Well, I don't know about you Presbyterians, but we Catholics typically consummate the marriage on its first night.
Now I don't know what you have in mind here, but it seems according to the above statement, a married couple in that circumstance would have to live celibate lives until they were both 18 years of age. 'Course that may be within your religion's design for marriage, but it certainly wouldn't fit ours.
Just another diversionary tactic from the fact that the federal government considers sex with someone under the age of 16 in all states to be statutory rape.
Last time I checked, unless they were straddling a state line in the act, doing that act on a military post, or doing that act in a national park, it wouldn't be any of the Federal government's business, would it? Or are you buying into the liberal meme of abolishing states' rights? (Pretty funny behavior for a FReeper, I must say)
Thus these pederast priests are committing rape against all their victims under 16.
And there we agree. They are pederasts (not pedophiles) and they have committed rape.
Unfortunately, most states have statutes of limitations that prevent prosecution of such an act a few years after the adolescent boy reaches the age of maturity. And, see, that's the problem with most of these cases. Most of them are being reported 15-30 years after the fact. Civil limitations statutes have long since expired, criminal limitations statutes are way out the window, and so on.
Sure, you have the Gagnon case and a few others that were truly serial rapists, but in most cases, there were a only a couple of victims and those victims were long in the past.
For example, since the initial report had its cutoff date in 2002, the following abuse reports have been submitted:
Pretty bad, huh?
Well, then take a look at when the alleged incidents were supposed to have taken place:
Well, I'm really sorry for the 398 victims who reported abuse in 2009, but for the 319 who reported abuse that allegedly happened 25 or more years earlier, really, what are they supposed to do about it?
I mean, shoot, 71% of the alleged perpetrators have already been dealt with (see above).
And, that's exactly what the policy is now and has been since the blowup in 2002.
8. When even a single act of sexual abuse of a minor by a priest or deacon is admitted or is established after an appropriate process in accordance with canon law, the offending priest or deacon will be removed permanently from ecclesiastical ministry, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state, if the case so warrants (CIC, c. 1395 §2; CCEO, c. 1453 §1)
They were wrong in how they dealt with it prior to that time, they admitted as much, and they have, apparently, fixed the problem (if you look at the figure 5 that I presented above, you will see that out of the 398 abuse allegations presented, a grand total of 6 were from that current year). In other words, consistent with the results that were found during the initial study, released back in 2005.
So it seems that the clerics that were ordained in the later part of the 80s and beyond are in pretty good shape. But we still have the ones that were ordained during the problem years (peaking in the 60s). From the original study:
So what else is the Church supposed to do? 71% were already gone (dead, laicized, or voluntarily left) before the allegation occurred, out of the remainder, their cases are being positively dealt with and tracked. If found that the allegation is substantiated, the priest will be removed from ministry.
As far as civil prosecution:
11. The diocese/eparchy will comply with all applicable civil laws with respect to the reporting of allegations of sexual abuse of minors to civil authorities and will cooperate in their investigation. In every instance, the diocese/eparchy will advise and support a person's right to make a report to public authorities.
If there is a criminal statute of limitations, can the State do anything for a case that allegedly happened 25 or more years ago? And if somebody didn't report it 25 or more years ago and just decided to do so now, what, realistically, is the Church supposed to do more than she is now?
The funny thing is that had the bishops followed the directives of the Vatican, such as this one issued in 1961, there wouldn't have been this problem. Included in that directive:
- Advantage to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers.
- A candidate who shows himself certainly unable to observe religious and priestly chastity, either because of frequent sins against chastity or because of a sexual bent of mind or excessive weakness of will, is not to be admitted to the minor seminary and, much less, to the novitiate or to profession. If he has already been accepted but is not yet perpetually professed, then he should be sent away immediately or advised to withdraw, according to individual cases, no matter what point in his formation he has already reached.
- Very special investigation is needed for those students who, although they have hitherto been free of formal sins against chastity, neverttheless suffer from morbid or abnormal sexuality, especially sexual hyperesthesia or an erotic bent of nature, to whom religious celibacy would be a continual act of heroism and a trying martyrdom. For chastity, in so far as it implies abstinence from sexual pleasure, not only becomes very difficult for many people but the very state of celibacy and the consequent loneliness and separation from one's family becomes so difficult for certain individuals gifted with excessive sensitivity and tenderness, that they are not fit subjects for the religious life.
The fact of the matter is that a large percentage of the bishops, both here and in Europe, decided decades ago to delve into modernism and preferred the advice of modern psychologists rather than sound doctrine. That went as far as admitting people into seminary who had no business being there. They then continued to follow the advice of modern psychologists who believed that such perverts could be cured and reinstated. Couple that with the fact that the Church hierarchy was scared to death of public scandal (especially since this new generation of progressive Catholics was just *loved* by the *right crowd* on the cocktail circuit), and the two factors resulted in a whole lot of bad priests either feigning contrition and promises not to do it again or being genuinely contrite, but unstable enough to actually follow through on what might be good intent.
And then you have the 150 or so really, really bad ones out there. Why and how that egregious a situation could have happened with those priests is beyond me. St. John Chrysostom is reputed to have said that the road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops. I have no doubt that several yards of that pavement was laid with many of the bishops in those years. I just pray that the current crop turns out to be better.
You want a mea culpa? Well mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima flippin' culpa! Guess what: maybe the Apostle knew what he was saying when he said that we have this treasure in earthen vessels. I am not making any excuses for it. The leadership knew what was right and chose to do what was expedient at the time. And now we're having to put out the fires.
And now? Well, we had our big scandal in 2002...and Europe is having theirs in 2009 and 2010. I certainly hope they learned from our mistakes.
Now, Dr. E., I know that none of the above is going to make even the slightest impression on you. And I don't really care all that much. You're just doing God's work, even though you don't likely realize as much. The seed that has fallen on stone must be scorched. and if the heat for the scorching is coming from you, so be it. If it doesn't come from you, it's going to come from somebody else. And if somebody doesn't have their shield to deflect the darts, so be it.
(My fellow Catholics should really take the time to read the first few chapters of Job)
But you keep doing exactly what you're doing, Doc. The same sun that scorches the seed that sprouted on stone also helps the seed that is planted in good earth grow deeper roots.