C
- Status
J
Joe_5859
Guest
I can understand why people feel disappointed and let down following the summit. I can’t really figure out that anything concrete came out of it.
But I am honestly trying to figure out what people are expecting. Everyone keeps looking for the Church to take “action”. What type of action still needs to be taken that isn’t already happening (at least in the U.S.)? I’m not trying to minimize what people are feeling. I’m honestly trying to figure it out. Priests and volunteers are screened. Victims are encouraged to go to civil authorities first. What other concrete steps could be taken that are not currently being taken?
But I am honestly trying to figure out what people are expecting. Everyone keeps looking for the Church to take “action”. What type of action still needs to be taken that isn’t already happening (at least in the U.S.)? I’m not trying to minimize what people are feeling. I’m honestly trying to figure it out. Priests and volunteers are screened. Victims are encouraged to go to civil authorities first. What other concrete steps could be taken that are not currently being taken?
Last edited:
1
1Lord1Faith
Guest
The two women in the video didn’t really make it clear what they wanted. They mentioned retroactive prosecutions, but that’s a civil matter. Then they went on to say that Pope Francis is shifting responsibility onto society. So, none of that made any sense.
Overall these two women came across as seeming to have a motivation to bring the Church down. They sounded a little phony, and it definitely wasn’t clear what they wanted Pope Francis, or anyone in the Church, to do. They just didn’t pass the smell test for me. I got a malicious impression from them.
Last edited:
J
Joe_5859
Guest
I guess that’s what is frustrating to me. People keep asking for more action. And there is nothing wrong with wanting action to be taken. I certainly also want the Church to take every step possible to minimize the chances that abuse can occur, and also to do everything possible to help victims and exercise justice against perpetrators when it does occur. But I am trying to get the sense of what people are actually looking for. I can’t seem to figure that out. And I feel sheepish asking such questions as I feel like I must be missing something obvious.
I
Irishmom2
Guest
I think some people are looking for Alice in Wonderland pronouncements: Off with his head!
They want to hear about bishops being “defrocked.” Priests too. They want names.
Some of that is happening. I think some want more of the same.
They want to hear about bishops being “defrocked.” Priests too. They want names.
Some of that is happening. I think some want more of the same.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Joe_5859 (summarized from 2 posts) . . .
That’s not asking too much.
How about the bishops not exempting themselves from their own charter?
That is certainly reasonable.
How about quit the public calls for transparency, unless it is going to be put into practice?
That is not an out of bounds request.
How about a transparent outside audit on dioceses. If Ted McCarrick had this, maybe people would have asked questions before many of his seminarians were victimized.
How about unilaterally removing all non-disclosure agreements so victims can come forward and be heard if they want without legal retribution?
How about if we say we are having a “Summit on Minors and Vulnerable Adults”, if we go ahead and have a “Summit on Minors and Vulnerable Adults” instead of it morphing into ONLY “minors” while leaving the term “minors” undefinded which can have different meanings in different countries.
How about NOT CANCELLING out US Bishops attempts to put together their plan, under the pretext of needing a global plan, then offering NO GLOBAL PLAN that should have voided anything the US bishops could have offered (within reason)?
How about stopping the sacrilegious weaponization of the Holy Sacrament of Confession where priest and bishops have abused people, heard their confessions afterwards, then used it as a sacrilegious “shield” to not answer questions, and even claim victimhood (“well I cannot defend myself here. I heard his confession. So now this coming after me is victimizing ME”.)
There are other things I can think of too, but these are a few of the things that immediately came to mind.
How about a way for seminarians who are being chased around by their bishops to have some sort of an avenue of recourse that won’t get them removed from seminary?
That’s not asking too much.
How about the bishops not exempting themselves from their own charter?
That is certainly reasonable.
How about quit the public calls for transparency, unless it is going to be put into practice?
That is not an out of bounds request.
How about a transparent outside audit on dioceses. If Ted McCarrick had this, maybe people would have asked questions before many of his seminarians were victimized.
How about unilaterally removing all non-disclosure agreements so victims can come forward and be heard if they want without legal retribution?
How about if we say we are having a “Summit on Minors and Vulnerable Adults”, if we go ahead and have a “Summit on Minors and Vulnerable Adults” instead of it morphing into ONLY “minors” while leaving the term “minors” undefinded which can have different meanings in different countries.
How about NOT CANCELLING out US Bishops attempts to put together their plan, under the pretext of needing a global plan, then offering NO GLOBAL PLAN that should have voided anything the US bishops could have offered (within reason)?
How about stopping the sacrilegious weaponization of the Holy Sacrament of Confession where priest and bishops have abused people, heard their confessions afterwards, then used it as a sacrilegious “shield” to not answer questions, and even claim victimhood (“well I cannot defend myself here. I heard his confession. So now this coming after me is victimizing ME”.)
There are other things I can think of too, but these are a few of the things that immediately came to mind.
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
“Zero Tolerance”.
Should a churchman who has moved perpetrators around . . . Remain in positions of authority?
How would churchmen implement this? (Because laity cannot implement this outside of civil courts.)
Would THAT really be “zero tolerance” to remain in positions of authority after moving sexual-deviant perpetrators around??
We have seen some “zero tolerance” (in the face of high-profile media cases). Should we treat them all with zero-tolerance or only if a clerical sexual-deviant is exposed to the public in the mainstream media (bad PR)?
.
To readers here at CAF . . .
Let’s all take the recent admonition of Pope Francis (from August 2018) to heart.
http://w2.vatican.va/content/france...-francesco_20180820_lettera-popolo-didio.html
Should a churchman who has moved perpetrators around . . . Remain in positions of authority?
How would churchmen implement this? (Because laity cannot implement this outside of civil courts.)
Would THAT really be “zero tolerance” to remain in positions of authority after moving sexual-deviant perpetrators around??
We have seen some “zero tolerance” (in the face of high-profile media cases). Should we treat them all with zero-tolerance or only if a clerical sexual-deviant is exposed to the public in the mainstream media (bad PR)?
.
To readers here at CAF . . .
Let’s all take the recent admonition of Pope Francis (from August 2018) to heart.
(Emphasis mine)
http://w2.vatican.va/content/france...-francesco_20180820_lettera-popolo-didio.html
Last edited:
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Thank you for offering some points to consider.
It certainly is reasonable to offer a clear path forward when the person being accused is a bishop.
I really do believe many dioceses are being as transparent as possible at present. Although the shuffling priests around and hiding things certainly did happen in the past, I don’t think it’s happening anymore. Again, maybe I’m naive.
Removing non-disclosure agreements is an interesting suggestion I hadn’t heard before. I can see that being helpful for encouraging people to come forward. Isn’t that more or less what some diocese did in order to allow one of McCarrick’s victims to come forward? Seeing that happen across the board could be a step in the right direction.
It certainly is reasonable to offer a clear path forward when the person being accused is a bishop.
I really do believe many dioceses are being as transparent as possible at present. Although the shuffling priests around and hiding things certainly did happen in the past, I don’t think it’s happening anymore. Again, maybe I’m naive.
Removing non-disclosure agreements is an interesting suggestion I hadn’t heard before. I can see that being helpful for encouraging people to come forward. Isn’t that more or less what some diocese did in order to allow one of McCarrick’s victims to come forward? Seeing that happen across the board could be a step in the right direction.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Joe_5859 . . .
(Some allegedly abusive priests ARE still being moved around but that has improved).
But this improvement concerns priests and not abusive bishops who, in the U.S., have exempted themselves from their own Dallas Charter, changing the wording from “clerics” to “priests” before the final draft.
Eksewhere bishops are not being held accountable in this manner either.
Consider the bishop Zanchetta case. From Catholic News Agency . . .
I think for the most part you are right Joe.
(Some allegedly abusive priests ARE still being moved around but that has improved).
But this improvement concerns priests and not abusive bishops who, in the U.S., have exempted themselves from their own Dallas Charter, changing the wording from “clerics” to “priests” before the final draft.
Eksewhere bishops are not being held accountable in this manner either.
Consider the bishop Zanchetta case. From Catholic News Agency . . .
1/2 . . .
C
Cathoholic
Guest
2/2 . . .
I was disappointed that there were credible allegations against bishop Zanchetta in 2015 and Zanchetta was still sent back to his diocese. (Even after knowing there were nude pictures of himself on the phone).
I think a more thorough investigation back in 2015 may have saved some pain.
I get that, that Zanchetta denied it (saying someone hacked his phone).
But if a man is going to do what is alleged against Zanchetta, I would not expect scruples about him lying either.
If he was set up that is serious too.
Either way, more steps should have occurred.
The Vatican should have gotten the Argentinian police involved immediately. (“Someone hacked his phone and is attempting to discredit him. Please police, look into this!”)
As far as I can tell none of that was ever done.
A bishop COULD have been sent to the diocese and with a reasonable investigation to check out Zanchetta too, and other things may have come to light.
As it is, now in 2019 that the story is public knowledge . . . it appears Zanchetta is at least on “leave of absence”.
(People are going to look at that and conclude it is not because of abuse but because of bad public relations that Zanchetta is on “leave of absence”.
Whatever “leave of absence” means (as far as I can tell, he may be going over to give “talks” to seminarians there in Rome now, hearing their confessions, etc.).
After the 2015 apparent non-investigation . . . . seminarians were attacked culminating in a 2017 “move” (again, not taken out of ministry EVEN NOW as far as we know).
And this is exactly the kind of thing we have been warned is STILL OCCURRING in places (warned by some of our own bishops)!
After the 2015 apparent non-investigation . . . . seminarians were attacked culminating in a 2017 “move” (again, not taken out of ministry EVEN NOW as far as we know).
And this is exactly the kind of thing we have been told has been going on.
I was disappointed that there were credible allegations against bishop Zanchetta in 2015 and Zanchetta was still sent back to his diocese. (Even after knowing there were nude pictures of himself on the phone).
I think a more thorough investigation back in 2015 may have saved some pain.
I get that, that Zanchetta denied it (saying someone hacked his phone).
But if a man is going to do what is alleged against Zanchetta, I would not expect scruples about him lying either.
If he was set up that is serious too.
Either way, more steps should have occurred.
The Vatican should have gotten the Argentinian police involved immediately. (“Someone hacked his phone and is attempting to discredit him. Please police, look into this!”)
As far as I can tell none of that was ever done.
A bishop COULD have been sent to the diocese and with a reasonable investigation to check out Zanchetta too, and other things may have come to light.
As it is, now in 2019 that the story is public knowledge . . . it appears Zanchetta is at least on “leave of absence”.
(People are going to look at that and conclude it is not because of abuse but because of bad public relations that Zanchetta is on “leave of absence”.
Whatever “leave of absence” means (as far as I can tell, he may be going over to give “talks” to seminarians there in Rome now, hearing their confessions, etc.).
After the 2015 apparent non-investigation . . . . seminarians were attacked culminating in a 2017 “move” (again, not taken out of ministry EVEN NOW as far as we know).
And this is exactly the kind of thing we have been warned is STILL OCCURRING in places (warned by some of our own bishops)!
After the 2015 apparent non-investigation . . . . seminarians were attacked culminating in a 2017 “move” (again, not taken out of ministry EVEN NOW as far as we know).
And this is exactly the kind of thing we have been told has been going on.
- 2015 - Not much.
- 2017 - Move the alleged perpetrator around. (Where have we heard THAT before? [Think back in 2002.])
- 2019a - Pre Argentinian (and AP) news. Same as 2017.
- 2019b - Post Argentinian (and AP) news. “Leave of absence” (whatever THAT means?)
Last edited:
J
Joe_5859
Guest
I’m not familiar with Zanchetta or his case, but from what you have described, it does certainly seem like they dropped the ball.
I can imagine why it would be difficult for Pope Francis to believe that a bishop would commit terrible acts and then lie to his face about it. I have a hard time myself believing that people are capable of such things. I feel like that’s one of the things that is happening in the past year. The rose-colored glasses are getting broken.
I can imagine why it would be difficult for Pope Francis to believe that a bishop would commit terrible acts and then lie to his face about it. I have a hard time myself believing that people are capable of such things. I feel like that’s one of the things that is happening in the past year. The rose-colored glasses are getting broken.
A
Ardent_Fire
Guest
Maybe as abuse victims, anything that comes across as malice is some justified anger. Just saying. Consider their anger and pain and how it must feel from their point of view.
I’ve seen people this year say heartbreaking things about the Church. They literally want the Church destroyed, because they genuinely view it as an evil institution. It’s heartbreaking and shocking and sad, and the Church will always prevail, but I think on a certain level though I don’t think they understand what the Church is, I think the abuses and cover ups have given them a lot of reasons to feel that way.
Last edited:
A
Ardent_Fire
Guest
I think a lot of it is that winning back people’s trust and approval is just going to take a very long time. The Church is not going to undo decades of abuse and gain back trust with one summit and any positive changes that have happened fairly recently.
We all remember what was said and promised in 2002 and it’s pretty horrifying to find out the man who drafted the US Bishops’ sex abuse policy actually turned out to be one of our biggest offenders, or at least most visible, anyway.
So I think with all that in mind, I think no matter what is said or promised, it’s going to be met with some derision and mistrust – fair or not. I think a lot of people’s criticisms are frustration with an institution’s sluggish ability to fully comprehend and act swiftly on the damage that has been done. I think there is a certain disgust and frustration that we’ve been through this before and were promised reform and we’re going through this again. It’s a deep rooted problem and evil that is just going to take a very long time to fully eradicate and gain back trust.
We all remember what was said and promised in 2002 and it’s pretty horrifying to find out the man who drafted the US Bishops’ sex abuse policy actually turned out to be one of our biggest offenders, or at least most visible, anyway.
So I think with all that in mind, I think no matter what is said or promised, it’s going to be met with some derision and mistrust – fair or not. I think a lot of people’s criticisms are frustration with an institution’s sluggish ability to fully comprehend and act swiftly on the damage that has been done. I think there is a certain disgust and frustration that we’ve been through this before and were promised reform and we’re going through this again. It’s a deep rooted problem and evil that is just going to take a very long time to fully eradicate and gain back trust.
Last edited:
H
Hoosier-Daddy
Guest
One of the things that we are struggling with is a general seeming incompetency. In a recent case in our area the diocese had no idea how to deal with the legal issues, how to evict a priest from Church owned housing, how to monitor money being used to seek abuse etc. Then when many bishops wanted to take action in their conference they were told by the Vatican to wait till after the summit. Then one of the popes 8 points is to have bishop conferences have their own rules and responsibilities. Action here is not hard. And no offence Joe, but its obvious. Action would be openness, a recognition of the problem and severe measures. I cannot in good conscience even give a single dollar to my parish because of the absolute secrecy (intended or not) of the church in these matters.
- Status