What I think the Church should do about the abuse crisis that won’t go away

[Hokomai]

As a thought experiment I asked myself what I would advise the Church to do about the abuse crisis (in the unlikely event advice was sought from me, an unbeliever). Here is what I came up with:

1. 
   *]Do what it is doing. Most of the steps reported to have been taken by Church authorities seem sensible, and reasonably effective at reducing the incidence of abuse as well as allowing victims to come forward and have their experiences recognised.
   *]Recognise that the concepts of sin and forgiveness are religious beliefs that have little to do with the protection of children. Abuse of children is not morally the same as missing Mass on Sunday, even if each is believed to be a mortal sin.
   *]Decree, throughout the church, that absolution is to be delayed until abusers who confess their sin report their crime (not their sin) to the appropriate civil authorities. This will give child victims similar rights to priests who are victims of false allegations under canon 982 Whoever confesses to have denounced falsely an innocent confessor to ecclesiastical authority concerning the crime of solicitation to sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is not to be absolved unless the person has first formally retracted the false denunciation and is prepared to repair damages if there are any.
   *]Stop distinguishing in any moral sense between the abuse of children before and after puberty. Children are children.
   *]Raise the acceptable age of marriage in the Church from 14 to at least 16, to prevent a false message being given to people who think it may be OK to have sex with 14 and 15-year olds.
   *]Reduce the number of people who speak on this issue for the Church to very few, and make sure they know what they are talking about. There are too many muddled messages to assure victims and the public that things are improving.
   *]Accept that if you say you are the mystical body of Christ, led by a man who represents God on earth, who is infallible on moral matters, and believe that celibacy is a higher state than being in a sexual relationship, and condemn homosexual sex as an abomination, you will be held to a higher standard than other human institutions. There is no point saying that teachers, or scout leaders, or Mormons are just as bad.
   *]Highlight the cases of victims who still love the Church, but clearly condemn the abuse.
   *] Use language that is clear and direct, that everyone can understand.
   
   Thank you for paying attention to my ideas.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

As a thought experiment I asked myself what I would advise the Church to do about the abuse crisis (in the unlikely event advice was sought from me, an unbeliever). Here is what I came up with:

1. 
   *]Do what it is doing. Most of the steps reported to have been taken by Church authorities seem sensible, and reasonably effective at reducing the incidence of abuse as well as allowing victims to come forward and have their experiences recognised.
   *]Recognise that the concepts of sin and forgiveness are religious beliefs that have little to do with the protection of children. Abuse of children is not morally the same as missing Mass on Sunday, even if each is believed to be a mortal sin.
   *]Decree, throughout the church, that absolution is to be delayed until abusers who confess their sin report their crime (not their sin) to the appropriate civil authorities. This will give child victims similar rights to priests who are victims of false allegations under canon 982 Whoever confesses to have denounced falsely an innocent confessor to ecclesiastical authority concerning the crime of solicitation to sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is not to be absolved unless the person has first formally retracted the false denunciation and is prepared to repair damages if there are any.
   *]Stop distinguishing in any moral sense between the abuse of children before and after puberty. Children are children.
   *]Raise the acceptable age of marriage in the Church from 14 to at least 16, to prevent a false message being given to people who think it may be OK to have sex with 14 and 15-year olds.
   *]Reduce the number of people who speak on this issue for the Church to very few, and make sure they know what they are talking about. There are too many muddled messages to assure victims and the public that things are improving.
   *]Accept that if you say you are the mystical body of Christ, led by a man who represents God on earth, who is infallible on moral matters, and believe that celibacy is a higher state than being in a sexual relationship, and condemn homosexual sex as an abomination, you will be held to a higher standard than other human institutions. There is no point saying that teachers, or scout leaders, or Mormons are just as bad.
   *]Highlight the cases of victims who still love the Church, but clearly condemn the abuse.
   *] Use language that is clear and direct, that everyone can understand.
   
   Thank you for paying attention to my ideas.

1. 
   Sincerely, I am fed up of the subject.
   One, I cannot do anything about the subject.
   Second, those who take care of the subject are taking care.
   You will never, I repeat never, get rid of this problem, as you never get rid of prostitution, homosexuality, sado-masochism, and all the deviant sexual activities.
   3rd, this is a media mine gold. So there are tsunamis of information desproportionate to all the problems of mankind (50 000 children die of hunger everyday)
   4th, in the Protestant side there is nothing or am I deaf? Or is it the money of the Catholic Church that is attracting lawyers (and I am not talking about the victims)?
   5th, what about teachers, doctors, governors, lawyers, is there some noise or am I deaf? Or the media and lawyers do not see the gold mine of the RCC?
   6th, when is it next Papal Travel to raise up the volume of the noise: the media are waiting for it is boring just to see the Pope, it is more interesting the dirt, the sewer. And what is the Pope going to do in the travel? Why he receives always the victims of pedophilia and does not receive the victims of hunger everyday? Is it because it is politically correct?

 

[cemiller]

As a thought experiment I asked myself what I would advise the Church to do about the abuse crisis (in the unlikely event advice was sought from me, an unbeliever). Here is what I came up with:

1. 
   *]Do what it is doing. Most of the steps reported to have been taken by Church authorities seem sensible, and reasonably effective at reducing the incidence of abuse as well as allowing victims to come forward and have their experiences recognised.
   *]Recognise that the concepts of sin and forgiveness are religious beliefs that have little to do with the protection of children. Abuse of children is not morally the same as missing Mass on Sunday, even if each is believed to be a mortal sin.
   *]Decree, throughout the church, that absolution is to be delayed until abusers who confess their sin report their crime (not their sin) to the appropriate civil authorities. This will give child victims similar rights to priests who are victims of false allegations under canon 982 Whoever confesses to have denounced falsely an innocent confessor to ecclesiastical authority concerning the crime of solicitation to sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is not to be absolved unless the person has first formally retracted the false denunciation and is prepared to repair damages if there are any.
   *]Stop distinguishing in any moral sense between the abuse of children before and after puberty. Children are children.
   *]Raise the acceptable age of marriage in the Church from 14 to at least 16, to prevent a false message being given to people who think it may be OK to have sex with 14 and 15-year olds.
   *]Reduce the number of people who speak on this issue for the Church to very few, and make sure they know what they are talking about. There are too many muddled messages to assure victims and the public that things are improving.
   *]Accept that if you say you are the mystical body of Christ, led by a man who represents God on earth, who is infallible on moral matters, and believe that celibacy is a higher state than being in a sexual relationship, and condemn homosexual sex as an abomination, you will be held to a higher standard than other human institutions. There is no point saying that teachers, or scout leaders, or Mormons are just as bad.
   *]Highlight the cases of victims who still love the Church, but clearly condemn the abuse.
   *] Use language that is clear and direct, that everyone can understand.
   
   Thank you for paying attention to my ideas.

1. 
   I think the Church has been doing a pretty good job. And I have heard Priests on the radio that would agree with you that even 1 case of abuse in the Church is too many. That the Church should be held to a higher standard then society. The mention of abuses in other places are only mention to highlight the fact that the percentage of cases are actually smaller in the RCC then in other areas of society, but the media always showcases the Church in an effort to make people turn their back on it, or never bother taking a look at Catholicism. That part of the media storm has had an effect to. How many priest/boy jokes have you heard? How many teacher/boy jokes? I can’t tell you how many people I’ve talked to that truly believe that the majority of Priests are guilty of this. I know a woman that refused to ever send her children to a Catholic school she was approved for, just because she was so scared her children would be molested. In the face of this, it is necessary to point out that the percentage of Priests guilty is small and that the abuse rates ARE lower in the Church then in other places. Only by presenting the truth can the Church combat the misconceptions spread so widely by the mainstream media.

 

[Heuchler]

I have to say that this is a good plan of action. If you are willing to convert, we could maybe put you in charge:thumbsup:.

The only thing I disagree with is the first which is do what they have been doing. Shuffling these priests from parish to parish is useless and doesn’t help a thing. It allows for more children to get hurt and is just stupid. The Church should have never done anything like that.

 

[Ana_v]

I like your outline. But as others have said, we have to take into account that the sex abuse by priests is juicy news for the mainstream media, because if the Catholic Church won’t be brought down by the inside-out, they figure in time, it can be brought down by the outside-in.

My prediction concerning the sex abuse crisis, is that the Church will never hear the end of it (in this world). Do we ever hear the end of it about the Crusades or Inquisition? Are these words, by themselves without any context or specificity, not regurgitated over and over, by opponents of religion in general or Catholicism?

When people criticize the evil actions of individual Catholics, and use it to smear the entire Church, we should approach it by establishing a standard: criticism where due, but no misrepresentations please.

Secondly, point out the difference between justification and clarification. (For example, citing the abuse rates of public school teachers may be perceived as “justifying” the behavior of the sexual predator priests. It’s not. We’re adding necessary perspective, necessary because if the media had it its way, the public would, and evidently does, think that priests as are more likely to abuse children than any other identity group.)

 

[manualman]

Some of these require further discussion and thought: (but I somehow messed your numbers up!)

1. Recognise that the concepts of sin and forgiveness are religious beliefs that have little to do with the protection of children. Abuse of children is not morally the same as missing Mass on Sunday, even if each is believed to be a mortal sin.
2. Stop distinguishing in any moral sense between the abuse of children before and after puberty. Children are children.
3. Raise the acceptable age of marriage in the Church from 14 to at least 16, to prevent a false message being given to people who think it may be OK to have sex with 14 and 15-year olds.
4. Reduce the number of people who speak on this issue for the Church to very few, and make sure they know what they are talking about. There are too many muddled messages to assure victims and the public that things are improving.
5. Accept that if you say you are the mystical body of Christ, led by a man who represents God on earth, who is infallible on moral matters, and believe that celibacy is a higher state than being in a sexual relationship, and condemn homosexual sex as an abomination, you will be held to a higher standard than other human institutions. There is no point saying that teachers, or scout leaders, or Mormons are just as bad.

1. Sorry, but you have to recognize that religion isn’t a private matter disconnected from “real life.” Sin begets sin. Abusers don’t just happen. They grow from lesser to larger sinfulness. It is precisely BECAUSE our culture neglects to condemn “lesser” sins that people progress to worse ones. I will agree that there are differing proportionate impacts resulting from different mortal sins, but this is nothing new to catholic teaching, so it isn’t really a change.
2. There is no difference in severity of the crime if someone abuses a small child or a teenager. But there is a big difference in comprehending the motives that drive each and learning to spot the warning signs. One of my biggest objections to the “Protecting God’s Children” program I attended was the emphasis on very small child pedophilia prevention when the clear evidence was that the greatest historic damage was done to teens and preteens. You can’t solve problems if you don’t first identify them. The kind of person who molests a teenage boy is quite simply a very different sort of predator than that which molests a 5 year old. Safeguards and prevention strategies must deal with both kinds (which are different).
3. This is just American-centrism. Just because that is the cultural mindset of OUR country and era doesn’t mean anything about human nature overall. The church is universal to humanity and it will not penalize or restrict other cultures just because America retards the maturation of her youth.
4. Professionalizing the Church has been a recipe for disaster in the last 50 years. The bishops tried repeatedly with a serious money investment to create a catholic television educational system. But a nun from Alabama with ZERO credentials and no resources did the job 50 times better than the professionals could. This sort of thing happens all the time in Church history. You can’t credentialize the Holy Spirit.
5. Your point has merit, but perhaps misses the point often raised by catholics that ALSO has merit. It is a genuine manifestation of bias and bigotry that when a catholic leader commits a moral failure like this, the general catholic populace (not the priest’s personal accounts) are looted of MILLIONS of dollars that could otherwise be used for charitable and religious purposes. When a public school teacher, politician or policeman does the same, THOSE constituents (taxpayers) are not treated in the same money-grubbing way by the law. This is a BLATANT double standard born of bigotry and hatred. Absolutely we should expect priests to live up to a greater moral standard than teachers. But that simply must stop translating into an excuse for lawyers to steal from ordinary catholics when the same doesn’t apply to the taxpayers behind teachers (for example). Put the abusers in jail, for sure. Seize any and ALL personal assets the priest may have for reparations. But the churches assets do not belong to the abuser and seizing them only penalizes INNOCENT people, not the abusers. It is simply a heaping of injustice on top of injustice.

 

[Ana_v]

Decree, throughout the church, that absolution is to be delayed until abusers who confess their sin report their crime (not their sin) to the appropriate civil authorities. This will give child victims similar rights to priests who are victims of false allegations under canon 982 Whoever confesses to have denounced falsely an innocent confessor to ecclesiastical authority concerning the crime of solicitation to sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is not to be absolved unless the person has first formally retracted the false denunciation and is prepared to repair damages if there are any.

In another thread, FrDavid stated that a priest may not, under any circumstance, require that a penitent report him/herself, as a condition for receiving absolution. I guess there are exceptions … (unless “not to be absolved unless the person has first …” is not to be understood as a condition?).

 

[manualman]

An example helps here. My kids previously attended a catholic school in a mostly Hispanic parish. The school was small, had sparsely filled classes and the students were more than half white (including mine). In spite of parent efforts, the diocese had to close the school because they simply didn’t have enough paying students to pay expenses. Not coincidentally, that diocese also had to pay many millions in damages to victims of abuser priests going back decades. Had those millions not gone out to lawyers, SNAP and the victims, the diocese would have been able to distribute a larger amount of tuition assistance and allow those classrooms to fill up with the kids of Hispanic families (who were eager, but unable to spare a dime in most cases). The poor Hispanic kids would have gotten a superior education to the (locally poor) public schools, the faith would be taught to all, my kids would have learned Spanish a lot better than Mrs. White Bread can teach it to them and the public school district would have fewer students to educate on the same amount of funding (mostly local tax in IL) for better outcomes.

Instead, some lawyers got rich, some victims got handed sacks of money and told that it should make them better and everybody else lost. Today the school is shuttered and those opportunities are all lost. Yeah, it irks me. I fail to see how it is justice to take away opportunities from all those people who did nothing wrong so that a victim could receive an award that won’t heal his wounds.

 

[Incomplete]

My understanding (it could be wrong) regarding decreeing, throughout the Church, that absolution should not be given until after confession to authorities…

Even if a confessor was allowed to require it, we could not do this throughout the Church. The Catholic church is universal, and in some countries, the person going to the authorities would face a punishment of death. And in some cases, the person who was molested would also face death.

 

[Hokomai]

My understanding (it could be wrong) regarding decreeing, throughout the Church, that absolution should not be given until after confession to authorities…

Even if a confessor was allowed to require it, we could not do this throughout the Church. The Catholic church is universal, and in some countries, the person going to the authorities would face a punishment of death. And in some cases, the person who was molested would also face death.

A good point. I was thinking of places where that sort of thing did not happen. there would need to be exceptions to my suggestion to deal with the terrible jurisdictions you mention.

 

[Corki]

My understanding (it could be wrong) regarding decreeing, throughout the Church, that absolution should not be given until after confession to authorities…

You are correct. The confessor can not require the penitent to make his/her sins known. That’s a violation of the seal of Confession.

The OP is trying to say that the Church already requires this in some cases and cites canon 982. But canon 982 is about a false claim made to an ecclesiastical authority. The restitution is to fix it with the same authority. Nothing is said in that canon about making anything known to a civil authority or publically. It’s the same principal that means that someone who is excommunicated for public heresy cannot receive Communion, even after being absolved, until the heresy is publically renounced. It is not an equivalency or about “similar rights”. Apples and organges.

Decree, throughout the church, that absolution is to be delayed until abusers who confess their sin report their crime (not their sin) to the appropriate civil authorities. This will give child victims similar rights to priests who are victims of false allegations under canon 982 Whoever confesses to have denounced falsely an innocent confessor to ecclesiastical authority concerning the crime of solicitation to sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is not to be absolved unless the person has first formally retracted the false denunciation and is prepared to repair damages if there are any.

 

[Ana_v]

Nothing is said in that canon about making anything known to a civil authority or publically.

(emphasis mine)

But I’m not seeing how it’s relevant whether it’s a civil authority or eccelesiastical authority, that the penitent must go to so as to retract his/her false accusation, when the point is that reporting (“exposing”) oneself period, cannot be a condition for absolution that the priest lays upon the penitent.

You are correct. The confessor can not require the penitent to make his/her sins known. That’s a violation of the seal of Confession … canon 982 is about a false claim made to an ecclesiastical authority. The restitution is to fix it with the same authority.

(emphasis mine)

I’m confused … how does one fix it with an ecclesiastical authority without revealing one’s sin ( that act of having falsely accused a confessor) to that ecclesiastical authority ?

The confusion could be due to me trying to reconcile what you’re saying, with what** FrDavid96 **said in another thread:

It is absolutely forbidden for a priest to require a penitent to reveal the penitent’s sins.

This cannot be done.

Under no circumstancescan a priest require a penitent to report himself to anyone as a condition for absolution.

It cannot be done. Absolutely never.

And to answer to inevitable questions that are going to get posted:

The answer is still NO. Even before you post the question, the answer is NO.

Whatever question you’re thinking about posting, whatever scenario you draw, whatever the circumstance, a priest can NEVER require a penitent to reveal the penitent’s sin. Not in any way, shape, or form.

No. Nope. Nay. Never. Negative. Nix.

(emphasis mine)

 

[Corki]

(emphasis mine)

But I’m not seeing how it’s relevant whether it’s a civil authority or eccelesiastical authority, that the penitent must go to so as to retract his/her false accusation, when the point is that reporting (“exposing”) oneself period, cannot be a condition for absolution that the priest lays upon the penitent.

(emphasis mine)

It’s the same ecclesial authority to whom the original charge was made. This is a very narrow exception. If a person falsely accuses his Confessor of wrong doing, he/she must go back and retract the false accusation. There is noone new being made aware. The difference isn’t that one is civil and one is ecclesial, it’s the introduction of a new party to the knowledge.

I’m confused … how does one fix it with an ecclesiastical authority without revealing one’s sin ( that act of having falsely accused a confessor) to that ecclesiatical authority ?

The ecclesial authority was already involved. It’s just a matter of setting the record straight.

The confusion could be due to me trying to reconcile what you’re saying, with what FrDavid96 said in another thread

You just have to read farther in that same thread where Father gave more detail about reserved sins.

 

[Hokomai]

I do not see the difference between these cases of delaying absolution. My years outside the Church may have numbed my mind when it comes to such fine distinctions, but if there is a distinction, I’m not worried by it.

I do not think that people who abuse children should be told they are ‘forgiven’ before they have acted responsibly and done all they can to undo the wrong they have done, and taken steps to put themselves out of the way of doing further harm. Anything else, as we have seen, sadly, sets things up for repeat abuse.

If the present laws of the Church present this (and no one has been able to show me where this is actually said), the laws should be changed.

 

[Hokomai]

I have to say that this is a good plan of action. If you are willing to convert, we could maybe put you in charge:thumbsup:.

The only thing I disagree with is the first which is do what they have been doing. Shuffling these priests from parish to parish is useless and doesn’t help a thing. It allows for more children to get hurt and is just stupid. The Church should have never done anything like that.

That’s very gracious of you! But in my experience the job should go to one of those no-nonsense nuns.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I post from the point of view of someone who is: a victim of childhood sexual abuse, a former police officer, a longtime Catholic forum poster and convert.

This isn’t new. Sexual abuse by priests of women and children has been going on for centuries. Religious have been victimized for, well, as long as their have been female religious, I guess.

Sexual abuse is about power. Abusers gravitate to jobs where they have access and control. They become scoutmasters and therapists, and coaches and clergy, especially priests. The amount of power vested in the ordinary parish priest is extraordinary. And the expectation to obey and accept without question has been indoctrinated into Catholics from childhood.

I don’t the situation would have been exposed without the Internet. These men, as adults, and some women, posted for years and we didn’t take them seriously. But finally, the victims had a way to find one another. They gave each other the courage to act. We thought it was just some anomaly. If you keep thinking this way, if we as Catholics don’t start demanding, yes, that’s right, Catholic laity demanding, the changes that will actually repair the system that by it’s very existence fosters this depravity, then it’ll just continue.

First, the celibate priesthood has to end. Like our Eastern brethren, if called to celibacy, great. Otherwise, these men must be allowed to marry. Second, accountability to the laity. No Parish should ever be run by a priest. Parishes need to be run by nonprofit professionals. Pastors come and go, congregations stay. This is actually a good thing. Priests don’t need to be deciding what chairs to buy for the cafeteria or what color to paint anything or the million commonplace details they decide or trying to be business admins, which most are frankly lousy at.

They are priests and there are areas that should be under their absolute control: all things liturgical, for instance. They should have the time and freedom to visit their flocks, develop social justice for the needy in their Parish, minister spiritually, develop ongoing studies for us in Scripture and catechism, find ways for all parishioners to be involved beyond Mass attendance.

But the power trip has to end. The money, the physical plant, all need to be handled by professionals and Parish volunteers who work with whoever the Pastor is. Once these men have wives and families, they will find the need for the self-indulgent recompense of having their own little fiefdoms unnecessary. And we will suddenly be flooded with priestly candidates from among whom the Church can chose only the most qualified.

And put the screens back in the confessionals. They were put there for this exact reason.

Until you get rid of the celibacy and the power structure, it will never end.

 

[Corki]

I do not see the difference between these cases of delaying absolution. My years outside the Church may have numbed my mind when it comes to such fine distinctions, but if there is a distinction, I’m not worried by it.

It’s not a fine distinction, it’s two completely different types of circumstances.

I do not think that people who abuse children should be told they are ‘forgiven’ before they have acted responsibly and done all they can to undo the wrong they have done, and taken steps to put themselves out of the way of doing further harm. Anything else, as we have seen, sadly, sets things up for repeat abuse.

That’s looking at it from the standpoint of secular justice. That’s not a bad perspective but it has nothing to do with the Sacrament of Confession. The Sacrament is not there to fix the wrong but to fix the soul.

If the present laws of the Church present this (and no one has been able to show me where this is actually said), the laws should be changed.

Are you saying you have not been shown proof of the inviolability of the Seal of Confession? Since you are familiar with canon 982, just read on to canons 983 and 984.

No these laws should not be changed. The implications would be horrific. It would virtually eliminate anonymous confession. The primary mission of the Church is to save souls and she does not accomplish that by withholding absolution when someone confesses a sin with a contrite heart.

 

[Hokomai]

Are you saying you have not been shown proof of the inviolability of the Seal of Confession? Since you are familiar with canon 982, just read on to canons 983 and 984.

No. I am saying that.

I cannot find anywhere a clear statement from the Church that absolution may not be made conditional on the penitent undertaking an action which involves telling others, for just cause, of the circumstances of the sin.

The canons you cite do not address this in any way. They relate to actions taken by the confessor, not actions undertaken by the penitent. They say nothing about the possibility of making absolution contingent on the penitent acting to right the wrong by reporting themselves. The provision for exactly this in relation to priests falsely accused of abusing their position makes me think that my suggestion is possible. If it is not possible, then the Church is in a far weaker position in dealing with the abuse crisis.

I think people both inside and outside the church will find it hard to understand how someone can abuse a child and be forgiven in the sacrament of penance before undertaking to put things right as far as possible. Putting things right as far as possible in cases of physical sexual abuse means fronting up to the appropriate authorities, at least in countries with reasonable laws.

 

[Incomplete]

First, the celibate priesthood has to end. Like our Eastern brethren, if called to celibacy, great. Otherwise, these men must be allowed to marry.

But as you’ve said, many, many others also abuse. (And about your words that it’s especially priests, you won’t find that accurate if you look for the statistics. I’m sure they’re somewhere on another thread on this site.)

You’ve also said that abuse is about power.

So, if it’s about power and many abuse who aren’t celibate, how does allowing marriage solve the problem?

 

[KSU]

“First, the celibate priesthood has to end. Like our Eastern brethren, if called to celibacy, great. Otherwise, these men must be allowed to marry…Once these men have wives and families, they will find the need for the self-indulgent recompense of having their own little fiefdoms unnecessary.”

Julia May, my heart goes out to you for what happened. I, too, would have been a victim, but being a male, and probably a little older than you when you were victimized, I was able to escape. It was a long lasting, sickening feeling nevertheless, so I can imagine how much greater your pain, etc. must have been.

Also unlike your experience with a pedophile, my experience was with a homosexual–an entirely different situation, which brings up the point I’d like to call to your attention, i.e., a celibate priesthood is not the answer to the problem being discussed in this thread.

The problem is homosexuality, as the bishops’ John Jay Report statistics documented, and as everyone knew anyway. Pedophilia, as abhorrent as it is, is not anywhere near the statistical problem it is outside the Church; nor is it what caused all the media interest.

Accordingly, the answer to the problem is keeping homosexuals out of seminaries. It’s a very simple solution–mandated by Rome but, sad to say, a solution that our American shepherds will comply with in their own fashion.

Pfaffenhoffen is correct: “You will never, I repeat never, get rid of this problem…” But just as sure as there are millions of Catholics such as post here, we will most assuredly reduce the problem very significantly in my lifetime.