Posted on 04/13/2010 4:42:09 AM PDT by SJackson
The job of overseeing clergy is local. If there is an allegation of abuse, the local Bishop can and must --1) report the priest to the police; 2) remove him from all ministry.
There’s no need even to inform Rome about this.
The only way (until 2001 or in cases of abuse of Confession) that it ended up in Rome is if the priest appealed the bishop's decision.
And about that "defrocking" issue: what’s even meant by "defrocking"? It's a term not even used by the Catholic Church --- a stupid term, at that, since journalists, having invented it, never define it.
If they mean "laicization,” that means the priest is dispensed from his vow of obedience to the Bishop, and celibacy. Thereafter Bishop no longer has any oversight, and the man is now free to live “in the manner of a layman”.
Thus laicization --- or "defrocking" as the journalists put it --- is the opposite of supervision: it means the man can come and go as he likes, isn’t accountable to anybody, and doesn't even have to leave a forwarding address.
How exactly this would protect children?
As if to prove this point, the abusive priest in Oakland, Fr. Kiesle, continued to abuse children after he was "defrocked" and had married.
The responsibility was in Oakland --- not in Rome.
The Vatican was not wrong in saying that the issues --- criminal proceedings, and removal from ministry --- had to happen first; and that laicization --- which is essentially release from vows and therefore the end of supervision from the Church --- could wait until everything else was cleared up.
And while we're at it, note well: it's obvious celibacy didn't cause this monstrous Fr. Kiesle's criminal drive, and marriage didn't cure it.
I don’t want to get too deep in the issues, I’ve been trying to avoid contentiousness, but it seems to me the only issue of relevance to non-Catholics is the relationship between the Church and secular authorities, where a just system is in place. Crimes should be reported to authorities, internal justice isn’t enough, but beyond that I’m not sure there’s much of a non-Catholic issue here. There may have been some mistakes on that count over the years, but characterizing the Church as a defacto criminal criminal organization is libel. Or is it slander. That particular evil translates to both terms, same evil
The accurate analogy would be for you to cut off the body parts of the first Priest you saw. The issue is demonizing the Church for the actions of individuals.
Yes, I'm aware of the history. Ping me when your time machine gets to the 21st floor.
Meant to ping you to 22 also.
No, I would also start hacking away at those who claimed that church “tradition” was what was holding up the priest’s punishment. “Tradition” has nothing to do with criminal acts, regardless of who the alleged perp is.
Absolutely. And there is nothing in canon law that prevents or impedes reporting to authorities; in fact, Catholic Church's "Charter for the Protection of Children" specifically supports it.
Thank you for your comments. I think we're both on the same page.
The hacking is just a new mother’s initial reaction. I do think I would want physical retribution if someone, priest or not, abused my son. I think most mothers would feel that way.
That’s very true.
Interestingly, in the case the press is making such a big deal about, by the time Rome knew about this, the priest had already by tried by the secular court system, pleaded nolo contendere - and had been given a suspended sentence of three years. This is not much of a sentence. So I’d say the secular justice system fell down on this one, although nobody ever mentions that.
All of the cases of actual pedophilia that the press is digging up went through the regular criminal justice system; the perpetrators were not protected by the Church in any way. Because many of these crimes occurred in the 1970s and 1980s, the perpetrators received trivial sentences, usually involving “therapy” and “readjustment” to society. This was a problem with all criminal sentencing at that time, up to and including murder. Why doesn’t the press go after this?
I understand, amongst all the joys of raising your chile (alternate spelling travails) I’m certain you’ll never deal with the situation, my point was that you need to separate the indivitual from the faith/institution. And forget the messy hacking stuff, your child would still need you, which means you can’t afford to get caught.
A religious figue molesting a child is news. A court awarding a slap on the hand isn’t, unless there are political implications, which is rare. I don’t know much about Canon law, nor do I need to. As I noted, it seems to me there was a failure to make referrals to the secular authorities here, but I could be wrong, and it’s decades ago. If statutes haven’t run out, great, charge them, but I’m aware of the attitude in those days to what the funny grandpa, or funny cleric did. He was getting old, after all, and things were handled quietly. Wrong, but the times. Based on anything I’ve seen, the demonization of institutions, our justice system would be first in line, or the Pope I do think is unjust.
Thanks.
Yes, thanks. The priest in this case had already been referred to secular authorities, tried and pleaded “no contest,” had been given a trivial sentence, and had been suspended by his bishop - BEFORE writing to the CDF for a dispensation from his vows. Incidentally, after he got married and had no connection in any capacity whatsoever with the Church, he went on to molest more children.
I think the only cases in which you could say there was a failure to report things to the authorities when and if they became known were homosexual cases involving older adolescents or young adult males. Many of these were later the subject of civil suits, but in some cases were not actually even open to criminal charges under the laws at the time (sexual harrassment laws came along later).
To me, the biggest problem was the fact that homosexuals were permitted by weak or homosexual bishops to run riot in the clergy. This puts the pro-homosexual press in a bind: They want to make the Church look bad, but if they tell the truth, which is that certain bishops and heirarchs tolerated way too much homosexuality, they’ll alienate the gay lobby.
And I think here have been some blameless virtuous men of this type: To name two: Fr. Henri Nouwen, and Fr. Mychal Judge, the priest who died at 9/11.
But now I think that no homosexual should be a priest or monk, hiwever chaste he is. Because it's not fair TO HIM to put him in situations that are fraught with strong temptation, e.g. the seminary, where he'll be surrounded by attractive young men all the time; ministering to youth would be difficult, because emotional (empathetic) contact with the vulnerable tends to make for parlous situations; the even good friendships with other priests would be very difficult.
Where is the right place, the best place, for a good, chaste homosexual man who is gifted for ministry?
I really don't know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.