Posted on 04/11/2010 5:39:31 AM PDT by marshmallow
You are showing prejudice against the Catholic Church because you are falsely accusing the Vatican of having covered up the scandal and of having obstructed justice in the cases of priests who were accused of misconduct with minors. Again, your ignorance and your bigotry are showing. Heck, you won’t even capitalize the words “Catholic Church,” which are a proper noun.
This whole argument against the Pope and the Vatican in their handling of the sex abuse crisis boils down to the claim that they have not done enough, which is a pretty weak claim. There is absolutely NO evidence that the Vatican ever returned guilty priests to ministry or covered up the scandal. If there were, that evidence would have been brought to light years ago when the media uncovered the scandal.
Let me be clear.
If this were a school board; and it were saying
“Don’t hold the superintendent responsible, the principal has the authority to fire a pedophile teacher”, I would find that argument empty.
If another teacher chimed in and said, “That the teacher wasn’t fired is not because of pedophilia but because of the seriousness of the contract they made when they became a teacher- and we need to reinforce how serious contracts are” , I would find that argument specious.
My guess is that there are a certain number of priests attracted to the priesthood because they believe the vows will provide them a certain safety railing to prevent them from continuing or progressing into a wide array of behaviors that are not consistent with their faith.
Some of these behaviors are sexual. Some might be financial. Others might be substance abuse related.
My guess is that this happens in non Catholic churches as well.
My guess it, that for a percentage of priests (since this is about priests) their commitment to their vows works. for some it works for a time, and for others it works for their entire life.
But a percentage of these priests fail at their vows. Perhaps they find a way to live a lifestyle that is not consistent with poverty. And perhaps those failings can be addressed without the removal of the priest.
Perhaps those failings are sexual. And perhaps in some cases even those failings can be addressed without the removal of the priest. (consensual sex with an adult female who is not a parishoner for example).
But, when those failings involve an under-age person the breach is so egregious that society will not accept it and the church should be so offended at the sin that they have no stomach to find offense with the accuser.
The article at the beginning of this thread tried to make the case that it is precisely because of the sanctity of the vows that such a priest could not be released from them.
Bull!
The vows that are so ‘sancrosanct’ have already been violated.
I have been in a church where sexual misconduct by a leader has been dealt with. It was done in a manner where the person accused was propped up and supported. I railed against the issue then, and I rail against it now.
Defend the Catholic Church’s handling of this all you want, but to think her behavior in the past or even at present will ever be viewed as the prototype by which other organizations should respond to such perversion is a pipe dream.
The church may well be handling the situation less badly today than she did in the past, but it still a pretty poor performance.
Keep in mind, it is the church who has paid millions in settlements, not the accusers (I mean victims).
That the Catholic Church would have a percentage of ministers who have acted deplorably is no surprise to anyone; not because of any insult to the church, but because she recruits from humanity, which is riddled with sin. I don’t judge her for having priests who have violated their vows- that’s not the the sin of the Church, but the priest.
That she continues to defend her sluggish and half hearted response, and reinforces the perception that she may no longer turn a blind eye, but she’s certainly above criticism, leads me to say; if she were a school, my kids wouldn’t be going back - just like the church we left who responded in a similar manner.
When one holds themselves to be light in the darkness, one must be willing to answer why darkness is harbored.
I don’t disagree that much of the press coverage is opportunistic; but I think we would disagree heartily over who created the opportunity.
Will Wallace
Some of these behaviors are sexual. Some might be financial. Others might be substance abuse related. My guess is that this happens in non Catholic churches as well.
It doesn't happen in business - not for long - because a person gets caught undermining the organization by destroying customers, clients etc - and their ass is out the door.
The Church and some nonprofits have provided shelter for those most eager to harm the innocents. That's wrong.
Those who provided cover and protection for evil to flourish, are also evil.
That's sort of like complaining that the garden club treats the criminal acts of their own members as a garden club issue.
Of course they do, they're the garden club, not the police.
What do you think the church is supposed to do, set up their own jails when the police won't take action? That would go over great. /s
We had a case here where the diocese was sued over abuse committed by a man who had been removed from the priesthood, after he had been removed from the priesthood and hired by the city to work with kids! The church told the city and the cops that this guy was a risk, and they did nothing.
Know who had to pay 6 or 7 figures to settle the case out of court? Not the city. Not the cops.
The guy had already been removed from active ministry, and had no contact with kids at that point.
You understand that, right?
Very true, but the Church was also infected by the spirit of the age -- the peak period of abuse cases coincides with the craziness of the rise of the radical left (remember the "Student Strike"?), the "Sexual Revolution" (with all that involved, including the growing acceptance of homosexuality, "if it feels good, do it", "a marriage certificate is just a piece of paper," the Pill, etc.), the rise of the drug culture, and undoubtedly more that I've tried to block out (or the headaches will come back!).
Just adding a little local color here . . . they were horrible times, not just in the Church!
In what must have seemed to be an outpouring of irrefutable logic, you stated: “That’s sort of like complaining that the garden club treats the criminal acts of their own members as a garden club issue.
Of course they do, they’re the garden club, not the police.
What do you think the church is supposed to do, set up their own jails when the police won’t take action? That would go over great. /s”
You know- if the garden club caught a member planting a pre-purchased plant in violation of their rules; that’s a garden club issue.
If the garden club caught their treasurer embezzling $25, and decided to keep it internal- that’s a garden club issue.
But if the garden club found that one of it’s officers was committing a little hanky panky with one of the junior garden club members: well that’s not a garden club issue.
We wouldn’t expect the garden club to set up a jail- we already have them. But if the garden club decided that keeping this person away from junior garden club members was all they needed to do; well, they would open themselves to both civil and criminal recourse.
No one expects the church to be the police- just to turn the miscreants over to the police.
Will Wallace
You said: The guy had already been removed from active ministry, and had no contact with kids at that point.
You understand that, right?
My response:
Who cares.
He was still a priest.
And the church’s refusal to remove him from the priesthood is indefensible.
No contact with children, huh. Never walked near a playground, huh. Never ventured near a schoolyard? Never had any contact with a child after that?!
Give me a break. Are we basing that on his character or on the sanctity of his vows?!
And don’t you think being a priest would allow him to get past a lot of parental defenses- easier say than some other middle aged guy that approaches kids on a playground.
I have no idea if any of the above scenarios happened, but the church made herself liable for them when it did not separate this man (and many like him) from the ministry at the first confirmation of his transgressions.
Will Wallace
Check you mail
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.