Replies

Dear scannell,

A man who is laicized, especially if he has been a priest for a substantial period of time, and especially if he became a priest at a relatively early age, is a man bereft of resources. In this case, once having served his term in prison, this particular ex-priest will also be a convicted felon, alone in the wide world.

If he fails to receive any assistance from anyone in learning to make his way in the world, to find a way to earn a living, put bread in his mouth, a roof over his head, he will descend into misery, not that such a misery would be undeserved. But, once having been released from prison, the rest of us have an interest in seeing this man refrain from the behaviors that got him sent to prison. Allowing him to slide uninterrupted into misery is a poor way to try to prevent that. People in extremis often revert to their worst selves.

Thus, knowing all this, and trying to do what is right in a terrible set of circumstances, the Church may extend some assistance to this man once he completes his prison term.

I don't know what may or may not have happened in this case, so the following comments are of a more general nature. But they may apply in part or whole to the present case.

I've read where the Church has provided individuals like this with the funds for intensive psychotherapy, as well as financial assistance, to make an honorable life for themselves after having served their time in prison.

If you think that is an evil thing, or a bad idea, please suggest some method to reduce the rate of recidivism among these men, and please limit your suggestions to methods which are legal, and which the Church could follow. Remember, the Church may not jail, or execute, or commit to a mental hospital, anyone. Once he serves his term in prison, the Church cannot use force against this ex-priest to keep him from molesting other children.

Even with such assistance, there is serious danger of relapse by such a man. But without such assistance from the Church, the likelihood that he will offend again is very high. So, in the effort to "clean up after their own mess", the hierarchy of the Church may decide that it would not entirely abandon this man, but would provide him assistance after his prison term, to try to get him on the "straight and narrow".

The former priest, having served several years in an environment far less pleasant than the old church rectory, is likely highly desirous of avoiding reincarceration, and is likely eager for the help of the Church in establishing a new life.

This being the case, the Church has substantial leverage over the former priest. "Live where we tell you or forego our assistance," may be what is said. It isn't a legally-binding force that the Church has, but it is a powerful incentive, nonetheless.

Now, again, perhaps you're disgusted that the Church would assist this man after prison. But I'm not sure that the Church has a better lawful alternative. Certainly, few would criticize the hierarchy for washing its hands of such a man, "He's a convicted felon, no longer a priest, we drummed him out of our ranks years ago, we are no longer responsible for him, we condemn him."

Who could argue with that?

But I don't know how that would actually protect our children.

sitetest

Interesting post, but I don't think it addresses the issue that I am questioning. The post by Notwithstanding took issue with the charge (by what he calls rabid Freepers) that the Pope was complicit in the prepetuation of the scandal by recommending the transfer of certain offenders if they had been exposed and not transfering other offenders if they had not become know as sexual offenders and thus there was no scandal.

"Notwithstanding" stated that this is unfair in that the Popes directive is being take out of context whereas it refers to those priests that have been defrocked or laicized. Maybe so, but I don't think the outworking of the policy supports that interpertation. Therefore I asked him to show me the instances of where the priests that were moved to other locations were defrocked. I think the evidence shows that overwhelmingly they were not laicized, but just relocated and commendated and praised and put in positions of trust, often repeatedly after failings. This is the earmark of a prepetual "cover up" not just the clergys inability to deal with evolving medical information. The latest revelations from Law absolutely supports this conclusion and I am hard pressed to find any other interpertation of the Popes memorandum. I ask for a few examples of the lacized priests being moved when I see there is recrods for 325 offending priests in Boston alone that were not lacized.