Solution to Priest Sex Abuse Scandal

[portarica]

I understand that you don’t see it, but that does not mean that it does not occur.

As stated earlier, much of that is done in private; it is not a public issue, so you and I will generally not know much about it unless some mention has been made. I have seen the mention made, a tiny paragraph that was buried in the news, several times. The fact that I have only seen it several times does not mean that is all that has happened; it only means that is what I happened to see reported.

If you missed the mentioning, I am trying to tell you. Again, sweeping broad generalizations sound great and a lot of people do that; it doesn’t mean that the generalizations are the truth. They are at best only part of the truth, and sometimes not much of it at all.

Look: You say “That lack of concern among our church’s leaders”.

If you said “That apparent lack of concern among our Church’s leaders” we migh be able to get somewhere. But you don’t; you make absolutes. Just because you personally are not informed of the concern of the Church leaders does not mean they are not concerned, are not seeking to help heal the wounds, are not doing all in their power to address the issue.

It only means you don’t see it.

The term I used was “lack of concern” which implys not enough concern to motivate one towards (in my opinion) real action. It covers many bases, the curia could have been too busy to be concerned to act, they could be too afraid to act, they could be too worried about what they were going to wear when they got up in the morning to act or they weren’t concerned enough with Jesus’ teachings to act. It was either sloth and incompetence or lack of knowledge about what Jesus taught, there are no other reasonable explanations for decades and centuries of inaction .

I specifically didn’t use alleged, because this is not a legal discussion about people standing trial with the evidence in question. We are discussing whether people with the best access to the fullest understanding of Jesus’ wisdom made decisions about the suffering of mothers with Jesus’ message as the standard. It is clear that for whatever reason the curia of our church didn’t act in that manner, it is the lack of public evidence that proves their culpability. And it is further made clear because they don’t present any evidence of their remorse about causing pain to the mothers.

Please show me just one tiny bit of official remorse about the cover-up and subsequent subterfuge about abuse. Show me the evidence that one bishop was chastised for keeping abuse secret from the congregation.

Just show one church document , please.

Peace

 

[vsedriver]

Please show me just one tiny bit of official remorse

have you missed all of the Pope’s apologies?

 

[portarica]

have you missed all of the Pope’s apologies?

I apparently have missed all the pope’s apologies about the cover-ups and subsequent
subterfuge about abuse. Can you cite a few so I can read them?

Thanks for helping me out.

Peace

 

[vsedriver]

I apparently have missed all the pope’s apologies about the cover-ups and subsequent
subterfuge about abuse. Can you cite a few so I can read them?

Thanks for helping me out.

Peace

if you give me the exact wording you are looking for I’ll do my best. I guess when the Pope apologizes for the Church failing to protect children that must mean something different to you than it does to me.

I can only guess that you would like a public apology for the Church having a policy of covering up abuse and for intentionally allowing predator priest access to kids.

 

[portarica]

if you give me the exact wording you are looking for I’ll do my best. I guess when the Pope apologizes for the Church failing to protect children that must mean something different to you than it does to me.

I can only guess that you would like a public apology for the Church having a policy of covering up abuse and for intentionally allowing predator priest access to kids.

Since you brought it up, If it was not the intention of the church to allow predator priests to have access to kids, why did they make decisions that allowed predator priests to have access to kids?

Do you think the pope should apologize for that?

The pope has never apologized for how the leaders of the church had let abuse fester and why the leaders of our church never responded to the mothers pleas for help.

I just want the pope to apologize for the hurt the church caused mothers.

I can understand why that is hard to do, they would have to admit that they screwed up and it wasn’t just the abusing priests that are culpable. And that is too hard for them to do, it would call too much into question.

Peace

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

…
I can understand why that is hard to do, they would have to admit that they screwed up and it wasn’t just the abusing priests that are culpable. And that is too hard for them to do, it would call too much into question.

Peace

Probably liability/damages issues. If they come out and admit a screw up, that will be part of any claim for punitive damages. Notice the current background checks on everyone involved at any level from volunteer up? That’s to limit damage claims too.

 

[portarica]

Probably liability/damages issues. If they come out and admit a screw up, that will be part of any claim for punitive damages. Notice the current background checks on everyone involved at any level from volunteer up? That’s to limit damage claims too.

The pope wouldn’t increase the liability of the church if he did apologize. He would never make crime specific apologies that would implicate him, unfortunately the pope doesn’t have the courage to even make a blanket generic apology.

Again the excuses the church uses or defenders of the church’s actions regarding child abuse use are pretty weak. When expanded out to logical conclusions, they usually hold no water.

Peace

 

[otjm]

The pope wouldn’t increase the liability of the church if he did apologize. He would never make crime specific apologies that would implicate him, unfortunately the pope doesn’t have the courage to even make a blanket generic apology.

Again the excuses the church uses or defenders of the church’s actions regarding child abuse use are pretty weak. When expanded out to logical conclusions, they usually hold no water.

Peace

You appear to know little about law, the evidentiary rules, or how the general public responds when they are made jury members.

We had a case in which the alleged victim, in juvenile custody, alleged that a priest abused him while transporting the juvenile to the juvenile’s mother’s funeral.

the priest was not even staffed at the juvenile facility; another priest was, who testifed it was he, and not the alleged abuser who transported the juvenile to the funeral.

Didn’t make a lick of difference to the jury. They found the priest guilty of an abuse that he could not have committed as he was elsewhere. Of course, that was just an “alibi” according to the jury. At the time of the trial, the juvenile was an adult, incarcerated in the adult corrections institute (wow! such a reliable witness!), and after the trial, some of the other inmates came forward stating they heard some of the alleged victims plotting out their testimony before the trial while in jail.

Didn’t matter a lick to the jury; the alleged abuser was a priest, the archdiocese and the Catholic Church are known to be filthy rich, and Oregon is the most unchurched state in the union.

You are emotionally unable to separate facts from emotions, and thus make facts into “excuses”.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

The pope wouldn’t increase the liability of the church if he did apologize. He would never make crime specific apologies that would implicate him, unfortunately the pope doesn’t have the courage to even make a blanket generic apology.

Again the excuses the church uses or defenders of the church’s actions regarding child abuse use are pretty weak. When expanded out to logical conclusions, they usually hold no water.

Peace

He’s probably acting on the advice of lawyers. Americans love lawsuits more than almost anything else and it would be a poor lawyer who couldn’t make hay with any kind of apology, no matter how general. The church has got to takes its lumps with damage happy juries, and take proactive steps root out the problems before they get worse or at least give the appearance of doing that.

 

[portarica]

You appear to know little about law, the evidentiary rules, or how the general public responds when they are made jury members.

We had a case in which the alleged victim, in juvenile custody, alleged that a priest abused him while transporting the juvenile to the juvenile’s mother’s funeral.

the priest was not even staffed at the juvenile facility; another priest was, who testifed it was he, and not the alleged abuser who transported the juvenile to the funeral.

Didn’t make a lick of difference to the jury. They found the priest guilty of an abuse that he could not have committed as he was elsewhere. Of course, that was just an “alibi” according to the jury. At the time of the trial, the juvenile was an adult, incarcerated in the adult corrections institute (wow! such a reliable witness!), and after the trial, some of the other inmates came forward stating they heard some of the alleged victims plotting out their testimony before the trial while in jail.

Didn’t matter a lick to the jury; the alleged abuser was a priest, the archdiocese and the Catholic Church are known to be filthy rich, and Oregon is the most unchurched state in the union.

You are emotionally unable to separate facts from emotions, and thus make facts into “excuses”.

And what does that have to do with the pope apologizing?

Do you think I expect the pope to pull out all the records from the secret achieves about abuse held at the Vatican and make a detailed list of every possible offence and then enumerate each and every one in his apology?

What does the cover-up and subterfuge about abuse by the Curia have to do with the case in Oregon? Did the pope know about abuse by that priest or have records of that priest in the posses ion of the Vatican archives or of the popes secret archives? Should he release them if he did?

Apparently your emotions about the issue have you straying away from the culpability of the curia to responding to the mob mentality that has resulted from the way the church has handled the issue. If society thought that the church had always been honest in handling the abuse issue we wouldn’t be in the situation you described in Oregon.

Peace

 

[otjm]

And what does that have to do with the pope apologizing?

It would appear that you do not listen to the news; there have been several lawsuits filed against the Pope and against the Church - as in, Rome - attempting to get around the issue of bankruptcy of local dioceses (among other things). Your answer shows an amazing lack of knowledge of how law works.

Do you think I expect the pope to pull out all the records from the secret achieves about abuse held at the Vatican and make a detailed list of every possible offence and then enumerate each and every one in his apology?

As noted above.

What does the cover-up and subterfuge about abuse by the Curia have to do with the case in Oregon?

The curia was not the one suppressing the abuse. it was the bishop of the diocese in which the abuse occurred. Why are you so intent on the curia, when they have had nothing to do with it?

Did the pope know about abuse by that priest or have records of that priest in the posses ion of the Vatican archives or of the popes secret archives?

No. The pope has almost no information of what is occurring in any specific diocese.

Should he release them if he did?

I will assume this is a rhetorical question, because if it is not, it does not merit answer.

Apparently your emotions about the issue have you straying away from the culpability of the curia to responding to the mob mentality that has resulted from the way the church has handled the issue.

No, it is your illogical and stubborn concentration on the curia when that issue has already been asked and answered that attempts to place responsibility where it does not belong.

If society thought that the church had always been honest in handling the abuse issue we wouldn’t be in the situation you described in Oregon.
Peace

“Society” has had it in for the Church since Christ died. Nothing new. History is replete with persecution of the Church; some of it deserved, some not. You and Alice have much in common.

OK, the bottom ljne seems a little more clear. You understand next to nothing about the Church in terms of who is responsible for what. Continuing this line of conversation is pointless. The Curia is not part of the problem. Bishops were. The Curia owes nothing to the abused victims or their mothers in spite of what you keep harping on. The Pope, should he apologize to anyone, should do it in a face-to-face meeting; and it is not his responsibility to do so in spite of your protestations. It is the bishops’ responsibility.

 

[portarica]

It would appear that you do not listen to the news; there have been several lawsuits filed against the Pope and against the Church - as in, Rome - attempting to get around the issue of bankruptcy of local dioceses (among other things). Your answer shows an amazing lack of knowledge of how law works.

As noted above.

The curia was not the one suppressing the abuse. it was the bishop of the diocese in which the abuse occurred. Why are you so intent on the curia, when they have had nothing to do with it?No. The pope has almost no information of what is occurring in any specific diocese.I will assume this is a rhetorical question, because if it is not, it does not merit answer.

No, it is your illogical and stubborn concentration on the curia when that issue has already been asked and answered that attempts to place responsibility where it does not belong. “Society” has had it in for the Church since Christ died. Nothing new. History is replete with persecution of the Church; some of it deserved, some not. You and Alice have much in common.

OK, the bottom ljne seems a little more clear. You understand next to nothing about the Church in terms of who is responsible for what. Continuing this line of conversation is pointless. The Curia is not part of the problem. Bishops were. The Curia owes nothing to the abused victims or their mothers in spite of what you keep harping on. The Pope, should he apologize to anyone, should do it in a face-to-face meeting; and it is not his responsibility to do so in spite of your protestations. It is the bishops’ responsibility.

I understand the church’s earthly legal reasons for why they act the way they do. And the amount of money they have paid out, shows exactly how successful that policy has been.

And your comment about the curia not owing anything to mothers or victims shows what the curia thinks about its heavenly responsibilities to the flock or what you think their responsibility is.

As for society having it in for the church, raping kids and covering it up has not done much to make an argument to the contrary. The lack of impeccability excuse only works on Catholics. Just from a pragmatic viewpoint, Catholics should insist that the church’s leaders start acting like we think Jesus would want them to act, or else come up with the theological argument that shows their actions are what Jesus would want.

Otherwise all we are left with is the type of excuses you make for the continuation of deceit and subterfuge.

Are you content with making the types of arguments you make to support the church’s position on the abuse issue? Are you happy that you can’t make any references to how it is in concordance with what Jesus taught? You think it is an issue that includes only what is owed Caesar and not what is due Christ. I know that is officially how the issue is handled and unfortunately shows that the leaders of our church are either afraid to act as Jesus would want them to act or place more value on the opinions of lawyers than they do on the teachings of Jesus.

If feeling that way makes me what ever term you use to describe me in your posts, that is OK with me.

Peace

 

[otjm]

And your comment about the curia not owing anything to mothers or victims shows what the curia thinks about its heavenly responsibilities to the flock or what you think their responsibility is.

As noted, your knowledge of the Curia and their responsibilities shows a profound lack of understanding of the Curia and what it does. Don’t hold your breath waiting for the Curia to do what you think they should do, unless you look good in blue.

As for society having it in for the church, raping kids and covering it up has not done much to make an argument to the contrary.

when you look at the number of kids who are raped by teachers, coaches and the like and the continued transferring of such individuals and hushing up the issue, the disparity of the public’s reaction (since they are protected by a strict statute of limitations as are all government entities, and since they have engaged in the exact same behavior) shows a profound and disturbing anomaly between the hostility to the Church and the lack of even paying attention when it is a government person who does the same act. Both acts - rape by priest or rape by coach and/or teacher are totally reprehensible. Your inability to distinguish between the two, and your inability to comprehend the attitudes toward the Church further reinforce the suspicion that you are too emotionally involved in this.

And by the way, your comment about the Curia makes as much sense as requiring the heads of state governmental agencies to apologize to a mother. As noted, you don’t get it.

The lack of impeccability excuse only works on Catholics. Just from a pragmatic viewpoint, Catholics should insist that the church’s leaders start acting like we think Jesus would want them to act, or else come up with the theological argument that shows their actions are what Jesus would want.

They have. So have the leaders. Apparently they did not inform you.

Otherwise all we are left with is the type of excuses you make for the continuation of deceit and subterfuge.

I have made no excuses. You are so emotionally involved in the issue that facts do not matter.

Are you content with making the types of arguments you make to support the church’s position on the abuse issue? Are you happy that you can’t make any references to how it is in concordance with what Jesus taught? You think it is an issue that includes only what is owed Caesar and not what is due Christ. I know that is officially how the issue is handled and unfortunately shows that the leaders of our church are either afraid to act as Jesus would want them to act or place more value on the opinions of lawyers than they do on the teachings of Jesus.

You are so ignorant of how the leaders of the Church are acting that it is embarrassing. You go from whatever knowledge you purport to have about your diocese to accusations about the whole Church. When you learn to temper your charges it might be possible to have a discussion, but it certainly is not a possibility now.

If feeling that way makes me what ever term you use to describe me in your posts, that is OK with me.

I could care less if it is ok with you. I would like you to learn to look objectively at the issue, and that does not seem possible. You speak in broad accusations; when confronted with facts you go back to the accusations and do not address the facts. That is the “Don’t confuse me with the facts; I already have my mind made up” approach.

The Pope has apologized. You ignore it and continue to harp on the Curia - which has no part in the issue.

The bishops have apologized - in person - with victims and families and this has been pointed out to you. You continue to insist they have not.

You continue to make false charges when confronted with the truth.

Get over it.

 

[portarica]

As noted, your knowledge of the Curia and their responsibilities shows a profound lack of understanding of the Curia and what it does. Don’t hold your breath waiting for the Curia to do what you think they should do, unless you look good in blue.

when you look at the number of kids who are raped by teachers, coaches and the like and the continued transferring of such individuals and hushing up the issue, the disparity of the public’s reaction (since they are protected by a strict statute of limitations as are all government entities, and since they have engaged in the exact same behavior) shows a profound and disturbing anomaly between the hostility to the Church and the lack of even paying attention when it is a government person who does the same act. Both acts - rape by priest or rape by coach and/or teacher are totally reprehensible. Your inability to distinguish between the two, and your inability to comprehend the attitudes toward the Church further reinforce the suspicion that you are too emotionally involved in this.

And by the way, your comment about the Curia makes as much sense as requiring the heads of state governmental agencies to apologize to a mother. As noted, you don’t get it.

They have. So have the leaders. Apparently they did not inform you.

I have made no excuses. You are so emotionally involved in the issue that facts do not matter.

You are so ignorant of how the leaders of the Church are acting that it is embarrassing. You go from whatever knowledge you purport to have about your diocese to accusations about the whole Church. When you learn to temper your charges it might be possible to have a discussion, but it certainly is not a possibility now.

I could care less if it is ok with you. I would like you to learn to look objectively at the issue, and that does not seem possible. You speak in broad accusations; when confronted with facts you go back to the accusations and do not address the facts. That is the “Don’t confuse me with the facts; I already have my mind made up” approach.

The Pope has apologized. You ignore it and continue to harp on the Curia - which has no part in the issue.

The bishops have apologized - in person - with victims and families and this has been pointed out to you. You continue to insist they have not.

You continue to make false charges when confronted with the truth.

Get over it.

So those that assist the pope in governing the church have no responsibility for the cover-up and subterfuge involving abuse? Tell me again why I am mistaken that the curia has no responsibility? newadvent.org/cathen/13147a.htm drill down a little to the congregations under the curia to see where their responsibilities lie.

And why don’t you address the theological reasoning behind the cover up of abuse?

We both know the answer bouncing around in your head.

Peace

 

[otjm]

So those that assist the pope in governing the church have no responsibility for the cover-up and subterfuge involving abuse? Tell me again why I am mistaken that the curia has no responsibility?

The Curia as a whole does not have any responsibility whatsoever in the issue of abuse. As I have noted, you seem to know nothing about the Curia. One, or possibly two dicasteries may have some interfacing on the issue, but the responsibility for the abuse is the jurisdiction of the bishop. Neither the Curia nor the Pope himself micromanages the various and numerous dioceses in the world. You might try reading your citation itself, not that you will necessarily learn a whole lot. Why you seem to think that any dicastery owes an apology to anyone is still beyond me, but then, it fits with the rest of your positions. And has been noted, the Pope has apologized to victims; so your basic contention is wrong. Further, the likelihood of him looking up each and every victim, or even some of them, may be your fantasy and your reading of moral requirements, but it doesn’t seem to be anyone else’s including the Pope’s. And what you seem to fail to understand is that if the dicastery were to take action against a bishop, it is entirely likely that you would never get wind of it. If you are looking for a pound of flesh, you are going to be disappointed, as most of the actions of the dicastery are not public. That, too has a moral component, one you do not seem to be familiar with.

And why don’t you address the theological reasoning behind the cover up of abuse?

Because anyone with two synapses firing in sequence can figure out the moral dimension of the issue, and I have a couple more than two firing. I don’t need to publicly wring my hands as to the moral dimension; it speaks for itself. As to the need you seem to think that most mothers have, a good many of them are dead, as people who are bringing up issues 30, 40 and more years ago have parents who are deceased. Further, it is a tad bit difficult to apologize to someone who simply will not speak to you. And as I have noted, bishops have been meeting with families and apologizing, a fact that you still ignore.

We both know the answer bouncing around in your head.

Peace

I seriously doubt you have the first clue. Your posts certainly indicate an inability to deal with facts as you ignore them when posted.

You seem to want the bishops to be bleeding hearts. They have apologized to victims and families, a point you choose to ignore. Have they all done so? No. am I going to castigate them for that? Neither you nor I have enough facts to do so intelligently, and so I choose to keep my peace. Further, I know that some of that - apologizing - is done privately, so why would I make false accusations? It is not my business to know what is done in private - and it is done in private to protect the privacy of the victims and families, something you seem to be completely insensitive to.

The bishops who are in place now by and large are not the bishops who were on duty when the abuses occurred, something you seem to completely miss. Further, they have multiple duties, something else you seem to ignore or not care about. That is your issue, not mine, and your attempt to smear them as not following the Gospels would be hilarious if it were not so sad.

 

[portarica]

The Curia as a whole does not have any responsibility whatsoever in the issue of abuse. As I have noted, you seem to know nothing about the Curia. One, or possibly two dicasteries may have some interfacing on the issue, but the responsibility for the abuse is the jurisdiction of the bishop. Neither the Curia nor the Pope himself micromanages the various and numerous dioceses in the world. You might try reading your citation itself, not that you will necessarily learn a whole lot. Why you seem to think that any dicastery owes an apology to anyone is still beyond me, but then, it fits with the rest of your positions. And has been noted, the Pope has apologized to victims; so your basic contention is wrong. Further, the likelihood of him looking up each and every victim, or even some of them, may be your fantasy and your reading of moral requirements, but it doesn’t seem to be anyone else’s including the Pope’s. And what you seem to fail to understand is that if the dicastery were to take action against a bishop, it is entirely likely that you would never get wind of it. If you are looking for a pound of flesh, you are going to be disappointed, as most of the actions of the dicastery are not public. That, too has a moral component, one you do not seem to be familiar with.

Because anyone with two synapses firing in sequence can figure out the moral dimension of the issue, and I have a couple more than two firing. I don’t need to publicly wring my hands as to the moral dimension; it speaks for itself. As to the need you seem to think that most mothers have, a good many of them are dead, as people who are bringing up issues 30, 40 and more years ago have parents who are deceased. Further, it is a tad bit difficult to apologize to someone who simply will not speak to you. And as I have noted, bishops have been meeting with families and apologizing, a fact that you still ignore.

I seriously doubt you have the first clue. Your posts certainly indicate an inability to deal with facts as you ignore them when posted.

You seem to want the bishops to be bleeding hearts. They have apologized to victims and families, a point you choose to ignore. Have they all done so? No. am I going to castigate them for that? Neither you nor I have enough facts to do so intelligently, and so I choose to keep my peace. Further, I know that some of that - apologizing - is done privately, so why would I make false accusations? It is not my business to know what is done in private - and it is done in private to protect the privacy of the victims and families, something you seem to be completely insensitive to.

The bishops who are in place now by and large are not the bishops who were on duty when the abuses occurred, something you seem to completely miss. Further, they have multiple duties, something else you seem to ignore or not care about. That is your issue, not mine, and your attempt to smear them as not following the Gospels would be hilarious if it were not so sad.

Now your thought process is complete and very clear . The bishops have been engaged in deceit and subterfuge because they are following the gospels. I am sorry I accused them of not following the gospels, you have proven my accusations wrong.They were just doing the work of Christ, thank God.

Peace

 

[otjm]

Now your thought process is complete and very clear . The bishops have been engaged in deceit and subterfuge because they are following the gospels. I am sorry I accused them of not following the gospels, you have proven my accusations wrong.They were just doing the work of Christ, thank God.

Peace

;That is not worthy of a response.

It is, however, consistent with your lack of logic.

 

[Aboveallbereal]

You are right, the rate of abusers was statistically in the neighborhood of society in general.

The biggest issue is that there were few if any priests , bishops or popes that didn’t condone abuse and engage in subterfuge about abuse.

And you are so right about ephebophilia, it so much better to rape a 13 year old than an eight year old. We are so fortunate that our priests were in some instances able to remain in long term abusive relationships with their victims.

Peace

Correct me if I am being unduly touchy on this but I detect scornful sarcasm in your response to my pointing out that the Church problem was/is ephebophilia rather than paedophilia and correct understanding of the problem is a prerequisite to dealing with it.

I in no manner condone abusing teenage boys any more than preteens and take offence at the suggestion. Do not have the impertinence to assume that I regard it as “fortunate” that priests were able to abuse teens on a long term basis. I merely point out that correct understaning of the problem helps in both comprehending it and precluding future outbreaks.

 

[portarica]

Correct me if I am being unduly touchy on this but I detect scornful sarcasm in your response to my pointing out that the Church problem was/is ephebophilia rather than paedophilia and correct understanding of the problem is a prerequisite to dealing with it.

I in no manner condone abusing teenage boys any more than preteens and take offence at the suggestion. Do not have the impertinence to assume that I regard it as “fortunate” that priests were able to abuse teens on a long term basis. I merely point out that correct understaning of the problem helps in both comprehending it and precluding future outbreaks.

Sure there is sarcasm, the Church’s problem wasn’t just ephebophilia , but also of straight out pedophilia as well. To be splitting hairs about whether it was 8, 10 or 12 year old or a 16 year old or a seminarian or whatever the age, doesn’t mean there was not a problem.

To defend the positions taken by the church because some of the altar boys were young teenagers sounds like a construct devised by attorneys and not a notion rooted in what Jesus taught.

To prevent further outbreaks just tell the priests if they abuse they are out of the priesthood and to the bishops tell them if they cover-up or lie about one instance of abuse, they are out of the priesthood. Those solutions are available to the church without interference from the civil authorities.

Peace

 

[portarica]

;That is not worthy of a response.

It is, however, consistent with your lack of logic.

Wasn’t it you who posted that I was smearing the bishops by accusing them of not following the gospels?

So my accusation is false, I’ll stipulate to that point. Therefore, the bishops were following the gospels.OK .

I agreed with your logic and now that I do, my comment is not worthy of a response?

Peace