Replies

Going to the source article from which the NYTimes drew most of its information I found this:
Bill Kilgallon, chair of the National Catholic Safeguarding Commission, told Channel 4 News the church cannot just wash its hands of abusers.

He said: "I think that's particularly galling for victims [that the priests remain priests] because it could appear that that person has not been dealt with. But the judgement is taken, and it has to be exceptional circumstances, that because of the particular situation of that individual, it would be safer to monitor and control him in the community.

"In some cases it was judged that we have more control if they are retained in the clergy. The decision is taken not by the church on its own but in communication with police and probation...The important thing is to make sure that these people will not offend again.

"The church can't just wash its hands of these people and say we've taken them to court and we've sacked them as priests." [emphasis mine]

Among other things I'd love to know what was omitted by the ellipses. Regardless, that sounds plausible to me, or at least I can understand where it might be preferable in select cases to keep someone on the payroll (so to speak) to exert some sort of control.

Imagine the outcry, the legitimate outcry, if it turned out these... persons were living on public assistance or had disappeared completely. The public perception would certainly be that the Church was saying "hey, he's your problem now".

All that in mind, the hierarchy screwed up and in many cases the lay faithful screwed up; some maliciously, some out of complete stupidity, some out of mind-boggling naivete. We deserve to have every decision second guessed for a very long time to come.

One thing about my children that drives me nuts is they think "I'm sorry" solves everything and they get all indignant if there's actual punishment or (ahem) penance required after they force themselves to mutter "sorry!" It would be helpful if adults provided a good example and actually expressed sorrow and remorse by being SORROWFUL AND REMORSEFUL.

So, to those people throwing metaphorical stones, fire away and don't stop until every honest person can say "ok, that's enough, they're sorry now". The only warning I make is don't overplay your hand, don't exaggerate, be meticulously accurate. Otherwise you'll defeat your own case and the bad guys will get away with it.

Rome gives NO evidence of “being sorry.”

The few words Ratzinger spoke today about the sex abuse scandal he said on the airplane to a tiny captive audience away from crowds and dissent.

And who did he blame? Church officials.

lolol. Who is the #1 church official? Ratzinger. So HE failed his church. HE overlooked the scandal. HE made excuses for pedophiles. HE shuffled offending priests from one parish to another. HE covered up the evidence. HE refused documents to the prosecution...

He didn’t apologize. He said it was a sad event.

Yeah. That’s a sufficient band-aid. “Mistakes were made.”

Mr. Barnett reported that Church officials explained that only half of the 14 priests who were convicted of sexual abuse might eventually be dismissed. Three proposed dismissals have either been rejected by the Vatican or not pursued because of the ill health of the priest, and in four cases no moves have been made to remove the men from the priesthood.

This is why this won't go away.

Imagine the outcry, the legitimate outcry, if it turned out these... persons were living on public assistance or had disappeared completely. The public perception would certainly be that the Church was saying "hey, he's your problem now".

This is like saying to the judge after you kill your mother don't give me the death penalty I'm an orphan.

If your church treated these scum in the manner they deserve and showed a little more empathy for the victims you wouldn't get beat over the head with this issue.