Well, I have to say I'm still struggling to understand all this, and I haven't found answers that make sense to me.

People seem to be so certain that they know all the answers, and it all looks pretty foggy to me.

I can certainly agree that those who commit crimes against children should receive swift, certain, and severe punishment - I have no question about that whatsoever, and I am very reluctant to believe in the possibility of rehabilitation.

What I'm not so sure of, is the extent to which other people should shoulder responsibility for these crimes. Sexual crimes against children are very difficult to detect and to prove, because children don't completely know what's going on and they are reluctant to report it.

These crimes often go unreported for years, and often are never reported. Adding to the problem is that child molesters are often very charming and convincing - that's how they attract the children they prey on. That also makes it hard for adults to believe that such a charming person could do such a thing. It's not only church leaders who don't believe the children and don't report the crimes to police - the parents also should be responsible for reporting crimes committed against their children. That's something I can't understand - why didn't the parents go to the police?

Another thing I don't understand is why people expect church leaders to be aware of these crimes and able to control them. Parish priests are largely autonomous, with very little supervision from the bishop's office. It is the people of the parish who have the opportunity to observe the conduct of priests on a day-to-day basis. In our town, there is a cadre of right-wing lay people who monitor the priests very closely, and keep a steady stream of complaint letters going to the bishop's office, if Father says so much as an inaccurate word during Mass ("people" instead of "men," for example). The most common real problem we have with priests is alcoholism, and usually it's parishioners who make sure the problem is dealt with - the bishop's office has no way of knowing, unless parishioners convey that information.

I've been in the Sacramento (California) Diocese since 1980, and this diocese has always had procedures for dealing with complaints of sexual misconduct by priests. In almost all cases, the complaints were handled quickly and with compassion, and with a minimum of red tape. Almost all of the offending priests were removed from ministry as soon as the complaints were found to be valid. I was in the seminary in Milwaukee 1962-70, and that diocese had procedures for dealing with sexual misconduct back then - we were put through extensive psychiatric screening when I was in college, and several seminarians were removed (at the same time, the director of St. John's School for the Deaf next door was molesting students, but that's not something we knew about).

Both Sacramento and Milwaukee had cases that weren't handled perfectly, but that's to be expected. If you've ever worked in a criminal justice system, you know that it's impossible to stop or to catch every crime. One hundred percent just isn't possible. Whatever you do to prevent or punish it, crime is still going to happen. You do the best you can during your work shift, and then you go home and try to forget it until tomorrow.

I spent 25 years as a federal investigator, so I'm not naive about these things. I have investigated a number of people who were accused of child molestation, and there were a number of cases where nobody was able to do anything about the crime because there was no solid proof. Crimes against children are very, very difficult to detect - and even more difficult to prove, especially when they happen within families. I can think of one law enforcement supervisor who molested his stepdaughter, and I was not able to get him removed because I couldn't get solid proof. If I can't prove a case against a two-bit macho molester cop, how can I expect a bishop to know how to deal with a priest who's molesting? And in my own experience, the most frequent offenders were married law enforcement officers, not clergy. There's something about being employed in law enforcement that can really bring out the weirdness in people.

It's a complex issue. I hear lots of blame repeated here, over and over again - but I don't hear any answers. All I hear are cries for revenge and punishment, but very few rational answers to this terrible problem. I think we need to begin asking questions and thinking. It's time to get to work, and stop pointing fingers of blame.

-Joe-