I started a new thread to make some points that would have been lost in the old threads due to length.

99.9% of all outcrys of sexual abuse have validity.

If a teacher, doctor, policeman etc is accused. An investigation is conducted.

What was lacking in the abuse cases was a proper investigation.

Who is responsible for investigations. Police in criminal matters. Why were police not notified. Unfortunately, it was to avoid "scandal". Where is the scandal now.

Unfortunately, Massachusetts did not have a mandatory reporting law. If there had been one in place, would Church officials have followed it?

The other problem was the statutes of limitations. Some cases were just too old to prosecute.

Had these two legal limitations not existed Cardinal Law and possibly the Archdiocese of Boston might very well have been indicted.

I thought that the situation had changed. Then I read the series in the Dallas Morning News.

How do we convince Church officials that this MUST change?

My point is this: The Catholic Church, as an institution, is very, very close to being criminally culpable.

In Texas, a corporation is liable for the actions of an officer of a corporation if he is acting on behalf of the corporation and commits a criminal offense.

Sheilding an offender to hide a criminal offense would constitute an offense. A bishop is an officer in his diocese.

The laity should not have to put up with bad leadership.

If a bishop, by his actions, puts the Church in jeopardy of criminal action, he needs to be gone. And not given a ceremonial post.

I can see all kinds of violations of canon law.

Why did the Vatican not initiate an internal review?

If they did, why not make it public?

The Church needs to be transparent.

God bless,

God bless,

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), June 24, 2004

Answers

First, check out this study: http://www.catholicleague.org/research/abuse_in_social_context.htm

John please enlighten us to the numbers and statistics of public school teachers, police officers, university level professors, and psychologists who have been accused and convicted of sex abuse.

If you just run the numbers for those accused and compare it with the numbers of CONVICTED you'll see that the priest abuse scandal isn't some awful exception to the rule...indeed of all professions the priests are MORE LIKELY to be convicted and defrocked and removed from positions than any other group of professionals.

Ergo... John, you're overplaying this argument about priest abuse scandal as if only Catholic priests hurt kids, and only the big-bad Vatican "silences" victims or tries to bury the stories....

When was the last time you saw front page splashy headlines slamming public school teachers, rabbis, psychologists, etc for sex abuse? You haven't...not because it doesn't happen, but because it's not newsworthy...because those professions are THE NORM, whereas priest's aren't.

As both a number and statistics children are safer with Catholic priests than with any other group of adults on the planet. Yet you continue to harbor an attitude which on the face of it seems to suggest you believe the opposite. Forgive me if I'm wrong.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), June 24, 2004.

You also seem to think that the Catholic Church is run like a pyramid or that the Pope is CEO of Catholic Inc. Not true.

If you read the very short but highly informative book by the Papal biographer, George Weigel, Courge to be Catholic, you'll get a play by play account of the scandal, and the time-table of Vatican involvement.

One key point is to realize that the Vatican doesn't have a CIA or FBI or internal affairs department. There are over 4000 dioceses in the world (4,000+ bishops) but the CDF run by Cardinal Ratzinger has about 40 staff! Imagine all the problems a typical diocese may have, multiply it by 4000 and then divide by 40...

There are 1 billion Catholics. 450,000 priests, 4,000+ bishops, and about 1,500 people actually working in the Curia in various bureaucratic roles. Obviously the Pope doesn't in fact know what goes on everywhere!

So stop immediately thinking that he surfs the internet or keeps up with the US News cycle and that his "silence" is therefore culpable.

Stop thinking that "Rome is taking it's time" and instead realize that "Rome" probably doesn't know much about individual cases that we Americans are up in arms over...

It is this realistic view of things which helps us calm down and stop pointing fingers.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), June 24, 2004.

"99.9% of all outcrys of sexual abuse have validity"

A: On the contrary. There are thousands of cases of false sexual accusation on record. Ask any teacher. Most teachers avoid being alone with a student, won't offer a stranded student a ride home, etc. for exactly that reason. It's an easy way for a student, who may feel otherwise powerless against a teacher, to launch a truly destructive attack. Add the chance for a substantial payoff as a named plaintiff in a class action suit against the Catholic Church, and its just amazing how many people suddenly "recall suppressed childhood experiences"!

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 24, 2004.

Rome knew about Boston.

The priests that were convicted were not convicted based upon false accusations.

You've totally misunderstood my motives.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has done a superb job in this matter.

Placing Cardinal Law in any position is a slap in the face to the Boston diocese and the USCCB.

I don't care of you don't agree with me.

Priests were moved to avoid scandal. This apparently is continuing to happen. It must stop.

God bless.

-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), June 24, 2004.

It's an easy way for a student, who may feel otherwise powerless against a teacher, to launch a truly destructive attack.

i know exactly what you mean... the best teacher i ever knew, never so much as acted anything innapropriately towards any girl in any of his classes. some stupid tramp who was failing his class accused him of sexual harassment, and even though it was shown that he was clear of all blame, he still questions his desire to teach anymore. its a shame.

-- paul h (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 24, 2004.

"...99.9% of all outcrys of sexual abuse have validity..."

No way John. You are to smart to make an assine statement like that.

Please think about what you say before you say it?

I am "outraged" about the way Cd. Law did what he did, but you are stepping way "over-board" with that statement.

God bless our holy priests.

Please think about the 99.9% false odds you gave.

-- - (David@excite.com), June 24, 2004.

I'm not sure you could connect the Holy See to this (one problem being that Vatican City is....what, exactly, not its own country but not either a corporation as we understand the term (you know what I mean), but certainly, at the diocesan level, they (bishops, etc.) had to have known. What about all the junior flunkies who open the mail before the bishops see it? Why are they also not being charged with negligence and child endangerment?

And never mind scandal to the Church, if you knew something wrong/illegal was going on, wouldn't you report it as a normal, law-abiding citizen ???? This is no different from the wife refusing to take action when the husband is abusing the daughter/stepdaughter or other children. One case should be the LAST case. There should be no other cases.

And I honestly don't know anyone who ever believed that these pedophiles could be cured, even 'way back when. How could the Church have thought differently, particularly when it is another matter entirely when it comes to divorce and remarriage....

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), June 24, 2004.

The Vatican City State may be very small but it is legally a country just like the USA, recognized as an independent country by just about every other country on Earth. Cardinals have the rights of citizenship of the Vatican City State but they retain citizenship of their own countries. Bishops, priests and lay Catholics are answerable to the authority of the Holy See (i.e. the Pope as spiritual leader), not to the Vatican City State which the Pope rules as its temporal ruler.

“if you knew something wrong/illegal was going on ”

There’s the rub. AFAIK neither Cd Law nor any other bishop has been accused of knowingly permitting ONGOING wrongdoing. They have (in many cases unwisely) failed to report to the police ALLEGED wrongdoing, or PAST wrongdoing (sometimes many decades earlier) which they believed the offender was sincerely sorry for and would not repeat.

I don’t know what you mean by “it is another matter entirely when it comes to divorce and remarriage.” Divorced and “remarried” Catholics can be “cured” of their ONGOING, DELIBERATELY PREMEDITATED, and PUBLICLY SCANDALOUS sin by ceasing to cohabitate with or have sexual intercourse with their “second” spouse or anyone else during the lifetime of their validly married spouse. Similarly pedophiles can be “cured” by ceasing to act upon their impure impulses. Yes, both classes of people will continue to be tempted, but temptations are not insuperable, and much of their apparent strength comes from force of habit. Once the habit is broken, the temptation does not seem so powerful.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 25, 2004.

Steve, I mean that once someone mentioned something, anything, in regards to accusations and so forth, something should have been done, and I don't mean just move the problem elsewhere for someone else to discover it (this happens with teachers too, for example, when things are handled "informally" and nothing is on the record).

Some of those children, or their parents must have sent some correspondence to someone, and what happened to it? Did some flunkie hide/destroy it? I kind of doubt it, because with serious correspondence like that you would certify or register it to make sure it gets to its recipient directly, and would follow up to see that something was done. And yes, busy people often grant power of attorney to flunkies to sign for things, but still....

As to the other. it is the "illness vs. sin/deliberate behavior" question. Leprosy was seen as what you got for sinful behavior (yours or your parents) in Biblical times. Modern society does not see it that way. Alcohol abuse is the same way. We don't go around saying that you got your cold or cancer because you sinned. We don't say that people divorce and remarry because they're ill, yet the pedophilia was looked at as an illness, not as deliberate sinful behavior. So yes, there was/is a difference in treatment.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), June 25, 2004.

Some illnesses cause a predilection to a particular kind of behavior; but the illness is not synonymous with the behavior ... or to express it in terms of morality, the temptation, regardless of its source, is not synonymous with the sin. Therefore, alcoholism is an illness; drinking is not. No-one chooses to be an alcoholic; but everyone, alcoholic or not, must make a choice in order to take a drink or not take one. Being afflicted with alcoholism certainly makes that choice more difficult, perhaps even impossible without professional help; but a choice is nevertheless involved with every drink, even though no choice is involved in having the condition. The same is true with other disorders - homosexuality, pedophilia, shoplifting, drug abuse, etc. Having a strong tendency to engage in such behaviors is not normal, but it is not immoral. Choosing to engage in such behaviors is both abnormal and immoral.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 25, 2004.

“once someone mentioned something, anything, in regards to accusations and so forth, something should have been done, and I don't mean just move the problem elsewhere” (GT)

I haven’t seen any evidence that anyone JUST did that and nothing else. I’m sure in most if not all cases they also counselled the (alleged) victim, satisfied themselves that the perpetrator was sincerely repentant and had made a good confession, obtained assurrances from the perpetrator that he would not reoffend, obtained opinions from psychiatrists etc that it was unlikely he would reoffend, etc, before allowing him to resume practise as a priest. I have seen no evidence that any bishop ever left any pedophile priest in any doubt that his behavior was seriously sinful (though his tendency to it is, inter alia, an illness).

Your mention of teachers is apposite. A teacher CONVICTED of serious sexual abuse of children can simply go to another State or country and resume his career. Same with many other professions. Yet there is no media outcry as there is against the Church. Even though the Church has more safeguards against pedophiles than any other institution on Earth.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 25, 2004.

Once convicted, you have to register as a sex offender, I would say in all or most states, these days, and any competent background check will reveal it, and you shouldn't (not saying that there aren't slip ups, from time to time) be hired in any job requiring contact with children. Ever hear of Megan's Law? The neighbors have to be notified when these sex offenders move in, and they are not best pleased about it, either.

But the priests were treated differently, they were counselled, not sent to jail. Why? If the behavior is illegal, it is illegal. It was illegal then, it is illegal now regardless of what the headshrinkers said, then and now. That's what people are upset about. Forgive, yes, but that does not mean escape civil, legal punishment.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), June 25, 2004.

GT, teachers and other professions can go overseas where no US law can touch them. The Catholic church is unique in that it controls the activities of priests no matter where on Earth they are.

It is a basic principle of civil administration that NOT every infringement of the law should be prosecuted. Only if it is “in the public interest”. I know of cases where alleged abuse by priests was reported to the police, and the police told the local bishop to sort it out internally within the church. It is interesting that many of the same people who scream for “separation of Church and State” whenever the Church is thought to have an influence on the State, are the same ones who demand that the State interfere in the Church’s internal affairs.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 25, 2004.

But it should never have been treated as "an internal matter" not then, not ever. If the police did that, then it was wrong of them as well....

And what does separation of church and state have to do with crime? Crime is crime, wherever it occurs. Render unto Caesar and so forth.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), June 25, 2004.

GT,
We were in a different time then. These sorts of things were treated as internal matters within all kinds of professions and institutions. It wasn't only the Catholic Church. You are hearing about us now because we are a hugh centrally controlled institution. But the same actions were prevelent throughout our society at the time.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 26, 2004.

I am Catholic too, and I just do not buy the "things were different back then" argument. Just because others did it doesn't make it right for someone else to.

And yes, people should hold church leaders more accountable, since they are held in higher esteem. Even if the civil law cannot act, the Church can and should.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), June 26, 2004.

GT, But things were different back then. You can't pretend otherwise.

take care, bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 26, 2004.

“And what does separation of church and state have to do with crime? Crime is crime, wherever it occurs. Render unto Caesar and so forth.” {GT}

True, but this can so easily slide into the mindset which lets Caesar take control of the Church, and treat it as nothing more than just a very large voluntary organization, no different in principle than a tennis club.

Today, discretion is a dirty word. People shamelessly flaunt every aspect of their characters and their lives. Most people demand that everything about everyone must be made public (or at least that’s what the media have convinced us.) The bishops of the 70s and 80s were brought up in a very different world – a world where it was even considered that it would be so shameful for anyone to reveal that they had engaged in an act of consensual adult fornication, that the vast majority of the population quite agreed that the best thing for a pregnant single woman to do was to either marry immediately and claim the baby was premature, or go to a faraway place until she had the baby and gave it up for adoption, while her family told everyone anything but the truth. Whenever there was something scandalous in a school, a hospital, a military regiment or any other institution, conventional wisdom stressed the importance of “keeping it out of the papers”. Now the pendulum has swung to the other extreme. Who is to say which is the better approach?

There ARE two widespread myths today which are very destructive and quite false:

1. “Anyone who commits a single act of sexual abuse should be forever banished because all sex abusers are evil animals without a single redeeming feature.”

A friend of mine, T, is in a religious order. When he was a novice of 18-20 he was sexually abused by the novice master. But this same man also gave T enormous help and spiritual direction in his vocation. Indeed at one later stage when T had a crisis in his vocation he gave T the advice which enabled him to continue.

2. “99% of sexual abuse allegations are true.”

Children DO lie for various reasons, or have overactive imaginations, or “recover” supposedly “repressed memories” which are in fact planted by the person “counselling” them.

Another close friend of mine, M, is the finest man I know. He is the father of a large family, very active in his Catholic faith, and respected in his profession for his hard work, compassion and integrity. One night in the 1980s he and his wife were babysitting the children of their then best friends. The next day the friends’ young daughter accused M of sexual abuse. Her parents believed her unquestioningly, immediately cut off their friendship of many years and began trumpeting the accusation everywhere. The police said there was no case; but in the sex-abuse hysteria of a couple of years ago, the statute of limitations was waived and a reporter urged the girl, now a woman, to press charges again. Due to the hysterical demand that judges “do something” about sexual abuse, M was found guilty and jailed. He and his wife were terrified what would happen to him in jail. But incredibly, he not only used his time in jail to share his faith effectively with other inmates, he now views his time “inside” as an experience of spiritual growth. We all urged him to appeal to “clear his name”, but he won’t do so as he says he has “nothing to prove”; as indeed everyone who personally knows M, except for the girl and her family, are certain that he is innocent.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 28, 2004.

"..when he (T) was a novice of 18-20 he was sexually abused by the novice master, but this same man also gave T enormous help and spirtual director in his vocation."

Steve don't you see how "warped" this is?

Its almost as if your trying to make a "hero" out of a gay man that sexually abuses young men. Sorry One should NOT look for spiritual advice from someone that raped or sexually abused them.

They should report this sexual offender to the proper authorities and make sure everyone knows what happened so this doesn't happen again.

Think about what you saying Steve! I don't think GT is going to buy that one for one second.

Its not ok for a young 18 year to be sexually abused and go to this other man that used them as a "love toy" for spiritual advive. This is ludicrous for you to use this analogy.

Your buddy T should of been more of a responsible man and put a end to this instead of turning the other cheek. I wonder how many other young 18 year old were abused?

-- - (David@excite.com), June 28, 2004.

"A friend of mine, T, is in a religious order. When he was a novice of 18-20 he was sexually abused by the novice master. But this same man also gave T enormous help and spiritual direction in his vocation. Indeed at one later stage when T had a crisis in his vocation he gave T the advice which enabled him to continue."

A: Well isn't that just peachy! How would you feel if the story read like this ... "A guidance counselor at my daughter's school sexually abused her, but he also gave her great advice about getting a scholarship to the college of her choice, where we could not have afforded to send her otherwise"? The next sentence reads, "Therefore ... __________". You can fill in the blank any way you wish. But the only statement I would consider putting in that blank is "call the police".

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 28, 2004.

The thing is, other than the shrink communtity (and others out to make a buck) and the Church, no one thought of that as a curable illness. Not then, not now. That is my point.

As soon as you make something an "illness" you have absolved the person of ANY responsibility for their actions. Look at all the drunks driving our streets. If they changed the law to make it mandatory life in prison for drunk driving resulting in someone's death (should be the death penalty because people KNOW what drinking and driving can do, so as far as I'm concerned it is pre-meditated murder) maybe we wouldn't have so many. But no, they're alcoholics and "just can't help it". Give me a break.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), June 28, 2004.

"...Due to the hysterical demand that judges "do something" about sexual abuse(your friend) was found guilty and jailed."

Steve if you friend didn't think he could get a fair trial with a Bench trial( Judge decides case) than why didn't he ask for a trial to be prosecuted in front of a jury and let the jury decide?

Every American has this right.

-- - (David@excite.com), June 28, 2004.

"..we all urged "M" to appeal to "clear his name", but he won't do as he says he has nothing to prove."

Steve what did you "urge' "M" to appeal his conviction on? It almost seems to little to late for you to suggest this after he went to trial, and was convicted, and then sentenced to jail, served his sentence, and than out on parole after serving his jail sentence.

Wouldn't the time to ask for a new trial of been at the sentencing? Or did he plea bargain and might not of been able to appeal?

-- - (David@excite.com), June 28, 2004.

what an interesting thread! Lots of people having a discussion on a serious subject they know very little about!

Sex abuse happens everywhere in every profession, in every class or income bracket. Priests are no more likely to abuse than any one else - they just have more opportunity if they so choose. A bit like an alcoholic in charge of a pub - he can choose not to drink but if he wants to well its all just there.

My thesis was on sex abuse and the clergy (Anglican), during research I read stuff from every angle. IMHO false accusations are rare, suppression of memory and later recovery does occur and those who proclaim recovered memories to be false are treading on dangerous ground. Just think for a moment what it means if men and women can get away with abusing people using the false memory argument. How many children have been permanantly damaged by this phenomena? It hands peadophiles a 'get out of jail free' card. Yes it is possible to plant a false memory of abuse this is why counsellors are not allowed to mention sex abuse first - it has to come from the client.

Please don't beat up on the Catholic church for past mistakes. Yes they got it wrong. Those who could act to stop it, didn't BUT they are doing something about it now.

I am not a Catholic!

-- Sharon (sharon.guy@ntu.ac.uk), June 29, 2004.

Sharon, I didn’t say that ALL “recovered memories” are false, but some of them are. “counsellors are not allowed to mention sex abuse” – that’s great if everyone always obeys the rules, but if they break them, no-one will know, and the counsellor gets kudos for “exposing” the supposed “abuse”.

David, I’m just telling you what T said to me many years later, that he has mixed feelings towards this man. Yes the abuse was evil and T should have reported it, but for whatever reason, he didn’t. My point is that the same person who commits the worst sins can also do good. Several years after the abuse ended, T became romantically attached to a young nun he worked with, and they exchanged intimate letters. He CHOSE to confess to his former abuser, now his superior, that he was worried his relationship with the nun would become physical and that they would both lose their vocations. The man challenged him “What are YOU going to do about it?” T said he would leave the place they both worked and have no further contact with her. The superior said “That’s fine for you, but what about her?” So T wrote to the nun again and they both agreed to end their relationship. Two days later, the nun’s superior found out about it and angrily wrote to T’s superior telling him one of his priests was having an “affair” with one of her nuns. He was able to reply truthfully that he already knew about it, it was not an “affair” and it had already ended. They have both had long and productive lives in religion.

Paul and GT, yes I agree crime should be prosecuted regardless of who commits it. But remember St Thomas Becket chose martyrdom rather than let priests be tried in civil courts. Sure, medieval England was virtually 100% Catholic, and we live in a pluralist society. But it is a basic legal principle that an accused person is judged by his peers. It is disconcerting to see a priest tried by lay judges and juries.

GTt, I think it's those who see pedophilia as an INcurable illness who tend to absolve pedophiles of responsibility. The Church believed that they could change their actions. Perhaps they relied TOO much on them taking personal reponsibility to do this. And there IS always a choice. Even an alcoholic CAN choose to drink or not to drink at any time. Yes, it's difficult. Life is difficult. Avoiding sin is difficult for all of us.

David, I didn’t give all the legal details because they’re not the point of the story. But FYI as you ask, there was no plea bargain. M’s lawyer turned out to be incompetent and let insupportable evidence go unchallenged. We urged M to appeal from the moment he was convicted, but he knew that the woman and the journalist would not let it rest, so he decided the best thing to get the ordeal over for himself and his family was to serve his sentence. BTW the prayer and Rosary group he started among the inmates is still going.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 29, 2004.