Nifonging the Catholic Church

me ^ | April 18, 2010 | vanity

[Judith Anne]

I seriously wonder about some FReepers, sometimes. Any other person accused of a crime would be defended by every FReeper as being innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. I've seen whole threads written by men who have been accused of child abuse by ex-wives out to deny them their visitation rights or to wrest more money out of them. These men are rightly indignant, and furious about the unjust accusations that cannot be proven but are never withdrawn.

Yet where are those FReepers when a PRIEST is accused? Where is the presumption of innocence? Suddenly, every accusation becomes a verdict, and not only the accused but his entire organization and all its adherents are held responsible.

I can only wonder what some of these so-called conservatives (who so faithfully defend the Constitution) would do, if THEY were the ones accused! It is a nightmare for any man -- all of you know how even the accusation stains the man forever, even if it is proven false!

Not only that, many here assert that the problems of 30, 40 and even 50 years ago must be tried in the media TODAY!

Remember the Duke rape case? There are more similarities than differences here. The priests are accused, nifonged, and instead of being defended, they are vilified!

What other man of you could stand under the weight of such an accusation trumpeted by the press, and come out whole? None! And such accusations made, LONG after the statute of limitations has passed, sometimes even after the accused is dead and buried for YEARS -- are YOU one of those who automatically, reflexively, spitefully, and gleefully act as judge, jury, and executioner?

Women! What if it were YOUR HUSBAND, YOUR BROTHER, YOUR FATHER, YOUR UNCLE, YOUR SON who was accused? Wouldn't you want the best defense possible? Wouldn't YOU believe in their innocence? Wouldn't YOU help protect your loved ones as much as possible? And yet, YOU JUDGE THE CHURCH FOR DOING WHAT YOU WOULD DO?

Shame! Vast shame! On all who have sinned against the innocent!

[Judith Anne]

Thank you for your thoughtful post. It is greatly appreciated.

[will of the people]

While I can’t give blanket agreement to the second half of your post- I can certainly recognize that some of the complaints you make about the conversations concerning the Pope have merit.

With that provision, let me say this is the healthiest response by a Catholic on FR that I have seen to date. Not saying others have made similar responses, but I haven’t seen them (to my memory).

Positions like yours are exactly what I expected from everyone here at FR. Bad things were done. Action needs to be taken swiftly. Corrections in systems and processes need to be made. The civil and penal courts need to have cooperation. Let’s move forward trying to minimize the chances of it happening again.

Blessings

Will Wallace

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thank you, Will.

[Running On Empty]

You spoke for me.

I am now avoiding the posts of some of these “toxic posters” you refer to here. I don’t bother to read their posts anymore. As another intelligent and deeply spiritual FReeper has told me—”it becomes an occasion of the sin of anger for me, so I will not read, anymore, the posters who have identified themselves with their hostile posts”.

You say it rightly: “The recent attempts to slime Pope Benedict, personally, have all the character of rash judgment, calumny and slander, as is evident to those who have taken the time and care to examine the evidence.”

To a faithful Catholic, rash judgment, calumny and slander are considered very serious sins.

Thank you again, Mrs. D, for saying it just right.

[Running On Empty]

Your reference to “rash judgment”, etc, called to my mind a situation that I know about.

I have a close friend who is a lawyer. He defended a priest who had been accused and the priest—thank God—was innocent.

However, this is also a significant part of the story: two activist lawyers and an activist judge went to great lengths to see to it that the statute of limitations was lifted in their jurisdiction. Then they and their staff proceeded to solicit as many cases of priestly abuse as
they could—many of them decades old. Sadly, they found cases—and as you and other Catholics have expressed already many times on this forum—we are stricken and chastened by these cases.

But note: one priest was found innocent. How many of the accused and deceased priests were actually innocent also, will never be known.

But as my lawyer friend told me: we do know who made tons of money in dredging up these cases, and who also walked away with a significant percentage of the settlement money.

All in all, there is much to be sad about in every single aspect of this sad reality: the fact that evil occurred, the fact that it wasn’t dealt with properly, the fact that victims have suffered, the fact that innocent priests and by identification all priest are branded unjustly, parishioners in the pews are affected by it and some lawyers and their accomplices in legal proceedings made money from it.

God, be merciful to us.

Thank God, the Church has begun in recent years to do all possible to face it openly and do everything possible to resolve it.

[Natural Law]

"I've heard the “agenda” argument too. "

It is you who has an agenda and it is obviously to utilize the abuse scandals to exclusively harm the Catholic Church. If it were driven out of concern and compassion for the victims you would be working just as hard to denounce and eliminate the practice in all denominations equally which clearly you are not.

[count-your-change]

“That you only went after B 5% as much as A shows you are 34% more bigoted against A than B and how can you refute the numbers?”

Yes, I’ve heard the argument about going after A more than B is bigotry against or “bashing” of A.

[markomalley]

No one is questioning the age of consent for marriage. That was a diversion away from the topic which was the age of consent for sexual relations.

Well, I don't know about you Presbyterians, but we Catholics typically consummate the marriage on its first night.

Now I don't know what you have in mind here, but it seems according to the above statement, a married couple in that circumstance would have to live celibate lives until they were both 18 years of age. 'Course that may be within your religion's design for marriage, but it certainly wouldn't fit ours.

Just another diversionary tactic from the fact that the federal government considers sex with someone under the age of 16 in all states to be statutory rape.

Last time I checked, unless they were straddling a state line in the act, doing that act on a military post, or doing that act in a national park, it wouldn't be any of the Federal government's business, would it? Or are you buying into the liberal meme of abolishing states' rights? (Pretty funny behavior for a FReeper, I must say)

Thus these pederast priests are committing rape against all their victims under 16.

And there we agree. They are pederasts (not pedophiles) and they have committed rape.

Unfortunately, most states have statutes of limitations that prevent prosecution of such an act a few years after the adolescent boy reaches the age of maturity. And, see, that's the problem with most of these cases. Most of them are being reported 15-30 years after the fact. Civil limitations statutes have long since expired, criminal limitations statutes are way out the window, and so on.

Sure, you have the Gagnon case and a few others that were truly serial rapists, but in most cases, there were a only a couple of victims and those victims were long in the past.

For example, since the initial report had its cutoff date in 2002, the following abuse reports have been submitted:

Pretty bad, huh?

Well, then take a look at when the alleged incidents were supposed to have taken place:

Well, I'm really sorry for the 398 victims who reported abuse in 2009, but for the 319 who reported abuse that allegedly happened 25 or more years earlier, really, what are they supposed to do about it?

I mean, shoot, 71% of the alleged perpetrators have already been dealt with (see above).

And, that's exactly what the policy is now and has been since the blowup in 2002.

8. When even a single act of sexual abuse of a minor by a priest or deacon is admitted or is established after an appropriate process in accordance with canon law, the offending priest or deacon will be removed permanently from ecclesiastical ministry, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state, if the case so warrants (CIC, c. 1395 §2; CCEO, c. 1453 §1)

They were wrong in how they dealt with it prior to that time, they admitted as much, and they have, apparently, fixed the problem (if you look at the figure 5 that I presented above, you will see that out of the 398 abuse allegations presented, a grand total of 6 were from that current year). In other words, consistent with the results that were found during the initial study, released back in 2005.

So it seems that the clerics that were ordained in the later part of the 80s and beyond are in pretty good shape. But we still have the ones that were ordained during the problem years (peaking in the 60s). From the original study:

So what else is the Church supposed to do? 71% were already gone (dead, laicized, or voluntarily left) before the allegation occurred, out of the remainder, their cases are being positively dealt with and tracked. If found that the allegation is substantiated, the priest will be removed from ministry.

As far as civil prosecution:

11. The diocese/eparchy will comply with all applicable civil laws with respect to the reporting of allegations of sexual abuse of minors to civil authorities and will cooperate in their investigation. In every instance, the diocese/eparchy will advise and support a person's right to make a report to public authorities.

If there is a criminal statute of limitations, can the State do anything for a case that allegedly happened 25 or more years ago? And if somebody didn't report it 25 or more years ago and just decided to do so now, what, realistically, is the Church supposed to do more than she is now?

The funny thing is that had the bishops followed the directives of the Vatican, such as this one issued in 1961, there wouldn't have been this problem. Included in that directive:

• Advantage to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers.
• A candidate who shows himself certainly unable to observe religious and priestly chastity, either because of frequent sins against chastity or because of a sexual bent of mind or excessive weakness of will, is not to be admitted to the minor seminary and, much less, to the novitiate or to profession. If he has already been accepted but is not yet perpetually professed, then he should be sent away immediately or advised to withdraw, according to individual cases, no matter what point in his formation he has already reached.
• Very special investigation is needed for those students who, although they have hitherto been free of formal sins against chastity, neverttheless suffer from morbid or abnormal sexuality, especially sexual hyperesthesia or an erotic bent of nature, to whom religious celibacy would be a continual act of heroism and a trying martyrdom. For chastity, in so far as it implies abstinence from sexual pleasure, not only becomes very difficult for many people but the very state of celibacy and the consequent loneliness and separation from one's family becomes so difficult for certain individuals gifted with excessive sensitivity and tenderness, that they are not fit subjects for the religious life.

The fact of the matter is that a large percentage of the bishops, both here and in Europe, decided decades ago to delve into modernism and preferred the advice of modern psychologists rather than sound doctrine. That went as far as admitting people into seminary who had no business being there. They then continued to follow the advice of modern psychologists who believed that such perverts could be cured and reinstated. Couple that with the fact that the Church hierarchy was scared to death of public scandal (especially since this new generation of progressive Catholics was just *loved* by the *right crowd* on the cocktail circuit), and the two factors resulted in a whole lot of bad priests either feigning contrition and promises not to do it again or being genuinely contrite, but unstable enough to actually follow through on what might be good intent.

And then you have the 150 or so really, really bad ones out there. Why and how that egregious a situation could have happened with those priests is beyond me. St. John Chrysostom is reputed to have said that the road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops. I have no doubt that several yards of that pavement was laid with many of the bishops in those years. I just pray that the current crop turns out to be better.

You want a mea culpa? Well mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima flippin' culpa! Guess what: maybe the Apostle knew what he was saying when he said that we have this treasure in earthen vessels. I am not making any excuses for it. The leadership knew what was right and chose to do what was expedient at the time. And now we're having to put out the fires.

And now? Well, we had our big scandal in 2002...and Europe is having theirs in 2009 and 2010. I certainly hope they learned from our mistakes.

Now, Dr. E., I know that none of the above is going to make even the slightest impression on you. And I don't really care all that much. You're just doing God's work, even though you don't likely realize as much. The seed that has fallen on stone must be scorched. and if the heat for the scorching is coming from you, so be it. If it doesn't come from you, it's going to come from somebody else. And if somebody doesn't have their shield to deflect the darts, so be it.

(My fellow Catholics should really take the time to read the first few chapters of Job)

But you keep doing exactly what you're doing, Doc. The same sun that scorches the seed that sprouted on stone also helps the seed that is planted in good earth grow deeper roots.

[Natural Law]

"Yes, I’ve heard the argument about going after A more than B is bigotry against or “bashing” of A."

We are not playing a game of comparitive statistics here. Your complete and utter silence concerning the abuse of innocents by non-Catholic clergy shows that you do not care about the any of the victims unless you can exploit their pain to advance your personal anti-Catholic agenda.

Let me remind you of the words of the Confiteor;

Confiteor Deo omnipotenti, et vobis, fratres, quia peccavi nimis cogitatione, verbo et opere et omissione: mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Ideo precor beatam Mariam semper Virginem, omnes Angelos et Sanctos, et vos, fratres, orare pro me ad Dominum Deum nostrum. Amen."

I confess to almighty God, and to you my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do; and I ask blessed Mary, ever Virgin, and all the angels and saints, and you, my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God. Amen.

[Twink]

Yep. A few priests molested kids and teens. Mostly teens.

So if we look at the “proven facts” you mentioned, we see this did occur. Mostly, homosexual priests sexually assaulting teen boys. So it’s not really a problem with pedophelia as the cases between priests and pre-pubescent(sp) kids or priests with pre-pubescent male kids, is small. It’s more a problem with homosexual priests and teen age boys. Since those are the majority of cases and the media, the Church, everyone else sure doesn’t want to address THAT.

[Twink]

Really? And here I am thanking God and my husband and me that we do send our kids to Catholic k-8 school and public high school. Gee, I think the public high school in this area is exceptional. Some on here would say I’m abusing my kids because I send them to public high school, lol. Or Catholic school. Geez, can’t win. Glad I don’t give a damn what others who don’t matter think :)

[Twink]

Why does that even matter?

Can’t something just be a discussion without baggage?

[Religion Moderator]

Do not use potty language - or references to potty language - on the Religion Forum.

[Twink]

So what’s the age of majority in your opinion? It’s changing and has been changing in the legal definition for at least the last 20/30 years. Probably more like 60 years.

Age of consent is 16 in most states but we all know consent happens before that and consent doesn’t mean a whole lot when it’s our own kids.

Adolecense(sp) didn’t even exist 60 years ago. We made the term, defined it, changed it since then. Young adults didn’t exist 50 or 60 years ago. Now kids, young adults, could be people in their freakin 20’s.

So is a 16 yr old an adult when it comes to crimes committed? Is he/she a kid or an adult? Does it matter if he/she is a victim or the one who comitted the crime? Is she/he an adult if he/she is the criminal but a minor if a victim?

Is 18 the age of majority (except for drinking/buying alcohol of course)? Is it 16, where that’s the age of consent when it comes to sexual things, unless it doesn’t benefit the parties involved and then they’re children?

It’s very confusing, imo.

Is it blaming the “victim” when the so called “victim” isn’t really a victim? Is the girl a victim when she cries rape after the act? If both are drunk, does more responsibility fall to the male?

I really want to know since the lines are really blurry now.

A 14 yr old female and 18 yr old male, creepy in a way but is it a crime?

Is it easier when it’s homos? Why don’t we hear about the homo guys with homo teens, other than it’s not PC?

[Twink]

OK then. Last I knew this thread wasn’t on the religion forum. I stay away from the religion forum.

I have no idea what potty language I used but figure I probably used a curse word.

I apologize.

And now that this thread is on the religion forum, I’m out, lol.

[count-your-change]

Age of majority is a legal term, not my opinion. But you some very good questions.

[count-your-change]

Raise some very good questions, I should say.

[count-your-change]

Since Jesus said that no one comes to the Father except through him the confession falls short of what is required.

And since each of us is judged according to our own acts whether a thousand or million non-Catholic clergy abused is not relevant to the acts of the Catholic clergy.

But if you wish to discuss the sins of commission and omission you have enough brothers close at hand to ask why Jesus’ own words about handling sinning brothers was not followed.

Was it because they feared being accused of having an agenda or being anti something?