Who in an organization should be held accountable when a sex abuse charge is reported but not acted on?
Running to the defense of “It is the Church, so the laws governing other organizations don't apply” is a very, very dangerous line to take. For it opens the door to continued cover ups and abuse. For example, how could your prosecute a polygamist sect where the head of the church was able to claim immunity?
As an aside, the statement that each diocese is a stand alone corporation is a very interesting one for ecclesial government. The risk is that you end up with each diocese being a stand alone church (which is the case in many areas). It also means the theology of the Catholic Church doesn't reflect the reality on the ground. It also begs the question of why the Pope is able to have authority to name the executives of said corporations (bishops) while claiming to not have any real authority over those corporations. I fear you, or any Christian for that matter, will not like how that gets decided in court one of these days.
This isn't unique to the Catholic Church. My own LCMS has some interesting corporate structure that was set up to protect property and has become very problematic. The unwinding of a hundred years of legal posturing is going to be very interesting.
Flip it around. They can only be held responsible, if and only if they are chopped up this way.
If they are subsidiaries of the Catholic church, and headquartered in the Vatican, then they all have sovereign immunity. :)
So, take your pick.
Wow! It’s complex.
I think certainly in cases of recidivism there is no question of the bishop’s culpability.
Failure to act on a reported case is also as culpable as can be.
On the other hand, HOW does one act? The short answer is, “Better than the bishops WERE acting, fer shur.” I know priests who now fear that to be accused is to be declared guilty.
In my parish the priests’ offices all have glass doors. Self-defense! When I think of what I might have been accused of when I was functioning as a clergyman, it scares me a LOT! I could still be accused, there seeming to be no effective statute of limitations.
I disagree with you, Alex, about the analysis of a sinful act v. an evil act. It’s the whole question of the insanity or “irresistible impulse” defense. BUT I would insist, because of what I think about freedom, that someone who was excused of SIN though he committed EVIL because some incapacity was exculpatory could not be said to be “well” until he had made such reparation as was possible for his evil act. That’s one of the saner aspects of AA: Yeah ‘alcoholism is a disease,’ but the way you get better is to take responsibility for what you did when you were sick.
I don’t see the problem about each diocese being its own church. Technically and precisely speaking, I am a member of the Church of Richmond, which is in communion with the Church of Rome.
I’ll tell you what would be interesting: Some hitherto “Catholic” bishop decides to strike out on his own and found the Church of Ralph. Wouldn’t that enrich the lawyers!