Vatican impeded Mahony attempts to remove priests, files show

[RobbyS]

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).

There are things that can be done in lieu of a response from Rome.

Of course Mahoney could have acted. The Council greatly reduced Curial authority and left much more in the hands of the ordinary.

 

[RobbyS]

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.
They are criminals. Criminals when caught, go to jail. 'nuff said.

Monasteries have in times past served as prisons for miscreant clergy. I must say that you have a great deal more confidence in the American criminal justice system than I do. Do you think that the elected official in this country wanted to have just this mess into their laps?

 

[miguel]

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.

Also, is there no responsibility for the parent of a victim to call the cops? They are the closest to the situation. If it was my kid, I can’t even imagine calling the bishop. This is the part of it I least understand. How were the bishops even in the position to protect criminals? Don’t the cops have jurisdicton over criminal behavior?

 

[cheezey]

Monasteries have in times past served as prisons for miscreant clergy. I must say that you have a great deal more confidence in the American criminal justice system than I do. Do you think that the elected official in this country wanted to have just this mess into their laps?

No I do not have confidence in this situation but what else does one do with criminals? Shouldn’t we at least attempt to get them in jail when guilty? So are we back to monastaries for the guilty?

 

[_Abyssinia]

I understand this very differently. Ratzinger as new head of the CDF, in response to the crisis of local jurisdictions not taking appropriate action against priests, mandated all cases be routed through Rome. Yes Rome wound up snowed under in an avalance of cases. But if you look at the frequency of abuse it was precisely at this moment that the abuse rates started to drop and continued to drop going forward.

Today if you read the news you find stories of Catholic abuse which are either the horror stories from a few decades ago, or else a current event that was speedily dealt with. The modern cases of repeated ongoing abuse are either non catholic or even non church related.

Ratzinger now Benedict should be given credit for what he accomplished.

Documents prove Pope Benedict longtime reformer on sex abuse handling

We’ve made the case here that Pope Benedict XVI has been a leading force for change in the Church’s handling of clerical sex abuse cases. And now we’ve got the documents proving he’s been that way for more than two decades.

According to correspondence from 1988 published in today’s issue of the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, the pope — then a cardinal who headed the Vatican’s doctrinal congregation — pressed the Vatican office in charge of Church law for a “more rapid and simplified penal process” of priests accused of “grave and scandalous conduct” like child sex abuse.

He said the Church’s legal approach was too complex and lengthy, and that “some [local bishops] are likely to experience considerable difficulty in implementing such a penal process." Additionally, he said it wasn’t right that some priest-abusers were more likely to request and receive a dispensation from their priestly obligations — which seemed like a “grace in favor” of them — than be meted the punishment of a reduction to the lay state.

As we know, 22 years later his wishes have been fulfilled. But back then, the cardinal he wrote to raised concerns about the due process rights of accused priests, and the importance of impressing upon local bishops their responsibility to adjudicate such cases.

The entire correspondence can be read here on the Vatican’s website.

Here’s the analysis of Catholic News Service’s John Thavis. And here’s the take of Vatican analyst John L. Allen Jr., who calls the letter a “smoking gun” — in a positive sense — regarding the pope’s record on sex abuse. And here’s the Associated Press’ story. And The New York Times.

Vatican policy says that

civil law concerning reporting of crimes to the appropriate authorities should always be followed

vatican.va/resources/resources_guide-CDF-procedures_en.html

In 2001, the doctrinal congregation was given exclusive jurisdiction over a number of “most grave crimes,” including the sexual abuse of a minor by a priest. In 2003, Cardinal Ratzinger obtained from Pope John Paul II new faculties to deal with sex abuse offenders, including those making it easier to dismiss them from the priesthood.

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1004924.htm

My emphases

 

[masondoggy]

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.

This is true. And my biggest question about the whole issue is WHY didn’t the justice system take these pedophiles off the streets? The Catholic Church cannot be blamed for that! And any parent that reported something to the church and not the police should be ashamed of themselves. And if they did report to the police, WHY didn’t the police do anything about it?

There’s a lot more “bad guys” in this scandal than the Catholic Church. But that doesn’t sell newspapers.

 

[RobbyS]

No I do not have confidence in this situation but what else does one do with criminals? Shouldn’t we at least attempt to get them in jail when guilty? So are we back to monastaries for the guilty?

A criminal is one who is convicted of a crime. Prosecuting a priest would be like prosecuting a “john” caught in a house of prostitution. Many of the girls are underage, too, and yet no one gets hot and bothered about their being abused. Only if political pressure is applied will prosecutors get involved. Most cases are plea-bargained, but with the political heat on in juvenile cases. we do see more teachers etc, ending up in prison. There is a lot of wrong-doing in this world. I am reminded that few drunk-drivers who kill people end up in jail. That’s because punishment is so hit and miss.

 

[Digitonomy]

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.

I’m not sure why you think there’s no role for the bishop in such cases. If a priest’s crimes are reported to police, the police will investigate. Then the state’s attorney will determine whether the halting and sometimes contradictory testimony of a shy child or two (whose continued involvement may be opposed by their parents) is enough to convict a respected and popular community leader, the parish priest. In many cases, the answer is no. According to you, it’s up to the law, so I guess no further action by the bisohp is needed.

The reality is that bishops often know what is going on before there is sufficient evidence to convict. They have a moral obligation to take what action they can to protect their flock from abuser priests of whatever stripe. Unfortunately, the Church made such actions more difficult than they should have been.

We definitely have to credit Cardinal Ratzinger for seeing the need for a change in rules, and for achieving such a change. However, I think there are grounds for criticizing how long he took to do that, and I definitely think there are grounds to criticize the inefficiency and inertia of the curia that John Paul presided over, that made Ratzinger’s job so hard.

 

[cheezey]

A criminal is one who is convicted of a crime. Prosecuting a priest would be like prosecuting a “john” caught in a house of prostitution. Many of the girls are underage, too, and yet no one gets hot and bothered about their being abused. Only if political pressure is applied will prosecutors get involved. Most cases are plea-bargained, but with the political heat on in juvenile cases. we do see more teachers etc, ending up in prison. There is a lot of wrong-doing in this world. I am reminded that few drunk-drivers who kill people end up in jail. That’s because punishment is so hit and miss.

Understood. I am just as befuddled with the solutions as most. But when someone admits to this crime, something should happen like the equivalent to ripping off an officer’s stripes. Deal with it from inside more properly, symbolically or actually take the collar, legally report it, and then show them to the curb and cruiser. Making this happen is another matter, like you said.

 

[garysibio]

The article provides a few specific examples of difficulties Mahoney had with the Vatican in dealing with abuser priests he sought to deal with, from the archdiocese records released in the current court case involving the Cardinal. I selected the comments from those with deeper knowledge of the Vatican than the reporter presumably had, because I think this highlights the one great failing of John Paul’s pontificate.

While I am not saying this didn’t happen - I don’t know one way or the other - I would like to see sources other than the National Catholic Reporter before taking it as gospel.

 

[Digitonomy]

While I am not saying this didn’t happen - I don’t know one way or the other - I would like to see sources other than the National Catholic Reporter before taking it as gospel.

I don’t think any of that was from the National Catholic Reporter. From what I can tell, the LA Times reporter did her own research based on the documents released, then interviewed a few sources with experience at the Vatican. One of those was the longtime Vatican correspondent for NCR, who has also written a few boooks and worked for CNN and Fox News over the years.

 

[Erik1978]

I’m not sure why you think there’s no role for the bishop in such cases. If a priest’s crimes are reported to police, the police will investigate. Then the state’s attorney will determine whether the halting and sometimes contradictory testimony of a shy child or two (whose continued involvement may be opposed by their parents) is enough to convict a respected and popular community leader, the parish priest. In many cases, the answer is no. According to you, it’s up to the law, so I guess no further action by the bisohp is needed.

The reality is that bishops often know what is going on before there is sufficient evidence to convict. They have a moral obligation to take what action they can to protect their flock from abuser priests of whatever stripe. Unfortunately, the Church made such actions more difficult than they should have been.

We definitely have to credit Cardinal Ratzinger for seeing the need for a change in rules, and for achieving such a change. However, I think there are grounds for criticizing how long he took to do that, and I definitely think there are grounds to criticize the inefficiency and inertia of the curia that John Paul presided over, that made Ratzinger’s job so hard.

No, I don’t see much need for the bishop to be involved in a criminal case. No more than the justice system should be involved in decisions the bishop makes. The two institutions are seperate. Plus if the bishop does know something is going on then he has an obligation to report it to the authorities. This didn’t happen. The big scandal for the Church is not so much that priest molested children but that the bishops actively covered it up. In religious orders they went so far as to send priest out of the country to avoid prosecution. What is sad is that this is not over yet. We still are getting cases coming out of Europe.
Everytime the Church gets itself into a scandal it’s first move is CYA. I cannot believe that Jesus intended His shephards to respond in such a way.

 

[cheezey]

No, I don’t see much need for the bishop to be involved in a criminal case. No more than the justice system should be involved in decisions the bishop makes. The two institutions are seperate. Plus if the bishop does know something is going on then he has an obligation to report it to the authorities. This didn’t happen. The big scandal for the Church is not so much that priest molested children but that the bishops actively covered it up. In religious orders they went so far as to send priest out of the country to avoid prosecution. What is sad is that this is not over yet. We still are getting cases coming out of Europe.
Everytime the Church gets itself into a scandal it’s first move is CYA. I cannot believe that Jesus intended His shephards to respond in such a way.

:bigyikes:
What!!!
Cover ups aren’t afraid at night. Cover ups don’t need a life time of therapy. Cover ups aren’t innocent victims.
What!!!

Heinous crimes, heinous action.

 

[Bill_Martin]

:bigyikes:
What!!!
Cover ups aren’t afraid at night. Cover ups don’t need a life time of therapy. Cover ups aren’t innocent victims.
What!!!

Heinous crimes, heinous action.

Erik1978 is right. He’s saying that the cover ups are the cause of the scandal * for the Church*, not that they are more evil than the actions of the priests. If the Church had handled the crimes appropriately and aggressively instead of trying to hide them, then there would be no scandal for the Church.

Think of the Jerry Sandusky case. There is no scandal involving the town in which he lived because those people were not involved in covering up his crimes. There is a huge scandal for Penn State’s (former) administration because they were.

The bottom line is that the Church has likely done permanent damage to itself by its covering up of horrific crimes and its refusal to deal with them the right way. A priest committing child molestation harms the Church, but not nearly as much as the Church covering it up does. None of this diminishes the execrable crimes committed or says that the children are not the real victims, because they are.

 

[cheezey]

Erik1978 is right. He’s saying that the cover ups are the cause of the scandal * for the Church*, not that they are more evil than the actions of the priests. If the Church had handled the crimes appropriately and aggressively instead of trying to hide them, then there would be no scandal for the Church.

Think of the Jerry Sandusky case. There is no scandal involving the town in which he lived because those people were not involved in covering up his crimes. There is a huge scandal for Penn State’s (former) administration because they were.

The bottom line is that the Church has likely done permanent damage to itself by its covering up of horrific crimes and its refusal to deal with them the right way. A priest committing child molestation harms the Church, but not nearly as much as the Church covering it up does. None of this diminishes the execrable crimes committed or says that the children are not the real victims, because they are.

Thank you for the clarification. It’s one of those things that makes you EEEK!!! and react before thinking. I get what you are saying. I just didn’t read it that way at first.
Still, heinous crime, heinous action/accountability…

 

[Erik1978]

Erik1978 is right. He’s saying that the cover ups are the cause of the scandal * for the Church*, not that they are more evil than the actions of the priests. If the Church had handled the crimes appropriately and aggressively instead of trying to hide them, then there would be no scandal for the Church.

Think of the Jerry Sandusky case. There is no scandal involving the town in which he lived because those people were not involved in covering up his crimes. There is a huge scandal for Penn State’s (former) administration because they were.

The bottom line is that the Church has likely done permanent damage to itself by its covering up of horrific crimes and its refusal to deal with them the right way. A priest committing child molestation harms the Church, but not nearly as much as the Church covering it up does. None of this diminishes the execrable crimes committed or says that the children are not the real victims, because they are.

Thank you Bill. That is exactly what I was trying to say.

 

[cheezey]

No, I don’t see much need for the bishop to be involved in a criminal case. No more than the justice system should be involved in decisions the bishop makes. The two institutions are seperate. Plus if the bishop does know something is going on then he has an obligation to report it to the authorities. This didn’t happen. The big scandal for the Church is not so much that priest molested children but that the bishops actively covered it up. In religious orders they went so far as to send priest out of the country to avoid prosecution. What is sad is that this is not over yet. We still are getting cases coming out of Europe.
Everytime the Church gets itself into a scandal it’s first move is CYA. I cannot believe that Jesus intended His shephards to respond in such a way.

Sorry!!!

 

[Erik1978]

Sorry!!!

No worries Cheezy!!! All is good.

 

[SMHW]

This is true. And my biggest question about the whole issue is WHY didn’t the justice system take these pedophiles off the streets? The Catholic Church cannot be blamed for that! And any parent that reported something to the church and not the police should be ashamed of themselves. And if they did report to the police, WHY didn’t the police do anything about it?

There’s a lot more “bad guys” in this scandal than the Catholic Church. But that doesn’t sell newspapers.

In the case where parents or others actually went to the police the civil authorities DID get involved. I imagine that the police were sometimes reluctant to do so.

Even today there is still a fairly big stigma attached to being the victim of sexual abuse. It was much worse back in the 1980’s and earlier. Going to the police and reporting an otherwise beloved priest was a very courageous thing for a family to do.

When one of the priests at a parish I attended was arrested for molesting children in 1981/1982 (I don’t remember the exact year) most people in the parish were incredulous and assumed the families of the reporters were mistaken about what happened to their children. Eventually most parishioners did come to accept that the abuse had been genuine (the priest was convicted and did time in an institution for the criminally insane) but my guess is that some never did.

I am not making excuses for any clergy that failed to take action. I’m just saying that one of the prevailing attitudes at the time of some of these abuse cases was that bringing them to light brought shame to the victims and their families.

 

[CNormal]

Sadly, i read that cdl mahony will be able to vote to select our next pope. This is not good.