 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2
|
|
|
Subject: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 29 Mar 02 - 06:11 AM The first part of this thread is here.Annraoi, that priest (your relative) would have understood that events in faraway places sometimes count for little. I think he would have known that just across the border 700,000 people were slaughtered with matchetes, with hardly a mention in the western press at the time - and often with not even any family left to weep. We can blame the media for the appalling lack of balance. But if the media is now overly concerned with a few rotten apples in the church's barrel, the church must surely take some of the blame for that. For an institution that assumes moral authority it has behaved with phenomenal dishonour. Until (and including) now it has shown no apetite for treating the rotten apples as the criminals they are. By actively protecting these people the church undermines its own claim (no doubt fair) that it is vulnerable to infiltration by the criminally intent, who see the cloth as marvellous cover. To me it is part and parcel of the same hypocrisy that sees the Vatican shaking its head sadly and saying of the holocaust "we could have done more" - whereas in fact the church did too much (signing a deal with Hitler in 1933, and facilitating the flight of Nazis to Argentina after the war, etc, etc). Joe, a $5m lawsuit must have involved claims of some fairly heady stuff. To me the course for senior clerics,and colleagues of any priests complained about, is simple: get the police on the case as fast as possible and let the law take its course, either way. If it can ever be established that a claim is malicious, I'm all for that being dealt with severely pour l'encourager les autres - pardon my French. With respect, the fact that your colleague was a regular guy should now count for nothing either way. We all know now, if not then, how incredibly persuasive paedophiles can be, and shutting out tehe possibility that charming people can do terrible things has been a big part of the church's problem. In many of the cases I have heard about, the fact that victims were either not believed or were so certain that they would not be believed that they did not complain at all, was as damaging as the sexual assaults they suffered. I don't want to see innocent priests falsely accused, but if that is the price for redressing the balance, I believe it has to be paid. No-one has to be a priest (and few go for it these days - only one will be ordained in Northern Ireland this year) and the church does not have to behave the way it does about sex, homosexuality, celibacy etc. It is also fair to say that priests are c apable of making informed choices about self-sacrifice and even martyrdom. Children who put their trust in priests have no such choices. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: Roughyed Date: 29 Mar 02 - 06:19 PM I think this thread has obviously hit a raw nerve with a lot of people. It certainly has with me. The abuse I suffered at the hands of the Roman Catholic clergy as a schoolboy in the sixties was physical, although looking back I think there was an understated sadistic element in there too. Perhaps I was too ugly to be sexually abused or I was just plain lucky but I am sure it went on. A brother at my school was allowed to organise a society that only eleven to twelve year olds were allowed to join. They were sworn to secrecy about what went on but it involved getting mattresses from the gym and switching out the lights. I would like to be sure that the authorities knew what was going on at the time - or cared - but I lost my faith in the bloke with the big white beard some time around then. I do know that whatever you think about the religious justifications, to deliberately sexually frustrate someone and then put them in a position of power over children is a bad idea. Equally, if you set up a powerful group with a celibate lifestyle you will attract people who have negative attitudes to their own sexuality.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: Joe Offer Date: 29 Mar 02 - 11:54 PM An unfortunate aspect of the current publicity is that all offenses are being lumped together under the term "pedophilia." Very few of the offenses involved actual pedophilia, which is sexual conduct with pre-pubescent children. There's no question that sort of conduct is appalling. Most of the complaints I know of involve priests who made a "pass" at a woman, although most did not result in sexual intercourse; or sexual advances to young men in their late teens or twenties. These actions are still not appropriate for priests who have taken the vow of celibacy - but they certainly are not as repulsive as pedophilia. My priest friend who was "exposed" in the newspaper Wednesday was accused of making homosexual advances towared two males, in their late teens or early twenties. The first offense was in the mid-1970's, the second in 1985. Nonetheless, there was an uproar among a number of parents at the parish school (even though the primary complainers don't go to church and the priest doesn't have anything to do with the school). The complainants were paid $25,00 each, and my friend went through extensive counseling and psychiatric testing, and was placed in an administrative job for 14 years - although there was no indication that any of his conduct was criminal. I think he's had his punishment, and it's time for him to have another chance. He was under 40 at the time of his last offense, and now he's over 55. A man can change a lot in this time. Isn't it time to give him another chance? I think there's a possibility that a lot of good will come from this, that the Catholic hierarchy will develop some humility and a more realistic view of sexuality. There are aspects of the current publicity that seem like a witch hunt, and that troubles me. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: GUEST,mgarvey@pacifier.com Date: 30 Mar 02 - 12:14 AM We must be aware of different situations. I only know what I have been reading in the papers and very rarely it is passes at women. A grown woman with full faculties can dismiss a pass. It is a non-problem. Nor were the stories I have been reading about older teens and young adults. I don't care in the slightest what a priest does with a consenting adult. And I think there is a desire now to redefine what these boys were. Calling them teens and defining this as a homosexual experience is o.k. say if they are 17 or 18...but if they are 13 or 14 they are functionally children and I think pedophilia definitely applies here. And I don't know how our ideas differ, but I have read of many many younger children. That is the scandal. A pass with a woman..not a scandal. Not a serious problem. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: mack/misophist Date: 30 Mar 02 - 12:37 AM It seems to me that the church's shame is not so much what the priests did a the way their superiors brushed it under the rug. THAT'S |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: katlaughing Date: 30 Mar 02 - 12:37 AM Personally I don't think it is okay for a person of authority to have anything sexual to do with anyone in their teens, even 17 or 18, who has come under their authority. Teens who may think they are homosexual have enough problems with peer pressure, prejudice, etc. without having their minds, emotions, and spirits mucked about by someone who has been their spiritual advisor and should know better. Likewise, I know of some women, my late mother-in-law included, who would be terribly offended and shocked if their priest had made a pass at them. It would not be easy for them to understand nor dismiss. kat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: mack/misophist Date: 30 Mar 02 - 12:40 AM Something strange happened just then. To continue: THAT'S why the press is in a feeding frenzy; because no other organization could have gotten away with it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: sophocleese Date: 30 Mar 02 - 08:00 AM Funny, reading this thread just brought back a memory. My mother discovered that an adult she knew had a made a pass at a teenage boy. Full of trepidation she asked my, then 14 year-old, brother if this guy had ever made a pass at him. "Oh yeah," says my brother, "I told him to piss off and keep his hands to himself." No problem. So there's another small piece of the equation. Yes pedophilia is abhorrent. No child should be subjected to abuse from sexual predators. But also parents should make an effort to help their kids protect themselves, which probably means talking about sex BEFORE they are teenagers or adults. There are some statistics that suggest that intelligent sex education can reduce the numbers of unwanted teenage pregnancy. Does anybody know if there are any relate sex education with numbers of abusive incidents? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: toadfrog Date: 30 Mar 02 - 06:11 PM Gee, Misophist, where have you been all these years. I haven't followed the news closely enough to form really strong opinions about the Bishop-Priest mess, but you should realize, the Church was acting just exactly like all organization do. I spent a lot of time in graduate school. Trust me, when a professor sexually harasses students (whose future careers may depend on what the professor says) his peers in the Department do not remove him from contact with students. Rather, they tell him to "seek help," exactly like those problem Bishops did. And as we have all heard by now, police departments protect their members even when they commit serious crimes. Corporate types likewise scratch each other's backs. And as you may have recently read, accounting firms which monitor each others' work, and find serious flaws, invariably give them a clean bill of health. Moral: (1) People, and not only clergymen, are unendingly tolerant of people similar to themselves, who commit offenses against subordinates or people otherwise perceived as. (2) People with power, including Priests and Bishops, cannot be trusted to police themselves, and (3)The Church is a human institution, like other human institutions. Even assuming clergy persons are morally better than the rest of us (which I am willing to assume), they are not so much better that they |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: Joe Offer Date: 30 Mar 02 - 06:29 PM You're right, Kat - it's not right for a person in authority to have sexual contact with over-18 teens, and it's not right for a priest to make a pass at a woman. The policy in my diocese is a 6-month suspension for the first offense, plus extensive counseling - IF the matter does not constitute criminal conduct. Possible criminal conduct results in referral to law enforcement authorities. This policy has been implemented in a good number of dioceses over the last few years. In most places, the "cover-ups" were not quite as blatant as the press makes it appear. Generally, dioceses did not furnish information to the press, and they contacted law enforcement only when it was clear that there was criminal conduct. Yes, there have been egregious cases like the Geoghan situation in Boston - but cases like this are the extreme, and they haven't happened all that often. My friend was banished to administrative work for 14 years, plus counseling and extensive psychiatric examination before readmission to regular ministry on a restricted basis. Yes, it is a serious problem, but it's something that's best handled in a non-hysterical manner. It's also important to note that many of the offenses recently reported, happened 15 or 20 years ago. Most Catholic dioceses have made a lot of policy changes in the last ten years, in response to reports that came out in the National Catholic Reporter and other Catholic publications in the mid-1990's. It's important to put the problem in perspective - but that doesn't sell newspapers. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: Haruo Date: 31 Mar 02 - 01:28 AM Being a Baptist ("we don't worry about sex, we just avoid dancing...") I haven't been paying a humongous amount of attention to this thread, but when I saw the line in Swan's post above, "They were sworn to secrecy about what went on but it involved getting mattresses from the gym and switching out the lights", it reminded me that when I was in 9th grade at Kirkland Junior High (a public school in the quite irreligious Soviet of Washington) the local John Birch Society coven leafletted in protest against our school's supposed having us "get under the wrestling mats and feel each other". This came as news to those of us supposedly being "subjected" to this. Liland |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: Amos Date: 31 Mar 02 - 09:18 AM The next resurrected scandal about misdirectred sexuality, after this one fades out, will probably be about psychiatrists, who are similarly in a position of trust, dealing with people in a position of vulnerability, and who have taken advantage in violation of that trust. I find such stories as repugnant as those about rteligous authorities (oxymoron though it be) who lose sight of what they are doing as a counselor or guide or leader or whatever, and allow themselves to get sucked up into silly sexual dramatizations. It is a travesty, is what, of religion and of any therapeutic relationship. An' it's orful, too! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 31 Mar 02 - 06:20 PM Joe, I agree with you about those cases you cited, but as others have stated, those cases were not and are not the problem. I am amazed you can be so sanguine when Bishop Comiskey, featured in that BBC film that I linked to in the first part of this thread, is still in post! I have already mentioned the case of ARchbishop Ward, who more or less defied the pope to sack him. The pope did eventually summon him to Rome and demand his resignation, but only when he had a gun at his head, and after years of procrastination and prevarication, and about a year after a major BBC documentary on the scandal. (This was not some time in the dark ages, Joe. Ward was shielded until last year.) Talking about "witch-hunts" and casting around to lay the blame elsewhere is frankly to deny the the problem. Toadfrog, you're dead right about the corrupting effect of institutional life. Students at British boarding schools are now being surveyed and invited to accuse staff, in a desperate and foolish bid to address the problems that that those schools have, and just recently of course aid-for-sex scandals were uncovered in previously respectable overseas-aid agencies. Also there is now a presumption (in the UK at least) that children in care will be at risk unless rigorous safeguards are in place. What marks the Catholic church out is its institutional determination to shield the guilty and bully the victims. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: GUEST,Gerry Date: 31 Mar 02 - 08:52 PM Quote from Fionn: Toadfrog, you're dead right about the corrupting effect of institutional life. "Toadfrog": (1) People, and not only clergymen, are unendingly tolerant of people similar to themselves, who commit offenses against subordinates or people otherwise perceived as. (2) People with power, including Priests and Bishops, cannot be trusted to police themselves, and (3)The Church is a human institution, like other human institutions. Even assuming clergy persons are morally better than the rest of us (which I am willing to assume), they are not so much better than they. Fionn, I don't follow your interpretation of what Toadfrog said. He only mentions institutions in a very general way. To take your point further to ludicrous conclusions, the institution of marriage should be condemned and abolished as the most corrupt of all human institutions as approx.85% of all sex / physical abuse of children is committed by members of the family circle. Think of the implications of such a measure. That is, if you are capable of any rational thought at all. Gerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: Joe Offer Date: 01 Apr 02 - 02:48 AM Hi, Fionn - I wouldn't say I'm sanguine about Bishop Comiskey - I just don't know anything about that particular situation. As for an "institutional determination to shield the guilty and bully the victims," I'd say you are correct in some circumstances, and incorrect about others. The Catholic Church has handled a number of sexual abuse situations badly, and it has done a pretty good job with others. I guess what causes me concern is that the problem involves a comparatively small number of people, and yet it has created a huge about of prejudice against all priests and members of the church. Yes, it is a serious problem, and many good people are working hard to turn things around. Although there may have been coverups in the past for various good and bad reasons, it's not likely that they can happen to any extent at the current time or in the future. Yes, there are many unanswered questions - and it is going to take a good deal of time to straighten the whole mess out. Nonetheless, it is an aberration, and it is unfair to judge the entire church and its clergy on the basis of this problem. In the meantime, I have a class of 44 kids and their parents that I teach on Monday nights, and work to do at a Catholic women's center on Fridays, and music to prepare for weekend services. I'm sure I will have to answer a lot of questions about sexual abuse and deal with a bit of homophobia in some of the classes that I teach - but dealing with this problem is not and should not be a major part of the work I do in the church. For most people in the Catholic Church, life goes on with little or no direct contact with the sexual abuse problem. I guess I have to say I don't have much interest in exploring the Comiskey affair, because I can't do anything about it and I can't even get much information about it. I know that a number of priests and a few bishops have been removed from office. I guess they didn't get around to dealing with Comiskey yet, or maybe there's not a solid enough case against him, or maybe you're right and they ARE stonewalling. I talked to a friend yesterday - he works under Cardinal Ratzinger in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the Vatican. He says that the people in Rome are just waking up to the problem, and they're working hard on a solution but haven't come up with anything totally satisfactory. I guess he was trying to say that until just recently, Church leaders in the rarefied air of Rome were not aware of the seriousness and impact of the problem. He said they're certainly aware now. I hope that in the end, something good will come of all this. For 28 years, I worked for the U.S. Government. For most of those 28 years, the U.S. did a lot of stuff that was very embarrassing to me. Still, that government does a lot of stuff that's good, and I tried to make darn sure that whatever I could affect was good. Was I sanguine or derelict because I didn't spend a lot of time worrying about Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky? Was I a moral reprobate because I claimed to pe a pacifist and yet worked for an organization that has the biggest stockpile of nuclear weapons the world will ever see? It's a messy world - and yet, I think we all have to put on our wading boots and work on, despite the mess. Yes, the Catholic Church has a major problem and must take care of it. It seems to me that people are working hard to solve the problem right now. I'm sorry, but I won't accept this situation as proof that the Catholic Church is hopelessly corrupt. It isn't. I have had a lifetime of good experiences in the church that proves otherwise. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 01 Apr 02 - 10:05 AM Hi Joe - yes I'm sure here will be many fine people within the hierarchy, and that many will have behaved admirably in difficult circumstances (just as when PAcelli did the deal with Hitler, many in the German hierarchy opposed it and were brave enough to oppose Hitler). For such people, what's happening now must be tragic to behold. But if you confront the case histories, I think you are bound to conclude that much of the evasion, the arrogance and even the smearing of victims has been signalled from the top. My personal impression (no more than that) is that Ratzinger himself exerts an unhealthy, baleful and largely negative influence in his capacity as head of the congregation of the doctrine of the faith (as the inquisition has grandly renamed itself). That he and his colleagues are only now waking up to the problem speaks volumes for their arrogance and detachment. I am sure that RAtzinger does indeed confine himself to the "rarified air" of Rome, but for me that is a core part of what's wrong. Your friend may be interested to follow that link to the BBC expose about Comiskey's parish and the way the Vatican has handled it. But I suspect he will already know the case in detail. The BBC in effect put on trial not the priest nor the bishop, but the pope - in fact one of the victims is suing the pope by name. Some may not like it done like that, but who else is to speak up for the children so terribly wronged? The programme was broadcast nationwide in the UK and Ireland, and had a huge impact in Ireland, as a glance through the following week's newspapers would confirm. Cases like this laregely explain why vocations in Ireland, north and south, to which the Vatican once looked to supply the parishes of the English-speaking world, have dwindled to a trickle. (Just one from the whole of the north this year, as I said earlier.) According to Mark, Jesus said "Suffer the little children to come unto me." According to Luke he said "better for him that a millstone be hanged about his neck and he cast into the sea than that he should offend one of these little ones." The church actually preaches these sentiments, yet it hasn't come within a million miles of them in its procedures for listening to abused children (nor even the innocent children of wayward priests). Is it any wonder it has now been brought so low? I take, and have taken in the past, your point that none of us are ever confortable with every aspect of whatever club/government/church etc we support. But even here there is a distinction to be drawn. For my own part, I wouldn't get too steamed up if the pope had an affair with a Vatican intern. This would not be remotely comparable with adopting an institutional stance (and this was part of the BBC's thesis) that the few shattered children who have been brave enough to speak out are merely money-grabbing liars. If I was part of some organisation that did that, I surely would be out there campaigning, at least until they agreed to subject all such allegations to criminal investigation.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: GUEST,Celine Date: 04 Apr 02 - 09:19 PM A lot of prejudice and ill-judged antagonism towards the Catholic church is very evident from the majority of postings to this list. It might be instructive to visit the following website which purports to speak for the victims of sexual abuse. "oneinfour.org" To me the most disturbing statistic quoted is that "one in four" children will be sexually abused. Does this mean that "one in four" children *have been* sexually abused in the past ? If so, then , in Gt. Britain, there must be at the very least 14 Million victims. Where are their voices? In a predominantly Protestant - if not agnostic - country, the Catholic Clergy, Nuns, Priests, Bishops, Monks, Brothers etc. etc. must have been working huge overtime hours to have clocked up this amount of abuse. I suspect genuine victime - for whom I have the utmost sympathy and compassion - are being abused in quite another way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: Wolfgang Date: 05 Apr 02 - 03:26 AM Celine, the figures for the incidence of sexual abuse vary wildly. I have seen them much lower and even much higher than 1 in 4.
There are three reasons for the extreme variation: (2) The populations from which the figures are gathered differ wildely. The lowest figures come from counting court cases, the highest come from self reports women self help groups. (3) In some studies corrections for the figures gathered are introduced to account for 'it has happened but is forgotten now' cases. These corrections are very controversial, but when they are made the reported figures of incidence get higher. If you don't know from which type of study the figures come, you are completely lost at interpretation. The last figures I have read in studies in peer reviewed journals involve genital manipulation or more and come to roughly 5 % incidence, that is 1 in 20. Even that is much too large a figure to shrug shoulders and declare it as a minority problem for that means about one child in each class. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: GUEST,Celine Date: 05 Apr 02 - 07:26 AM Wolfgang You say: ", that is 1 in 20. Even that is much too large a figure to shrug shoulders and declare it as a minority problem for that means about one child in each class. " I must say that I agree with your statement that "That is much too large a figure." As for the rest, I am not so sure. I spent over 34 years of my life involved in the education of children, mostly of adolescent girls. I didn't come across even one incident of sexual abuse even during the last ten years when it was a topic of common concern and discussion in the senior classes in the school. I am not suggesting for one minute that it didn't happen I am simply saying that if your figures are accurate, the number of abused girls that I had in my classes must have been numbered in the hundreds. And yet NOT ONE single whisper was ever heard; not even a rumour. I can only speak from my own personal experience, obviously, so when I hear figures bandied about, I do wonder. As I said in my initial posting, visit that website and read what is said there. Celine |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 05 Apr 02 - 07:56 PM Celine, just to be clear about my own position, I fully accept that the incidence of child-abuse by cahtholic clergy and religious is probably significantly less than in the community at large. I fully accept too that there has been abuse by ministers in other faiths. And I am reluctantly coming round to the view, as I said earlier, that the rate of abuse for children in institutional care is likely to be distressingly high, or was - I hope there has been recent improvement as a result of children increasingly giving voice to their grievances. Re your experience with adolescent youngsters, keep in mind that by all accounts, most abuse takes place within the home and family, and children will always find that difficult to talk about however enlightened we have all become. (Fear of the perpetrator being removed from the home is sometimes a major factor.) My problem with the catholic church is simply that it is exceptional in the degree to which it puts its clergy on a pedestal, most noticeably in the priest's role in the sacrament of confession. I don't know if it is exceptional in the degree to which it has denied the problem of paedophilia, but I do know that its record is a disgrace. I followed your link. To see how the Vatican responded to a report (endorsed by Cafod, no less) indicating abuse within its ranks on a staggering scale, try this one. I hear, but haven't yet checked it out, that Bishop Comiskey, at the centre of the BBC report I linked to earlier, has been sacked at last. What credit does the Pope bring his church when it takes a BBC documentary to force his hand on such a simple matter? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: GUEST,Celine Date: 06 Apr 02 - 06:22 AM Fionn Disgusting, I agree. To be condemned? I agree. Use this as an excuse to attempt to destroy the Church? I disagree. As you rightly point out, the vast bulk of abuse takes place in the child's home and the abusers - in descending order of culpability - are Grandfather, Father and Uncle. The institution of the Family unit is the very basis of society and the Family is very defensive of its members and will go to enormous trouble to keep scandals hidden. What should our response be, then? Destroy the Family? And Bishop Comiskey was not sacked. He resigned. His resignation may, or may not, be accepted. His fault was not paedophilia, but shortcomings in dealing with the guilty priests - two, by the way - not "numerous". And before you crucify me for making excuses and diminishong the crimes, I am not. What I am concerned with is the gross exaggeration indulged in by some. This is a type of abuse in which the abused are made to suffer again by having their witness called into question. These crimes are gross enough. They do not need exaggeration. Never forget the Law of Diminishing Returns" Celine |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: GUEST Date: 06 Apr 02 - 08:32 AM Perhaps broken vows of chastity should be grounds for defrocking! That would keep the sexual abusers out of the church. Then perhaps the church would get real on the irrational requirement of chastity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: OhShenandoah Date: 06 Apr 02 - 10:36 AM If you were to take all of the confirmed acts of child molestation, and divide that into the hush fund settlements, you could get a "price per groping" In my opinion, it would have been much cheaper for the priests to go to prostitutes!
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: Joe Offer Date: 06 Apr 02 - 11:29 AM Well, my friend got drummed out of his parish. The parish has a school, and a group of school parents made a big stink threatened a sit-in if the priest weren't removed. One of the teachers told me there was a lot of anger in the school parking lot the day the newspaper article came out about my friend and the allegations of things that happened 15 and 25 years ago. The parents who were complaining don't go to church, so they don't know the priest and their children have no contact with him. The reaction was hateful and hysterical, and there seemed to me no way to reason with the parents. The situation looked impossible, so the diocese moved the priest to a parish that does not have a school. Maybe that's a reason for the so-called cover-ups - to attempt to control the hysteria and homophobia that can come as a response to allegations - even if those allegations turn out to be unfounded. For 25 years, I did background investigations of law enforcement officers and applicants for law enforcement positions. There were times I wasn't able to get an employee removed for sexual misconduct with children, even when the conduct was current and ongoing. The agencies required a high level of proof before they felt justified in removing an employee - a level of proof much higher that what I've seen required in the Catholic Church. And no, public agencies do not usually publish the results of internal investigations, either. The allegations come out only when they end up in court, just like what has happened in the past with allegations against Catholic priests. When it's an unproven allegation, there's good reason for discretion - even if sometimes there is an out-of-court settlement. In my friend's case, the one complainant sued for $5 million, but accepted a $25,000 settlement. The other complainant, who complained about something that happened 15 years earlier, was also given $25,000. The insurers for the diocese thought it wasn't worth $25,000 to go to trial. So, the allegations were unproven, and my friend was removed from parish work for over 10 years. The last incident took place when he was under 40, and now he's 55. Yes, there are a few serious situations like the Geoghan affair that must be dealt with severely. However, I think it's important to use some balance and common sense in evaluating all of this. Otherwise, it turns into a hysterical, homophobic witch hunt. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: GUEST,mgarvey@pacifier.com Date: 06 Apr 02 - 12:58 PM there are way more than a few of these cases. There are very very many. And I personally could care less if a priest is gay, married, breaks his vows of chastity with consenting adults. This is not witch-hunting. It is child protection. I can't say it is not homophobia because I am sure some will be involved, but that is not the primary focus. There are way more than a few bad apples. This has corrupted all of us. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: GUEST,Gerry Date: 06 Apr 02 - 05:14 PM OK. GUEST mg You seem supremely sure of your ground. Perhaps you could be a little more specific than "there are way more than a few of these cases. There are very very many. " You are the one making the assertions. Let us suppose you are required in a court of Law to quantify those assertions - as you certainly would. What do you mean by "a few" and how many more than " a few" is "way more"? Similarly, as opposed to "a few" by what numerical factor is "many" an increment thereof. Following on that, how many are there in "very,very many"? Failure to give reasonable answers to such questions calls your whole case into question. Worse still, it calls into question - by association - the case of those victims who are fighting against the self-preserving constructs of major institutions such as Joe Offer has described. Muck spreading is not part of a solution. It is part of the problem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: GUEST,mgarvey@pacifier.com Date: 06 Apr 02 - 05:38 PM let's not and say we did. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: GUEST,Gerry Date: 06 Apr 02 - 06:38 PM GUEST mg And *that* is your sole answer? I rest my case Gerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: GUEST,Neil Comer Date: 06 Apr 02 - 06:51 PM This is my first posting to the Mudcat in a long time for various reasons. However, I am not replying to any individual message. In this world there are certain people who take advantage of others, whether it be in a sexually explotive, physical or monterary way. I was a student as the Christian Brothers in Ireland were coming to the end of their 'reign.' There were some good brothers and some bad. There were some good lay people and some bad lay people. Some of those 'bad' people/brothers took advantage of those they deemed to be vunerable. The meek who were scared of their authority. For that, they deserve to feel the full extent of the law. We should, however, ask why these people managed for so many years to destroy lives etc., neither monitored nor fettered. How can a bishop walk into a room and discover a priest interfering with a child and simply ignore it? (this is not a hyphothetical example) How can a Headmaster of a school allow a clerical member of his staff, about whom rumours abound, accompany a group of students on a three week summer course as their 'medical officer?' The guilty should be punished (clerical or otherwise), but so should the accessories. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: Joe Offer Date: 06 Apr 02 - 07:20 PM OK, the numbers in the Sacramento Diocese were released today. Over the last 30 years, 14 priests in the Sacramento Diocese have been accused of sexual misconduct with minors. Two of the priests are dead, and two are retired and not allowed to function as priests. Seven are no longer in the ministry (two fled to Mexico when they were under police investigation). Three of the accused priests are active because the allegations were not sustainable. I don't know if my friend fits into these numbers. It was unclear to me whether the men in his case were minors at the time the incidents happened. New policies of the diocese with regard to sexual misconduct by priests: The Sacramento Diocese will no longer settle sexual misconduct cases confidentially unless it is requested by the victim. If insurance carriers request it, the settlement amount will remain secret. The diocese has appointed a layperson's advocate to investigate complaints. Police are notified when a minor is involved in a sexual misconduct investigation. Priests found to have had inappropriate contact with a child are defrocked. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: GUEST,johntm Date: 06 Apr 02 - 08:42 PM I just learned the other day that the former pastor of my the parish in which I live was accused of molesting a boy at at local high school in 1976 when the prient was dean of studied at a local high school. The abuse lasted three yeasrs, and the NY Archdiocense has paid $100K to settle the case. When my wife and I were getting married, we decided to use a chapel on a college campus where she worked, but which was in this parish. This prient denied us the right, asserting that anyone married in his parish had to use his church. My wife is wired into the church, her brother is a high ranking member of a relgious order, and a sister a nun in similar if less ordered position. She pulled strings and we got the chapel. Almost everyone loved the creativity of the ceremony (drawn up by her brother) but it confused me and my traditional Irish relativeves. When our first son was born, my wife's cousein (a priest) was late for the baptismal ceremony (which he was supposed to lead) so we moved the whole thing into our house, across the street from the parish church. Everyone loved the intimacy of it. When it came time to baptize my second son I mentioned to the pastor (get back to the guy in the lead) that we had to move the ceremony to my house and his response was: "That never happened." I explained what had happened. "That never happened in my parish." My second was dutifuflly baptized in a regular ceremony. The paston went on to teach in a seminary in Florida, which fired him when it learned after a law suit about the molestation back in 1976. The seminary president said he would never have accepted him if he had known of the record. The NY Archdiocese said it told the seminary everything it knew at the time. What else can you say. I think it is a capsule history of what is happening. A friend in Boston, an ex nun, says a good friend, a married priest, is inviting people to celebrate mass with his family at his home. She thinks this "small church' is the future, away from the "big church" which is hierarchical etc, etc.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: GUEST,johntm Date: 06 Apr 02 - 08:48 PM Just read that again. Should be clear that the dean of studies who molested the boy ( the prient claimed it was consensual fondling) was the pastor who denied me and my wife use of the chapel, and then refused to believe my son was baptized outside the four walls of his empire. John Mulqueen |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: GUEST,Gerry Date: 06 Apr 02 - 09:42 PM Neil Comer I must ask you, as I asked GUEST mg, to be more explicit. To say "How can a bishop walk into a room and discover a priest interfering with a child and simply ignore it? (this is not a hyphothetical example)" is just not good enough. For all legal purposes this is a fairy tale. You *must* name and shame, especially since you claim it is not hypothetical. If you *can* name, then you must report this to the police. If you do not, then you are part of the conspiracy of silence and culpable. There is no middle way! Again, with respect to your second accusation: "How can a Headmaster of a school allow a clerical member of his staff, about whom rumours abound, accompany a group of students on a three week summer course as their 'medical officer?" The key words here are "rumours" and "abound". Rumour is "hearsay" and is not admissable as evidence of guilt. "Abound" is as woolly and unmeaningful a phrase as those I asked GUEST mg to quantify in another post. Am I right in suggesting that the "three week summer course" consisted of a visit to Donegal for the purposes of improving the pupils' grasp of Irish? I have contacts in Ireland in this field and I find it extremely hard to believe that *anything* untoward could have taken place. The supervision of the pupils is very tight and it is virtually impossible for an adult to be alone with a child. In any case, the medical care of the students is in the hands of the authorities running the courses. No one else has any access to them. A teacher describing himself as a "medical officer" would find his credentials under very severe scrutiny.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: GUEST,Gerry Date: 07 Apr 02 - 10:00 PM I await any reply wih interest. gerry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: Joe Offer Date: 08 Apr 02 - 03:36 AM Just to put a little more balance to all this, let me say that all bureaucracies screw up - and mostly it's just a screwup, and not an indication of ill will or conspiracy or general wickedness or a coverup. I remember working my tail off on suitability investigation on somebody who wanted to work at a U.S. Air Force base. The guy had serious mental health problems, and had been placed on 3-day mental health observation holds by the sheriff several times when he was considered unsafe to himself and others. This man had been fired by the same Air Force base twice, but still the government was considering him for employment. Yes, it would be wonderful if every organization could have exemplary employees - but I'm afraid that will never be a reality, not even in churches. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: Joe Offer Date: 08 Apr 02 - 04:26 AM Copied from the other thread, which was getting too long. Thread #45382 Message #684894 Posted By: GUEST,fo 07-Apr-02 - 06:59 AM Thread Name: BS: Catholic Bishop and Priest Scandal Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop and Priest Scandal The Irish government is to launch a state inquiry into sexual abuse allegations against a Roman Catholic priest, which led to the resignation this week of a bishop. The Bishop of Ferns, Brendan Comiskey, resigned on Monday after being criticized for his handling of the charges against by one of the priests in his diocese, Father Sean Fortune. Thread #45382 Message #684997 Posted By: GUEST 07-Apr-02 - 01:21 PM Thread Name: BS: Catholic Bishop and Priest Scandal Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop and Priest Scandal This is too much! The hordes of Hell itself are ripping down the walls of the Church. When will it stop? First, that PBS article last month on the terrible things the Christian Brothers did in Australia to the boys. Now we find it in all the English speaking world, Canada, Ireland, GB, the United States. In Los Angeles alone, there are eight priests acknowledged to be involved. Terrible, Terrible, Terrible!
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: GUEST,Annraoi Date: 08 Apr 02 - 08:57 PM Refresh |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 09 Apr 02 - 04:58 PM Gerry, follow the link in my last post. An isolated case? I think not. And your challenge to "name names" is disngenuous. Talk to some of those who have been abused and who have complained, and you would realise just how distressing and hopeless that journey can be. Joe, bravo, truly, to the Sacramento diocese - behaving the way the Vatican should have told all bishops to behave many years ago. Celine, I've not checked back through my posts, but if I did say "numerous" priests/cases, when referring to the Comiskey scandal, I clearly should not have done - I knew it was just Fortune and one other. Whether Comiskey resigned or was sacked is a matter of small distinction to me. Whoever took the initiative, it came far too late, and only after they had been dragged, kicking and screaming, to that point. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 10 Apr 02 - 10:26 AM The catholic bishops in Ireland are to conduct exhaustive investigations, in which they will follow up all known allegations over a period of some 62 years. It will be an open process, with all results fully published. Is it just coincidence, I wonder, that they take this welcome, but long overdue, initiative the week after the Irish government announced a state inquiry? Well I don't want to be unduly cynical, but I recall the Vatican giving a (catholic) scholar, John Cornwell, access to its archives so he could set the record straight about Pius XII and the nazis. That co-operation was suddenly withdrawn as it became obvious that the evidence of the archives exposed the full scale of Pacelli's connivnce with Hitler. (The resulting book was called Hitler's Pope.) Annraoi, who thinks this thread is rabidly anti-catholic and that the child-abuse scandals are just an excuse for flaying the church, may like to note what Ireland's two seniormost clerics said about the Fortune/Comiskey business, so graphically exposed by the BBC. In a joint statement, Cardinal Desmond Connell and Archbishop Sean Brady (themselves now under prssure to resign) said: "It is a scandal which has evoked entirely justified outrage." Here's a link to the BBC's latest on the scandals. There are several interesting links to follow from there, including to the documentary about Fortune and Comiskey. The poster who wondered whether the scandals might one day reach as high as the pope may be interested to note that the programme was called "Suing the Pope." By the way, an archbishop in Poland is one of the most recent to be planning that trip to Rome to formalise his resignation. Since he continues to deny the horrors alleged against him (and may be innocent for all I know), I hope Annraoi will take note that this particular resignation results from a Vatican inquiry, not a media witch-hunt. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: GUEST,Andrew Date: 13 Apr 02 - 09:39 PM Fionn From your remark of the 29th March - the very first one in this post - I presume you would apply the same impeccable standards of Justice to murderers. I quote:- " I don't want to see innocent priests falsely accused, but if that is the price for redressing the balance, I believe it has to be paid." "I don't want to see innocent people executed but if that is the price for .............." Or in the case of the Japanese Americans during the Second World War:- "I don't want to see innocent Japanese Americans wrongly jailed but if that is the price etc." Or, in more recent times:- "I don't want to see innocent Arab Americans falsely accused but if that is the price ....... etc." Get the point? I doubt it very much. But what if *you* were one of the innocents required to pay *your* price? Andrew |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: GUEST,Paddy(1) Date: 13 Apr 02 - 09:57 PM Guest Gerry Get real - you haven,t a clue. The reason the church idiots are in this mess is because the thought like you are thinking. Nobody accusses a cleric of sexual/physical/mental abuse unless they have been sexually/physically/mentally abused. In fact most people in this position will not accuse because they feel in some way to blame - the abuser is an expert in assigning this guilt. (I know) Can someone tell me why there are thousands (millions ?) of Canon Law rules (My Capitals !) and only 10 commandments. Love thy bloody neighbour not thy bloody lawyer ! Paddy(1) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: Socorro Date: 14 Apr 02 - 12:01 AM For anyone who is seriously interested in specifics, the Sipe Report, an extensive study of pedophile priests by an eminent Roman Catholic psychiatrist, contains this information: [quote] Taking all of the available data into consideration led to our estimate that 6% of all Catholic clergy and religious acted out sexually with minors.[/quote] You can find the entire report, with the credentials and long church affiliation of the author at www.thelinkup.com/sipe.html To reiterate what has been said before, this in NOT about church-bashing, it is about protecting children. To those here who are critical of bringing the problem into the light, I can only assume that you do not know any victims, or of the serious damage that is done, especially to their spiritual lives. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: Joe Offer Date: 14 Apr 02 - 12:44 AM Actually, Socorro, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anybody who would be opposed to "bringing the problem into the light." It IS a problem, and Catholic bishops have recognized it as such and have been working to come up with solutions. The problem is that there is a lynch-mob mentality in opposition to problems that have happened years ago, and the mob wants to hang as many people as they can to avenge the crime. There's no thought of healing victims or coming to an understanding of the problem - it's all about punishing bishops and other clerics for mistakes they made years ago. No, come to think of it, it's the lynch mob that's opposed to "bringing the problem into the light." They really don't want understanding or a solution to the problem - all they want is blood. Face it, the Roman Catholic Church has now fully recognized that there has been a problem with pedophile clergy, and it is now the rule that offenders are brought to justice swiftly in almost every diocese in the world. As far as I can see, church leaders did not take action sooner because they didn't realize the seriousness of what was happening, and they couldn't believe that friends they knew for a lifetime were doing such terrible things. Well, they realize it now, and they're working hard to fix things. Why not give them a chance to solve the problem, rather than replace them with a houseful of inexperienced leaders who can make the same mistakes all over again? The lesson has been learned. Now, give the poor people a chance to clean up their mess and go on with life. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: GUEST,Gerry Date: 14 Apr 02 - 06:26 AM Guest Paddy (1) May I quote myself?:- "To say "How can a bishop walk into a room and discover a priest interfering with a child and simply ignore it? (this is not a hyphothetical example)" is just not good enough. For all legal purposes this is a fairy tale. You *must* name and shame, especially since you claim it is not hypothetical. If you *can* name, then you must report this to the police. If you do not, then you are part of the conspiracy of silence and culpable. There is no middle way!" What's wrong with this? Surely that is what every right-minded person would want to happen;that the guilty *should be named* and *reported to the police*. If *you* don't find this position acceptable, then *you* are part of the problem too. As for not accusing priests unjustly, there was mention earlier in this thread of a priest in Ireland somewhere being accused on two separate occasions, brought to trial on two separate occasions and found NOT GUILTY on both occasions. What should happen to his accusers? Is he not now a victim worthy of compassion and Christian love? Is he not your neighbour, Paddy, whom you admonish us to love? Or, maybe, your's is a case of "Do as I say, not as I do"?
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 14 Apr 02 - 06:22 PM Gerry, you make light of Paddy(1)'s point about the capacity of many paedophiles to manipulate the vulnerable and even transfer guilt. Priests in particular do have certain advantages when it comes to suggesting where guilt lies, particularly when dealing with the vulnerable in their flocks who take the elevated position of the priesthood to heart. Dublin's Cardinal Donnell said this weekend: "Only those who have suffered this terrible outrage can fully understand what is involved in revisiting what was done to them and exposing the trauma over again in the glare of publicity.... We are so much in their debt for the courage and perseverance they have shown in doing this." Guest Andrew, I honestly had in my own mind a clear distinction between accusation and judgment/conviction, but I can't blame you or anyone else for reading it differently, as I did myself when you reminded me what I'd said. For the record, as I have said in other threads, I would rather guilty people went free than that innocent people be convicted. Including priests. Joe, I know you're raising real concerns, and as I said earlier, that film "The Loudest Whisper" was a powerful lesson on all that can flow from a false or malicious whisper. But you're just not taking the point, or so it seems to me, that so many of the church's present actions are taken only force majeure. That comment of Cardinal Donnell's I've just quoted came after what the Irish Post yesterday headlined on an inside page: "Ten days that shook the church to its roots." The front-page headline was "Church in state of disgrace." Why should it take him to be under intense pressure to resign before he starts doing anything? The Irish Post's editorial said: "It took years, of course, for the Church to even admit that some priests could have abused those in their care. But four years ago guidelines were finally put in place to help priests and bishops to deal with such cases properly and openly. Sadly and shamefully those guidelines were not followed in many cases."NB many cases. The problem is that the openness which even senior clerics are now urging is actually opening a colossal can of worms. We're not any more talking about a few isolated cases, Joe. And every time I see a victim telling his or her story, the trauma and distress is palpable. Way too deep to be a malicious lie, and often corroborated by others. These people are at last being believed by the church - and that is giving many more victims the courage to come forward. One of the Dublin Sunday papers (the Independent?) today had a front-page story about the church finally taking action in another case - but the victim herself was quoted as saying that even now, she herself has still heard nothing from the church. This article quoted Donnell, I think it was, droning on about the "mystery of iniquity" - which to people who have lived these horrors is just so much mumbo jumbo. It is little wonder that the IRish Post says the church stands accused of "gross arrogance and inhumanity towards the victims." The Irish Post leader (just yesterday, remember) concluded: "They must now clean up their act. Anything less will be a further insult to the victims." The church cannot continue crying "witch-hunt" and "lynch mob" while at the same time falling over itself to heed the advice. And the fact that its actions are a response to such advice means that its actions are again too late. A church, of all institutions, simply should not need to be told how to behave decently. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: Joe Offer Date: 14 Apr 02 - 06:49 PM Well, Fionn, these stories hit the American Catholic press about five years ago, and most dioceses here followed suit with much stricter regulations and much more effective ways of dealing with the problem. My friend in the Vatican says that until the last couple of months, Rome looked on this as an American problem, and there was no awareness that sexual abouse was taking place in the church all over the world. Well, they know now. As for the word "many," I suppose I could follow Bill Clinton and say that it depends how you define the word "many." If you consider percentages, the number is reasonably low, maybe one or two victims per hundred thousand Catholics. One victim is too many, and all must be cared for with concern. However, I don't think it means the church must stop everything it does in order to grovel in shame over its sex scandal. Groveling is nonproductive. We need to come up with sensible solutions to the problem and then go on with life. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: GUEST,mg Date: 14 Apr 02 - 08:28 PM I disagree. I think that we must grovel in shame that this happened and I think we should not make excuses for them, such as they did not know. If they didn't know there was something wrong for a long time in Ireland they are just too dumb to be in charge of anything. Same with America. Same with horrible problems in Newfoundland years ago. This is not new. Bishops in Mexico still don't want to cooperate with the police. There are huge problems in Africa, with nuns being abused by priests. I don't know about minors. I think that when we cry witch-hunt etc. we are colluding with the colluders and enablers. I think we are obliged to stand up against false accusations, and see that everyone has due process, but to defend the actions of the church, and to say they just knew for a couple of months, when they have paid out hundreds of millions of dollars over decades...what kind of fiscal responsibility is that, to say nothing of moral. You're a far better Catholic than I am but I think you are just plain wrong here. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: Socorro Date: 14 Apr 02 - 10:08 PM The problem with "let's just put this behind us", is that while it serves the interests of the Catholic hierarchy, it does not serve the interests of the victims. Victims of any crime need to see justice done, which means bringing perpetrators to trial, so they can see that actions have consequences (even for priests). After justice is done, then the victim can start the healing work that includes forgiveness. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Catholic Bishop & Priest PART 2 From: Peter K (Fionn) Date: 15 Apr 02 - 01:46 PM Joe, you've got to appreciate that catholicism is different in the USA from almost anywhere else. There is a long-established tradition of American catholics speaking their minds -whether priests, religious or liaity. In most other countries it has been a different story. Certainly in Ireland it was a case of "you may or Maynooth," and until very recent years open protest against the bishops simply did not happen. If Rome has been treating the problem as largely American, it beggars belief. The resignation of Cardinal Groer in Austria was forced by countrywide, public protest. Protest which the pope arrogantly tried to ignore when he visited Austria in 1998. The Vatican knew full well about Juliusz Paetz, the recently resigned Archbishop of Poznan. And it's inconceivable that Rome didn't hear about the Brendan Smyth scandal, which brought down an Irish government. In Britain, cases of abuse by priests have been hitting the courts for ten years or more. I linked earlier to an item about a report submitted to the Vatican by the respected catholic charity Cafod. This exposed widespread abuse "across several continents." To quote the BBC: "Among the abuses detailed is the case of a nun being forced to have an abortion by the priest who impregnated her. She later died and he officiated at her requiem mass. Also cited is the case of a mother superior who repeatedly complained to her local bishop that priests in the diocese had made 29 of her nuns pregnant. The bishop, according to the report, subsequently relieved her of her duties." The vatican sat on this report for seven years. We only know about it now because Cafod confirmed it when a copy was leaked. The Irish Christian Brothers have admitted widespread abuse, sexual and physical, in their institutions, with individual cases running to some hundreds. This last weekend Cardinal Donnelly caused outrage by agreeing to preside at a mass celebrating the Christian Brothers" double centenary. Among the protesters were 150 victims of the disgraced order. All this happened only a few days after the (enforced) resignation of Bishop Comiskey last week. The Comiskey scandal had first been exposed three years ago by the Irish TV station RTE. The church response was to pervaricate, evade and deceive. And but for the persistence of the BBC, Comiskey would be enjoying the pope's confidence still. In this case as in so many others, people had been complaining directly and privately to the church over many, many years. And they were treated like dirt. I don't know whether you maybe misunderstood your friend, Joe, but I don't see how anyone in the Vatican could believe the problems are largely American. And it really is too easy, and way too soon, to say "let's move on." |