Now that it is over I ask What has been accomplished? Which Monestaries in which country will the guilty priests be sent? Will they show up agian after shuffling the deck so to speak?

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), June 14, 2002

Answers

The front page of the world news in my paper is dominated with this issue. "No more, plead victims of abusive priests"with a photo of Mr Martin and David Clohessy hugging. The rest of the page leads with "Bishops decide to get tough with abuse" it says the Bishops will decide on either zero tolerance or something that stops just short of that. Either way all abusers would be kept out of Parish work, though past one time abusers might be able to remain priests. Sounds like alot of grieving and healing occurred during the conference and the testimony of victims hit everyone hard. Jean, what was their final decsion- zero tolerance? I remember you often saying "wait till the Dallas Conference " -are you satisfied with the outcome for the Church in America?

-- KG (csisherwood@hotmail.com), June 14, 2002.

It is now 1:30 am and I could not sleep, so I watched the entire process in Dallas (C-SPAN). I am very disappointed in the outcome. To me, it is very obvious, that this process took place because they had no choice due to the anger of the catholic people, the media coverage, and the anger of the victims.

One Bishop, whose name I cannot remember as there were so many, said "I heard the 4 victims speak yesterday and even I got tears in my eyes. I was very moved." They should have been sobbing as I was when I heard those stories - especially about the one where the girl's mother took a seminarian into her home and treated him like a son (while he was raping her daughter and she had no idea)

I heard bishops say that they must forgive these priests, help them, make sure they get the help they need.

THEY DON'T GET IT!!! They don't seem to understand that child molestation is a crime. I heard nothing about reporting to the authorities...seems to me, they still want to handle it their own way, except that they will have a committee of lay people to decide on the seriousness of the allegations.

One very humble, obviously holy bishop, at the end, suggested that all Bishops, priests and Cardinals have a spiritual renewal whereby they fast, and have a holy hour every morning and every night, pray with the congregations in the church, etc...He said, "We must remember who was hurt the most here, Jesus Christ and we must repent and show Him our sorrow.

This Bishop wanted that included in the final document. Bishop Gregory said it was too 'long' to include in the document as the document has already been approved.

Cardinal Law, of all people, said.."Well, maybe we can include a small portion of that amendment in our prayer meeting before we go home."

Maybe, just maybe, if all of our priests, Bishops, and Cardinals had more spiritual renewals, and more focus on Jesus, just maybe they wouldn't be in the trouble they are today.

They seem to get off the real focus - how to handle child molesting priests. They still seem to think these priests can be helped. They don't seem to get the reality that it is a criminal matter.

Zero tolerance is the only outcome I was looking for and they didn't come through. Let us see what the rest of the world has to say, especially the Catholic people.

I am convinced that Bishops and Cardinals live in an isolated world that is so far removed from the real world and real people that they really don't understand what they are dealing with here - they cannot possibly understand what is going on and not vote for zero tolerance. MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), June 15, 2002.

KG - Again if I may let us see what the next few days bring in verbal responce from the Bishops. OK? As for myself I work with children who are termed slashers - those who self-mutilate. My point being there is not a thing in the issue that is new to me at all.

MaryLu - your tears are heard believe me by others on this forum who have a heart of flesh. Below the anger of many here I feel is pain and weeping. I am very much interested in what the socalled main core of this forum have to say. I suggest you read and re-read their input.

These men are monsters to me plain and simple hiding and being hidden by their ilk in superior positions. Again as I had pointed out several times they will orate and patronize but remember they will defend their Corporate Church to the death. After al lit is their bread and butter.

I asked my 18 year niece what she thought of this and she said " SICK - They are not following Christ! " From the mouths of babes comes wisdom.

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), June 15, 2002.

MaryLu your last comment was awesome. They are too far removed. Jesus walked with the poor, the sick, the sinner, he was right there and always concerned about the people his sheep because he is the Good Shepherd. How can these leaders be good shephards when they are not concern and focused on the sheep.

kevinL.

-- Kevin (k4laps@attbi.com), June 15, 2002.

Have any of you actually read the full content of the Bishop's conference and decisions? Then if not, then let's stop this Sunday morning quarter-backing here. They have made a decision and it will stand as is and from what I can see it is reasonable and is based on what limits they have without disrupting the legal secular systems. What do you want to do with these men? Send them out in the streets and rape some more? The Bishops are containing these people in such a manner that they will no longer have access to children -PERIOD. And if they are to be handled by the secular legal system then it will be so. What is it you all want - BLOOD? Then why don't we just drag Christ out again and kill him all over again? This is exactly what you are doing here.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 15, 2002.

Fred,

Please let other people have a say. You don't have to agree, but please don't start yelling at everyone about this. Just give your opinion, but respect other's.

David

PS; It is not Sunday morning quaterbacking! The saying is "Don't be a Monday morning quarterback" Because Fred, on Monday morning 99.9 percent of the games are over for the weekend. It is easy to say what to do, 'After the game is over."

David

-- David (David@excite.com), June 15, 2002.

MaryLu writes:

"THEY DON'T GET IT!!! They don't seem to understand that child molestation is a crime. I heard nothing about reporting to the authorities...seems to me, they still want to handle it their own way, except that they will have a committee of lay people to decide on the seriousness of the allegations.

They seem to get off the real focus - how to handle child molesting priests. They still seem to think these priests can be helped. They don't seem to get the reality that it is a criminal matter.

Zero tolerance is the only outcome I was looking for and they didn't come through. Let us see what the rest of the world has to say, especially the Catholic people.

I am convinced that Bishops and Cardinals live in an isolated world that is so far removed from the real world and real people that they really don't understand what they are dealing with here - they cannot possibly understand what is going on and not vote for zero tolerance. MaryLu"

MaryLu, "you just don't get it!" I wouldn't use such strong words...except that they're your words. Regarding the judgment that the bishops are "out of touch," I wonder how you can so confidently conclude this. Do you know any bishops? I want you to understand why I think you "don't get it."

1) Zero tolerence. What does this mean? Does this mean that an accusation of a questionable look from a priest toward a minor deserves immediate laicization of a priest? Does it mean that the priest should merely be removed from all duties, while still keeping his title? Even snap acknowledges that this phrase "zero tolerance" is a slogan. Action is more important than slogan, because even this slogan needs parameters in which to bound it.

2) Comparitive issues. Has the federal government implemented a "zero tolerance" policy for school teachers? According to a CNN statistic this morning, 13% of all school children are sexually abused by school staff in this country!!!!!!!!!! Thirteen percent!?!?!?! I never would have thought that CNN would be the media source that actually admits that there are evil people all over the place. Based on those numbers, I fear ever sending my children to public school. Who in their right mind wouldn't fear the perversion of a public school system that allows one out of eight children to be raped by school employees?

3) Who needs to act? I, as a Catholic, want my government to change the statute of limitations so that all abuse victims can be prosecuted. Sexual abuse is a crime that the criminal justice system must protect children from! I'm in support of SNAP's efforts to improve the deficiencies in our government's sexual abuse laws.

4) How to punish? Well, I can only speak of my diocese, which didn't need a media scandal to push them to implement an effective system for dealing with priest abuse. Guess what: the diocese encourages those with allegations to go to the police. Maybe there's a bunch of dumb Catholics who actually see the Church as a replacement for criminal justice. This is a foreign concept to me. Crime must be punished by civil authorities...I hope that no one will be confused about this now that this scandal has occured.

Here's an important statement from Mark London of SNAP:

"If we've learned anything in the past 20 years, it's that the church cannot police itself."

Well there it is...it's the civil authorities responsibility to enforce civil laws. Though sexual abusers may have hidden behind some lie that the Church can enforce laws of the state, now people know that it is always the responsibility of the civil authorities to prosecute criminal offenses.

Here's some more evidence that the government is an institutional obstacle to justice for victims:

"But London, who said he was abused as a teen in Minnesota, said many of the cases civil investigators are now evaluating are too old to be prosecuted, underscoring the need for laws to be changed.

Statutes of limitations on prosecuting child abuse vary dramatically by state: about a dozen have no time limits for prosecuting most sexual offenses against children.

Roughly a dozen states specifically require clergy to report suspected abuse, and about 16 others have laws saying, in broad terms, that anyone with knowledge of abuse should report it.

Several legislatures have begun considering changes to their laws on reporting abuse in light of the waves of clergy molestation scandals that have shaken the Catholic church in America this year.

David Clohessy, SNAP's national director, said the church wields significant influence over state lawmakers, making a lobbying effort that included Catholic leaders critical to helping victims. SNAP is launching a similar campaign in Canada, where the church also faces abuse claims."

Let's hope that the failure of our government to protect all victims of sexual abuse is quickly remedied.

5) "They don't get it"...MaryLu, if they "didn't get it," they wouldn't have invited SNAP and representative victims to spend four hours lecturing them on the abuses. I watched each of the speeches. They were powerful testimonies from the four victims (including the director of SNAP himself). In addition to the televised victim accounts, there were a number of other abuse victims who spoke to smaller groups of bishops. If the bishops wanted to cover the issue up, they would not have invited these voices to the conference. If they wanted to cover it up, they would not have allowed C-SPAN to broadcast the conference to the entire country.

What will the bishops do? Here's my opinion, based on what I heard from the conference:

a) Bishops will uniformly implement offices to handle the spiritual and emotional needs of abuse victims. Recall that one of the SNAP speakers worked at the Chicago diocese's office for helping abuse victims.

b) Bishops will improve the training of all individuals who deal with children (volunteers, employees, and priests). This type of program has been in effect for all those who work with children in my diocese, for at least a few years (possibly longer).

c) Bishops will uniformly implement programs that teach children at an early age that adults aren't "always right," and equip the children how to deal with inappropriate behavior. I think the name of a program that SNAP encourages is called "Safe Touch."

d) Bishops will encourage those with allegations to file allegations with civil authorities. Again, I don't know why any diocese wouldn't have such a policy, nor do I fully understand why an individual would believe that the Church has some special exemption from civil authorities. That said, it seems that the individuals who shared their stories had been manipulated by their abusers. I'm sure that this is the pattern of most if not all sexual abusers.

Jean, of course you believe that it's those "sexually repressive" conservatives that are to blame. I'm sure that you'd wish that we could radically overhaul the church to fill it with like-minded liberals like you. What's ironic is that almost every allegation of sexual abuse is against liberal advocates! Those bishops and priests who side with you are the ones who have forgotten Jesus...they are the evil monsters. You can keep pretending that that's not the case; but people like liberal Archbishop Rembert Weakland and Geoghan have consistently shown animosity toward Catholic orthodoxy. Even entire seminaries have been linked to the sexual abuse scandal. At the liberal St. John's Seminary in Boston, SNAP claims that 5 out of 77 men from the class of 1960 have sexual abuse allegations. Jean, these abusers aren't the guys who find orthodoxy important. They are the guys who have your penchant for inventing their own path.

I know that ignorant individuals will read all that I have written and still claim that I'm in denial. The views expressed above are not new. I have already shared much of the same sentiment before. Hey, if demanding and expecting action from bishops is being in denial, then "oh, well."

I don't remember who wrote it; but, a little while ago, someone wrote that no matter what is said and done in Dallas, there will still be plenty of people who claim that it fell short. These were prophetic words. To many people (including some in the media), their prejudice blinders keeps them from seeing that Catholics are also compassionate human beings.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), June 15, 2002.

Mateo

From the both of us. you are right on the nail.

AMEN-AMEN-AMEN.

Blessings to you Brother.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 15, 2002.

Maetoo and Fred, you are in denial, for sure. Perhaps if it was one of your kids, you would feel differently.

We are all sinners and I am not judging the sins of the fathers, that is God's job. BUT, when sins are criminal in nature, they should be reported to the proper authorities and there is nothing in the new documents that indicate the bishops are going to do this.

Child molestation is a crime, and yes, child molestation everywhere should be addressed and reported. School systems do have a zero tolerance, teachers are out immediately and investigated, once proven guilty their license is revoked...Period

Child molestation in most cases is not reported and, therefore, nothing can be done about it.

Let us not compare our sins to the sins of others. We 'know about' these sins and 'crimes' and they are not being treated properly.

For some reason, you and Fred are taking these comments personally and feel you have to 'defend' the church no matter what. I am not attacking my church, nor am I attacking the Bishops personally. However, they are not handling this situation the right way. They, in my opinion, are still more concerned about protecting their priests than they are about the victims here and that is wrong.

Bill Donahue, of the Catholic League, and a staunch defender of anti- catholicism and catholic bashing, is just as angry as everyone else and he is always defending the church. In this case, he is not. I am not alone in my thoughts.

MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), June 15, 2002.

As input from the members of this forum are posted it will become evident that a line is being drawn which I see as those with compassion and those who will intellectualize their " faith. "

The question I ask " Is this the Church Christ wanted or is it a collage of idioms concepts and ideals?

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), June 15, 2002.

Catholic League president William Donohue commented on the final charter that the bishops approved today in Dallas:

“Every fair-minded person will say that the U.S. bishops made much progress in dealing with the issue of child sexual molestation by priests. But progress is not the same as a satisfactory conclusion.

“The draft document that seemed to give a pass to those priests who previously abused a minor on one occasion has been altered to reflect a more realistic understanding of what lay Catholics want.

“But there is a problem regarding the rights of the accused. It appears that the charter may short-circuit some due process rights. When an attempt was made to say that all ‘credible’ allegations will be passed on to civil authorities, it was defeated. When an attempt was made to say that all ‘non-frivolous’ allegations would be passed on, it was also rejected. Does this now mean that there will be one standard for priests accused of child sexual abuse and one for the rest of the nation? Surely it would have been better for the bishops to simply assert that they will abide by the laws in their states and localities.

“While the bishops dealt firmly with molesting priests, they did virtually nothing about those bishops who enabled offending priests. This omission is the most glaring exception in the charter. While no one realistically believed that the bishops would start pointing fingers at their colleagues who played musical chairs with child molesters, it is nonetheless outrageous that they exculpated themselves altogether. Unless some resignations are forthcoming, lay Catholics will not be satisfied.

“On the issue of the relationship between theological dissidence and behavioral deviance, nothing was done. This, and all the attendant forces that have driven the scandal, remain on the table. This issue must be forthrightly addressed if real progress is to be made.”

MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), June 15, 2002.

MaryLu

Again Please listen to me-- The BISHOPS are doing what they can do in this situation and keeping things as contained as they can. I cannot understand why in the Name of GOD that you cannot see this. The priests who are accountable for these offences are going to be stripped of the roles within the public and given jobs that will not cause further harm to the public and others and WILL be closely watched. What is it you want? To execute them? You need to control your anger and stop letting the anger of the media and others from controlling you. This decision is a VERY difficult and courageous one that they just made and it is going to still require approval of the Vatican too. LET IT GO.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 15, 2002.

MaryLu writes:

"BUT, when sins are criminal in nature, they should be reported to the proper authorities and there is nothing in the new documents that indicate the bishops are going to do this."

MaryLu, there are a number of legal privileged confidentiality that exist in the US: client and attorney, patient and physician, or communicant and priest. Assuming that you don't advocate removing these Constitutional rights, then we're on the same sheet of paper.

My diocese already has mandated a policy that works! Priests are reported. If there were a single allegation of abuse in the Diocese, I promise you that the Washington Post would have been happy to speak up.

So we're in agreement, all dioceses should implement a policy that works, preferably similar to one that is used in my diocese, precisely because it works.

But, you have already layed down your opinion. It seems the bishops will never "win you over." The fact remains that the bishops aren't alone in their responsibility. I want better criminal justice. Taking the collar of an abusive priest doesn't protect children; creating laws that lock-up abusers (with or without a collar) protects children! I guess that's just the opinion of a guy who's "still in denial."

MaryLu writes:

"School systems do have a zero tolerance, teachers are out immediately and investigated, once proven guilty their license is revoked...Period"

Now, MaryLu, you're in denial. CNN presents a figure that should have you concerned. One out of eight children are raped by school employees. Are you telling me that once a janitor has raped a child, that he or she will never be allowed into any school system to work? I get the impression that the efforts to track sexual abusers has fallen short of its goal to keep these people from finding work in different school systems. Maybe "compassionate Jean" would offer up that we should simply kill all sexual abusers. That seems to be his solution for other societal problems.

The simple statistic of 13% should show you that there's a bigger problem for society to deal with. A problem that the education system hasn't solved despite your faith in its "zero tolerence" policy. Fact: adults rape children.

Just as the Catholic Church has dioceses with effective policies and others with ineffective policies, so too the public school systems (that's at the county level) have diverse policies. Consistent with the 13% figure, some policies are effective. Others certainly are not. There is no universal "zero tolerance" policy in the public school system. And it's obvious that the existing efforts of "defrocking" of teachers hasn't been effective.

Here's a quote from CNN:

"'I think what's going to force it to be addressed is lawsuits, just like the Catholic Church,' said Larry Bloom, a psychology professor at Colorado State University and an expert in evaluating sexually abused children. 'They are going to do something about it when a school gets sued and has to pay money, lots of money.'"

I guess that lawsuits will be need to get the public school systems out of their denial.

MaryLu writes:

"Perhaps if it was one of your kids, you would feel differently."

Regarding my opinions, no they wouldn't change. I want the state governments to do their jobs and enact laws whose enforcement will reduce the incidence of sexual abuse!

By your logic, maybe your forgiving views about the public school systems' 13% sexual abuse rate (failure rate) would change if one of your children were raped by an employee of a public school. Do you see that this hypothetical situation shouldn't change our feelings on a solution?

It's interesting that people often criticize the Catholic Church for tacitly allowing draconian criminal justice, as it is perceived to have been carried out in the middle ages. Guillotines, hangings, and a wide range of other sadistic government-sanctioned punishments. I don't know how much of this is true, but I will say this. If these sadistic, inhumane tortures were championed by anyone, it would have been the those who sympathized with the victims. This is the "pied piper," using our emotions to lead us down this road. He wants to implement punishment that will make us feel better, even if the path he leads us on does nothing to increase virtue, nor to decrease this vice. This is the risk of siding with people like Jean who allow themselves to be guided by their capricious emotions.

The woman who represents justice isn't a feeling, emotional person. She doesn't judge with her heart. She wears a blindfold so that her own biases don't influence her as she measures justice empirically on a scale. Emotions simply blow winds over the scales and render them useless.

I wonder, MaryLu, if you can see that we should look for a solution. That's what SNAP wants. They don't want to make the bishops pariahs. They don't want to make priests pariahs. They don't pretend that priests have some monopoly of sexual abuse. They don't want slogans--they want effective solutions. And the bishops are listening and helping be a part of the solution. I hope that you will be, too.

Mateo.

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), June 15, 2002.

MaryLu writes:

"Child molestation in most cases is not reported and, therefore, nothing can be done about it."

While we cannot do anything about unreported abuse, we can fight this problem. SNAP advocates "safe touch" programs that help children recognize and act appropriately when they are abused. As I see it, this program both helps prevent future abuse and help encourage abused children to report previous abuses.

I think that Kathy mentioned that she taught her children herself to protect themselves. We are the "ground troops," and we all should follow her example. Based on the testimonies at the conference, these abusers know how to recognize vulnerable children. We need to get the word out and not wait for the "government" or the "Church" to implement a policy. Even as we follow Kathy's example, we should encourage these classroom programs to reinforce the message, and to help get the word out to the children who are not being instructed by their parents.

More from the guy in denial,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), June 15, 2002.

The way I see it.......IF a person reports that they have been sexualy abused, it MUST be reported to the proper authorities for further investigation. (I say IF, because victims do not always report it, and some do not report it right away.)

If the investigation proves to be true, the abuser MUST deal with the proper consequences.

Stripping priests from their roles and giving them some other duty, is not a guarentee it won't happen again. The Church would be taking a huge risk by not reporting this with local authorities.

There is also a report that can be filed against a person who sexually assualts a person or child.

The abuser MUST have judicial consequences, and it must be on file, because chances are it will happen again.

I just don't understand what there is to think about.

Things are always easier said than done, but unless you have worn the shoes of a victim, you can never fully understand the seriousness of the damaging effects sexual abuse has on a person.

I would think that "how to handle this" would be a no brainer.

God Bless the children,

-- Kathy (sorry@nomail.com), June 15, 2002.

Kathy

I think you forgot one thing here. The Bishops are not i repeat NOT hiding these men at all. They WILL be reported and the Church will let the authorities deal with the cases as they appear. The defrocking being done will be the first step in the full process of each violator. It is and will be quite obvious to many why a man is defrocked immediately and the case will be brought to the forefront. The staes have yet to do their part in re-evaluating their currentlaws and procedures and so forth. These things do not happen in a minute. It may be some years before a solution can be found. Remember where are we going to put all of these people. The jails are already over crowded and the public has refused to build more now in N.E. alone for years and they need better and more modern prisons there. N.H. is dealing with the same problems. Here in Illinois they are battling now over the closure of several prisons and early release of many prisoners only because of shortage of revenues to support them. The Church is trying to eleviate theis problem too. You all seem to think that this is a simple thing to do. Well it is more complex than you will ever realize. Where are we going to put these people. There is simply NO PLACE LEFT to put them. It is more serious than you will allow. You cannot let your emotions control you and the political effort or else it will definitely get totally out of hand for sure. Do we need an anarchy here in this country now? No, we don't. But the way things are going now surely one could happen. Let the courts and the bishops work it out for crying out loud.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 15, 2002.

Hi Fred,

I agree with you in that, the laws need to change as well. I do realize that laws do not change over night and that this is obviously something that the Church has no control over.

However, I am not suggesting that the Bishop's would be hiding these men or priest if you will, but if these cases are not reported to local authorities then the Church could find itself in the same position it is in now.

Fred, I know that overall this problem will take some time to sort out. But as for the Church, I think that if an allegation is made then it should be handed over to the local authorities for further investigation, therfore the outcome is in the hands of the law, not the Church. This is what I am referring to when I say "I don't understand what there is to think about".

Also Fred, a person is innocent until proven guilty. So if an allegation is made against a priest, he should be moved from his current position with children to a postion where he has no contact with children. If the allegations against the priest prove to be false by way of the law, he continues in the priesthood. But, if the allegations prove to be true by way of the law, well then his crime is in the hands of the law and not the Church.

God Bless,

-- Kathy (sorry@nomail.com), June 15, 2002.

Kathy

That is basically what the Church has been doing for the past few months to begin with. They have turned to the states with the evidence as it comes forth. The defrocking is a start of that very process. That is what the package the Bishops has in the past days in Dallas agreed to. The first step is to identify and remove these persons from direct public contact and let the leagal people do the rest. That will take time to happen and it will. They have the people on the legal lay personel doing that now. i am gettig weary of this impatient crowd out there that think things will happen in 48 hours that is just getting way to far out and tiring to hear. Personally I am sick of the way people just can't seem to think of nothing but outright revenge like the old vigilante days. It is pure madness and very un-holy behavior that is happening now. Let's now move forward and let the legislators figure things out. All this pressure is going to do more harm than good.

Blessings.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 15, 2002.

Mateo, I agree with your assessment of the bishops' meeting. I watched much of it on Thursday and Friday (on EWTN).

MaryLu, I know that you watched it on CNN Thursday, but your comments lead me to believe that you must not have watched it on Friday, because some things you wrote were the opposite of the facts. Or perhaps you watched it on something other than EWTN and were thus not the benificiary of some helpful Catholic commentary? You must have missed the fact that the bishops voted down several attempts to amend documents in ways that would have left them open to accusations of trying to be dishonest, unwilling to obey the law, etc..

I am a huge supporter of Bill Donohue, and part of what you quoted from him actually undermines your argument. Another part tends to support you, but there Bill is mistaken. He complains about two things:
(1) Bill is unhappy that the bishops did not make their agreed-upon documents speak about abusive bishops, but only about priests and deacons. It was made clear (though Bill apparently missed it) that the handling of abusive bishops is only under the jurisdiction of the Holy See. The bishops are not permitted to investigate each other, etc.. It stands to reason that it must be done at a higher level and by civil authorities. On Thursday, abusive bishops were told to turn themselves in to the papal nuncio.
(2) Bill was unrealistic to bash the bishops for failing to attack the underlying problems here -- which most people realize are doctrinal dissent all over the place, priests acting out homosexually, and sick seminaries. Somehow Bill was not aware of the fact that the (mostly elderly) bishops put in two straight 16-hour work-days, lacking any time to devote to those underlying problems on this go-round. The highest priority item was to get a mandatory national policy written and agreed to -- going into effect immediately. Now there will be time to thoroughly hash out all the incredibly controversial stuff about dissent, homosexuality, and seminaries -- which will perhaps be addressed by strong action items at the next bishops' meeting. OK, I admit that the bishops could have scheduled a five-day meeting, instead of a two-day meeting, so that ALL these topics could have been addressed. I don't know why they chose not to do that. I hope that there was a good reason.

Anyway, I recommend that everyone (myself included) stop speculating so much and take a look at the two documents that the bishops wrote and worked very hard to amend and adopt (unanimously, I think). I am going to give three links -- two to the agreed-upon documents and one to an "index" page that has links to about ten major addresses given on Thursday (including the victims' statements).

Here is a link to the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People.

Here is a link to the Essential Norms for Diocesan/Eparchial Policies Dealing with Allegations of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Priests, Deacons, or Other Church Personnel.

Here is a link to the Index Page.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 15, 2002.

Fred,

Alot of mistakes and bad judgements have been made. We can't change what's already been done. It is unfortunate that people have been hurt along the way. The only thing we can do now is move forward, accept responsibility, implement changes, learn from our errors and call on our Lord our savoir. He will lead us the way, He will help us see the light at the end of the tunnel.

This scandal has been the Lord's way of telling us to wake up! He wants us to watch over his children, the children that we have neglected to protect.

I know in my heart that something positive will come out of all of this.

I will instruct you and teach you in the way you should go; I will counsel you and watch over you. Psalm 32:8

I will lead the blind by ways that they have not known, along unfamiliar paths I will guide them; I will turn the darkness into light before them and make the rough places smooth. These are the things I will do; I will not forsake them, says the Lord. Isaiah 42:16

"I know the plans I have for you," declares the Lord, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future." Jeremiah 29:11

I believe this Fred.

God Bless,

-- Kathy (sorry@nomail.com), June 15, 2002.

I apologize if I offende anyone this morning, however, this is just not an issue I can discuss without getting emotional.

Let us see what the future brings, and from this point on this is a discussion I would prefer not to participate in. I can't seem to discuss it rationally and I come out sounding like a catholic-basher, or anti-bishop or whatever and I realize that I am offending people here..

MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), June 15, 2002.

Fred - Your thoughts on not letting emotions rule is wise indeed. My thoughts go to 1750's Paris France when the subject of seperation of Church and State was brought forward. To this day it is still being discussed.

Your thoughts on where do these perhaps less then 500 men go - well there is always room. - The one problem is cost of elderly inmates which they will be in short time.

In addtion they would be considered the lowest of the inmate population. Skinners (those who molested females) and diddlers (those who molested males.) They would be totally isolated from the general population at extreme cost.

Therefore perhaps and I say - perhaps - The Church take on the role of caretakers and foot the bill which sadly once agian comes from the collection plates.

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), June 15, 2002.

Mateo - your input was superb until the last signing off. No need for insecure arrogance with Kathy at all I feel.

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), June 15, 2002.

Sorry - the question I ask is due to the " lawful " process from start to finish involves 6 - 12 years - who supports the priests who are alleged to have done this? We are in a bind due to Church system that has in effect held itself above the law.

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), June 15, 2002.

MaryLu - you are allowed your emotions here I hope. To bind them up is of course not healthy. This thread - my thread - is not limited. I pointed out there will be a dividing line - those with hearts of flesh and those who will intellectualize this very hurtfull issue.

Pease And Well Being

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), June 15, 2002.

Jean:
''Your thread'' is pure bile and demagoguery.

You have leapt at the opportunity to spray your skunk lotion on all priests and bishops of the Catholic Church; not from concern for children, but because you are their enemy.

Thank God you are so transparent. No thinking person will mistake your motives. What other voices might have expressed with passion and for love of neighbor, comes in malicious form in your voice. You can't hide your hatred for Christ's Church.

Thank you for being a true anti-cleric. We see clearly what your agenda is, without any window-dressing. Some anti-Catholics are devious and calculating. You are openly vile toward the Catholic Church. Better a devil we can understand than a ''friendly'' devil. Merci, mon ami!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), June 16, 2002.

Jean writes:

"Mateo - your input was superb until the last signing off."

My last signoff ("the guy in denial") was lighthearted sarcasm. Nothing wrong with that...

Jean writes:

"No need for insecure arrogance with Kathy at all I feel."

I don't know exactly what you mean. My only brush with Kathy during my post was to mention that she is an example worth emulating. I haven't commented on any of her posts; but, in my mind, I feel that she wants to solve the problem and I stand by the contributions that she made to this thread.

Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), June 16, 2002.

Mateo - I apologise as my skin has become sensitive on this forum. Again my apology.

Eugene - You are lucky to be a net person only for if I got my hands on you I would slap you silly. Your lack of breeding shows all too clearly. Remember you were the one who was molested when a youth and I treat these people in real life. I believe you are simply what is termed an ingrate. Loud mouthed with a hollow head.

Boy your fortunate to be net only believe me. Keep you infantile mind directed from me please.

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), June 16, 2002.

Mateo I dont wish to become involved in this issue because I am not an American Catholic and as an outsider it looks like the Church has responded well to this "crisis" to me. However as a high school teacher I find your argument concerning "comparitive issues" concerning.

Lies ,Damn Lies and Statistics rings in my ears as you repeat over and over again that teachers are abusing 13% of students, "dont send your kids to public schools, 1 in 8 will be raped". I never picked you as one to latch onto the first stat you can find and treat it as gospel. I only ask you to do further research on such figures and be aware that "suggestive eye contact" can often make up a high % of such "abuse".

Also the answer to your folowing question should be obvious and I am surprised you asked it. "Are you telling me that once a janitor has raped a child, that he or she will never be allowed into any school system to work?" What are you getting at, surely all school employees- teachers or cleaners should be vetted by criminal checks. Do you wish for sexual predators to work in schools? God Bless Courtenay

-- KG (csisherwood@hotmail.com), June 16, 2002.

Good morning, Mr. Bouchard.

This is indeed a touchy subject. I know you are a very good man. But threatinig to "slap Mr. Chavez silly" is taking it to far!

I always look at you as my rolemodel, but now I am confused. I am seeing another side to you sir. You are starting to sound like a "bar room brawler". :-)

God bless you.

David

-- David (David@excite.com), June 16, 2002.

"In fact, you'll never be welcome around here. Chris, you've turned into an evil influence."

"You are openly vile toward the Catholic Church. Better a devil we can understand than a ''friendly'' devil. Merci, mon ami!"

Recent responses to forum regulars from the satan detector. Keep up the productive work! Helps a lot!

-- Chris Coose (ccoose@maine.rr.com), June 16, 2002.

Mateo,

Thank you for your kind words. :-)

Peace,

-- Kathy (sorry@nomail.com), June 16, 2002.

Hi Kiwi Golem,

Your post shows me that you "get it." I'm glad. Here's my comments on your post (a bit out of order).

"Lies ,Damn Lies and Statistics rings in my ears as you repeat over and over again that teachers are abusing 13% of students, "dont send your kids to public schools, 1 in 8 will be raped". I never picked you as one to latch onto the first stat you can find and treat it as gospel. I only ask you to do further research on such figures and be aware that "suggestive eye contact" can often make up a high % of such 'abuse'."

I'm really glad that you mentioned "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics." Though I haven't read the book myself, I became aware of its message years ago. Here's the book and another related one on Amazon.com. For those who don't read the book, I recommend reading the reviews.

Damned Lies and Statistics: Untangling Numbers from the Media, Politicians, and Activists by Joel Best

It Ain't Necessarily So : How Media Make and Unmake the Scientific Picture of Reality

Believe it or not, I hoped that someone would catch the foolishness of my taking a statistic from CNN and going crazy with it. I really did see the 13% figure. My underlying points:

1) Anyone who questions the CNN figure that I cite must put in to question the ability of CNN to report facts accurately.

2) I would guess that anti-Catholic people must have cringed when I parroted this CNN statistic. Anyone who questions CNN's accuracy on this statistic might realize that CNN doesn't get it right all the time. They might realize their own error in harshly judging the Catholic Church because of the "opinions" and "statistics" that CNN and others push down their throats.

3) Illumination: they might realize that a biased news source can unjustly distort reality, especially in the case of the media's negative portrayal of Catholics priests and bishops. Hey, many media sources are anti-Catholic, they're bound to show a skewed version of reality.

Kiwi, if I remember correctly, you commented that the US media is lopsided on issues of Israel/Palestine. This is actually the symptom of a larger issue--the US media often negatively portrays all Arabs as violent, irrational, manipulative, etc, etc. Arabs are often the "bad-guy" in movies.

Practicing Catholics are often portrayed as hypocrites, emotional lightweights, mental lightweights, and at times superstitious people.

And I'm an Arab Catholic. Well, Arabs and Catholics are far from being alone in this respect. It's no surpise that media bias encouraged negative stereotypes of blacks in the US South, Jews in Germany, just as many in the current media have a bias against Arabs and Catholics. Biases are everywhere.

My point of bringing up all portayals (even fictional) is that often TV viewers learn about others by "meeting" fictional characters (a sit-com's priest character, a TV drama's bishop character). Then, they look at the CNN statistics and say, "Hey, that sit-com priest was a hypocrite who couldn't deal with his sexuality. Maybe other priests are equally immature regarding their sexuality--these statistics show how the priesthood is made up of a bunch of immature hypocrits." In the second sentence, I phrased it with the implicit assumption that the "actor-priest" is a priest--he's not. There is an interplay between fictional characters and TV news.

As a side note, I met a woman a few years back who believed in a stereotype about priests similar to the one just mentioned. I asked her how many priests she had met in her life--answer: zero. That's not counting all of the fictional priests that she "met" on TV.

Regarding the "suggestive eye contact," CNN explicitly mentioned that their 13% statistic represented real sexual contact between school employee and student.

Kiwi writes:

"Mateo I dont wish to become involved in this issue because I am not an American Catholic and as an outsider it looks like the Church has responded well to this "crisis" to me. However as a high school teacher I find your argument concerning "comparitive issues" concerning."

I have friends who are public school teachers also. I don't mean to make school teachers pariahs, just as I don't expect others to make priests and bishops pariahs. We've got a societal problem, not one that is limited to priests or teachers. Even child sexual abuse is a subset of a larger problem, sexual abuse. And sexual abuse a subset of all abuse.

My statement on my concern for public school teachers (and employees) was hyperbole. I'd refer back to what I wrote regarding her advice--educate children to better protect themselves and identify if and when they are abused. This is advice for a child's relationship with all adults, not just priests and public school teachers. I apologize if my intent wasn't clear.

"Also the answer to your folowing question should be obvious and I am surprised you asked it. "Are you telling me that once a janitor has raped a child, that he or she will never be allowed into any school system to work?" What are you getting at, surely all school employees- teachers or cleaners should be vetted by criminal checks. Do you wish for sexual predators to work in schools?"

Regarding my question about a janitor who is guilty of rape, I answer my own question immediately after asking it. I wrote:

"I get the impression that the efforts to track sexual abusers has fallen short of its goal to keep these people from finding work in different school systems."

Abusers fall though the cracks.

These protective measures are meant to protect future victims, and they never directly protect the first victim of abuse. In addition to strengthening these background checks, the children really should be taught by everyone (parents, school, church, TV, etc) how to prevent the first abuse from a zero-time offender.

Sorry for the long post. Enjoy,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), June 16, 2002.

You make a very tough impression at a continent's length, Jean. I think I ought to move to Southeast Asia or Russia, where you can't reach me. Poor me-- if Bouchard ever gets me in his range, he'll kill me. --Haha! You slap a nice fight. You write a bad verse.

You can't complain for the reception you get here, Jean. Tonight in your dreams you can beat me to a pulp. In the same dreams let's see if your anti-clerical attacks are more realistic. You might take a remedial course, not only in child psychology but in creative writing.

I am net only, and you are mouth only, Bouche. --Not much Medula Oblongata.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), June 16, 2002.

Once agian Eugene you have brought soiling into a thread which was based on questions/anwers/projections. Again I ask you direct your infantile mind away from me.

Should you ever have the experinece of spening time in a psychiatric forensic ward and see hell on earth where Christ still attempts to save his flock then contact me.

As to killing you - how very sad - your reply is indeed.

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), June 16, 2002.

Thanks Mateo Courtenay

-- KG (csisherwood@hotmail.com), June 16, 2002.

I went to the Padre Pio Shrine today and while in confession, I told the priest about my anger concerning this scandal and he said, you're anger is justified. I am angry too and 'all' catholics should stand up and fight for justice. I can't go into the rest of my confessional, but I want those of you who think I am wrong, that it is okay to be angry about this.

During mass, the priest spoke about it as well. He had the most beautiful speaking voice I have ever heard! I, as well as others, were mesmerized by this man. We felt like Jesus was talking to us, and I could imagine how it must have been for people to listen to Jesus.

His message was very powerful and he said we as catholics must get back to being reverend, we must get back to our old ways, going to confession more frequently, having respect for all of the sacraments, etc., etc., etc... and he talked about the scandal - boy, did he talk about the scandal!!!

So, for those of you who think I am being pessimistic, think again. I will listen to a priest like I heard today over anyone on this forum who wants to attack people for speaking the truth! He said there is absolutely no excuse for this behavior to have been allowed to go on for all these years, and there is no excuse for covering it up. As faithful catholics, we should not stand by and let it happen ever again.

This priest, who is a very holy man, and is often seen on Catholic television, said that the scandal is a disgrace, and is the worst sin against Jesus Christ than any other - for a priests to break their vows in such a horrible fashion is not the acts of priests at all, but self-serving heretics. He went on to say that his has gone on for 40 years or more and cannot be fixed in 2 days.....these men should be defrocked and should not be allowed to remain in the priesthood in any capacity....etc., etc., etc.....

I can't remember everything he said, but he said the same things I did only in a more articulate manner. He used words I can't even pronounce, let alone spell.

So, Eugene, Fred, Mateo, and anyone else who thinks I was wrong for being angry, who thinks I am Bishop bashing, or a heretic, or whatever, I was affirmed today for thinking what I do about the scandal and how it is being handled....by two priests, two holy order priests...so, say what you want.

Priests who abuse children and those who covered it up should be removed from the church....or resign.

I rest my case.

MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), June 16, 2002.

Hi, MaryLu.

You didn't mention me by name. You did mention Eugene, Fred, and Mateo. They can defend themselves, but I will just say that my impressions has been that they agree 100% with what you just reported was said by the priest you heard today. If you thought that E, F, and M thought differently, I believe that you were misunderstanding them.

I think, rather, that the negative feedback you were getting was about something else that you did not mention at all in your new message. My impression (and perhaps that of the other guys) was that you were really lashing out badly at the bishops, saying that they did a poor job this week, saying that they must be intent on preserving a cover-up, etc.. That idea (if you had it) is false, and I am sure that the priest who spoke so well today about abusive priests would agree that the bishops did some very good things this week -- i.e., a good start. I think that the recent criticism that made you so uneasy was a case of people (including me) speaking up to defend the work that the body of bishops did in the past week in Dallas.

(Now we'll see if Eugene, Mateo, and Fred confirm what I have said or if I have misunderstood their point of view.)

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 16, 2002.

I only said to MaryLu not to let her anguish turn into hysteria. We all feel the very same disgust and the need to cleanse our parishes.

MaryLu is on record as saying she's sympathetic to the poor innocent priests who must suffer the shame along with the evil ones. I asked her to try to become more detached. If this makes her feel we attacked her: ''Like I heard today over anyone on this forum who wants to attack people for speaking the truth! She said, ''There is absolutely no excuse for this behavior . . .'' Did we make excuses?

In what way was she attacked? Because I said she should avoid hysteria? Could be MaryLu wants to feel hysteria; and all who don't want it are just failing as faithful Catholics??? Just a few hours ago, MaryLu suggested in so many words the bishops don't realise child molestation is a crime !

MaryLu said, ''As faithful Catholics, we should not stand by and let it happen ever again.''

Yet, nobody here said we ought to ''stand by'' and let it happen again. She is under the impression all of us want it to happen. That's why she seems to think she was ''attacked for speaking the truth.''

I'd hate to think what kind of reaction she would have if someone REALLY attacked her. I suppose MaryLu means none of us are faithful Catholics. MaryLu needs to get more sleep; her condition is alarming. I speak from genuine concern.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), June 16, 2002.

MaryLu

In one of your posts above you wrote "BUT, when sins are criminal in nature, they should be reported to the proper authorities and there is nothing in the new documents that indicate the Bishops are going to do this." I watched much of the convention on EWTN and I saw Bishop Gregory on "Meet the Press" this morning. He said that according to the policy, anyone who has been abused by anyone employed by the church is to first report it to civil authorities, and then report it to the Diocese. He said ANYONE who works for the Church, lay or ordained.

I also saw a press conference with Bishop Gregory before the convention started and he stated that he doubted that they would be able to cover every single issue involved with this scandal, and that for the sake of the conference they would only be dealing with the issues of abuse by priests. He stated that this would be an ongoing conversation between the Bishops in the U.S. and between the Bishops and the Vatican.

Also, let's not forget that there are laws in this country that apply to all people. In many states there are criminal investigations going on to discern whether or not there have been cover-ups by Bishops. If any of these Bishops are found guilty, they will be indicted of criminal activity. Based on that information, it will then be the responsibility of the Holy See to decide whether or not those Bishops will be removed from their positions. It's not so much in the hands of other Bishops to decide that or not. I'm sure that any Bishops found guilty would feel pressure to step down anyway.

I understand your concern because I am a mother myself. Let's not forget that there is a God in the midst of all of this. As mothers the best thing that we can always do is to pray. It is our responsibility to protect our own children. We must prepare them and teach them what to do in potential abuse situations, with priests, teachers, strangers, even relatives. We have to teach our kids not to put priests, or anyone for that matter, on pedestals, and that they are fully human like anyone else.

God Bless You,

-- Marcella (marcellack@yahoo.com), June 16, 2002.

John G,

I appreciate your post. You have properly understood my point of view.

MaryLu,

I agree with your priest. He may not have said it in these words; but you have every right to be angry for any failures of bishops and priests who perpetrate or hide those who perpetrate sexual abuse. But, you have no right to expect us to accept your broad-brushed claims, as you did early in the thread

"THEY [Catholic Bishops] DON'T GET IT!!! They don't seem to understand that child molestation is a crime."

As I've already responded, this is patently false. It is an ill-informed generalization based on irrational emotion.

You and I are both angry about this problem. The question for us is, "What should we do with the anger?"

Your anger has led you to make pariahs out of the bishops. History teaches us what terrible things result in this kind of blind, irrational rage. The fruits of irrational anger is never justice.

My anger has led me to look for solutions. As an engineer, it's "in my blood" to solve things.

As an illustration of my solution-oriented nature, I admit that I've had to temper this "desire to solve" with my fiance. When she tells me a problem, I don't jump in and try to solve her problem. I lend her my ears unless she asks explicitly for advice...it's a classic problem of male/female communication. Maybe that's our problem here. :-)

Anyway, I hope that you'll consider what I have written through the thread. After I write such direct posts, I just don't know how someone could characterize them as being "in denial." My expectations for this--just like everything else--is to cut through the BS and arrive at a solution.

Finally, you wrote:

"Priests who abuse children and those who covered it up should be removed from the church....or resign."

These priests may get the boot from the church; but that should be a footnote in the priest-abuser's punishment. Any sexual abuser should be punished by the civil authorities. The Church is not a surrogate source of criminal justice.

Marcella,

Awesome post...

In Christ,

Mateo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), June 17, 2002.

Mary Lu I share Genes wishes for you to rest,you sound as though this is really tearing you apart, hope you are ok and you can find peace on this difficult issue.

"Entertain no worry, but under all circumstances let your petitions be made known before God by prayer and pleading along with thanksgiving. So will the peace of God, that surpasses all understanding, keep gaurd over your hearts and thoughts in Christ Jesus." Phil 4.6

God Bless Courtenay

-- KG (csisherwood@hotmail.com), June 17, 2002.

MaryLu

I pray that you will let the Holy Spirit help you to understand the reasons the Bishops made the decisions they had to make this past week as they did. They are not in any way avoiding the sex abuse issuses in any way but reacting to it very strongly. It is a show of full acceptance and the clear proof that they will not tolerate abuse by the literal isolation of tehse people and the actual stripping of tehir rights to perform the ordained priesthood. The will be kept within the walls of the Church as inmates of the Church and forbidden to be in actual contact with the parishioners in ALL forms. The action of the Church will not in any way impede the justice system of this country,in fact it is designed to enhance it in the only way the Church can until the states have the judicial power to process their cases and decide what laws need to be created as you may not be aware of the fact that some states actually have little if not no strong laws yet to deal with these things to date. If you take the time to do a bit of study you will find that some states have sex abuse laws that merely punish these people with a few months in jail for the first offense tried. And this is not based on number of abuses. So the punishment the church is providing is far more severe than the one being provided by some states in this country or for that matter in the world.

So i beg you to see these basic reasons and to understand the Bishops have thought these things out well and are really trying not to violate any laws in our US Constitution out of the fact that the ALCU and the Supreme courts of this country still can act and defeat the actions of the bishops willfully at any time. you have to realize that this is only the beginning of the total process for the bishops as it is something that they never had to do before in the history of the church.

Blessings.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 17, 2002.

If I may step in for Mary Lu.

It isn't easy trying to get your message across the way it is intended to be when you are angry.

Mary Lu is a compassionate person, thus her anger over this whole ordeal. I don't think it was her intent to attack.

It might have been easier to talk to Mary Lu about the feelings she has due to the outcome of the meeting, than to tell her to go take a much needed rest. She is obviously having a difficult time with this.

I think she came here and expressed her anger for support from her forum brothers and sisters. By this, I mean help her to understand. I don't think Mary Lu can see the light at the end of the tunnel.

I think Mary Lu was let down by the meeting, came here for support and let down again.

We are all in this together, we are all affected by it and we should all come together to help each other through it.

As Mateo would say......just my 2 cents.

Peace and God Bless,

-- Kathy (sorry@nomail.com), June 17, 2002.

Kathy

What is it that maryLu wants. The Church totake these people and without a proper trial just simply execute them in a firing squad? I am having a VERY difficult time trying to fathom her reasoning. She seems to be unaware of the fact that this issue is not a simple one to resolve and it takes time to deal with as the secular system itself is partly to blame too. The laws on this issue are also in serious need to be updated too. All the Cardinals and Bishops can do for now is try to deal with this in the manner they understand. They are not secular legalist. They are Spiritual legalists only. That is the real crux of the issue. MaryLu and many others seem to have a huge problem trying to understand the differences. The Church is trying to be careful not to damage her long traditions too. It is important that care and understanding is exercised. I don't know what else to say BUT PRAY for it all to be in the past in the manner that GOD will see fit. He sees all of it too. The Holy Spirit is in control right now.

Blessings.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 17, 2002.

I need to rest????

Do all of you need a rest when you react emotionally to some things discussed on this forum? I do not not to rest. I am fine, thank you.

Maybe they need to open a "resting home" for all disturbed catholics.

The issue does upset me, but I can do nothing about it. I guess Sean Hannity needs to rest too - he was quite upset about it the other day and refused to discuss it any further with his audience who 'attacked' him.

I am really okay, thank you all for your concern. I have seen how some of you react to less serious issues on this forum than this one, and I have not told any one of you that you need to rest.

I went to confession on Satruday at the Padre Pio Shrine, spoke to the priest for about l/2 hour on my reaction to this subject and it has brought me peace.

MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), June 17, 2002.

Fred,

I don't think Mary Lu is looking to execute the sinners. I don't even think she is referring to the court cases.

I beleive what Mary Lu wants (Mary Lu correct me if I am wrong) is a policy that has no room for sexual offenders or clergy who are aware of sexual offenders and do not report it. I beleive (and I could be wrong here) that in one of the statements made at the conference that the Bishop would determine if the allegation were serious enough to report it to local authorities. If this is the case, it is not a "Zero Tolerance" policy. And furthermore would leave room for this to happen all over again in the future.

Anyhow Fred.....I'm just trying to understand everyone's point of view, to which we are all entitled.

Peace,

-- Kathy (sorry@nomail.com), June 17, 2002.

Kathy,

For some reason, You 'unerstand' me so well. You know what I mean.

Thank you and God Bless you for you are very special, indeed. MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), June 17, 2002.

Mary Lu,

I hope I wasn't putting words in your mouth, but this is the impression I was getting from your posts.

And you are very special too Mary Lu!!

God Bless,

-- Kathy (sorry@nomail.com), June 17, 2002.

Eugene,

You, too, constantly, misinterpret things I say and you have a way of bringing out the worst in me.

I think you are very unkind towards people on the forum, not just me. You pride yourself on being this very good catholic and yet you speak to people with such viciousness. May you take a look at the speck in your own eye before attacking others with your vicious sarcasm.

I think it is best that I just ignore your comments from this point on. Do you really think you will bring people to Jesus the way you speak to them and 'about' them?

You act as if I was the only catholic who was so angry about the scandal. (not going there again) Well, I have lots of company, Eugene. So, whatever comments you made to me, you made to thousands of other catholics all over the country, including God's priests, the good and faithful ones.

I think it best that I ignore you and I wish you would do the same.

Blessed are the peacemakers because they shall be called the children of God! Maybe we can all think about this one! MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), June 18, 2002.

Dear MaryLu,
Goodby and thank you. I feel badly that you never understood me, but it's fine. I can live with it.

You think my attitude is cruel, but I have great love for all others, particularly the good Catholics. You are included in this number. My words to you were never judgmental. I said your hatred for the evil priests was visceral and had you in an over-heated temper. If I was wrong, I'm sorry.

I also said truthfully, the vast majority of priests of the Church are holy, decicated followers of Christ. That inclusdes bishops.

You were too adamant for my taste in condemning them; as if nothing but our children affected your emotions. The Church was NOT good, NOT doing anything to stop these abuses. I flatly stated you were wrong.

This is what caused you to say I attacked you for speaking the truth. You said later you would CONTINUE to do it; as if nothing about what I'd said convinced you. You weren't receptive to the views of other Catholics like me.

You even said two priests agreed with you only; and now say that ''thousands'' are against me.

OK-- I accept it that way. My love for God hasn't changed. My respect for priests hasn't changed. The authority of our bishops, for me-- hasn't changed. I stand convicted of defending the Catholic Church. I'm a ''vicious'' man, attacking others. Full of sarcasm and ''bringing out the worst in you''.

You took your shots at me, MaryLu. I accept them with no hard feelings. Maybe you won't learn from my example, but I hope you do.

If you only learn, we aren't as important in the big picture as we feel. We sometimes have to accept slurs and pretend we didn't feel the pain. I was called a ''cornholer protector'' for weeks by an opponent of the Catholic Church. I guess you know how I must've felt. But I didn't HATE the person who said it. I prayed for him daily. I offered Jesus THANKS, for the great honor I felt; to suffer because I love to serve Him. In a way, He's rewarding me today. Somebody is murmurring about how ''evil'' I am.

--Once more, I feel honored, because He allowed me to defend the Church against many who don't love her. (I don't mean you, MaryLu; you're a good Catholic. I mean those who are happy with the downfall of about 300 priests.) I'll keep speaking for his holy priests; because they're all on the defensive now. Thank you for speaking for all the good children; God will reward you, too.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), June 18, 2002.