The 'fire' of Crisis Can Purify - (Vatican representative's view of Church Crisis)

The 'fire' of crisis can purify, Vatican ambassador tells embattled U.S. bishops By Joe Feuerherd ST. LOUIS, Mo.

The U.S. hierarchy should not "sit idle or … retreat to a place of isolation" as they address the sexual abuse crisis that has been used to discredit the church, Pope John Paul II's representative told the U.S. bishops June 19.

"We all know that we are going through difficult times and that some real problems within the church have been magnified to discredit the moral authority of the church," Apostolic Nuncio Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo said in an address that kicked-off the bishops' two-and-a-half day semi-annual meeting.

The "fire" resulting from the crisis has the "power to purify" and could "become a moment of grace" for the American church, said Montalvo.

Though Montalvo did not explicitly address the sexual abuse crisis facing the church, his comments were the only mention of the issue, however elliptical, in the portion of the June 19 meeting open to the press.

All the predators - Catholic, Protestant, atheist, social workers, shrinks, teachers - should be jailed. I prefer having them eaten alive by rats.

All institutions (religious and secular) would rather cover up abuses than deal with them honestly. I think it is fair to say that the Roman Catholic problem was magnified by secrecy and orders from the pope to cover it up (starting with Louisiana, long ago). There was a flair up of coverage about Catholic abuse and transfers at least 15 years ago. It was featured in many papers, but it never became a national issue. I am glad it has now.

The cowardice of bishops (of all denominations) was displayed when the Phoenix bishop struck and killed a carpenter and then ran. He not only ran but also did the most he could to avoid the police. He claimed he never saw blood and hair on his windshield. He asked a staffmember to have his windshield fixed.

The bishops said that abuse was no longer an issue. They were dealing with it. The cover up continues.

Your last response is still based upon innuendo and conjecture.

To say that 350 priests were discharged last year alone, and that the scandal is mounting, is not enough to condemn the entire ecclesial body.

350 priests is not even 1% of the total in pastoral service in the U.S. If you extrapolate from those 350 (a number I will confirm, in any case) to an assumption that the majority of priests are guilty of the same thing, and you do so with no other data, that is prejudicial and unwarranted.

I won't disagree that many bishops have done grave harm to individuals and the Church. But at the same time please recall that Abp. Law, perhaps the most visible of offenders, was merely following in most cases the advice of psychiatrists treating offenders in the Boston Archdiocese. I will also admit that preventing scandal at great cost to victims is not right, but it is also not accurate to protray most of what happened as unthinking or deliberate. In Boston in particular, medical advice prompted returning offenders to pastoral service.

What if this had happened to any but the Catholic Church? Well, it has, and in greater frequncy. Those stories did not become big because those churches did not have the power or wealth of the Catholic Church.

Promoting the stories of Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, and myriad of sectarian ministers charged with the same sins and crimes won't sell papers or damage public morality nearly to the extent that sensationalizing a Catholic Church scandal may. You have been led to believe that the problem is far greater than outside, objective data has so far revealed. Can harboring that angry belief help anyone?

In any case, know God, know peace.

I will also admit that preventing scandal at great cost to victims is not right, but it is also not accurate to protray most of what happened as unthinking or deliberate. In Boston in particular, medical advice prompted returning offenders to pastoral service.

You've got to be kidding! A priest molests a young boy, a report is made to the bishop, and, in almost every case, the bishop did nothing!

Only when it appeared that a priest had a "problem," (i.e., he raped more than one boy), was he referred to psychologists.

I don't think this was unthinking at all; it was one hundred percent deliberate!

Bishops moved priests who had molested young boys, allowing them to continue to molest.

Read that again.

If a priest had an affair with a woman, and then another, he would be asked to reconsider his vocation.

These guys? "Here Father. A chance for a fresh start!"

Your attempt at de minimis in comparing Catholic clergy to others is a smokescreen.

It is not the number involved, after all, but the way the offenses were handled.

In the case of Protestants, they were turned over the law.

In the case of Catholics, they got a nice, shiny new assignment.

I agree that any Catholic priest molesting a person under the age of consent should be turned in to the police and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I think there is not a punishment in our judicial code that can adequately address the crime perpetrated by these men. The Church may excommunicate, after all they deliberately besmirched the trust and sacred duty of the priesthood.

The actions of the bishops and (esp. Cardinal Law) the leadership of the Church in reaction to the reports of abuse are reprehensible. See above retribution.

I also wonder that these priests were not reported to the proper law enforcement agencies by victim's families upon discovery of molestation. Certainly they would be prosecuted much like the local Baptist minister in my community. I also wonder at the motivation of these families who accepted what I consider to be "blood money" from the Church in exchange for their silence who now cry foul. Taking a bribe is just as bad as offering one and to do so makes you a willing participant in collusion with the offending party.

The liberal movements within the Catholic Church (sexual liberalism, socialist organizations etc.) that became so popular in the sixties/seventies and dominated many seminaries and organizations certainly had a role in attracting such sick people to the church. The fear of exposure by the Church's PR people most likey exacerbated it.

To equate this scandal to the totality of the Church however, is inappropriate and is not unlike equating the totality of America with its history of slavery, Jim Crow laws and continuing charges of racism. This is just one part of the Church, an ugly part, that does not balance the view of a Church that has noble priests, faithful, hardworking organizations (Catholic Charities), scholars and writers and schools that actually educate our children, not fill them with leftist propaganda and unearned self-esteem without the assistance of public funds. The Church that has inspired the work of great artists.

As a Catholic mother, I am vigilant with my son's time and exposure to our priest (unearned and unjustified--he is a kind, selfless man who has never done anything to deserve this approach) but I don't believe in taking chances with my child. On the other hand, I also transmit my admiration for his work and my son looks on him as a role model or even a hero. Father is very careful to always have other church personnel present when he is with the children as well.

It is my hope and prayer that the criminally ill men in the priesthood are purged and their leadership be peopled with men of principle, courage and righteousness. I have the same hope and prayer for the teachers of our children and the leaders of our country.

Shielding homosexuals (and lesbians) from preying on young adolescents is not the sole purview of American Catholic Dioceses. See the Supreme Court of the United States, NAMBLA, GAYPRIDE, The American Psychiatric Association, the United Way, The American Free Press, The American Library Association, the Village Voice and The State of California, any organization or school that has banned the Boy Scouts from meeting on their premesis, and the Democratic Party, Hollyweird, -- and other gay/lesbian organizations that I don't make a practice of becoming familiar with. I think it was Cher who really turned my stomach when she thought it was "a wonderful experience" that her daughter "discovered" she was gay when "exposed" to it at 17 by her lesbian nanny.

A priest molests a young boy, a report is made to the bishop, and, in almost every case, the bishop did nothing!

99% the cases did not involve young boys.

Priests who violate a trust, who break their vows of chastity, do serious wrong! Nevertheless, anger reserved for pederasts or pedophiles is not used appropriately against the vast majority of incidents involving priests, at least in the U.S. Again, 99% of the incidents involved teenaged boys (13 - 17 years). These were not individuals who were totally unaquainted with sex or sexuality (ever heard of MTV, VH1, rap music, Madonna, etc., etc). Liberal media may want to convey the idea that adult men preyed upon little boys, but in 99% of the cases, it was adult men seducing adolescent young men. In Europe, where in many countries the age of consent is 16, many of these cases would not even be illegal.

...the bishop did nothing!

Again, accurate facts reveal this not to be essentially true. What happened, in the majority of cases, was therapy, leaves of absence, and, with psychiatric advice, a return to pastoral duties. Now we know, unfortunately, that this is not effective action. The sadness is, it may have been unavoidable, if only church law had been observed thirty years ago.

Canon law prohibits the ordination of homosexual men. That law was ignored for a long time in a large number of dioceses. It will not be ignored any longer. 99% of the cases were homosexual in nature, not pedophilic. Had canon law been observed, this would not have happened.

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.