Posted on 06/20/2002 10:11:45 PM PDT by ppaul
If you were in Dallas last week, you got a front-row seat to the Gravest Show on Earth. The circus could be summed up like this: "Pulling the Frock over the Public's Eyes."
Priests who gathered for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops performed magic as they tackled the growing church sex-abuse scandal.
The bishops pulled out smoke. They whipped out mirrors. They came up with a plan that bans from active ministry any priest who abuses a child, or has done so in the past.
The plan -- approved 239-13 -- calls for priests to be removed from public religious duties, including masses and weddings.
So far, so good.
The plan also denies priests the right to work in a parish, school or hospital, and requires bishops to report future allegations of sexual abuse to outside officials -- something long overdue.
ABRACADABRA! POOF!
Just like that, the bishops stepped off the Texas stage to the applause of peers.
Meanwhile, the public looked on and rightly wondered, "Is that all there is?"
Seattle Archbishop Alex Brunett, who called the plan tough, liked what he saw.
When you remove someone from active ministry, he said, "they're also losing every facet or every area of identity with priesthood that they have."
The policy, Brunett added, shows "absolute concern" about protecting young people.
The Most Rev. William Skylstad, the bishop of Spokane, seconded the notion. Skylstad said the priests "knew from back home what the laypeople wanted."
Well, not so fast.
The public wanted more -- and deserved more.
If the Dallas event had been a real circus, the public would have demanded its money back.
The Catholic Church needed to put on stage a zero-tolerance policy with bite.
That means zero tolerance for priests who were known abusers but were not reported to officials, and zero tolerance for priests who face sustained allegations in the future.
As it stands, the plan falls short by not calling for the immediate, forced ouster of offending priests -- a suggestion that would have sent a powerful signal to the Vatican, which has the power to defrock a priest.
The bishops' plan is like a nose job when the patient has a cancerous tumor.
Two-thirds of Catholics -- and three-quarters of people overall -- don't think the bishops went far enough to protect children from predatory priests, according to a poll by The Washington Post.
Overall, six in 10 opposed the plan, which still needs the Vatican's stamp of approval.
But take expulsion out of the picture for a moment. What the heck happened to criminal law? Are priests somehow above it? Or does the church have the arrogance to believe it knows best how to police its own? In its plan, the church needed to bellow this: "We'll push for the prosecution of problem priests to the full extent of the law."
It didn't even whisper.
Instead, the plan seems geared to push troubled priests out of public view, deeper into the back rooms of the Catholic church -- the very places where some abuses occurred.
But if you don't remove the poison, you keep a polluted well.
Imagine a respected scholar at a private university has come under fire for allegedly abusing students. The professor has not been arrested, but the university has kept him.
After a fresh allegation surfaces, the university takes away the professor's title, but keeps him on the payroll. He's told to avoid direct contact with students, but he can use the research library and eat in the student union.
You know what? That would never happen.
The teacher would be booted out faster than you could read this sentence, and the school likely would have him hauled away. He would be investigated by law enforcement authorities, who would determine whether there was sufficient evidence to charge him.
The same thing should happen to priests.
Instead, church leaders are serving up icing with too little cake.
The plan also falls down because it doesn't call for punishment of bishops who tolerated abuse, perhaps by shuffling problem priests from parish to parish.
What confidence can we have when the overseers of a broken system aren't made accountable? What confidence can we have in a church that historically has been so hush-hush?
The bishops in Dallas said their proposed rules are sufficient. They said the plan falls in line with church philosophy, which calls for spiritual healing and reform.
I'm one Catholic who refuses to fall for those church tricks.
The public shouldn't, either.
Link to article HERE.
The bishops' plan is like a nose job when the patient has a cancerous tumor.And, apparently, the tumor will continue to grow.
Do we pray that it doesn't eventually kill the patient?
Or is that wishful thinking?
That means zero tolerance for priests who were known abusers but were not reported to officials, and zero tolerance for priests who face sustained allegations in the future.
But take expulsion out of the picture for a moment. What the heck happened to criminal law? Are priests somehow above it? Or does the church have the arrogance to believe it knows best how to police its own? In its plan, the church needed to bellow this: "We'll push for the prosecution of problem priests to the full extent of the law."
Excerpts from the Charter in bold:
ARTICLE 4. Dioceses/eparchies will report an allegation of sexual abuse of a person who is a minor to the public authorities. They will cooperate in their investigation in accord with the law of the jurisdiction in question.
Dioceses/eparchies will cooperate with public authorities about reporting in cases when the person is no longer a minor.
In every instance, dioceses/eparchies will advise victims of their right to make a report to public authorities and will support this right.
ARTICLE 5. We repeat the words of our Holy Father in his Address to the Cardinals of the United States and Conference Officers: "There is no place in the priesthood or religious life for those who would harm the young."
As it stands, the plan falls short by not calling for the immediate, forced ouster of offending priests -- a suggestion that would have sent a powerful signal to the Vatican, which has the power to defrock a priest.
Canon law does not provide for the immediate forced ouster of an accused priest. Once allegations of abuse are substantiated, believe it or not false accusations do occur, then the process can begin to dismiss the perp. Should accusations of abuse turn out to be false and the accused has already been dismissed without due process then I want the bill for the litigation that will follow to be paid by the author of this piece. If this guy is advocating a change in Canon law then he needs to speak to those who can change Canon law. If he's advocating the repeal of the statute of limitations regarding molestation then he needs to speak to lawmakers around the country.
When the preliminary investigation of a complaint (cc. 1717-1719) against a priest or deacon so indicates, the diocesan/eparchial bishop will relieve the alleged offender promptly of his ministerial duties (cf. c. 1722). The alleged offender will be referred for appropriate medical and psychological evaluation, so long as this does not interfere with the investigation by civil authorities. When the accusation has proved to be unfounded, every step possible will be taken to restore the good name of the priest or deacon.
Where sexual abuse by a priest or a deacon is admitted or is established after an appropriate investigation in accord with canon law, the following will pertain:
Diocesan/eparchial policy will provide that for even a single act of sexual abuse (see Article 1, note *) of a minor—past, present, or future—the offending priest or deacon will be permanently removed from ministry. In keeping with the stated purpose of this Charter, an offending priest or deacon will be offered professional assistance for his own healing and well-being, as well as for the purpose of prevention.
In every case, the processes provided for in canon law must be observed, and the various provisions of canon law must be considered (cf. Canonical Delicts Involving Sexual Misconduct and Dismissal from the Clerical State, 1995; cf. Letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, May 18, 2001). These provisions may include a request by the priest or deacon for dispensation from the obligation of holy orders and the loss of the clerical state, or a request by the bishop for dismissal from the clerical state even without the consent of the priest or deacon. For the sake of due process, the accused is to be encouraged to retain the assistance of civil and canonical counsel. When necessary, the diocese/eparchy will supply canonical counsel to a priest or deacon.
If the crime occurred outside of the statute of limitations, meaning local authorities cannot and will not prosecute, I assume the author wants the perp dismissed and booted out into the world with no supervision. Accused but unconvicted molesters are not required to register as sex offenders. Therefore, a containment facility should be built next to the residence of the author so he can keep an eye on these people 24/7. The Church has an obligation to society to keep these people out of it. Cloister them in a monastery or other facility under close supervision for the remainder of their lives.
If the penalty of dismissal from the clerical state has not been applied (e.g., for reasons of advanced age or infirmity), the offender is to lead a life of prayer and penance. He will not be permitted to celebrate Mass publicly, to wear clerical garb, or to present himself publicly as a priest.
Me, too. Good article. Where are the resignations from those Bishops who enabled and covered-up for the priest-molesters? They left patting each other on the back, when they should have been hitting the guilty ones over the head with a baseball bat.
Also, why did they prohibit the Boston Globe from covering the conference? Why didn't they reveal the names of those spineless 13 Bishops who opposed the plan? And what of Bishop Daily who refused to act on the horrible situation in Queens AFTER the conference?
Exactly!
friggin' Lizards!!!LOL
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.