Posted on 03/13/2010 12:00:49 PM PST by presidio9
The fact is, Quix and wmfights, is that this is simply not true.
That 2001 instruction says absolutely nothing of the kind.
There is no canonical punishment of any kind for a Catholic who gives accurate information about a crime to a secular entity.
The 2001 instruction was written specifically to reiterate that there was no such punishment.
Not really.
If the Monsignor who was this particular priest's direct supervisor wanted to conceal the allegations (so as not to get in trouble himself) he could tell the priest in question to voluntarily commit himself to a psychiatric facility in order to avoid further inquiry and then he could represent to the bishop that the priest in question had had a nervous breakdown and needed to be hospitalized.
Which is precisely what Msgr. Gruber - that priest's supervisor - admitted that he did.
Nor is the size of his jurisdiction all that impressive when if you consider whether a police commissioner of New York City would be unaware if one of his captains was engaging in such behavior and disciplined for it would the police commissioner be ignorant of it or would that have reached his desk?
To keep your analogy consistent, a police captain is generally in charge of entire precinct or a division of a precinct (usually several dozen officers), and is analogous to a monsignor in the Catholic Church who is in charge of a vicariate (usually several dozen priests).
It has certainly happened in NYC that a police officer who has been using drugs and violating his oath of service has been sent to rehab on the sly with his captain representing that the officer in question was having "personal stress" and needed a sabbatical.
The commissioner generally finds out when that cop uses up all his goodwill with his captain and winds up running over a pedestrian while drunk or high. There are several cases like that pending right now and there are people demanding to know why the commissioner allowed these particular degenerate alcoholics to be out driving police cruisers and carrying service weapons.
The reality is, knowing human nature as we know it, that cop's direct supervisor did not want to let that cop's problems to become known because that would reflect poorly on him as a supervisor and hurt his career - so no one higher up was informed because the supervisor was hoping he could fix the problem on his own before anyone else found out about it.
Did Commissioner Ray Kelly know that Ofc. Ralphie Ospina was in the habit of driving around Manhattan trashed out of his mind, and personally decide to do nothing about it?
Hardly. He found out about Ospina when the rest of us did - namely when Ospina finally did something that could not be covered up. When he plowed into a city DOS truck and left two people needing EMS, none of his buddies on the force could cover for him.
Okay, assuming this is true, why were crimes ignored and the authorities not notified. From my perspective it's the cover up that makes this so much worse.
There is no doubt that when allegations were made priests were transferred instead of the information being given to the police. No question the person accused may be innocent and their reputation is harmed, but what is the greater duty.
Alright. You’re further delineation of the analogy makes sense except for the fact that up until the time the officer’s substance abuse had ramifications it was strictly a no harm to others offense. But if the officer actually was accused of sexual misconduct with actual victims it is less plausible that a Captain could cover up this offense.
Knowing that this priest had victims how does Canon Law work in such a situation. Does the victim bring the charge to the Monsignor and the Monsignor has all the authority to adjudicate the case? Does the victim have the right to appeal the Monsignor decision? Are there any checks and/or balances to the Monsignor?
Because in many cases people who should have known better consciously chose to do the wrong thing rather than the right thing.
There are also other situations where the situation is not so clear cut.
It almost never happens that someone just walks into a room and catches a predator in the act of raping his victim. Predators go to extreme lengths to conceal their behavior and to prevent this sort of thing from happening.
As a result, what most potential informants - other than the victims, of course - have is only suspicions. A sense that something is not quite right. If you are wrong, you might be ruining a man's career and livelihood by blackening his name with the worst possible slander.
You can't really talk to the suspected victim about it, because if it's untrue, you might wind up being suspected of the same crime for discussing such things with him or her.
If you go to the victim's parents for confirmation you might be putting them through hell for nothing, and anything you say will inevitably come back to you - which could be very destructive for you personally if your suspicions turn out to be false.
If you go to the police with only suspicions, it isn't enough for a warrant - in such matters you need to have a confirmed victim who is willing to make a statement.
It takes a lot of courage to go out on a limb and make accusations when you yourself realize that there is a possibility that you are just wrong and have misinterpreted something.
If you are wrong, then you may wind up alienating everyone in your community and be looked upon as someone who made up lies about someone else in order to take them down and build yourself up.
This is how predators get away with this stuff for so long - by understanding and using the psychology of normal people to their advantage.
In 1981, the Monsignor's responsibility was to make a formal report to the ordinary (that is, his bishop). This apparently did not happen in the Munich case - instead of a report there was a request for a hospital stay.
Upon receiving the report the bishop's responsibility would have been to investigate the claims and contact the victim or the victim's family.
The diocesan court of canon law would likely adjudicate and make a decision on the plausibility of the claim and the punishment. The victim would be quite free to pursue his own criminal and civil charges as well as canonical ones - but this would be on the victim's initiative.
In 2010, the monsignor makes a formal report to the ordinary and the ordinary's office makes contact with local law enforcement in order to proceed both criminally and canonically.
The initiative to pursue criminal charges is no longer left up to the victim - it is required that the bishop immediately initiate the criminal process by contacting the local authorities.
Also in 2010, any time a priest is to be reassigned, or "takes time off" or needs psychiatric assistance, his immediate supervisor can no longer just arrange it for him. Such a request needs to go directly to the bishop and every such request requires a formal inquiry into why this reassignment is occurring. This removes the leeway that supervisors had before in creating coverups: one can no longer make it look like a predator was just having a nervous breakdown - there needs to be an inquiry as to why he is moving or taking time off. The Munich situation can no longer be pulled off as in 1981.
It was more of an honor system before 1983. There is more supervision and oversight now. And this needs to be kept up consistently.
But if the officer actually was accused of sexual misconduct with actual victims it is less plausible that a Captain could cover up this offense.
Not if the victims were too ashamed to come forward. Which until recent years was very often the case.
There were thousands of victims. Not one priest ever gave thought to call local law enforcement officials. Their only thought was to either cover it up or just transfer offenders around.
I read the Catholic Church was going bankrupct. You reap what you sow.
As I stated quite clearly earlier.
Not one priest ever gave thought to call local law enforcement officials.
A large part of the Irish scandal was that priests and parishioners reported suspicions to the police and the police brass swept the allegations under the rug.
I read the Catholic Church was going bankrupct. You reap what you sow.
Certain dioceses have gone bankrupt because they failed to address these issues squarely.
My diocese is quite solvent, largely because it did face them and deal with them.
And 90% or more of Catholic dioceses are quite solvent.
http://www.traditioninaction.org/bev/116bev12-28-2009.htm
Not according to this link. It did say that law enforcement was partly to blame but because it a largely Catholic society.
Bingo!
They made it worse when they covered it up because they were worried about their church's reputation. These are men of faith who are held to a higher standard and should be.
There are also other situations where the situation is not so clear cut.
Not true. When in doubt report it.
If you are wrong, you might be ruining a man's career and livelihood by blackening his name with the worst possible slander.
What about the victim if it's true?
As Christians we should always be worried first about the weakest and most vulnerable.
You can't really talk to the suspected victim about it, because if it's untrue, you might wind up being suspected of the same crime for discussing such things with him or her.
Not true.
The only reason for not confronting such a sensitive issue head on is to avoid finding the truth. A perfect storm was created that made this problem worse in your church than other churches. A culture exists where the reputation of your church is supposed to be protected at all cost. The priesthood is supposed to have all kinds of special authority and an elevated status. Your priesthood has a disproportionate number of homosexuals in it and being in charge of young post pubescent boys the opportunity was perfect for them.
If these crimes were reported to authorities immediately a culture that protected the criminals would not have developed and probably the potential for it would have been less.
http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/catholic-church-finances
These seems to present a pretty grim picture as to solvency.
“Not if the victims were too ashamed to come forward. Which until recent years was very often the case.”
The victims weren’t the ones who were to be ashamed. That label belonged to the many priests who committed the abuse.
So in essence your claim is that there were two types of forms that could been reported to Ratzinger in 81'; a report of misconduct, or just a request for time-off or psychiatric care. Ratzinger would not have investigated a request for psychiatric care. So we can expect the Vatican to produce the documents?
The diocesan court of canon law...
What's the makeup of this court?
Something happened almost twenty years prior. ANd in the fifties, sixties and seventies it was COMMON PRACTICE, SUPPORTED BY PSYCHOLOGISTS AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE TYPES, TO REMOVE THE PERP FROM THE SETTING ON THE EXPECTATION THAT THE PERP WOULD NOT REPEAT, AND THAT THE VICTIM NEEDED TO BE PROTECTED FROM WHAT HAPPENED. IT WAS BELIEVED THAT THE SEXUAL ABUSE WAS BEST HEALED BY NOT TALKING ABOUT IT.
read the Catholic Church was going bankrupct. You reap what you sow.
This is Catholic hate. I dont see lawyers going after Muzzies, or Hindus or Buddhists. Lots of sexual abuse of minors which is considered normative.
I haven’t read of any civil lawsuits where there has been billions of dollars in payout because of sexual abuse by Muslim, Hindus, or Buddists clergy of minors. Maybe you can point me to it.
Well if one specific link doesn't say it then it must not be true. After all, it is a random link from the Internet.
That's all there is in most cases of abuse.
You say: "think of the victim" - when the whole point is that you are not sure there even is a victim.
If you were certain of that, there there is no issue whatsoever.
Of course - what interest is there in a headline reading: "Most Catholic Dioceses In America Solvent, Financially Stable"?
There's an exciting article.
YOu are right. It is being hushed up although if you search for abuse issue in those religions you will find plenty world-wide.
Now stop being a hater and move on.
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.