IvanK

On further review let's float this argument: the Catholic Church and its heirarchy have contributed to the problem of pedophile priests by creating a climate in which those priests who do have urges to abuse their young parishioners also have no fear no punishment, either in this world or the next.

As opposed to that we might say that the Church's approach to identifying priests with those kinds of problems and getting them help in a forgiving and nonjudgmental way might be superior to locking them up indefinitely, declaring them incurable, stoking society's rage against them and generally making them out to be inhuman monsters that need to be exterminated. Which brings us back to the notion of sin and its power over human beings.

There's a lot of that confusion like that going around to be sure, but I don't think our good Father suffers from it. All I see him saying is that if sex is basically OK then it would be OK for a Catholic priest who happened to be homosexual to have a (consensual) sexual relationship with one of his young male charges. Except he leaves out the idea of the relationship being consensual which, given the position of authority the priest naturally enjoys, opens a whole 'nother can of ethical worms.

brighid

I don’t have a problem with older men having sexual relationships with younger men, but I don’t define the acceptable parameters to be 4 years old. Perhaps 16 and older, but then that brings in statutory rape issues! These relationships that have been hidden haven’t been consensual and have been entered in through manipulation and intimidation, and sustained this way. I think a forgiving attitude is healthy and I don’t really have a problem with the Church handling priests in such a manner. I do have a problem with them deny the problem exists, keeping it from parishioners, blaming the victims, denying it’s really a problem until it’s “notorious” AND in the case of homosexual activity CONDONING it, while damning non-priest homosexual men and women to hell while engaging in healthy, consensual, adult relationships.

I think that there should also be a distinction between a molester and a pedophile. I think some of these priests have engaged in inappropriate relationships with young men, but some have only done it once or twice and not since. I think MANY are serial pedophiles. In any case I think they should not be allowed to interact with children in any manner that isn’t highly supervised and in most cases NOT at all. But I think each case should be handled on an individual basis, that an accusation should not equate to automatic guilt and viable solutions implemented to address the very real problem within the priesthood. Sexual repression is a very serious mental health issue. Priests are human beings and imagine having to deny your natural urges and having them manifest in not so healthy ways – like with little children.

The Church is behind the times. Public and secular private organizations have larger legal obligations and although child molesters make it through the cracks of these institutions that don’t have strict screening processes and other policies in place – most don't make it through. And at least they are doing something to help combat and prevent it. Also, the penalties for a non-religious person engaging in such activities is higher. A teacher, who has been convicted of, or has an accusation of child abuse in his/her file is unlikely to ever teach again and may very well likely go to jail. A school isn’t likely to protect said teacher or staff member because of their own liabilities and criminal punishments. They aren’t going to hide the child molester, or shuffle him to another school, or fail to notify the authorities unless they are willing to suffer the consequences.

Part of the problem is we have allowed Church organizations to be placed above the law and with higher “moral” expectations. The Church has instituted it’s own policies of secrecy and had those policies bolstered by the public and legal allowance of such activities. Times are changing and priests and the Church should no longer be able to avoid criminal AND civil penalties for one of its employees violating the law. The Church should be held to higher standard because of its divine claims and a priest who molests a child should be given a stiffer penalty then a lay person committing the same crime. He KNOWS better! As a martial artist I am held to a higher legal standard then a non-martial artist because of my knowledge and my abilities. I don’t see why it should be any different in the case of a priest.

B

[ May 01, 2002: Message edited by: brighid ]</p>

IvanK

So I think we've come around to this: the Catholic Church and its priesthood have problems that the Church and the priesthood badly need to address and solve. That's not an indictment of the Church or the preisthood per se nor of their overall approach to the problems.

In particular I'd have to say every local news outlet across the country running lead stories every day about 20- and 30-year-old allegations of abuse is probably an overreaction to the problem, inevitable as it may be.

ManM

People love their witch hunts...

brighid

I don’t think it’s an over reaction to the problem. 20 or 30 years ago you just couldn’t come forward with these things, just as it was more difficult for rape victims to come forward without fear of recriminations and other horrible things. The pain and dysfunction that comes from denial can be debilitating. And if these people didn’t ever come forward, the problem would continue as it is and more children would continue to be harmed in the same way. And should we diminish or ignore the problem if it happened 20 years ago as opposed today? Should they simply remain silent and let it go? For all these men and women coming forward now there are many more who remain silent about the abuse they either have suffered, or those who are being abused at the moment. Frankly, it takes years to be able to acknowledge that it happened to you, that you aren’t somehow guilty and feel safe enough to bring these allegations to light. Having been molested I know how hard it is for these people and how few victims ever come forward. If hundreds of victims are coming forward you can bet that thousands are remaining silent.

I don’t see this as a witch hunt, nor need it be. However, the Catholic Church isn’t making it easy to feel confident in their desire or ability to address the problems of the past, rectify it for the future and that protecting children is a bigger priority then protecting their own ass. They are making things much more difficult then need be.

The problem is far more pronounced within the Church then it is within society at large. The Church has lots of money, mean attorneys and a huge interest in preserving it’s “good name” as opposed to doing what’s right – especially when that conflicts with the interests of self-preservation. It creates an environment that attracts and enables these men to abuse. It has a system of policies that keeps the penalties low to non-existent and they still fail to acknowledge the destruction this behavior has upon the innocent, child victim who carries this mental and emotional plague with them for life. It doesn’t ever really go away. It becomes bearable, and with work and can be diffused as a destructive force in your life – but I don’t wish that kind of horror on anyone. No child should be violated physically or emotionally in the way molestation violates a child. To ignore it, to minimize it, to say its all just a witch hunt, or get over it is simply wrong. These men committed crimes, not just once, but over and over again and some did it to hundreds of children, hundreds of times. They destroyed innocent lives that they are appointed to protect and nourish and the Church knowingly and willingly allowed them to continue the cycle of abuse because they don’t value children, but rather they value the Church and it’s men most. The behavior of the Church and these priests is immoral and illegal and they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, just like any other man or woman, and more so for their positions of power and authority stemming from their God.

Witch-hunt, if only we could punish those bastards as they tortured and murdered men, women and children guilty of no crimes at all. Thankfully for them, we have evolved as a society.

Brighid

IvanK

Thanks for sharing.

Points granted.

Understanding why you feel the way you do, I'd still have to say that lumping all priests together as "these men" who have each "destroyed hundreds of innocent lives" and who, along with the institution they were supposed to serve but instead betrayed, "should be punished to the fullest extent of the law," would be an overreaction to the very real problems that do exist.

The Other Michael

Hi IvanK,

You are right that we shouldn't stereotype all priests.

I do find that the "along with the institution . . . " phrase sounds like the "oh, those weren't OUR troops that crossed the border, those were RENEGADES" or "oh, but those bad people weren't TRUE Christians (TM)" type of justification. If officers/employees of an institution commit crimes AS officers/employees of the institution where they are carrying out an institutional policy, then the institution certainly seems liable to me. But then I'm not an attorney so I could well be wrong about how the law works.

And prosecution to the full extent of the law seems a reasonable course. The judicial system often has some leeway in sentencing for mitigating circumstances (if they exist).

On a related note I got my first copy of the FFRF's "Freethought Today" newspaper a couple of days ago. They have what they call "Blackcollar blotter" which lists all the religious operatives (priests, ministers, etc) that they can find who are being sued, tried, convicted, sentenced etc in the USA. It goes on for a couple of (tabloid sized) pages.

cheers,
Michael

IvanK

Nor am I, but my understanding is that if, say, the bank teller pockets your cash instead of depositing it the VP doesn't have to do jail time. Unless of course he told the teller to pocket your deposit. Similarly, it's not Catholic doctrine for priests to molest little boys and girls. So unless it could be shown that a pederast priests's superior knowingly put him in a position where a reasonable person would conclude some harm would come to children in his care there wouldn't necessarily be a case in the absence of any positive statute making, say, transferring a known child molester a crime. (Is that sort of the way lawyers talk?)

Godless Dave

But that's exactly what's been happening.

IvanK

In those cases, take it to court and prove it, by all means. The point the article raises is that one can't justly indict the whole church or its leadership over the wrong acts of some priests and bishops.