Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Aliska
Are you saying that perpetrators of crimes such as have been reported in our country should be shielded because of the risk that the charges could be trumped up?

No. I specifically mentioned that there is no excuse for covering up crimes. My guess would be that prior to the 1960s or 1970s, the sex issue was largely about priests involved with women. In the document in question, it has to do with solicitation of sex in the context of Sacramental Confession, entirely another matter altogether. The issue specifically involves a sacrilegous profanation of a sacrament by a priest.

The best remedy for preventing sodomy molestation cases is to follow Vatican directives and not ordain those with an orientation toward sodomy. Obviously, once crimes have been committed, such individuals must be removed from clerical life and submitted to the appropriate legal penalties.

If the issue is what did the Vatican have to say back in 1962, one would have to be alert to the fact that false charges brought against priests had indeed taken place in totalitarian countries. There was not an openly pro-homosexual movement in the Church in 1962. There is now.

57 posted on 08/07/2003 2:48:47 PM PDT by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]


To: HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity
#57. I think we are mostly on the same page about that, although the cynic in me tells me that things must have been covered up in the past when we didn't have the checks and balances in society such as we have in the US. Part of me thinks the media did a good thing by exposing the crimes, but part of me thinks the motive of the media was destructive in intent.

As to the 1962? document clearly prohibiting known homosexuals from being ordained, that thing could have been so obscure that few bishops were aware of it, but I sure don't give them a pass for what they obviously had to be aware of, nor do I give their superiors a pass for not running a tighter ship. Bishops resign in disgrace whereas their superiors remain unaccountable which is not how it is supposed to work in most scenarios. The superiors should have stepped in before it would become necessary for a bishop to resign in some of the cases, especially when it was in the headlines of all the daily papers. What were they cringing because the cat was out of the bag and didn't want any more scandal or do they really want to do the right thing? I can't know that, of course.

Priests involved with women do seem to be treated more harshly than the priests who abused children. With women, it was probably consenting adults more or less, but that won't fly when children are involved which is far more serious to my way of thinking. I'm not sure that it is true that priests who got involved with women were always kicked out either, some were probably transferred to remove them from the temptation until they reflected, etc., nor am I sure they should have been unless they get married, and then there isn't much else that can be done unless the rules are changed which I don't care to get into.

65 posted on 08/07/2003 3:13:36 PM PDT by Aliska
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson