U.S. Bishops Quietly Reinstate Accused Priests

[Non_Serviam]

Some just don’t seem to get it.

npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125420225&sc=fb&cc=fp

U.S. Bishops Quietly Reinstate Accused Priests
*
by Barbara Bradley Hagerty*

While the Roman Catholic sexual abuse scandal unfolds in Europe, the Catholic Church in the U.S. is under renewed scrutiny.

In the wake of its own scandal almost a decade ago, the U.S. church says it has reformed its policies for handling sexual abuse allegations and will remove from ministry every priest who is credibly accused of abuse.

But some of those priests are now being quietly reinstated.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Also,could someone please clarify for me whether the sidebar to the story, which lists a number of loopholes in the protestion guidelines is accurate? If the sidebar is accurate, then these procedures, which many on here have been touting as the “fix” to the problem, have some serious problems.

Some quotes from the sidebar:

How Does The Catholic Church Prevent And Punish Child Sexual Abuse?

Generally, if a minor comes to the church and says he’s been abused, the church is supposed to remove the priest from ministry and turn that information over to the police immediately. NPR has reported on some cases where that has not happened because the investigator or bishop did not find the allegation credible.

The board investigates the case, and then makes a recommendation.

But the bishop doesn’t have to follow the recommendation and can keep the priest in ministry.

And there’s another stumbling block: Religious orders are not bound by the Dallas charter that the bishops agreed to in 2002.

The effect, plaintiffs lawyers say, is that religious orders appear to be more insulated from scrutiny.

Thanks for any insight folks can provide.

 

[puzzleannie]

the story fails to follow journalistic standards in that it fails to answer key questions:
were civil and criminal law requirements followed in each alleged case (they only cite 2), was canon law followed in each case (the issue in current allegations against the Pope), and is there a pattern, which 2 cases does not indicate.

 

[Rascalking]

the story fails to follow journalistic standards in that it fails to answer key questions:
were civil and criminal law requirements followed in each alleged case (they only cite 2), was canon law followed in each case (the issue in current allegations against the Pope), and is there a pattern, which 2 cases does not indicate.

PuzzleAnnie-

I admit I might be missing something here. If it’s true, that they DID reinstate accused priests-isn’t it still gravely wrong, regardless of journalistic standards?

 

[Mark77]

i love the misleading headline, so typical of the corrupt media; “U.S. Bishops Quietly Reinstate Accused Priests.”
**
Buried about 1/2 way into the article, which most people will never read, it says "Doyle and others have identified about a dozen clergy who have been accused, arrested or sued for abuse and returned to ministry.**"

12, a dozen, returned to ministry??? accused, arrested or sued, none proven guilty, none convicted in court???

**The headline makes it sound like another epidemic, a flood of guilty abusing priests are being unleashed by the evil catholic Church

No system, no matter how detailed & strict will be perfect.**

We must continue to improve our programs & policies to protect innocent people from abuse, but we must also not immediately permanently banish every priest accused of abuse without adequate proof.

The first example in the article says “Juan Rocha was 12 years old when he says he was molested by his parish priest, the Rev. Eric Swearingen. He eventually brought his complaints to the bishop of Fresno, Calif., John Steinbock. When Steinbock said he didn’t find the allegations credible, Rocha sued the priest and the diocese in civil court.”

Sounds like no criminal charges were pressed by local police?

The civil trial decided 9 to 3 for the plaintiff, but did not hold that the dioceses was liable. **"At the time, Steinbock said he thought the jury got it wrong, and that while the Catholic Church should protect children, “doing this cannot be done in such a manner as to punish innocent priests.”
**
“Bishop Steinbock continues Swearingen in ministry to this day, choosing to believe the priest is innocent, choosing to protect the priest, and choosing to disregard entirely the judicial finding by a jury that found he had committed the crime of sexual abuse against Juan,” says Rocha’s attorney, Jeffrey Anderson.

Aren’t we innocent until proven guilty? A civil trial does not prove guilt, it only provides monetary compensation & has a much lower threshold of proof (usually only a 50% probability that the claim is true) than a criminal trial & the verdict in this case was not unanimous (9-3) as required in a criminal trial.

**Again, we must insure the safety of innocent parishioners & children & we must err on the side of safety in order to reduce these appearances of impropriety, but we cannot permanently banish every accused priest for life without good cause.

Pray for the vast majority of good, Holy priests & religious serving us daily!

Pray for the Pope & the Bishops!**

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

 

[markeverett49]

A dozen is a big enough number to disturb me. How many would it take to be worth mentioning to you?

 

[miguel]

PuzzleAnnie-

I admit I might be missing something here. If it’s true, that they DID reinstate accused priests-isn’t it still gravely wrong, regardless of journalistic standards?

What if an accusation is false?

 

[Rascalking]

What if an accusation is false?

If an accusation is false, than the accused should sue the accuser! I strongly support the church leadership, but that doesn’t mean I turn a blind eye to those that actually harmed children.

It’s NOT becoming a “witch trial” because some of the accused are actually guilty.

 

[twopekinguys]

Unfortunately, in today’s world, and accusation tends to be seen as a conviction.

A person’s entire life can be ruined by one accusation, even if they are found not guilty in court.

People also fail to realize that accusations, and sensational headlines sell alot more than retractions do. The media is only going to report what they think will sell the post papers, or get the most hits on their websites. No matter what the issue is.

Remember the McMartin Preschool case many years ago in California?. The media and the rest of the world were all over that for months and months. Everyone just knew that those people were the worst demons on Earth.

As I remember it, it was proven that the “therapists” implanted the molestation beliefs in those kids heads by the way they did their “therapy”.

If I remember correctly, the media buried that part of the story pretty quick.

Most all of this is about sensationalism.

 

[markeverett49]

Especially galling is the case where there was a verdict and the bishop still decided that the jury was just wrong. Juries can err, of course, but so can bishops.

When priests steal money—two now sit in jail here in the Diocese of Palm Beach for stealing parish funds—bishops tend not to let them handle money anymore (at least not alone). Given the severity of the crime—child sexual abuse—one should err on the side of caution, meaning in this case, 'when in doubt, keep ‘em out!’

 

[JimG]

Unfortunately, in today’s world, and accusation tends to be seen as a conviction.

Yes, an accusation can in fact become a conviction when the bishop elects to throw a priest under the bus based on accusation alone. And when juries are not allowed to hear all the evidence, an accusation can easily become a conviction. And a conviction, once in place, can bring forth additional claimants seeking money for things which never took place:

opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006630

 

[miguel]

Unfortunately, in today’s world, and accusation tends to be seen as a conviction.

A person’s entire life can be ruined by one accusation, even if they are found not guilty in court.

And this is why there is a Commandment against it. “Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor.” Being dilligent on this does not undercut efforts to remove predators from the priesthood in the slightest. But the innocent must be protected from false accusations as well.

 

[markeverett49]

But there are too many cases where the abuse is admitted to pretend this is all sensationalism. Please!

 

[qui_est_ce]

What if an accusation is false?

We had a priest at my son’s high school who was slapped with a civil lawsuit during school hours. There was no police report at the time.

He had to settle because the insurance company said it was cheaper than continuing his defense.

A good priest ruined at the age of 74 by money-hungry “pedophile priest chasers.”

 

[qui_est_ce]

If an accusation is false, than the accused should sue the accuser! I strongly support the church leadership, but that doesn’t mean I turn a blind eye to those that actually harmed children.

It’s NOT becoming a “witch trial” because some of the accused are actually guilty.

I believe this was actually tried

stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/education/story/1E41F580B95FB9DE862574FF001662C6?OpenDocument

In July, Father Anderson sued Mr. Andreas for defamation, suggesting that Ms. Joyce had exonerated him and saying that he hoped to prevent people from making baseless accusations against priests.

In his countersuit yesterday, Mr. Andreas accused Father Anderson of conspiring with the archdiocese to ‘‘intimidate the plaintiff into withdrawing his sexual abuse complaint with the archdiocese.’’

 

[Rascalking]

I believe this was actually tried

stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/education/story/1E41F580B95FB9DE862574FF001662C6?OpenDocument

I don’t think the link worked.

I don’t like lawsuits at all. In my view, they’re like missles. Only to be used as a last resort.

However, what’s the alternative? Do we keep turning a blind eye and let more children be molested?!

 

[miguel]

If an accusation is false, than the accused should sue the accuser!

I agree. But not all who are falsely accused have the financial means to restore their good name. And winning a civil case is no guarantee either.

I strongly support the church leadership, but that doesn’t mean I turn a blind eye to those that actually harmed children.

I’m with you.

It’s NOT becoming a “witch trial” because some of the accused are actually guilty.

It has the makings of a witch hunt…complete with baseless accusations against the Pope.

 

[twopekinguys]

I don’t think the link worked.

I don’t like lawsuits at all. In my view, they’re like missles. Only to be used as a last resort.

However, what’s the alternative? Do we keep turning a blind eye and let more children be molested?!

I agree, they should be used as a last resort, but unfortunately, in today’s society, that just isn’t the way it works.

 

[catharina]

PuzzleAnnie-

I admit I might be missing something here. If it’s true, that they DID reinstate accused priests-isn’t it still gravely wrong, regardless of journalistic standards?

Excuse me for answering before puzzleannie (I’m sure she’ll return to the thread) but an accused priest is only ACCUSED. If found innocent, why not restore them?

 

[Rascalking]

I agree, they should be used as a last resort, but unfortunately, in today’s society, that just isn’t the way it works.

I like your signature. Thanking God and Veterans are important.

I know what your saying about lawsuits and our society, but something needs to be done to stop the bleeding.