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.
The guy had already been removed from active ministry, and had no contact with kids at that point.
You understand that, right?