Posted on 12/03/2010 8:13:32 AM PST by Alex Murphy
Although the vast majority were removed from ministry long ago....church officials say they have no way to monitor where the men are now. Nor do they keep official data on how many were defrocked, or stripped of their priestly status; how many were imprisoned or placed on sex-offender lists; how many are working; and how many are dead.
[SNIP]
Sister Mary Ann Walsh, a spokeswoman for the bishops conference, said there is only so much that can be done to keep track of accused priests once they are no longer connected with the church.
"There is a lot of concern, but there are limits to what we can do legally," she said. "We have no authority over them. Once they're gone, they're gone"....it's up to the individual dioceses how, or whether, they keep tabs on priests who are removed from the ministry or defrocked after sex-related allegations, Walsh said.
[SNIP]
"Our authority over them ends when they're laicized and no longer priests," [Susan Gibbs, a spokeswoman for the Washington Archdiocese] said. "Even if they're not laicized, they have the choice of walking away. They are adults. We're not a police force. We don't run prisons. We don't have mechanisms in a legal sense for controlling them."
[SNIP]
The church has a systemic history of "betraying" its duty to protect children, said [David Finkelhor, director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire], who has been cited by the U.S. bishops as an expert on child abuse. The church is a global organization with resources that a typical public school system doesn't have. And priests have an authority "far greater than teachers and coaches," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
...."Our authority over them ends when they're laicized and no longer priests," [Susan Gibbs, a spokeswoman for the Washington Archdiocese] said. "Even if they're not laicized, they have the choice of walking away. They are adults. We're not a police force. We don't run prisons. We don't have mechanisms in a legal sense for controlling them."
The original article ran more than 3,000 words, much of it being anecdotal accounts of encounters with accused and "missing" priests. I've done my best to hit all of the key issues with the excerpt.
I'm glad the Compost reminded me that private employers have such a responsibility.
What do they want to be done with them? Put them in stocks on the Mall for 10 years?
And tomorrow they will do another article about Timothy McVeigh and the skinheads in Idaho.
Then an article on gun violence.
Then an article on family compounds in Utah.
By the way, DADT is hurtful.
Then someone slips through the cracks, if only there were more outreach by the government.
You don't need to buy/read this paper.
The homosexual invasion of the church continues unabated. 2% of the priests are homos and serve to taint the entire organization—this is the working plan.
Look at what is going in state schools now as homosexuals preach their obsession to children as young as 6 years—these are first graders people and the deviants are preaching their sickness to them.
"Even if [an accused priest] is working in a Radio Shack and just hobnobbing with the boys who are hobbyists, he's a danger, and the church almost always knows more about these men than you and I ever will," McKiernan [Bishop Accountability dot org] said. "The church bears ongoing responsibility for the behavior of these people," even when they are removed from the ministry or defrocked.
I have no idea what they expect.
The Church doesn't run any jails. They want the priests laicized (part of which means lifting the oath of obedience priests take)...but then they want the Church to keep tabs on them afterwards. There is literally no way that can happen and any sane person should be able to see that.
I think entities like the Compost would prefer that the Church retains abusive priests. That gives them fodder to continue attacking the Church.
... in which we discuss yet another private employer who isn't responsible for the whereabouts and actions of disgraced former employees.
One of the sections I had to trim was this:
Independently compiling data about what happened to the men is nearly impossible. Reports by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops show that at least 5,768 priests were accused from 1950 to 2009. Although the church deems most of the allegations credible, the vast majority have never been proved, and many of the priests have never been publicly identified.While some want the Catholic Church to track priestly-predators, it sounds to me like the bigger request is simply for the church to reveal the names of all of the (guilty) priests. Obviously there are issues with naming priests who haven't been convicted in a court of law. I think the complaints come from cases where the church has been found knowing of the priest's guilt and said nothing, long before the secular courts reached a verdict.The same is true in the Archdiocese of Washington and the Diocese of Arlington, where local church officials put the tally of accused priests at 42 without naming all of them. (At least five additional men who belong to religious orders have been accused in the Washington Archdiocese.)
But a comprehensive list of names does not exist. Victims' groups often disagree with church officials on who should be included and maintain their own lists.
Yeah.
If they don’t instantly defrock a priest, they’re covering up.
If they defrock a priest, they’re covering up.
Presumably, they should bring back prisons in monasteries, like in the middle ages?
This is of course the same Washington Post that praised the homoerotic and anti Christian art exhibit at the Smithsonian.
Washington Post: the vast majority have never been proved...
Church: most are credible.
You: it sounds to me like the bigger request is simply for the church to reveal the names of all of the (guilty) priests.
I think the Washington Post is playing monkey games with the facts. The facts are facts, but the inferences are misleading. If the cases are credible, but unproven, it’s most likely that the priests have died. Don’t forget, nearly all of these cases happened between 1950 and 1980. If the case is credible, the Church reports the instance to the police. So the unreleased names you’re calling for are, contrary to the sneaky inference of the Washington Post, the non-credible cases.
Even when a case is found credible, but still is not proven, it’s not like the Church conceals the name. If the priest is laicized, the police still get the person’s name. Only if the person remains a priest can the church have any control over him. Yet isn’t it funny how outraged people are when the church refuses to laicize a priest until an investigation is completed? “OMG! It took THREE YEARS for the Church to laicize Fr. So-and-so!” Yeah, because the church can’t complete any investigation once the priest is laicized.
This is, of course, the same Washington Post that literally demonized Christine O’Donnell for thinking that Jocelyn Elders shouldn’t be teaching children how to masturbate, making it sound as if she called for a secret police force to monitor bedrooms to arrest masturbating adults.
It’s amazing the reverence given to the Post, and the NYT, by some conservatives, but only when they’re attacking the Catholic Church.
The well known priest happened to be the 'chaplain" at a facility for the mentally handicapped, and he had access to all the kids there.. well when this came out the 2 priests just "left " the priesthood moved to florida ... I along with many from the Cursillo movement knew these 2 priests and thought they represented Christ .. they just disappeared into the night ...free to keep up their activities..
""I have nothing but the greatest faith in this man," Msgr. Gernatt said. "He is a very original thinker, a very good storyteller, trying to teach the lessons of the Lord the same way Jesus told it, through parables."The people in this parish thought he was a kind, thoughtful man," Father Gernatt said. "And I believe so, too. I'll stand behind him. If this investigation proves differently, then we'll pray for his weakness." HIS WEAKNESS.. not his abominable sin..
The article you linked was dated 1993.
So these acts happened more than 30 years ago, correct?
So it does not count? Right, click your heels together and they disappear " So no harm no foul ..
Thanks for clearing that up for us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.