Due to the delays, couldn’t the priests be consigned to performing masses in private and not to the public in general until the case is resolved? According to this sentence from the article, there was something the bishops could do while they waited for a response (even if that response took years).
yup.I never understood the Church’s attitude towards this issue. If a layman is accused of molestation the case is turned over to the police to be investigated and tried if warrented. When a priest was accused the Church stands around and says “Gee, what do we do now?”
If a priest breaks the law he should be treated like any other criminal. If a bishop covers it up he should be held accountable the same way a doctor or teacher would if they didn’t report an abuse. It’s not the Church’s place to decide what happens to clergy who break the law. That is a matter for the state. Clergy are not above the law. That includes bishops and cardinals. End of story.
This is what I thought as well. I never understood it to be that a local bishop needed to talk to Rome to pull a priest out of parish duty. Given that they could be reassigned and hidden without Rome’s knowledge, I wouldn’t think they’d need special position to turn them into the police and stop putting them in charge of parishes.
It also needs to be mentioned that priests weren’t treated all that differently than teachers and coaches and the like. Which is to say, there was definitely a big problem (that’s hopefully less big now) about transferring and hiding priests, but it is not entirely accurate to classify it as clericalism simply because the same was/is done this abusers in other careers. In fact, it could be said that the problem came from not treating clergy differently, not holding them to a higher standard and understanding their actions as a betrayal of their sacred trust to lead the flock which makes them unfit to continue to do so. It was misguided and wrong and shouldn’t have happened, but it was, for the most part, just what was done in all organizations at the time.
I get that. But it seems like a moot point. Who cares if the priest is laicized if he’s in prison? The point is that these attempts to get the Vatican to help were a poor excuse for “handling” the problem. Mahoney was only attempting to have the priests laicized because he didn’t want to turn them in, but wanted instead to unload the problem onto society. Immediately upon hearing allegations of abuse, bishops should have strenuously encouraged victims to press charges.
As I understand it, once a priest always a priest.
Laicization is still something that should be done, but it should be an “and also” not an “instead,” and it’s not urgent. The removal from ministry and handing over to the police, as you say, definitely is.
Indeed. Laicization is a different thing from lack of an assignment though, it’s a stripping of the ability to preform certain functions and to function as a priest (with some limited exceptions such as when someone is dying) - even if the person remains a priest. Something that needs to be done to abusers, but again, they can simply be unassigned (and handed over) until such process is completed.
Exactly protecting children and remove priest from their priesthood are mutually exclucive actions
When law enforcement fails as it usually did because of unwillingness or lack of a case. What obtions are left.
At this point this is all just history. The Church has reformed itself when it comes to child abuse and we can only look forward from this day on. The way child abuse was looked at 20+ years ago is a lot different then it is now due to education on the subject.
What is this nonsense about monastaries? Pedophiles don’t belong in a monastary. Laity or clergy. They belong in prison. There they will get all the close supervision they need. It also is completely irrelevent if the priest has his faculties.
You are right. Prison it is. I saw monastary somewhere on this thread and thought it to be feasible as house arrest. But the monks become guards of sort, and that isn’t right, either.