities should have demanded he be brought to account. Why was he subject to no oversight - or if he was, why was he allowed to continue?

 

[jack63]

Ok…let me clarify some. The Catholic Church should be able to police themselves effectively at the same time as local governments. I didn’t say we should not be reporting potential criminal activity to a local government.

The thing is this…the Catholic Church should bare the vast majority of the responsibility for policing themselves…just as a corporation, small business, or city government would. We can’t expect that since we told the local authorities of some reported problem in a Hotline, it’s primarily their problem now. This is what I’m trying to say.

This may not be possible right now…that the Catholic Church is the primary policer of itself. They may not be equipped to do this now, but it should be the goal.

If people think differently than this, I’d be genuinely curious as to why?

 

[jack63]

I don’t see any country ripping the Church apart, do you have specific examples?

I’m open to debate, but I’d think Cardinal Pell is an example. I have no idea if he is guilty. The Australian government thinks he is, and it is doing everything in its power to convict him based on a single person’s testimony. Yet there have been other accusers of Cardinal Pell historically, so we get this crazy, confusing, and controversial case. If there were an internal mechanism for the Catholic Church to prevent abuse I think this entire case against Pell would be resolved. The Catholic Church would either be more easily able to defend him or would have kicked out a long time a ago.