T
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
G
GrandmaRose
Guest
Just as an interested observer who has been following each posting on this thread, may I say that I’ve interpreted half of the responses as nothing but excuses for the mishandling of the abuses cases.
There simply isn’t an excuse under heaven for ever putting one child at further risk once an abuser has been identified, which is what happened year after year after year.
Rationalizations can be made to sound very reasonable, but in the end they remain nothing but rationalizations.
Horrendous and irreversible harm was done to children, families, parishes, dioceses, the credibility of the Bishops and other hierarchy, and ultimately to the Church itself – not only by the actions of sick individuals, but most especially by the criminal and morally reprehensible coverups – which continue to this day in other parts of the world. We haven’t even heard from many countries, where surely there have been the same abuses perpetrated and intentional deceptive actions taken (and not taken).
As I said – just my opinion as an interested observer here.
There simply isn’t an excuse under heaven for ever putting one child at further risk once an abuser has been identified, which is what happened year after year after year.
Rationalizations can be made to sound very reasonable, but in the end they remain nothing but rationalizations.
Horrendous and irreversible harm was done to children, families, parishes, dioceses, the credibility of the Bishops and other hierarchy, and ultimately to the Church itself – not only by the actions of sick individuals, but most especially by the criminal and morally reprehensible coverups – which continue to this day in other parts of the world. We haven’t even heard from many countries, where surely there have been the same abuses perpetrated and intentional deceptive actions taken (and not taken).
As I said – just my opinion as an interested observer here.
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
There is no defense of substantiated claims of clergy sex abuse. However, the suggestion that all bishops who assigned and transferred problem priests to other parishes be found automatically culpable and removed is rash, a simplistic answer to a complex problem.
Importantly, it disregards that the Church was and continues to be in the business of redemption and saving of souls (including its own), and applies 21st century knowledge and standards to those of a generation or two ago, which is restrospective analysis.
Understanding of child sex abuse has evolved in last 50 years
Understandably, the victims, their families and critics view that Church responses have been too little, too late in terms of correction and atonement. It is inaccurate to say that the Church’s efforts in the last eight years have been insignificant or closed to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
The objective is to see justice for victims and accused, plus exposition and reparation for cover-up done for the purpose of continuing the abuse. The question as to the claim of cover-up is this: in moving problem priests to other parishes, is it already established that the intent of bishops was to continue the sex abuse of minor parishioners? Is it justice to proceed without sufficient investigation of claims made, many of which happened 20 to 30 years ago?
There have been more than 10,000 cases filed in the U.S., with an estimated 6700 substantiated. A staggering number. There is no appropriate way of handling mass litigation except one case at a time, a slow painful process. If the John Jay Report is any indication, the Church did open itself to scrutiny and audit. The CC removed 700 priests since January 2002. As of December 2007, the U.S. church has paid more than $1.7 billion since 1950 for settlement and costs of clergy sex abuse, according to this report.
Outside what lawyers advise, there is an abundance of counsel that the Church is taking up or considering from experts and organizations hoping for a much needed cleansing in the ranks and hierarchy. The faithful members and majority of priests who dedicated themselves to God and the Church community do not want the Church to collapse or disintegrate altogether.
‘Change in Vatican Culture’
A Sex Abuse Expert Sees Hope in Pope Benedict
Sexual Abuse and the Catholic Church: Where Are We Now?
Restorative Justice and the Sexual Abuse Scandal in the Catholic Church
Posters and readers of this thread need perspective, not hasty generalizations. Further, in reading accounts of Catholic clergy abuse, the media is generally hostile to the Church; hence, the account is not always correct or accurate.
More later.
. . . . . . .
Importantly, it disregards that the Church was and continues to be in the business of redemption and saving of souls (including its own), and applies 21st century knowledge and standards to those of a generation or two ago, which is restrospective analysis.
Understanding of child sex abuse has evolved in last 50 years
Understandably, the victims, their families and critics view that Church responses have been too little, too late in terms of correction and atonement. It is inaccurate to say that the Church’s efforts in the last eight years have been insignificant or closed to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
The objective is to see justice for victims and accused, plus exposition and reparation for cover-up done for the purpose of continuing the abuse. The question as to the claim of cover-up is this: in moving problem priests to other parishes, is it already established that the intent of bishops was to continue the sex abuse of minor parishioners? Is it justice to proceed without sufficient investigation of claims made, many of which happened 20 to 30 years ago?
There have been more than 10,000 cases filed in the U.S., with an estimated 6700 substantiated. A staggering number. There is no appropriate way of handling mass litigation except one case at a time, a slow painful process. If the John Jay Report is any indication, the Church did open itself to scrutiny and audit. The CC removed 700 priests since January 2002. As of December 2007, the U.S. church has paid more than $1.7 billion since 1950 for settlement and costs of clergy sex abuse, according to this report.
Outside what lawyers advise, there is an abundance of counsel that the Church is taking up or considering from experts and organizations hoping for a much needed cleansing in the ranks and hierarchy. The faithful members and majority of priests who dedicated themselves to God and the Church community do not want the Church to collapse or disintegrate altogether.
‘Change in Vatican Culture’
A Sex Abuse Expert Sees Hope in Pope Benedict
Sexual Abuse and the Catholic Church: Where Are We Now?
Restorative Justice and the Sexual Abuse Scandal in the Catholic Church
Posters and readers of this thread need perspective, not hasty generalizations. Further, in reading accounts of Catholic clergy abuse, the media is generally hostile to the Church; hence, the account is not always correct or accurate.
More later.
. . . . . . .
P
portarica
Guest
Hasty? Hasn’t this been happening for centuries? As to the media being hostile to the church or not, that doesn’t make it slanderous. In fact if anything the media failed to report on abuse for decades.There is no defense of substantiated claims of clergy sex abuse. However, the suggestion that all bishops who assigned and transferred problem priests to other parishes be found automatically culpable and removed is rash, a simplistic answer to a complex problem.
Importantly, it disregards that the Church was and continues to be in the business of redemption and saving of souls (including its own), and applies 21st century knowledge and standards to those of a generation or two ago, which is restrospective analysis.
Understanding of child sex abuse has evolved in last 50 years
Understandably, the victims, their families and critics view that Church responses have been too little, too late in terms of correction and atonement. It is inaccurate to say that the Church’s efforts in the last eight years have been insignificant or closed to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
The objective is to see justice for victims and accused, plus exposition and reparation for cover-up done for the purpose of continuing the abuse. The question as to the claim of cover-up is this: in moving problem priests to other parishes, is it already established that the intent of bishops was to continue the sex abuse of minor parishioners? Is it justice to proceed without sufficient investigation of claims made, many of which happened 20 to 30 years ago?
There have been more than 10,000 cases filed in the U.S., with an estimated 6700 substantiated. A staggering number. There is no appropriate way of handling mass litigation except one case at a time, a slow painful process. If the John Jay Report is any indication, the Church did open itself to scrutiny and audit. The CC removed 700 priests since January 2002. As of December 2007, the U.S. church has paid more than $1.7 billion since 1950 for settlement and costs of clergy sex abuse, according to this report.
Outside what lawyers advise, there is an abundance of counsel that the Church is taking up or considering from experts and organizations hoping for a much needed cleansing in the ranks and hierarchy. The faithful members and majority of priests who dedicated themselves to God and the Church community do not want the Church to collapse or disintegrate altogether.
‘Change in Vatican Culture’
A Sex Abuse Expert Sees Hope in Pope Benedict
Sexual Abuse and the Catholic Church: Where Are We Now?
Restorative Justice and the Sexual Abuse Scandal in the Catholic Church
Posters and readers of this thread need perspective, not hasty generalizations. Further, in reading accounts of Catholic clergy abuse, the media is generally hostile to the Church; hence, the account is not always correct or accurate.
More later.
. . . . . . .
Peace
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Perhaps, my friend. Would you like to tell us a good example where the saints have mutilated their body and cut their organs in obedience to the said verses? St Augustine perhaps, who was known for his unbelief and carefree lifestyle before he was converted to know the Lord.See what a mess you get into when you try to alter what jesus clearly stated.
So it follows, all that stuff about the ‘body & blood’ is not literal…only symbolic as our protestant cousins have always maintained?
You are in murky waters my friend & floundering. Since when did the heart do our thinking- I presume you mean the brain?
Jesus meant what he said altho’ you may not like it.
The eyes and the hands cannot think. They act only when the heart which commands the brain which in turn moves them to act. Jesus is not a sadist; he is a God of love. A repentance heart is what he wants, not sacrifice.
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
When I indicated hasty generalizations, I was referring to the suggestion that all bishops who transferred the problem priests to other parishes be punished or removed. Let’s say that there are 30 out of 200 bishops under whom priest abuse and re-assignment was done. Should all 30 be removed from office before the claim of cover-up is investigated and established? Would that be fair?Hasty? Hasn’t this been happening for centuries? As to the media being hostile to the church or not, that doesn’t make it slanderous. In fact if anything the media failed to report on abuse for decades.
Peace
As to the mention of media, this is what I stated verbatim:
Further, in reading accounts of Catholic clergy abuse, the media is generally hostile to the Church; hence, the account is not always correct or accurate.
There have been media reports that were inaccurate such as this one, quick to blame the Pope or then Cardinal Ratzinger regarding his role on the matter without considering the evidence.
Btw, you reacted to my last two sentences. How about everything before that?
. . . . . .
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
To my Catholic brothers and sisters,
As you can glean from discussion by Catholic posters on this thread alone, there is uniform condemnation of clergy abuse, the Church’s dirty secret that went on for decades. As most know, the scandal hit critical mass and reached public attention, leading to massive litigation in 2001 and settlement in the last few years. The process is still going on, actually.
There is no uniform agreement that the Church has done enough so far in terms of reparation to the victims of clergy abuse and prevention of future abuse. I tend to disbelieve claims that the Church hierarchy, i.e., the bishops including the Pope are in “continuous cover up” of committed abuses. The matter is in the open, in front and center stage.
The U.S. Church commissioned an independent audit from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Anybody can google the 2004 report. The compilation study is due for completion in December 2010.
The John Jay report compiled cases during the period 1950 to 2002. The report found that 81% of the victims were male; and of all the victims, 22% were younger than age 10, 51% were between the ages of 11 and 14, and 27% were between the ages to 15 to 17 years. This should put to rest the incidental question if the cases can be classified as pedophilia or hebephilia/ephebophila. It is clearly the latter, based on the data.
Almost 70% of the abusive priests were ordained before 1970, after attending pre-Vatican II seminaries or seminaries that had had little time to adapt to the reforms of Vatican II. Of the priests who were accused of sexual abuse, 59% were accused of a single allegation. 41% of the priests were the subject of more than one allegation. Just under 3% of the priests were the subject of ten or more allegations. The 149 priests who had more than 10 allegations against them accounted for 2,960 of the total number of 6,700 substantiated allegations.
You can read the diocesan responses to the abuse claims here.
The Church has put in place systems and standards from recruitment to the priesthood and priest assessment, to handling of any and all reports of sex abuse and lewd conduct by the clergy, including bishop accountability, and charter compliance by dioceses. At the parish level, there is compliance in providing safe environment programs for children in the context of risk management and best practices and background checks on newly assigned/hired priests and religious educators. The aim: no tolerance for wrongdoing. Not surprisingly, new claims are drastically down.
Clearly, the direction the Church is taking should make Catholics take heart, although it should have taken said steps years ago to keep in step with the times in running a huge organization, not unlike a big multinational company. Admittedly, our Church has a long learning curve and the crisis is not over, with cases being reported in dioceses in other parts of the world.
However, at this time, the positive things undertaken by the Catholic churches in the U.S. as listed above make me hopeful for the future. We may be looking at a much leaner Church ahead, but it would still be standing for those of us who choose to stay. What gives me comfort are the words of Jesus to Peter as He left the Church to him more than 2,000 years ago, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
As I close this post, I pray for the victims of clergy abuse and their families, that they get justice. I also pray that the offending priests and bishops who may be guilty of not heeding the teaching of Jesus about caring for the “little ones” get their justice, as well. I do not doubt the teaching of Jesus on accountability to God by each one of us on the day of judgment. I also do not doubt His words during the sermon on the mount, “Blessed are the merciful for they will be shown mercy.”
Blessings to all.
. . . . .
As you can glean from discussion by Catholic posters on this thread alone, there is uniform condemnation of clergy abuse, the Church’s dirty secret that went on for decades. As most know, the scandal hit critical mass and reached public attention, leading to massive litigation in 2001 and settlement in the last few years. The process is still going on, actually.
There is no uniform agreement that the Church has done enough so far in terms of reparation to the victims of clergy abuse and prevention of future abuse. I tend to disbelieve claims that the Church hierarchy, i.e., the bishops including the Pope are in “continuous cover up” of committed abuses. The matter is in the open, in front and center stage.
The U.S. Church commissioned an independent audit from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Anybody can google the 2004 report. The compilation study is due for completion in December 2010.
The John Jay report compiled cases during the period 1950 to 2002. The report found that 81% of the victims were male; and of all the victims, 22% were younger than age 10, 51% were between the ages of 11 and 14, and 27% were between the ages to 15 to 17 years. This should put to rest the incidental question if the cases can be classified as pedophilia or hebephilia/ephebophila. It is clearly the latter, based on the data.
Almost 70% of the abusive priests were ordained before 1970, after attending pre-Vatican II seminaries or seminaries that had had little time to adapt to the reforms of Vatican II. Of the priests who were accused of sexual abuse, 59% were accused of a single allegation. 41% of the priests were the subject of more than one allegation. Just under 3% of the priests were the subject of ten or more allegations. The 149 priests who had more than 10 allegations against them accounted for 2,960 of the total number of 6,700 substantiated allegations.
You can read the diocesan responses to the abuse claims here.
The Church has put in place systems and standards from recruitment to the priesthood and priest assessment, to handling of any and all reports of sex abuse and lewd conduct by the clergy, including bishop accountability, and charter compliance by dioceses. At the parish level, there is compliance in providing safe environment programs for children in the context of risk management and best practices and background checks on newly assigned/hired priests and religious educators. The aim: no tolerance for wrongdoing. Not surprisingly, new claims are drastically down.
Clearly, the direction the Church is taking should make Catholics take heart, although it should have taken said steps years ago to keep in step with the times in running a huge organization, not unlike a big multinational company. Admittedly, our Church has a long learning curve and the crisis is not over, with cases being reported in dioceses in other parts of the world.
However, at this time, the positive things undertaken by the Catholic churches in the U.S. as listed above make me hopeful for the future. We may be looking at a much leaner Church ahead, but it would still be standing for those of us who choose to stay. What gives me comfort are the words of Jesus to Peter as He left the Church to him more than 2,000 years ago, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
As I close this post, I pray for the victims of clergy abuse and their families, that they get justice. I also pray that the offending priests and bishops who may be guilty of not heeding the teaching of Jesus about caring for the “little ones” get their justice, as well. I do not doubt the teaching of Jesus on accountability to God by each one of us on the day of judgment. I also do not doubt His words during the sermon on the mount, “Blessed are the merciful for they will be shown mercy.”
Blessings to all.
. . . . .
P
portarica
Guest
Who said that priests or bishops should be removed from the priesthood if they didn’t abuse or cover it up? That means they did it , which means it has to be proved.When I indicated hasty generalizations, I was referring to the suggestion that all bishops who transferred the problem priests to other parishes be punished or removed. Let’s say that there are 30 out of 200 bishops under whom priest abuse and re-assignment was done. Should all 30 be removed from office before the claim of cover-up is investigated and established? Would that be fair?
As to the mention of media, this is what I stated verbatim:
Further, in reading accounts of Catholic clergy abuse, the media is generally hostile to the Church; hence, the account is not always correct or accurate.
There have been media reports that were inaccurate such as this one, quick to blame the Pope or then Cardinal Ratzinger regarding his role on the matter without considering the evidence.
Btw, you reacted to my last two sentences. How about everything before that?
. . . . . .
Do you have a problem with not removing priests who abused or removing bishops that covered up abuse?
As to the media , even the articles you referenced do not say the pope or the bishop in Wisconsin didn’t do what the articles said, it only said we do not understand the whole of it.
Unfortunately the church has never explained the “whole” of it. So when a bishop transferred somebody who abused , we don’t know if it was a specific act or just the way things are done in that diocese. None the less, the bishop is responsible for the results , either for not directly protecting kids or for not putting in place mechanisms for protecting kids.
If a bishops micromanages and makes a mistake or doesn’t feel the need to personally concern himself with abusive priests, those are decisions the bishop makes. Who else is responsible?
The people in the Vatican are big boys, they know the score, to plead ignorance as a defense is pretty far fetched. Sloth maybe or a lack of concern with the morals of the clergy , but to have the primary reason abuse festered be the Sargent Schultz defense is laughable.
Peace
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
If you read my posts like I read yours, it would be clear that I would have no problem with removing priests who abused and bishops that gave cover where* it is established that the transfer was the only action they took, and by extension, that they were not thinking of protecting the kids.*Who said that priests or bishops should be removed from the priesthood if they didn’t abuse or cover it up? That means they did it , which means it has to be proved.
Do you have a problem with not removing priests who abused or removing bishops that covered up abuse?
As to the media , even the articles you referenced do not say the pope or the bishop in Wisconsin didn’t do what the articles said, it only said we do not understand the whole of it.
Unfortunately the church has never explained the “whole” of it. So when a bishop transferred somebody who abused , we don’t know if it was a specific act or just the way things are done in that diocese. None the less, the bishop is responsible for the results , either for not directly protecting kids or for not putting in place mechanisms for protecting kids.
If a bishops micromanages and makes a mistake or doesn’t feel the need to personally concern himself with abusive priests, those are decisions the bishop makes. Who else is responsible?
The people in the Vatican are big boys, they know the score, to plead ignorance as a defense is pretty far fetched. Sloth maybe or a lack of concern with the morals of the clergy , but to have the primary reason abuse festered be the Sargent Schultz defense is laughable.
Peace
I have a problem with a blanket and unqualified suggestion that says that bishops who transferred the offending priests be accused of cover up, and for this alone, without investigation of relevant facts, the bishops need to be removed.
Now, on the article I linked, there are these paragraphs that you ignored about the Pope’s role, which the biased media sources is said to have also ignored:
*In the case of the pope’s alleged cover up in Germany, **the networks failed to report that the then-Cardinal Ratzinger followed the dominating theory behind rehabilitation of sex offenders. **No psychologists or psychiatrists were featured to discuss the treatment given to offending priests.
As recently as 2004, treatment was offered as a reasonable course of action for abusive priests. Dr. Thomas Plante, a professor of psychology at Santa Clara University and adjunct clinical associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine, co-authored a study that listed “Treat offending clergy” as direction for the Catholic Church to follow in the future.
“Promising treatments have been developed for offending clergy and should be utitilized,” wrote Plante. “Specialized programs at treatment facilities such as the St. Luke Institute in Maryland, Southdown Hospital in Toronto, and the Institute of Living/Hartford Hospital in Connecticut have developed impressive programs with encouraging treatment outcome results as of this date. Treatment programs that have developed successful approaches should share their experiences with others.”*
What is your reaction to the audits that the Church undertook to get to the history and context of the abuses (leading to the removal of 700 priests) and the systems and standards that have been put in place to prevent future abuses, as I included in my last post?
. . . . . .
P
portarica
Guest
Actually Ratzinger didn’t follow up when the treatment center notified the diocese that the priest in question didn’t meet the requirements to be put back into contact with children and recommended so.If you read my posts like I read yours, it would be clear that I would have no problem with removing priests who abused and bishops that gave cover where* it is established that the transfer was the only action they took, and by extension, that they were not thinking of protecting the kids.*
I have a problem with a blanket and unqualified suggestion that says that bishops who transferred the offending priests be accused of cover up, and for this alone, without investigation of relevant facts, the bishops need to be removed.
Now, on the article I linked, there are these paragraphs that you ignored about the Pope’s role, which the biased media sources is said to have also ignored:
*In the case of the pope’s alleged cover up in Germany, **the networks failed to report that the then-Cardinal Ratzinger followed the dominating theory behind rehabilitation of sex offenders. ***No psychologists or psychiatrists were featured to discuss the treatment given to offending priests.
As recently as 2004, treatment was offered as a reasonable course of action for abusive priests. Dr. Thomas Plante, a professor of psychology at Santa Clara University and adjunct clinical associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine, co-authored a study that listed “Treat offending clergy” as direction for the Catholic Church to follow in the future.
“Promising treatments have been developed for offending clergy and should be utitilized,” wrote Plante. “Specialized programs at treatment facilities such as the St. Luke Institute in Maryland, Southdown Hospital in Toronto, and the Institute of Living/Hartford Hospital in Connecticut have developed impressive programs with encouraging treatment outcome results as of this date. Treatment programs that have developed successful approaches should share their experiences with others.”
What is your reaction to the audits that the Church undertook to get to the history and context of the abuses (leading to the removal of 700 priests) and the systems and standards that have been put in place to prevent future abuses, as I included in my last post?
. . . . . .
So who is fooling who? Sure the church says they didn’t know better, but they didn’t need outsiders to tell them what worked, they had the actual evidence. The psychologists were only guessing. But the church actually knew that some treated priests abused when they returned to service. The church had empirical evidence at the time of repeated abuse, yet it still uses the " I didn’t know excuse ". even today, as evidenced by your post.
And further, the treatment centers might have said some priests were “cured” but it wasn’t a blanket kind of thing. So the additional fact that some priests who weren’t “cured” were still put into contact with kids means that some kids were abused because recommendations were either blatantly ignored or were not validly considered in the transfer process.
Because the full story is unlikely to be known until some pope has the courage to tell us catholics what the church knew and when it knew ,and knowing how the church likes to give a full and measured consideration for its actions, I don’t believe we should be holding our breaths for some kind release like that in our lifetime.
But it would be a good thing if they at least said it was their fault and not the fault of mothers who entrusted their kids to the care of the church. Because that is where the pain is most sharp, in the hearts of mothers who feel they betrayed their children by telling them to trust and have faith in the church.
Peace
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
This is a mischaracterization of the Vatican and diocesan response and it seems that your objective is to inflame. I provided the link in a previous post, again here that has the paragraph on the diocesan response to the claims.The people in the Vatican are big boys, they know the score, to plead ignorance as a defense is pretty far fetched. Sloth maybe or a lack of concern with the morals of the clergy , but to have the primary reason abuse festered be the Sargent Schultz defense is laughable.
Peace
. . . . . .
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
I need to ask you this directly because of the repeating theme of the harangue in your posts across the pages:Actually Ratzinger didn’t follow up when the treatment center notified the diocese that the priest in question didn’t meet the requirements to be put back into contact with children and recommended so.
So who is fooling who? Sure the church says they didn’t know better, but they didn’t need outsiders to tell them what worked, they had the actual evidence. The psychologists were only guessing. But the church actually knew that some treated priests abused when they returned to service. The church had empirical evidence at the time of repeated abuse, yet it still uses the " I didn’t know excuse ". even today, as evidenced by your post.
And further, the treatment centers might have said some priests were “cured” but it wasn’t a blanket kind of thing. So the additional fact that some priests who weren’t “cured” were still put into contact with kids means that some kids were abused because recommendations were either blatantly ignored or were not validly considered in the transfer process.
Because the full story is unlikely to be known until some pope has the courage to tell us catholics what the church knew and when it knew ,and knowing how the church likes to give a full and measured consideration for its actions, I don’t believe we should be holding our breaths for some kind release like that in our lifetime.
But it would be a good thing if they at least said it was their fault and not the fault of mothers who entrusted their kids to the care of the church. Because that is where the pain is most sharp, in the hearts of mothers who feel they betrayed their children by telling them to trust and have faith in the church.
Peace
Is it your claim from the actual abuse case that you have intimate knowledge of, that the mother whom you spoke of (now deceased?) told you that the abuse of her child was her fault?
. . . . . .
R
Reservoir_Dog
Guest
summarized by the article…This is a mischaracterization of the Vatican and diocesan response and it seems that your objective is to inflame. I provided the link in a previous post, again here that has the paragraph on the diocesan response to the claims.
. . . . . .
**"Factors contributing to the abuse problem
The John Jay report identified the following factors contributing to the sexual abuse problem:[15]
Failure by the hierarchy to grasp the seriousness of the problem.
Overemphasis on the need to avoid a scandal.
Use of unqualified treatment centers.
Misguided willingness to forgive.
Insufficient accountability."
**
Not malicious misconduct, but serious negligence. Heads should have rolled.
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
No question that there was serious negligence. As for heads rolling, 700 priests were removed. The matter involving the bishops is a parallel issue being tackled, if we consider the systems placed following the audit as I mentioned in my posts.…
Not malicious misconduct, but serious negligence. Heads should have rolled.
I think I have articulated enough my view on the bishops responsible for supervising the offending priests.
. . . . .
R
Reservoir_Dog
Guest
Is this the ongoing audit and the current background checks for all levels from volunteers to employees to priests?No question that there was serious negligence. As for heads rolling, 700 priests were removed. The matter involving the bishops is a parallel issue being tackled, if we consider the systems placed following the audit as I mentioned in my posts.
I think I have articulated enough my view on the bishops responsible for supervising the offending priests.
. . . . .
Not to overly secularize things, but if you used a corporate analogy, if a board of directors discovered that corporate officers had allowed senior employees to commit extensive criminal acts spanning years, the board ought to dismiss the officers.
P
portarica
Guest
Actually it is not a mis-characterization, especially the response from the Vatican , which if you reviewed its history regarding abuse , you would see that it has been well versed in the abuse issue of clerics for 1500 years or so.This is a mischaracterization of the Vatican and diocesan response and it seems that your objective is to inflame. I provided the link in a previous post, again here that has the paragraph on the diocesan response to the claims.
. . . . . .
If the truth inflames , the fuel isn’t my words , but the actions of the church. Read this thread from the beginning.
In the early part I just suggested that the pope could have ended it all by just saying : any priest who abuses is out and any Bishop that covers up abuse is out. Then a quick apology to Moms who have suffered as a direct result of the church’s actions and inactions and for all intents and purposes most of the hearts would have been salved.
But then other posters suggest that maybe the church has no culpability and the leaders of our church are just misunderstood. Which is a falsehood.
So then we start addressing some points about the excuses the church uses for abuse. And BTW there hasn’t been an excuse yet that can’t be countered by facts. And as the excuses get crazier and crazier and we are at the point where the defenders of the church are essentially saying that our church is run by a bunch of bumbling idiots who don’t know right from wrong.
We know they are not idiots, so why do we pretend they couldn’t figure out what a ten year old knows about abuse?
Peace
R
Reuben_J
Guest
Noted. This is one man suggestion and I am sure many **non-Catholics **will agree with you. You are indeed entitled to your opinion and you have been able to articulate it here quite clearly - your thought and your view on all this. This however does not give you carte blanche to malign the Vatican especially for the things that it is not and does not do. I think it is abuse of the Forum rule and can be reported especially when you make accusation without evidence.In the early part I just suggested that the pope could have ended it all by just saying : any priest who abuses is out and any Bishop that covers up abuse is out. Then a quick apology to Moms who have suffered as a direct result of the church’s actions and inactions and for all intents and purposes most of the hearts would have been salved.
Peace
P
portarica
Guest
I have not made any unsubstantiated accusations. Just go through the posts and follow the cites.Noted. This is one man suggestion and I am sure many **non-Catholics **will agree with you. You are indeed entitled to your opinion and you have been able to articulate it here quite clearly - your thought and your view on all this. This however does not give you carte blanche to malign the Vatican especially for the things that it is not and does not do. I think it is abuse of the Forum rule and can be reported especially when you make accusation without evidence.
Somebody started the thread regarding solutions to the crisis, I offered up a very simple one, that ,BTW, is in accord with all the teachings of the church and BTW with the teachings of Jesus.
Others presented excuses for the behavior of the church’s leaders( look closely at the definition for excuse , also cited) and I presented arguments for why the excuses were invalid.
But whether the excuses are valid or not is immaterial. The crisis continues and continues to take a toll on the church. It harms faithful catholics and disparages the church in the eyes of the world and in doing so stifles the work of spreading the Good News of Our Savior.
The leaders of our church could alleviate both the pain that still causes suffering to victims and their mothers and improve the odds of the Church saving more people for Christ with a few simple words that wouldn’t cause harm or increase the financial liability of the church.
It would require some humility, but I think that is a small price to pay for the good of the church, but apparently it is too high a price to pay for some and too high a price to ask for others.
Peace
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
Actually? What is your source or basis for making this claim?Actually Ratzinger didn’t follow up when the treatment center notified the diocese that the priest in question didn’t meet the requirements to be put back into contact with children and recommended so.
…
Peace
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
As with the other poster, it is my opinion that you have disparaged the Pope, the bishops, and the Church. Not just once or twice, but repeatedly in this thread alone. If the forum has a word counting mechanism, I am sure you logged a high word count on your use of “continued cover-up by the bishops”, “deceit”, and “subterfuge”.
I read the whole thread and followed your posts closely, which number 50 as of this writing. You gave opinions but have not substantiated your claim of continuing cover-up by the bishops. To understand where the vitriol is coming from, I asked you about the abuse case that you claimed to have personal knowledge of, but you did not respond.
*BishopAccountability.org
WHO WE ARE
WHAT DO WE MEAN BY “ACCOUNTABILITY”?
It is a matter of public record that U.S. bishops have knowingly transferred thousands of abusive priests into unsuspecting parishes and dioceses, placing fear of “scandal” ahead of the welfare of children. The bishops themselves have apologized for what they call their “mistake,” but they say nothing about the crucial actions that constitute accountability.
For true “bishop accountability” to occur, two things must happen: 1) there must be a full “account” of the bishops’ responsibility for the sexual abuse crisis, both individually and collectively, and 2) bishops who have caused the abuse of children and vulnerable adults must be “held accountable.”
“Studies” by their own hand-picked boards, working with whatever data the bishops themselves choose to relinquish, is not a full accounting.
BishopAccountability.org aims to facilitate the accountability of the U.S. bishops under civil, criminal, and canon law. We document the debates about root causes and remedies, because important information has surfaced during those debates. We take no position on the root causes, and we do not advocate particular remedies. If the facts are fully known, the causes and remedies will become clear.**
OUR METHOD AND INDEPENDENCE
A.W. Richard Sipe has said that “secrecy and accountability cannot coexist.” In order to hold the bishops accountable for bringing abusers into the priesthood and for transferring known abusers into unsuspecting parishes, we need a comprehensive archive of the evidence. That evidence is vast but scattered. It is our goal to assemble on the Internet a collection of every publicly available document and report on the crisis. Already we have posted the huge archive collected by the New Hampshire attorney general, and we will soon post the investigative and diocesan files that have been released in other cities.
Our standards of inclusion are broad. We offer documents representing every conceivable perspective on the crisis, and we intend to include every relevant diocesan and Vatican document. We endorse no particular analysis of the root causes of the crisis, and we advocate no particular remedies. BishopAccountability.org makes no claim regarding the accuracy of any document we post, and we have tried to include the full range of viewpoints, so as to provide a fully documented landscape of the crisis. We post documents in their entirety, and we do not edit the content in any way. Please email us with advice for adding documents we have missed.*. . . . . .
I read the whole thread and followed your posts closely, which number 50 as of this writing. You gave opinions but have not substantiated your claim of continuing cover-up by the bishops. To understand where the vitriol is coming from, I asked you about the abuse case that you claimed to have personal knowledge of, but you did not respond.
What I share below may or may not change your mind, but I’m providing it for readers following this thread relative to your accusation of continued cover-up by bishops. It is a page on the site called BishopAccountability.org. Read it carefully and go to the link provided for the full information. Here is the home page. Among other things, it has an abuse tracker and lots of information, e.g., survivors’ accounts, past and present abuse claims and names of accused clergy.…
Is it your claim from the actual abuse case that you have intimate knowledge of, that the mother whom you spoke of (now deceased?) told you that the abuse of her child was her fault?
*BishopAccountability.org
WHO WE ARE
WHAT DO WE MEAN BY “ACCOUNTABILITY”?
It is a matter of public record that U.S. bishops have knowingly transferred thousands of abusive priests into unsuspecting parishes and dioceses, placing fear of “scandal” ahead of the welfare of children. The bishops themselves have apologized for what they call their “mistake,” but they say nothing about the crucial actions that constitute accountability.
For true “bishop accountability” to occur, two things must happen: 1) there must be a full “account” of the bishops’ responsibility for the sexual abuse crisis, both individually and collectively, and 2) bishops who have caused the abuse of children and vulnerable adults must be “held accountable.”
- How will a full account be given? The “account” of the bishops’ responsibility for the crisis has so far come through the witness of survivors, through documents unearthed by law enforcement and the legal system, through depositions taken by lawyers, and through media reports. BishopAccountability.org is dedicated to consolidating and preserving that record.
“Studies” by their own hand-picked boards, working with whatever data the bishops themselves choose to relinquish, is not a full accounting.
- Who will hold the bishops accountable? Bishops serve at the Pope’s pleasure, and he will accept the resignation of any bishop who is credibly and publicly accused of abuse (Weakland of Milwaukee WI and O’Connell of Palm Beach FL), who is indicted or arrested (O’Brien of Phoenix AZ), or who is a liability because his people and especially his priests no longer want him (Law of Boston MA).
BishopAccountability.org aims to facilitate the accountability of the U.S. bishops under civil, criminal, and canon law. We document the debates about root causes and remedies, because important information has surfaced during those debates. We take no position on the root causes, and we do not advocate particular remedies. If the facts are fully known, the causes and remedies will become clear.**
OUR METHOD AND INDEPENDENCE
A.W. Richard Sipe has said that “secrecy and accountability cannot coexist.” In order to hold the bishops accountable for bringing abusers into the priesthood and for transferring known abusers into unsuspecting parishes, we need a comprehensive archive of the evidence. That evidence is vast but scattered. It is our goal to assemble on the Internet a collection of every publicly available document and report on the crisis. Already we have posted the huge archive collected by the New Hampshire attorney general, and we will soon post the investigative and diocesan files that have been released in other cities.
Our standards of inclusion are broad. We offer documents representing every conceivable perspective on the crisis, and we intend to include every relevant diocesan and Vatican document. We endorse no particular analysis of the root causes of the crisis, and we advocate no particular remedies. BishopAccountability.org makes no claim regarding the accuracy of any document we post, and we have tried to include the full range of viewpoints, so as to provide a fully documented landscape of the crisis. We post documents in their entirety, and we do not edit the content in any way. Please email us with advice for adding documents we have missed.*. . . . . .
- Status
- Not open for further replies.