US diocese admits paying abusive priests to leave [CNAU]

[Catholic_Press]

May 31, '12 6:00 am
The Milwaukee archdiocese in the United States has acknowledged it paid sexually abusive priests $20,000 to leave the priesthood without taking the laicisation fight to the Vatican, reports NCR Online.http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/cathnews/RSS/~4/7Uhu4hqrsYk

More…

 

[VeilOfVeronica9]

I don’t know what to make of this? Being a new convert this saddens me. I understand the “supposed” reasoning given for why they paid their priests to leave, but as a mother, it disgusts me that these priests were paid anything. I’m quoting this, but he makes a great and valid point:

According to Peter Isely, of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP), the payments are tantamount to “bonuses” paid out to child rapists and molestors.

“I don’t know any other organization that when you’re fired from your job because of a criminal act, you get paid to leave your job,” Isely said. “Obviously something is profoundly wrong with this system that they say is fixed. You’re paying off a child rapist; you’re giving them a bonus check; it’s a bonus basically.”

abcnews.go.com/US/cardinal-dolan-quiet-20k-payments-pedophile-priests/story?id=16467662#.T8kWNrBYssK

 

[YoungTradCath]

Frankly, as a young person, I flatly ignore all this rapist stuff. Yes, it happened. Yes, it’s deplorable. Yes, we have to make sure it never happens again. However, I refuse to get all riled up in it.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

It is such a difficult problem and no solution seems to work well. I remember that another diocese had sent priests to the local priests retirement place or a monastary, basically a kind of forced retirement. That dioces was accused of allowing the peophile priests to live a “cushy” life at the laity’s expense.

SNAP is an aggitating organization. I understand why they are so upset, but they aren’t ever happy with any solutions proposed by the Church.

 

[Rence]

I don’t know what to make of this? Being a new convert this saddens me. I understand the “supposed” reasoning given for why they paid their priests to leave, but as a mother, it disgusts me that these priests were paid anything. I’m quoting this, but he makes a great and valid point:

It makes it very difficult to take the heirarchy of the Church seriously when they discussion ‘moral’ or social issues when they do things like this. You can’t have it both ways: You either live up to the expectations that you impose on others, or…you can’t live up to those expectations either and are just like everyone else. You can’t effectively preach morals or goodness when you are not an example of morality or goodness…

 

[salusanimarum17]

It makes it very difficult to take the heirarchy of the Church seriously when they discussion ‘moral’ or social issues when they do things like this. You can’t have it both ways: You either live up to the expectations that you impose on others, or…you can’t live up to those expectations either and are just like everyone else. You can’t effectively preach morals or goodness when you are not an example of morality or goodness…

Ok. And how would you have dealt with the problem of getting a priest out of the clerical state as soon as possible yet still recall that the priest has not been convicted of any crime and does have basic, human rights that have to be respected?

As usual, Jimmy Akin has a worthwhile commentary on this story, over at the Register website. Not sure I’m allowed to link to blog posts on this forum.

 

[mb1122]

Everyone needs to remember that these Priests were not convicted of any crime, only
accused. Are Preists the only people in this country that are guilty before being proven innocent?

 

[rlg94086]

Ok. And how would you have dealt with the problem of getting a priest out of the clerical state as soon as possible yet still recall that the priest has not been convicted of any crime and does have basic, human rights that have to be respected?

As usual, Jimmy Akin has a worthwhile commentary on this story, over at the Register website. Not sure I’m allowed to link to blog posts on this forum.

You are…they just can’t be used to start a thread (unless they include a link to a news source…which this one also does):
ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/cardinal-dolan-authorized-paying-abusers/

After the arrival of Archbishop Timothy Dolan, Becker was removed from active ministry in 2002. [So Dolan, who arrived in 2002, took action on the guy the very year he arrived] He was completely removed from the priesthood in 2004 by Pope John Paul II.

Upon his release from the archdiocese, Becker was given $10,000 to cover expenses until his Medicaid supplements began.** [So, according to this account, it wasn’t a “payment.” But watch how the SNAP regional director is about to spin things . . . ]**

Victims’ advocates are questioning the money.

“I don’t think people donating to the archdiocese are going to be very happy to hear that this man was given any money. For what? He is rewarded. Is it a pension? Is he given a severance? Is this a bonus?” abuse victims’ advocate Peter Isely said. [You see the kind of connotations this “payment” language carries.]
Late Thursday, Dolan released a statement in response, writing, "For anyone to assert that this money was a payoff or occurred in exchange for Becker agreeing to leave the priesthood is completely false, preposterous, and unjust. What this was, instead, was an act of charity, in-line with Catholic Social Teaching, that allowed a person to obtain health insurance coverage he simply could not afford on his own. If people want to criticize me for that charity, so be it."

Read more: ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/cardinal-dolan-authorized-paying-abusers/#ixzz1wZqa8Jc4

 

[_Abyssinia]

Maybe Worth Getting Upset about, Maybe Not

The NY Times has a story about Cdl. Dolan providing what some call “financial incentives” and others call “payoffs” to pervy priests in order to get them to agree to leave the priesthood immediately rather than fight out a long drawn out process.

There is much dudgeon in the article. There is no dudgeon–none whatsoever–about the fact that exactly the same tactic is used to get rid of pervy public school teachers. This, and the lionization of the Right Sort of Roman makes me rather inclined to think this a specimen of the Times indulging in fake dudgeon because of Dolan’s leadership against the HHS mandate. In short, it’s a hit piece in the service of another agenda.

In the end, the story seems to be that Dolan tried to get rid of bad priests as fast as possible, which used to be a good thing according to the Times. Since the state did not see fit to get rid of them by putting them in jail and the canonical process might for all I know, have cost more than this route (has anybody done the calculations?) I don’t think it’s particularly a slam dunk that this was a bad way to go. In the end, the tradeoff is between asking, “Do you want a long expensive process in which the perv remains a priest on the payroll while he games the system endlessly or do you want a short process in which he gets some money and we are rid of him?” I, for one, am not ready to have hysterics about Plan B–at least till I know the cost of the full canonical rigamarole for laicizing a perv.

You pays your money and you makes your choice: is it more important to get rid of the perv swiftly even if it costs you something (that used to be the very sensible demand of the Times, if you recall)? Or do you keep the perv around for months or even years (while it still costs you something and perhaps costs even more than it would cost you to just get rid of him)? I care more about getting rid of the perv fast than I do about money. So even if the long canonical process were cheaper than $20,000 (and I strongly suspect it is not) I think I’d be inclined to favor the fast route. The only drawback is that the perv gets the money. So is it more important to me that the perv not get the dough or that innocents are protected from a perv? I opt for innocents protected over my desire for vengeance.

The screeches of hysteria from the Times, like SNAP’s bizarre demand that the Church effectively imprison laicized priests, seem less and less about protecting anybody and more and more about saying anything to attack the Church. The Church can’t arrest or imprison pervy priests. It can only get rid of them as quickly as possible. She can do it slowly and expensively or swiftly and less expensively. The latter option is good enough for me.

Dolan’s real crime here is leading the charge against the HHS mandate. That’s what this is really about.

patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2012/05/maybe-worth-getting-upset-about-maybe-not.html

 

[Lifesong]

I find the timing of this very interesting- I believe the media will do anything to discredit anyone opposed to President Obama. As I understand it this was old news- I am not sure if there is anything to see here or not quite frankly but I find the timing again interesting just as the HHS law suits are filed and the war on women arguments appears to have fizzled. My comments do not in any way downplay the seriousness of the real abuse that occured but despite that the Church has a huge target on its back right now because she is standing up. I am a new convert too but stuff like this does not shake my faith- the Lord said we would have trouble and that the world would hate us. Having come from the Methodist church that no one really seems to hate, I figure I must have finally found the right place

 

[Hokomai]

Small payments to allow these people to set up a new life are a very good thing. We want pedophiles to stop offending. Rendering them homeless in a sudden move after years of being provided the basics of life is very unlikely to reduce the chances of re-offending. In my commonsense view it is very likely to increase the chances of re-offending. There is a lot to criticize the Church for over this business, but these actions should be praised, not criticized.

 

[estesbob]

I don’t know what to make of this? Being a new convert this saddens me. I understand the “supposed” reasoning given for why they paid their priests to leave, but as a mother, it disgusts me that these priests were paid anything. I’m quoting this, but he makes a great and valid point:

abcnews.go.com/US/cardinal-dolan-quiet-20k-payments-pedophile-priests/story?id=16467662#.T8kWNrBYssK

They were given a buyout to voluntarily leave the priesthood. The alternative was a long and expensive canonical trial. This is an old story and is basically an attack on Cardinal Dolans character to try and shut him up over the Obama administrations attack on the Catholic Church

 

[Rence]

Ok. And how would you have dealt with the problem of getting a priest out of the clerical state as soon as possible yet still recall that the priest has not been convicted of any crime and does have basic, human rights that have to be respected?

As usual, Jimmy Akin has a worthwhile commentary on this story, over at the Register website. Not sure I’m allowed to link to blog posts on this forum.

I certainly wouldn’t have paid him. If someone is found unfit enough to continue their clerical state, and they have to be payoff to leave, then they certainly aren’t fit enough to continue their current station. They should have been taken out of the clerical state as soon as possible, without pay, or cloistered where they don’t have access to children. Not sent home with severance pay.

I can’t think of another job where someone is accused of a heinous crime and suspended pending an investigation of a serious accusation, and paid to be on leave. They are usually suspended without pay pending the investigation.

 

[Rence]

Everyone needs to remember that these Priests were not convicted of any crime, only
accused. Are Preists the only people in this country that are guilty before being proven innocent?

They should still be removed from the company of children until the investigation is complete. Children are supposed to come first.

 

[peregrinus_sg]

I can’t think of another job where someone is accused of a heinous crime and suspended pending an investigation of a serious accusation, and paid to be on leave. They are usually suspended without pay pending the investigation.

That’s because the Priesthood isn’t quite another job isn’t it? In regular jobs, you are paid what is your due and you are expected to use that wisely to pay for what you need, including health insurance etc. Your boss would not be bothered if you have used your income wisely to make sure you can have a decent way to support yourself after you retire or retrenched.

But in the Priesthood, the Bishop is supposed to be like a father to his Priests. Priests don’t earn a lot from their diocesan responsibilities and there is an expectation that the diocese, through the Bishop, would take more care of the Priests. If now a Priest has to be laicised against the Priest’s wishes, it wouldn’t be unreasonable for the Diocese to provide a small amount of final payment so that he could use the money to get his life in order aft laicisation.

While I would, perhaps in the inadequate charity in my heart, prefer no payment in such heinous matters, I respect this to be a prudential judgement made by the now-Cardinal, taking into account the practical situation and the teachings of the Church. I would not begrudge his generosity even to this group of sinful Priests; after all, I too am a recipient of the abundant generosity of God who forgives and blesses me in abundance despite my many failings and repeated offences against his infinite love.

It does point out, though, that the Church needs to admit men to the Priesthood very carefully. Once a man is ordained, the Church, and that includes us laity, has a certain responsibility towards him that we can’t quite excuse easily, even because of his failings.

Of course, the secular media isn’t concerned about these. They only wish to make the Church look bad. If even Catholics fall for that, what can we expect about the rest?

 

[Godfollower]

I certainly wouldn’t have paid him. If someone is found unfit enough to continue their clerical state, and they have to be payoff to leave, then they certainly aren’t fit enough to continue their current station. They should have been taken out of the clerical state as soon as possible, without pay, or cloistered where they don’t have access to children. Not sent home with severance pay.

I can’t think of another job where someone is accused of a heinous crime and suspended pending an investigation of a serious accusation, and paid to be on leave. They are usually suspended without pay pending the investigation.

Really? How about: police officer, teacher, athletic director, dorm director accused of sexual abuse, school principals, or custodian?

Suspension with pay happens all the time. Firing with a severance package happens all the time. Paying a fired employee money to cover him until new insurance kicks in happens all the time.

This is not a big deal. What matters is that he removed priests he believed to be guilty of sex abuse crimes. Isn’t that sort of the point?

 

[rlg94086]

They should still be removed from the company of children until the investigation is complete. Children are supposed to come first.

Really? How about: police officer, teacher, athletic director, dorm director accused of sexual abuse, school principals, or custodian?

Suspension with pay happens all the time. Firing with a severance package happens all the time. Paying a fired employee money to cover him until new insurance kicks in happens all the time.

This is not a big deal. What matters is that he removed priests he believed to be guilty of sex abuse crimes. Isn’t that sort of the point?

Based on Rence’s last post, it would seem he gets that point. On the other hand, he doesn’t seem to think that is enough. Apparently, a Cardinal must exhibit vengeance rather than compassion.

 

[peregrinus_sg]

Based on Rence’s last post, it would seem he gets that point. On the other hand, he doesn’t seem to think that is enough. Apparently, a Cardinal must exhibit vengeance rather than compassion.

Well, not giving money out of charity isn’t vengeance either.

In this matter, there are different reasonable positions that good Catholics can hold. Isn’t it ironic how when you can hold different positions, the media thinks there should be only one, but in matters where Catholics are supposed to abide by the teachings of the Church they think Catholics can reasonably hold heretical ideas?

It wouldn’t be a matter of concern if not for the secular media’s playing up the matter for their own impure motives. Perhaps the prophetic LCWR should be bold enough to call out the media’s shame.

 

[Trader]

That’s because the Priesthood isn’t quite another job isn’t it? In regular jobs, you are paid what is your due and you are expected to use that wisely to pay for what you need, including health insurance etc. Your boss would not be bothered if you have used your income wisely to make sure you can have a decent way to support yourself after you retire or retrenched.

But in the Priesthood, the Bishop is supposed to be like a father to his Priests. Priests don’t earn a lot from their diocesan responsibilities and there is an expectation that the diocese, through the Bishop, would take more care of the Priests. If now a Priest has to be laicised against the Priest’s wishes, it wouldn’t be unreasonable for the Diocese to provide a small amount of final payment so that he could use the money to get his life in order aft laicisation.

While I would, perhaps in the inadequate charity in my heart, prefer no payment in such heinous matters, I respect this to be a prudential judgement made by the now-Cardinal, taking into account the practical situation and the teachings of the Church. I would not begrudge his generosity even to this group of sinful Priests; after all, I too am a recipient of the abundant generosity of God who forgives and blesses me in abundance despite my many failings and repeated offences against his infinite love.

It does point out, though, that the Church needs to admit men to the Priesthood very carefully. Once a man is ordained, the Church, and that includes us laity, has a certain responsibility towards him that we can’t quite excuse easily, even because of his failings.

Of course, the secular media isn’t concerned about these. They only wish to make the Church look bad. If even Catholics fall for that, what can we expect about the rest?

You are right, of course, but I can push the argument even farther, hopefully not to far.

Many of the priests removed from ministry were not guilty of crimes at all under civil law. The vast majority of what became the sexual abuse crisis was not pedophilia–it was a problem of homosexual priests who had consexual sex with many men and some of them happened to be teenagers over the legal age of consent. I also concede that many of the teenagers were below the age of consent.

I personally know of a man who went to seminary officials during his deaconate year because he was experiencing strong same sex attraction. A traditional psychiatrist examined him and wrote a report saying that he was in a fragile state and would need follow-up care after he was told he would not be ordained. Our vicar general who was running the diocese while the bishop suffered from a progressive and fatal disease (ALS) just happened to be an out of control alcoholic and promiscuous homosexual himself. The vicar general just got another psychiatrist to write a report that it was not a problem and he was ordained to the priesthood. Within a few years of his ministry the diocese was sued by the parents of many teenagers with whom the priest had engaged in inappropriate conduct(not intercourse) and the original report got into the court record. The priest was removed from ministry, the diocese settled with the families, and eventually the former priest got the help he needed. He has been married for over 15 years.

In this case, my friend was also a victim, and it was the right thing for the diocese to pay for the therapy he should have received before he was ordained.

Incredibly, the vicar general eventually became an auxilliary bishop, and later got his own diocese. He was forced to resign when it was discovered that one of the many male prostitutes he procured was only 15. A report commissioned by his replacement as bishop found that he engaged in immoral activity and fostered a culture of secrecy.

 

[CorinneV]

Godfollower makes a good point, that in secular occupations, people are suspended without pay while being investigated. In some instances, the offender walks away with pension rights and other benefits.
Yes, the Church should hold herself to a higher standard. The sexual exploitation of vulnerable persons by a priest is truly a profound insult to the Body of Christ.
But bear in mind, that the rules regarding sanctions against priests are based on the assumption that the priest is a reasonably decent person, not a disgusting pig pedophile. The Church finds herself in a horrible position when these sex abusers are identified, to deal with the abuser and protect the victims, and at the same time uphold the dignity of the priesthood.
I support the decision to offer payments to these abusers to get rid of them, so sad that the decision was needed.