Solution to Priest Sex Abuse Scandal

[portarica]

Considering that the Church has made some radical changes in how it treats issues of abuse, your sentence does not make much sense. The behavior is not being tolerated. What point are you trying to make?
portarica;7229422:

Any judgment of priests and biushops is one that must be made witin the context of judging their actions, not their moral status, as that is solely within God’s provence, as the Gospel tells us.

And any judgment of their acts must be done in the context of all the facts surrounding the specific issues. And frankly, most people do not have all the facts, let alone even most of them. The result of that is that in most circumstances, people have opinions that are not based on all the facts; the results from that should be fairly clear.

And what is it that you want done?

It is seriously debatable what the world knows. In some circumstances, bishops tolerated and protected abusers; and at least one bishop has resigned because he was an abuser. In other circumstances, the church most certainly did not tolerate abusers. Such a broad charge is not only lacking in charity, it is also lacking in truth. As in, such a broad statement is a flat-out lie.

Approximately 2 to 3% of priests abused. That does not make all priests abusers; it does not make all priests complicit in the abuse by the few. Nor, because one bishop handled things wrong, does it make any other bishop wrong; each case needs to be judged on the totality of its facts. Broad sweeping accusations are good for venting one’s spleen, and precious little else.

The church tolerated clerical abusers as evidenced by how many were laicized for the offence before the dioceses began to be sued. Even then Bishop Ratzinger tolerated them in his diocese and apparently didn’t sense that abuse was an important enough issue to warrant his personal involvement in confirming whether priests under his watch were rehabilitated after treatment.

Since you know how isolated the abuse was and how much notice the curia apparently had, when did Rome first begin to approve of payments to US victims? Was it before or after V2 , was it in the 70’s or 80’s or 90’s? When did the first mother of a victim write to the pope? How many popes received letters from victims mom’s. How about bishops? How many priests notified their bishops about the actions of their fellow parish priests? How many religious orders reported their abuse? When did JP2 first receive notice that Maciel was abusing boys and women? How about the bishops and cardinals that took money from Maciel when did they suspect abuse?

And how about the hundreds of children that the Christian Brothers abused in Ireland , did all of them remain silent?

The absurdity of contending that clerical abuse was not know to any decision makers in the hierarchy is baffling .

The sad part is that it would have only taken one man of courage on Peter’s throne to effectively curtail not only the abuse and deceit about abuse, but the shame it brought to our church and the pain it brought to members of Jesus’ flock. It would have saved lives and salved the hearts of faithful catholic mothers.

All one pope had to say was anybody that abuses or covers up abuse is out of the priesthood. To the mother’s he would have only had to say the church let them down and they can know peace .

Peace

 

[otjm]

otjm;7229889:

Considering that the Church has made some radical changes in how it treats issues of abuse, your sentence does not make much sense. The behavior is not being tolerated. What point are you trying to make?

The church tolerated clerical abusers as evidenced by how many were laicized for the offence before the dioceses began to be sued.

How you can consider the Church tolerating abusers when they laicize one is completely and utterly beyond me. The Church has no further power than that; it is their ultimate sanction.

For all the abuse that has occurred, very few priests have been prosecuted for the simple reason that the state, in most cases, does not have sufficient evidence to convict, or the case is beyond the statute of limitations, or the state has a victim who will not testify.

Even then Bishop Ratzinger tolerated them in his diocese and apparently didn’t sense that abuse was an important enough issue to warrant his personal involvement in confirming whether priests under his watch were rehabilitated after treatment.

Neither you nor I know enough facts to be able to judge what occurred in the cases in his diocese. Without sufficient facts, you are making unsustainable allegations.

Since you know how isolated the abuse was and how much notice the curia apparently had,

I never said I knew what the curia may or may not have known. The likelihood is they knew very little or nothing.

when did Rome first begin to approve of payments to US victims? Was it before or after V2 , was it in the 70’s or 80’s or 90’s?

What makes you think Rome had to approve anything? Insurance has covered a large part of the payments.

When did the first mother of a victim write to the pope? How many popes received letters from victims mom’s. How about bishops?

Let’s look at reality. Bishops and popes have staff, and staff takes care of details. It is unlikely that many bishops or popes ever saw a letter from an individual as staff “takes care of issues”. Some of it got through to the bishops; we then get back to the issue of knowledge - “it is a sin; go to confession and don’t do that any more” Response: “OK, bishop” (from abusing priests).

Some bishops were abusers, Very few, it appears, but that in itself explains those dioceses. For the rest, most of the people you refer to don’t open their own mail, and it gets filtered. Further, how many mothers refused to confront the issue? Or never reported it? How many never even knew it happened? How many denied that it happened and punished their child (that is established fact also). Sex abuse is the crime no one wants to talk about. You seem to think there was a veritable flood of people - children - coming forward to complain about it. The fact is, the flood occurred in cases that were 10, 20, even as long as 50 years before, and the victims had never spoken up.

How many priests notified their bishops about the actions of their fellow parish priests?

What makes you think they would even know what was going on? They have their own parish to deal with; and sex abuse is done in secret.

How many religious orders reported their abuse?

See answers above.

When did JP2 first receive notice that Maciel was abusing boys and women? How about the bishops and cardinals that took money from Maciel when did they suspect abuse?

The record shows when he received information. It appears the superiors of the order made it extremely difficult to obtain any legitimate information, stonewalled the investigation, and no information came back corroborating the charges.

And how about the hundreds of children that the Christian Brothers abused in Ireland , did all of them remain silent?

If the pattern there follows the pattern in the US, the great majority of them did not report it wither while it was occurring nor shortly after; and of those reporting it, the likelihood is that their parents a0 did not believe them; b) if they did, did nothing; c) if they did anything, they were either rebuffed or quieted.

The absurdity of contending that clerical abuse was not know to any decision makers in the hierarchy is baffling .

no, it is not baffling when one starts to actually examine cases. It is obvious that you do not know much about the cases and the dynamics of them. Why is not more sexual abuse between family members not reported - same issues.

Again, you show no understanding of the dynamics of the cases. The odds that it ever got to Rome before the case in our archdiocese in the 80’s is nil and none. and that was seen as an isolated case, an aberration. Where no smoke is seen, no fire is presumed.

All one pope had to say was anybody that abuses or covers up abuse is out of the priesthood. To the mother’s he would have only had to say the church let them down and they can know peace .

Peace

To begin with, it may be their legal counsel who stopped them from making any statements. Further, with the issue of the pope, you show naivety of how people receive information. Certainly Benedict has made apologies to the victims.

[/QUOTE]

 

[otjm]

Let’s make a few things clear: sex abuse is the crime and sin that no one wants to talk about.

Children to do not report it. Why? Fear (often threatened by the abuser). Fear of what their parents might say., Shame. In addition, if a teenager has issues concerning his own sexual identity and is abused, it may work to strengthen his impression that he is homosexually oriented. that, in itself combines as a very powerful preventative to reporting. If the child is prepubescent, he is very open to manipulation (which is usually what got this started) and does not report.

Parents don’t believe it. All too common a reaction is denial and disbelief that a priest would or could do such a thing. That may be attenuated now to a larger degree, but it has come up repeatedly in testimonies from victims. First they were abused by the priest, then punished for making such an allegation.

I was involved in one sex abuse case (family issue, not Church); step dad was in prison for the issue. The case concerned custody of the 14 year old girl. The mother got on the stand and under oath denied vehemently and as some length that any abuse had ever occurred; paused only long enough to take a breath, looked at the daughter and said “You whore!”

Go figure. Read that last paragraph again. the mother failed to protect her daughter, denied that it ever happened (this was all in front of the daughter), and then addressed her daughter, blaming a 14 year old child for the abuse the child had received. Do you understand the dynamics of this? If you do, then you probably should have some comprehension of the Church sex abuse cases. If you don’t get it, then there is not much point in discussing further.

The Church has had clericalism, probably from the death of Peter himself, and possibly before. It has taken various forms over the centuries, but was as prevalent in the 60’s and 70’s and 80’s (and still is with us today). Clericalism is part and parcel of the “good ol’ boys’” philosophy that has infected all too many clergy - including bishops and cardinals - that puts them above the hoi polloi in the benches. They scratch each others backs, they protect one another, and there is a general disdain for those unwashed masses in the pews who are expected to pay, pray, and obey.

And those unwashed masses exacerbate the issue by not being able to distinguish the honor we owe to the office of priest or bishop, and the honor we may or may not owe to the individual holding that office. The “Father knows best” routine we were taught as kids (I was born in the 40’s) was taught by those who truly believed it.

Coupled with that is the fact that there are men with a homosexual orientation in the priesthood. That is by no means anything new under the sun. Estimates have ranged from 10% to as high as 80%. I don’t believe the 80%, but neither do I believe the 10%.

Celibacy, when thoroughly lived out in chastity, can make their sacrifice a blessing to the Church. However, not all have been a blessing, and not all have lived chastely. Some have abused teenage boys (there is, or at least a decade or so ago was, a term for the victims and the abusers - the victims were referred to as “chickens” and the abusers as “chicken hawks”); others have engaged in homosexual behavior with other adults. We have had at least one bishop resign, and others implicated.

Why are they not all cast out? In part, a bit of it has to do with the “fox guarding the hen coop”; a superior does not “out” a priest if he himself will be “outed”; part of it is an unwillingness to deal with reality; part of it is that to a certain degree, things remain hidden from the decision makers; part of it is that Canon law is not an easy process to deal with, and once started, a bishop or superior has the potential for a rebellion on his hands; part of it is clericalism. And part of it is the shortage of priests. I am sure other reasons can be brought forward too.

The whole issue has been a chastisement on the Church; periodically we are visited with such as a means of cleansing. And that is never a pretty or painless process.

As I have said before, understanding the issues of sexual abuse by priests is a long, complicated, difficult issue. Those who do not know the details are all too quick to look for short answers. There are none. Some bishops did their best. Some didn’t. Even those who did their best failed us. We can see that now; at the moment of failure it was nowhere near so clear. It is easy to sit in armchair judgment, particularly when one does not have even the majority of the facts, let alone all of them.

 

[Reuben_J]

Your last paragraph was paradoxical, the abuse crisis hurts our church but we are supposed to tolerate the kind of behavior of our hierarchy that causes hurt to our church?

That is sort of cowardly, Jesus wasn’t wimpy like that , he would be disgusted with the way the crisis continues to be handled. Do you think he wants the mothers of victims to live out their lives with the pain inflicted upon them by the church’s leaders, just to cover their backsides?

The world knows the church tolerated and protected the abusers, the continued subterfuge going on is just a waste of breath from Rome, it doesn’t help the church and it doesn’t make what went on better.

Peace

Jesus would just forgive, I believe. For who could throw the first stone?

 

[Reuben_J]

All one pope had to say was anybody that abuses or covers up abuse is out of the priesthood. To the mother’s he would have only had to say the church let them down and they can know peace .

Peace

This is what I meant that anyone just can make a suggestion and think they can solve the problem. Can you or could you? Even if this suggestion is being carried out (priests who abuse to be defrocked), are you sure it will solve the problem? And just how you would make that come into effect? How much evidence you would need or that other course of action like rehabilitation is not the preference? I am not there so I do not know the true picture. What I know is I what I read and that is from the media. The Pope has been attacked personally over this; you can only see what happened during his vist to England recently.

It is the year 2010 now. We can let the past gone and because we are wiser, to forge ahead to the future and try to prevent the repetition of what had happened.

Resentment and being angry over the past is not very Christian-like no matter how valid is the reason. Remember that Jesus ask us to take the cross. Perhaps this is one of the crosses of the Church and the enemy has a heyday gloating over and exploiting this. We must never allow this to happen to make him get the better of the Church - the only weapon to fight this is with love and forgiveness for nothing can go against the law of love.

God bless.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Jesus would just forgive, I believe. For who could throw the first stone?

I think Jesus had a just the stone for them:

"Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me; 6* but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, * it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

Natthew 18:5-6

 

[Reuben_J]

I think Jesus had a just the stone for them: Natthew 18:5-6

Great. So the punishment comes from the Lord and not for us to judge. We reap what we sow.

 

[portarica]

This is what I meant that anyone just can make a suggestion and think they can solve the problem. Can you or could you? Even if this suggestion is being carried out (priests who abuse to be defrocked), are you sure it will solve the problem? And just how you would make that come into effect? How much evidence you would need or that other course of action like rehabilitation is not the preference? I am not there so I do not know the true picture. What I know is I what I read and that is from the media. The Pope has been attacked personally over this; you can only see what happened during his vist to England recently.

It is the year 2010 now. We can let the past gone and because we are wiser, to forge ahead to the future and try to prevent the repetition of what had happened.

Resentment and being angry over the past is not very Christian-like no matter how valid is the reason. Remember that Jesus ask us to take the cross. Perhaps this is one of the crosses of the Church and the enemy has a heyday gloating over and exploiting this. We must never allow this to happen to make him get the better of the Church - the only weapon to fight this is with love and forgiveness for nothing can go against the law of love.

God bless.

It would solve the problem because the reason the problem festered was the tolerance of abuse by bishops, they kept their jobs by keeping it quiet. If they would lose their jobs by being silent , they wouldn’t remain silent.

Peace

 

[portarica]

Further, often the bishop knew of only one or maybe two incidents that had happened; anyone paying attention to the law suits has seen that victims are coming forward who never reported the abuse to anyone.

It took the lawsuits to bring to the surface the issue of how damaging this has been to victims. The problem is people seem to think the bishops knew how damaging it was back then; they simply didn’t. Much of it was seen as a serious sin, damaging the soul; the long term damage to the psyche was simply unknown.

So now the excuse is that the bishops only saw a couples of instances of abuse.

And it wasn’t problem until the lawsuits came?

It wasn’t a problem when the only notice was of victims and their families giving notice to the church directly , but when the crimes were revealed in lawsuits it then became damaging?

That is the most clear point about the issue that has been made. When the damage was only to kids and their families, it didn’t amount to enough to be addressed, but when it became fiscal damage to the institution of the church, suddenly the real issue surfaced.

Peace

 

[challam2010]

It’s important to remember that while the US Church has made improvements in safeguards in response to the grave harm done by sick priests and culpable bishops, the European church is just now facing the same scandal, and the world hasn’t yet heard of abuses from Mexico, South America, Asia, Africa, etc., which surely have happened. It will be years before similar safeguards are instituted and working in those areas.

There have also been instances where two bishops have resigned, and their resignations refused (Ireland), where a bishop was admonished for denouncing another bishop (Italy), and in Belgium it appears that a bishop himself was involved with abuse. While BXVI’s apologies and words are undoubtedly sincere, the actions of the heirarchy do not necessarily echo that sincerity.

The global Church has a long way to go in both securing the safety of children and in examining its own ranks for inappropriate responses and questionable protection of its leadership.

As for those who claim that some cases of abuse were actually acts of “consensual sex” – please keep in mind that the young men involved were still under age and therefore not capable of consent under the law.

This scandal has placed the Church in a terrible light in the eyes of so many non-Catholics and Catholics the world over, and it will be years, if not generations, before the Church recovers.

 

[portarica]

It’s important to remember that while the US Church has made improvements in safeguards in response to the grave harm done by sick priests and culpable bishops, the European church is just now facing the same scandal, and the world hasn’t yet heard of abuses from Mexico, South America, Asia, Africa, etc., which surely have happened. It will be years before similar safeguards are instituted and working in those areas.

There have also been instances where two bishops have resigned, and their resignations refused (Ireland), where a bishop was admonished for denouncing another bishop (Italy), and in Belgium it appears that a bishop himself was involved with abuse. While BXVI’s apologies and words are undoubtedly sincere, the actions of the heirarchy do not necessarily echo that sincerity.

The global Church has a long way to go in both securing the safety of children and in examining its own ranks for inappropriate responses and questionable protection of its leadership.

As for those who claim that some cases of abuse were actually acts of “consensual sex” – please keep in mind that the young men involved were still under age and therefore not capable of consent under the law.

This scandal has placed the Church in a terrible light in the eyes of so many non-Catholics and Catholics the world over, and it will be years, if not generations, before the Church recovers.

But the people who are deserting the church are not the obedient ones anyway. So good riddance and hello to a better and more orthodox church. Who cares what the world thinks? This is not a competition among religions to spread the good news of Jesus to the most people and to make the world a better place. It is about preserving the fidelity of the institutional that purports to be the fountain of all of Jesus’ truths.

It isn’t about damaged credibility, it is about maintaining the proper respect for the authority of the church. People do not become catholics because of the credibility of the church, they become catholics because it is the church founded when Jesus gave the keys to Peter. It is the only way into heaven and if we believe that , we need not fear that the church loses congregants because of what the church does, congregants must fear what they lose (salvation) when they leave the church.

Peace

Peace

 

[otjm]

So now the excuse is that the bishops only saw a couples of instances of abuse.

That is not an excuse; it is a fact. I notice that you are into pick and choose as to what you respond to. As noted, it was not until the 70’s that information even started to become available as to what abuse could do to a victim, and that information was not widespread. Perhaps you want to damn the bishops with faint praise for not reading each and every journal of psychology, but most people understand that what you don’t know, you can’t be responsible for. The facts are that in many, if not most instances of abusing priests, it was not until the lawsuits started that the abusers started coming forward, years and years after the abuse occurred, to report it. If the abuser did not tell the bishop, how do you expect the bishop to know about it?

And it wasn’t problem until the lawsuits came?

Have you actually read what I have written? the problem was widespread; the information about the problem was not; the incidents of abuse were not reported (as can be seen from the number of abusers coming forward to report for the first time). Yes, it was considered a moral problem; as I noted, when bishops became more aware of the problem (more reporting due to more incidents), they turned to the professionals - the psychologists who said they could cure the priests; the priests went into counseling; the psychologists released them believing they were cured; they eventually abused again, and eventually that abuse came to light. The bishops were then confronted with the possibility (which proved all too true) of large lawsuits, which they tried to protect the Church from (the lawsuits did not collect from the bishop’s pocket; they collected from what you and I and others had donated). You have the luxury of sitting in your armchair pontificating on what the bishops should have done; we can all see in hindsight that it was not handled correctly. In hindsight. Some bishops failed miserably. Others did everything in their power to correct the problem when the scope of the problem was discovered.

It wasn’t a problem when the only notice was of victims and their families giving notice to the church directly , but when the crimes were revealed in lawsuits it then became damaging?

Try reading what I wrote. You and I know now how damaging sexual abuse is. Quit assuming that what you know now was known 30 or 50 years ago. Read what I have actually written.

That is the most clear point about the issue that has been made. When the damage was only to kids and their families, it didn’t amount to enough to be addressed, but when it became fiscal damage to the institution of the church, suddenly the real issue surfaced.

When the damage was not known, how do you hold people responsible for the damage? In some circumstances it was not addressed, and I have said before that should be handled by Rome (as it has been in some circumstances). why do you want Rome to hang a bishop today for something that occurred two or three bishops ago?

When the extent of the damage was not known, the bishops handled it in the only way that made any sense; they had no reason to handle it particularly differently. When the extent to the damage became known, we in many cases were one, two or more bishops removed from the one who was serving at the time of the abuse. The ones coming in later were simply left to deal with an innundation of claims brought forward that no one had seen because they had not been reported; and the bishops were trying to figure out how to handle the matter without going bankrupt. Then net result is that a number of dioceses have gone bankrupt.

It is easy to be emotional about the issue, use hindsight to sit in judgment of people who had no knowledge, and throw spears at any and everyone. It is far different to look at the whole picture and see how it actually developed, and understand who acted responsibly and who didn’t.

 

[Reuben_J]

It would solve the problem because the reason the problem festered was the tolerance of abuse by bishops, they kept their jobs by keeping it quiet. If they would lose their jobs by being silent , they wouldn’t remain silent.

Peace

It is fine that you have the answer to the problem; I do not. The issue is not that straight forward, there are many factors that have to be considered.

One thing is clear - nobody, not a single Catholic condones the abuse nor do anybody side or want to harbor the guilty priests. How do we look at it and solve it? First of all, we are Christians, not mob. What about those who ask the Pope to step down?

We are practically lynching the suspects without having the inside knowledge of what actually happening. Do you know what’s really happening?

Sexual crime can easily be hidden - the errant priest can easily deny the act and do not have to confess it. If the victims do not come forward to testify there would probably no hard evidence to convict the culprit. Those that are known comes from confession in which case in our belief that person repent.

The best people who should deal with the criminal act should be the secular authority who will use secular law as punishment and deterrence.

In a very straightforward case, I would agree that we should suspend the priest but in other circumstances I would not know what would be the best course of action.

Probably in retrospect, you may be right; perhaps a more appropriate action could have been taken. But those incidences took place years ago and action taken at that point in time may not be right as we see them now.

 

[portarica]

It is fine that you have the answer to the problem; I do not. The issue is not that straight forward, there are many factors that have to be considered.

One thing is clear - nobody, not a single Catholic condones the abuse nor do anybody side or want to harbor the guilty priests. How do we look at it and solve it? First of all, we are Christians, not mob. What about those who ask the Pope to step down?

We are practically lynching the suspects without having the inside knowledge of what actually happening. Do you know what’s really happening?

Sexual crime can easily be hidden - the errant priest can easily deny the act and do not have to confess it. If the victims do not come forward to testify there would probably no hard evidence to convict the culprit. Those that are known comes from confession in which case in our belief that person repent.

The best people who should deal with the criminal act should be the secular authority who will use secular law as punishment and deterrence.

In a very straightforward case, I would agree that we should suspend the priest but in other circumstances I would not know what would be the best course of action.

Probably in retrospect, you may be right; perhaps a more appropriate action could have been taken. But those incidences took place years ago and action taken at that point in time may not be right as we see them now.

Reread the definition of condone and then tell me how sweeping the problem under the rug and transferring priests all around and requiring documents to be kept secret and transferring Law to Rome just ahead of his subpoenas and blaming V2 for abuse that started before J23 was installed is not condoning what happened.

Twenty years before Dallas, there was another Dallas and from that meeting the Vatican got very explicit notice of the problem and did nothing concrete until the fertilizer hit the ventilator in Boston and convened the meeting in Dallas.

To claim ignorance is folly, to claim that the men with the fullest understanding of Jesus’ teachings didn’t realize that abusing one,even just one child was cause for alarm and should have sent bells ringing and vicars scurrying is unexplainable.

It isn’t a lack of impeccability or a lack of knowing wrong from right that enabled abuse to fester, it was actions and omissions done in concert to prevent scandal. It was the conscience choice of some to place a primacy on their legacies as opposed to respecting the legacy of Christ that made the abuse problem what it was.

A pastor that steals a few thousand from his parish coffers is run out of town on rails, those that decided to wager billions of Jesus’ funds on the Ponzi scheme of deceit about abuse end up like Cardinal Law in cushy jobs in the Italian countryside.

Peace

 

[Reuben_J]

Reread the definition of condone and then tell me how sweeping the problem under the rug and transferring priests all around and requiring documents to be kept secret and transferring Law to Rome just ahead of his subpoenas and blaming V2 for abuse that started before J23 was installed is not condoning what happened.

Twenty years before Dallas, there was another Dallas and from that meeting the Vatican got very explicit notice of the problem and did nothing concrete until the fertilizer hit the ventilator in Boston and convened the meeting in Dallas.

To claim ignorance is folly, to claim that the men with the fullest understanding of Jesus’ teachings didn’t realize that abusing one,even just one child was cause for alarm and should have sent bells ringing and vicars scurrying is unexplainable.

It isn’t a lack of impeccability or a lack of knowing wrong from right that enabled abuse to fester, it was actions and omissions done in concert to prevent scandal. It was the conscience choice of some to place a primacy on their legacies as opposed to respecting the legacy of Christ that made the abuse problem what it was.

A pastor that steals a few thousand from his parish coffers is run out of town on rails, those that decided to wager billions of Jesus’ funds on the Ponzi scheme of deceit about abuse end up like Cardinal Law in cushy jobs in the Italian countryside.

Peace

I wish I know the answer but I don’t and you know. Nevertheless this is all an afterthought - in retrospect.

 

[portarica]

I wish I know the answer but I don’t and you know. Nevertheless this is all an afterthought - in retrospect.

The leaders of our church still don’t even have the decency to deal with the damage done, even if in a retrospective manner. Where are the mea cupas from the curia about their involvement. Where are the apologies for the torment mothers have suffered through because of the deceit the leaders of the church engaged in to “prevent scandal”?

It is so nice that they have apologized for the sins of those that did the actual abusing, but where are the apologies and the corrective action follow up for those that participated in the subterfuge about abuse and for their actions that maintained faithful catholic mothers in a state of pain about the trust they had put in their faith and their church?

The deceit and subterfuge about abuse was not a victimless crime, in many respects it was a crime worse than the abuse itself because of the thought that had to go into it. It was not a crime of passion or impulse, but a thoroughly thought out rejection of some of our Savior’s most basic tenets.

The deceit continues to plague our church today and diminishes the effectiveness of those attempting to spread the Good News of Jesus Christ. The deceit saps the credibility of our church and enables other belief systems to flourish in the void created by our sins of omission.

And that is not good and it is inexcusable.

Peace

 

[otjm]

The leaders of our church still don’t even have the decency to deal with the damage done, even if in a retrospective manner. Where are the mea cupas from the curia about their involvement. Where are the apologies for the torment mothers have suffered through because of the deceit the leaders of the church engaged in to “prevent scandal”?

It is so nice that they have apologized for the sins of those that did the actual abusing, but where are the apologies and the corrective action follow up for those that participated in the subterfuge about abuse and for their actions that maintained faithful catholic mothers in a state of pain about the trust they had put in their faith and their church?

The deceit and subterfuge about abuse was not a victimless crime, in many respects it was a crime worse than the abuse itself because of the thought that had to go into it. It was not a crime of passion or impulse, but a thoroughly thought out rejection of some of our Savior’s most basic tenets.

The deceit continues to plague our church today and diminishes the effectiveness of those attempting to spread the Good News of Jesus Christ. The deceit saps the credibility of our church and enables other belief systems to flourish in the void created by our sins of omission.

And that is not good and it is inexcusable.

Peace

So I take it that you have done a survey of the mothers and found that none have been apologized to. You really should publish your survey.

 

[portarica]

So I take it that you have done a survey of the mothers and found that none have been apologized to. You really should publish your survey.

I know all too well of a particular mother who took the pain to her grave. And I know how it tormented her to feel betrayed by her church.

Now you may say that is only an isolated incident, but it does make a couple of things clear. First the church did not work to seek forgiveness in a public manner that would have salved the hearts of thousands, nor did it seek out in a comprehensive fashion individuals that were wronged.

So instead of using a little courage and asking for forgiveness , the church thought that Jesus’ purposes were better served by continuing the centuries old policies of subterfuge, deceit and mandated secrecy.

All that was required was decency instead of deceit. But apparently the fear the church holds regarding scandal overrode everything else and now we have both an abuse scandal and a scandal of deceit.

And we are still sticking with the plan. Go figure.

Peace

 

[otjm]

I know all too well of a particular mother who took the pain to her grave. And I know how it tormented her to feel betrayed by her church.

Now you may say that is only an isolated incident, but it does make a couple of things clear. First the church did not work to seek forgiveness in a public manner that would have salved the hearts of thousands, nor did it seek out in a comprehensive fashion individuals that were wronged.

So instead of using a little courage and asking for forgiveness , the church thought that Jesus’ purposes were better served by continuing the centuries old policies of subterfuge, deceit and mandated secrecy.

All that was required was decency instead of deceit. But apparently the fear the church holds regarding scandal overrode everything else and now we have both an abuse scandal and a scandal of deceit.

And we are still sticking with the plan. Go figure.

Peace

It would appear that this is a personal issue. You have taken a personal issue, of an individual instance, and built it on that foundation and that alone, into an entire structure - that is, you accuse all bishops (and by implication, cardinals and popes) with what you have observed in a single instance.

If anything, I am not naive about the issues surrounding the sex abuse. In no way do I condone any of the subterfuge which has been done in order to hide the abuse. On the other hand, the very practical reality of lawsuits has put the bishops in a bind; whatever duty they may have to the victim and the family must also be balanced to a duty to the diocese itself. As a matter of fact, bishops have been meeting with victims and their families, so the picture you paint is not the reality. That has occurred after the dust has settled on the lawsuit, and people like you have been damning them with faint praise for failing to do that before the suit was settled - and in some instances before it was started. That shows an amazing lack of understanding of how our civil courts work. and the bottom line is, people don’t care; the bishop is in the wrong even when he is in the right. What also is failed to be acknowledged is that in most cases, the bishop handling the case is not the bishop in charge during the time of the abuse. Interestingly, they have been the most active in trying to right the wrongs that occurred in the past.

But hey, lets throw them all to the wolves. Who cares about justice in reality?

Certainly not those sitting in their arm chairs pontificating.

 

[portarica]

It would appear that this is a personal issue. You have taken a personal issue, of an individual instance, and built it on that foundation and that alone, into an entire structure - that is, you accuse all bishops (and by implication, cardinals and popes) with what you have observed in a single instance.

If anything, I am not naive about the issues surrounding the sex abuse. In no way do I condone any of the subterfuge which has been done in order to hide the abuse. On the other hand, the very practical reality of lawsuits has put the bishops in a bind; whatever duty they may have to the victim and the family must also be balanced to a duty to the diocese itself. As a matter of fact, bishops have been meeting with victims and their families, so the picture you paint is not the reality. That has occurred after the dust has settled on the lawsuit, and people like you have been damning them with faint praise for failing to do that before the suit was settled - and in some instances before it was started. That shows an amazing lack of understanding of how our civil courts work. and the bottom line is, people don’t care; the bishop is in the wrong even when he is in the right. What also is failed to be acknowledged is that in most cases, the bishop handling the case is not the bishop in charge during the time of the abuse. Interestingly, they have been the most active in trying to right the wrongs that occurred in the past.

But hey, lets throw them all to the wolves. Who cares about justice in reality?

Certainly not those sitting in their arm chairs pontificating.

Actually seeing the injustice in one instance I decided to research whether or not it was really an isolated instance and I have confirmed that it is not.

Historically the church has been aware of the problem of abuse by clerics for centuries.

As far as how our courts work, they have been generally stymied by the statute of limitations and for you to take the argument defending bishops from the sublime nature of few actual prosecutions to the ridiculous of that meaning no culpability is folly.

The evidence about the culpability is in the $$$ billions that have been paid out , usually with the records being kept sealed and both parties signing gag orders.

As far as defending the dioceses, how about defending the principles of Jesus?

That seems to get lost in the discussion, these cowardly men who defended perversion weren’t looking out for the best interests of their dioceses, they were putting their dioceses at further risk.

As far as justice goes, name one bishop that was sanctioned by the church for engaging in deceit and lying to the flock?

We don’t want justice and we can’t handle the truth.

Peace