C
Captain_America
Guest
How come the police weren’t just called in whenever there was a hint or claim of sexual abuse?
- Status
W
Worthy5
Guest
Excellent point, A simple letter by the Bishop to the authorities indicating the allegations and simply stating " let us know if the Church can assist in anyway. " If the priest was convicted in a court of law—he then would be defrocked.
In the attempt to prevent the Church from having a small amount of scandal—a priest that was convicted of abuse. The Church now has a disaster on its hand. The lesson–do not get too " closed in" do not take on more than you " can handle."
B
Benadam
Guest
The victim of that kind of abuse usually cycles through complicated emotions before they can come foreward with what happened.
Usually they are faithfull Catholics who appeal to Church authority first.
Bishops usually weren’t willing to make it a civil matter.
N
Newbie2
Guest
Good OP question.
Nowadays even the falsest of claims of child sexual abuse can ruin a person’s reputation and/or life, regardless if the target is clergy or not.
I don’t know about other states, but here in Michigan there was legislation introduced that prevented any counter-litigation if anyone involved in any sort of counseling (clergy, counselors, teachers, etc.) was falsely accused of sexual misconduct. In other words, little Billy could make up anything he wanted about Rev. Bob or Mr. Bill the counselor and they would have no basis for suing his parents to recover the enormous cost of defending themselves, their careers and their reputations. Of course, if Rev. Bob is Catholic, the diocese handles his legal defense, but it’s still time consuming, expensive, and career-ruining.
Anyway, that is a bit of an asde. Methinks what Benadam wrote is right on the money. It’s my understanding that such unthinkable abuse by a cleric stirrs up emotions and inner conflicts that may not be so if someone was abused by Joe Creep the Boy Scout leader.
Nowadays even the falsest of claims of child sexual abuse can ruin a person’s reputation and/or life, regardless if the target is clergy or not.
I don’t know about other states, but here in Michigan there was legislation introduced that prevented any counter-litigation if anyone involved in any sort of counseling (clergy, counselors, teachers, etc.) was falsely accused of sexual misconduct. In other words, little Billy could make up anything he wanted about Rev. Bob or Mr. Bill the counselor and they would have no basis for suing his parents to recover the enormous cost of defending themselves, their careers and their reputations. Of course, if Rev. Bob is Catholic, the diocese handles his legal defense, but it’s still time consuming, expensive, and career-ruining.
Anyway, that is a bit of an asde. Methinks what Benadam wrote is right on the money. It’s my understanding that such unthinkable abuse by a cleric stirrs up emotions and inner conflicts that may not be so if someone was abused by Joe Creep the Boy Scout leader.
J
JimG
Guest
They should be. But it’s my understanding that in many instance the abuse wasn’t even reported until years or decades later, thereby making it impossible to prove or disprove, and exceeding the statute of limitations.
J
JimG
Guest
It must also be noted that when large settlements are involved, false claims inevitably result.
Please read A Priest’s Story, by WSJ writer Dorothy Rabinowitz.
Please read A Priest’s Story, by WSJ writer Dorothy Rabinowitz.
M
manualman
Guest
Sometimes they were. This current case where a lawsuit lawyer duped the NYT into trying to implicate the pope revolves around a Wisconsin priest abuser. The first allegation against him surfaced in 1974. The diocesan judge that later handled the case said on Relevant Radio this morning that the initial report was shared with the police, but that they declined to be involved based on perceived lack of evidence.
Instructive, isn’t it that there is now a witch hunt on for the pope, but nobody is second guessing the police, eh? Guess which one can get sued for big money and which one can’t?
The bishops screwed up their reaction to the issue of sexual abuse for DECADES. But let’s keep perspective and admit that EVERYBODY was screwing up the issue back then. Parents, police, counselors, doctors, you name it. First priority back then was to try to “protect” the victim by preventing others from finding out what had happened to him/her. Wrong approach, but for some reason NOBODY saw it at the time.
Another perspective to remember is that the Church has ALWAYS had its own legal system separate from that of the state. It is an extremely recent phenomenon where the state has devoted as much resources to ensuring that trials are as fair and impartial in the secualr courts as they are in Church courts. Catholicism pretty much sustained the whole idea of the rule of law (vs. absolute power of nobility) between the collapse of the Roman Empire and the rise of English common law. History suggests that we’d be foolish to toss it away on the presumption that secular law will take care of us all from now on.
W
Worthy5
Guest
Oh come on! “extremely recently”
What! Sure the Church played a huge role in Western culture but are you suggesting that in America—a country founded by free men with a noted separation between church and state----that citizens in this country should submit to Church “law” outside of essential matters of faith and morals for those who choose to be Catholics?
M
manualman
Guest
Not at all. I’m responding to an earlier poster who appeared to be suggesting that the Church simply abolish its own legal system in favor of secular ones since the Church “can’t handle” such matters. When an accusation is made against a priest, there are canonically established procedures to determine if it is plausible before things are to be handed over to the cops.
Yes, a few hundred years is very recent on the scale of history. And yes, I think it is entirely possible that secular law could collapse again as it has many times in history.
W
Worthy5
Guest
Specify the post, to be clear here. And well its pretty obvious that the Church " could not handle" the abuse problem. Moreover, the Church exists within the framework of the secular govt and society and relies on its protection. The secular govt is the law on matters such as this–not the Church. This society and this govt were created by a free people—not the Catholic Church.
Do not think so, that is potential obstruction of justice. The Church can decide what it wants to do with a priest after the civil law runs its course.
Well, trial by jury goes back to ancient Rome and Greece.
Come on. The American legal system, despite its challenges, is hardly going to collapse.
Hey, got to keep the debate up. God Bless
B
Benadam
Guest
I want to add an oft unmentioned cultural phenomenon that explains why the people point their fingers at the Church without seizing.
The Catholic Church is a living witness against the culture that prevails in the minds and hearts of people in the world. Mostly concerning the maternal environment and the vision of the human person that will structure it and consequently construct the reality that will form the furure human person.
The vision the people of this culture calls good is one that includes the human person as a possible curse, an inconvenience who doesn’t have worth eneogh to let live, nothing more than a possession of the body that produced it.
This isn’t a lie and because of that it’s alive and isn’t something that can be buried as if dead. It manifests it’s presence collectively in as much as unconsciously. In short, because the Church’s teaching is true and is a living witness against the people who participate in the culture of death, and because they deny it and bury it under mounds of garbage, it becomes visible in their sight only in the place they are willing to see it. Where the truth that exposes them lives. The Seeker shows them the Child Jesus, and the harlot mother points her finger at him and say’s “he is eating our children!”
The Catholic Church is a living witness against the culture that prevails in the minds and hearts of people in the world. Mostly concerning the maternal environment and the vision of the human person that will structure it and consequently construct the reality that will form the furure human person.
The vision the people of this culture calls good is one that includes the human person as a possible curse, an inconvenience who doesn’t have worth eneogh to let live, nothing more than a possession of the body that produced it.
This isn’t a lie and because of that it’s alive and isn’t something that can be buried as if dead. It manifests it’s presence collectively in as much as unconsciously. In short, because the Church’s teaching is true and is a living witness against the people who participate in the culture of death, and because they deny it and bury it under mounds of garbage, it becomes visible in their sight only in the place they are willing to see it. Where the truth that exposes them lives. The Seeker shows them the Child Jesus, and the harlot mother points her finger at him and say’s “he is eating our children!”
W
Worthy5
Guest
Okay so what does this have to do with the Church’s administrative negligence of the abuse matter?
B
Benadam
Guest
A tendency to be falsly accused of a crime creates an environment that makes negligence a false accusation as well.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
If you are asking about now, 2010, it is mandated by the child safety and ethical conduct policies enacted in every diocese (even those few who eschew the USCCB program have their own local laws) that all suspected abuse must be reported to the relevant local law authority as well as to the pastor or designated person in the diocese, usually the vicar general.
If you are asking about years ago, one of the most surprising things that came to light in the first 2nd wave of revelation about child abuse w/i the church in 2000 that resulted in these policies was: many states did not even have laws on the books requiring parents, neighbors, teachers, doctors and other responsible adults report suspected child abuse until quite late, 1990s or later in some cases, and many state and local jurisdictions did not even have CPS or similar agency to formally investigate such complaints, and local law enforcement agencies varied (and still do vary) widely in their conduct of such investigations. In many places sadly a complaint of child (or spousal) abuse was not even investigated because of the status of the person involved, and the law would not even act against a prominent citizen, member of the clergy, politician etc.
Also many law enforcement agencies required the complaint to be filed by the victim or his guardians, and would not until the law changed investigate claims by third parties, and many victims and families were reluctant to report, especially given the very hard time endured in the past by those who did report rape and similar crimes, and the difficulty of a court trial.
so short answer, lots of reasons, which is why there have to be laws in place, civil and canon, to require reporting. No one who works as an employee or volunteer in a church or school setting, or in any capacity that involves contact with children, should be in any doubt about the civil and church law requirements on reporting.
as to the climate, legal and church, in other countries, I have no idea, except where, as in Ireland, a formal investigation and report on the problem has been done.
there are websites out there which track and follow abuse complaints against priests and others connected with the church, and one surprising element in almost all cases that go back many years is that somewhere along the line, a police complaint was made 1 or many times but the law enforcement authority failed to act, failed to arrest or failed to convict. this pattern is also emerging in studies that look at child abuse in other settings such as public schools, that while only a fraction of cases are ever formally reported, as many as 90% never result in an arrest or legal action of any kind, and only a small percentage of those cases lead to conviction.
I am assuming because of choice of forum OP’s question asks about reporting to civil authority. Canon law is an entirely separate system usually discussed I believe on Liturgy and sacraments, and there has always been requirement in place to report any kind of abuse of priestly conduct to the local ordinary, religious superior, or higher church authority, and a process in place to investigate charges that respects canon law rights both of accuser and accused during that process, but that would be an entirely separate discussion. Canon law in general requires obedience to local civil authority in all aspects where it does not conflict with moral or church law. The whole point of the recent allegations discussed now is that neither canon law nor civil law was followed by many of those involved in these (now decades old) cases.
W
Worthy5
Guest
Ooookay.
L
lynx
Guest
Where’s the incentive? On the one hand, you’re doing the right thing legally, on the other hand if you’re a church official:
- You might think you’re doing the right thing morally by going through the church
- You minimize damage to the image of the Church by hiding the person away
- You don’t lose a priest who might be rehabilitated
- You could be hurting a friend you’ve known for years
P
pnewton
Guest
I would say that it would depend on how you define “hint”. Surely where one is caught in a compromising situation it must be reported. If a child comes forward, then that can be reported, or they can be encouraged to go to the authorities so the evidence will be direct and not heresay. However, where there is not evidence of impropriety, but only a breaking of the rules, then reporting a crime where none may exist is not the answer. The better answer is to prohibit someone who breaks child safety rules from working with children. That way one can be on the safe side without slandering someone unfairly.
S
Santi2
Guest
Could it also be, in some cases where the complainant was not of minor age, that the circumstances to be investigated could be found consensual and not abuse? I wonder and, I am sorry if I sound cold but, I do have doubts which niggle.
C
CPA2
Guest
I know of a teacher that was falsely accused by Social Services. The S.S. ruined the teacher’s career, The S.S. even forced the teacher to leave his home because of his underaged children! When the case finally went to trial two years later, the judge threw out the case because the students said that Social Services had twisted their words!
The end does not justify the means. I happen to know of three families that the SS (Social Services) tore apart because of someone’s accusations of sexual abuse. Such concentration of power and abuse of power is unconstitutional. SS also violates the separation of powers. They are the judge and jury, much like the feudal lords were before the Magna Carta around 1225.
P
pnewton
Guest
Therein we have a serious problem. Those that make such serious decisions are often low-paid government workers. Their training is limited to the scope of thier job. Just as a carpenter views every problem like a nail, so social workers see through the lens of their training, as opposed to objecively. In the back of their mind is always those cases that make the news because some one did not act to remove the children before a disaster, even if the evidence is thin.
I do not mean to criticize them, but I do believe that many, like these social workers, do not see the whole picture until they know someone who gets accused. In this area, we have not come very far since the days of Salem. I do not know what the answer is, but the problem can not be solved at the expense of worse injustice.
- Status