As you have said (and I would agree), "There have been discussions, letters, articles, programs, announcemnt of programs, diocesan background checks, and so on." None of which rise to the level of a categorical, public, "no tolerance" condemnation of the practice. All true. But none rise to the level of a public anathema against sexual predators within the Catholic Church. We Reformers got one, so why not the pedophiles and other sexual deviants?
Take the recent case of the "sweaty naked jogging priest" Father Robert Whipkey. He was seen by an off-duty police office naked on the streets around a public high school, admitted to the same, offered a not guilty plea in court, and had his lawyers strike his prior admission from the official court records. His Archbishop, Charles Chaput, has yet to demand Whipkey be barred from the priesthood for his actions, nor has Chaput made any categorical statements to the media re "sexual predators will not be tolorated within my archdiocese". Instead, the archdiocese has sent Whipkey out of state, delaying the trial, for "some treatment". Five will get you ten than Whipkey gets reassigned to an even smaller parish (as if Frederick, Colorado isn't small enough), or to an administrative position out of public sight.
This is where the letter "sums it up pretty well" IMO:
However, the Catholic Church is deafeningly silent on the issue of clergy sexual abuse of children.No one connected with the church that I know of has addressed that issue with the laity. Is it a sin to knowingly assign pedophiles to a round of parishes? Is it a sin to pay victims to keep their mouths shut and then have them sign a statement that if they ever tell about their abuse to repay the money with interest?
For example, are you seriously suggesting that an ecumenical council be called or an infallible declaration be made to say what is already established, that such things are an abomination? There's no need to anathematize those who teach that it's okay to abuse children sexually, because there are not enough Catholics saying that.
Currently "zero tolerance" is so strictly practiced in the Church that publications like "First Things" are beginning to suggest that that's not fair either. A local priest was accused, and instantly removed from his church and, in essence, was disappeared into the St. Luke's program where, as one of my friends said, he was told that his could either admit that he'd done what he was charged with (to initiate 'treatment') or be deposed out of hand. Whatever that is, and my gut tells me the guys was guilty, it's not anything like due process. And your own posts could be construed as suggesting that an accusation is sufficient to show guilt. Should the bishops proceed on that basis?
And: are you saying that jogging nekkid (which, as far as I'm concerned sounds REALLY uncomfortable -- can you imagine? I hope he had a nice smooth stride ...) - while obviously crazy as can be, is the same family of wackiness or evil as the molestation of children? Should Chaput punish the guy before a trial? What's the current psychiatric doctrine on self-exposure, in terms of whether or not it's treatable" and what the outcomes if treatment might be? I think the nekkid jogging jiggling dangling priest muddies up the issue.
I've said this before, but, here goes: Note that this article reaches back more than 50 years ago for some of its cases. Consider that the theories of what constitutes paedophilia, what causes it, whether treatment can be effective or cure possible are not matters of theology but of psychology and psychiatry. And the teaching has changed, and continues to change.
Suppose the Pshrinks all said that paedophilia cannot be cured or amended and his bishop said, "I don't care what they say, I think it can be cured, I think it's cured in Fr. Groper here, and I'm sending him back into the field." We'd all howl with outrage.
How different -- and clearly it's somewhat different -- is it when the pshrinks are saying (as they were not so many years ago if our range is over a half-century), 'It CAN be cured; just 'treat' 'em, don't make a big deal, and turn 'em lose again," and the bishops said, "NO way! I'll depose them and have done with it." Would that be right?
IOW, the bishops took advice on an area outside their competence. Unfortunately it seems to have been crappy advice.
(If it's at all relevant, the area - and the related area of lady parishioners hitting on their priests, or vice versa - was not even mentioned when I was in Episcopal seminary between 1972 and 1976. Not MENTIONED! I was so naive it totally caught me by surprise.)
In related news, I suspect that heterosexual and homosexual monkeying around with pubescent and adolescent personnel is a different problem and may have a different prognosis than any kind of sexual monkeying around with prepubescent children. I think it clouds the issue to lump them all together.The DSM-IV certainly distinguishes them.
AND I say again, I succeeded (if that's the word) an Episcopal priest who had numerous dalliances with the "ladies" in his congregation. I, pardon the expression, laid the matter before my then bishop. The priest had moved, of his own accord, to another diocese. My bishop, a man of considerable heroism in the days when James Meredith was trying to enter U. Miss., completely buried the whole thing. Amazing!
SO, to sum up all this blather so far, I think that the US Catholic Bishops did very poorly indeed, though I think maybe not quite so badly as some say. I think they were completely unprepared and most of them panicked.
I also think that most people don't get the ties of affection and quasi-familial loyalty between bishops and priests. In that context I think we can see that a lot of Bishops fell into a kind of co-dependent and "enabling" pattern of response, complete with the characteristic denial.
(And from my experience, when your superiors "deny", you feel very abandoned and it's hard to come up with an effective and moral response.)
Five will get you ten than Whipkey gets reassigned to an even smaller parish (as if Frederick, Colorado isn't small enough), or to an administrative position out of public sight.
Define the bet a little more precisely and I'll take it. My guess is he'll never be in the parish again. I guess I don't think that it's SO terrible if he becomes secretary in charge of supervising trash removal in parishes.
However, the Catholic Church is deafeningly silent on the issue of clergy sexual abuse of children.
How many published letters and papers and procedures would, in your opinion, serve to show that the Church has NOT been deafeningly silent?
No one connected with the church that I know of has addressed that issue with the laity.
I say again, this guy must only read church statements if they're tied to a rock and thrown at his head. I don't look for this stuff and it seems to be all over the place.The only periodicals I read about Church stuff are First Things - which isn't even a Church publication, and our diocesan newspaper. and I read a lot o' stuff on FR. As far as I'm concerned, I've heard plenty about the issue. I'd say this guy's ignorance is culpable. If you stop your ears and shut your eyes, you can't complain that you haven't seen or heard anything.
Is it a sin to knowingly assign pedophiles to a round of parishes?
It depends on when and why it was done. I think if psychiatric professionals give as their professional opinion that this is a best practice, there's a strong exculpatory element of invincible ignorance. Nowadays, the ignorance would be culpable and the whole thing would be culpable. To me, at least, that's obvious. No special study involved.
Is it a sin to pay victims to keep their mouths shut and then have them sign a statement that if they ever tell about their abuse to repay the money with interest?
Personally I hate settlements of that kind, I have since I became aware of them in non-ecclesiastical matters. For one thing they lead to that kind of characterization. But if one goes to civil law against one's Diocese, I think one has to expect that kind of stuff.
Sorry for the ramble. This is one of those deals where a vague mass of unclear accusations about matters taking place over a wide area and for fifty years first needs to be sorted out before it can be discussed with enough coherence to be useful, IMHO.