www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall I don't get it

How could things like this still be coming to light, and potential abusers still in the system?

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/116149774.html?cmpid=15585797

That story was on the front cover of the paper this weekend.

I don't "get it", either. The alleged behavior is beyond my ability to comprehend.

But what I DO get is:

1) that at this point, these are just accusations, not proven facts;

2) that there are at least 2 sides to most stories; and sometimes more than 2;

3) that our Churches are made up of sinful, fallen, contradictory and sometimes even downright dangerous and corrupt people - summoned by Christ to get involved in the process of repentance and of making personal moral changes as necessary;

4) and that the Lord acts through highly imperfect folks. This latter truth is a potential scandal for many but it's a mystery for everyone.

Remember that these are still just accusations. There is a political agenda going on in Philadelphia that involves an aggressive DA hoping to make political capital out of these accusations against the Catholic Archdiocese. The whole idea behind it is that if you're the bishop you should know what vevery priest is doing at every hour of the day. And it looks like the old litigator's idea of "the more the merrier," meaning that you name as many people as possible in roder to force negotiated settlement.

You've also got to remember that these accusations have been made by people who are told taht this is a way to make a quick buck. There was a priest in my area accused of things that were later proven to be false. Unfortunately, he is still under the stigma of the accusation because the press related the charge but never his finding of innocence.

Bob

I know, what I don't get is the actions of the institution given

- All that has been revealed in the last 20 years, and the need to address accusations.
- That accusations were previously known in this case and still were a surprise to a parish - http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2011/02/14/opinion/doc4d59194f26e9b842920337.txt

The DA is Catholic as mentioned here - http://www.trentonian.com/articles/2011/02/11/news/doc4d55da0db0ec6091220341.txt

I don't either, but I wonder how much is real and how much is political.



And so is Nancy Pelosi and lots of other people who have a love/hate relationship with the Church.

Bob

"How could things like this still be coming to light, and potential abusers still in the system?"

This PRIEST magazine article attempts to answer the question.

http://www.osv.com/tabid/7637/itemid/7283/From-Sin-and-Compulsion-to-Crime.aspx

Unfortunately that article does little to nothing in my mind to explain how what is being discussed now could go on in the wake of the scandal coming to light and that supposedly there is now a zero tolerance policy.

This article goes in to more detail on the 37 un-named parties still in active ministry

http://articles.philly.com/2011-02-...iest-archdiocesan-priests-david-clohessy

This has more detail on those charged

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/religion/20110211_Five_charged_in_church_sex_scandal.html

I worked for many years with Children's Services and the Family Courts and have an extensive background on the issues of child sexual abuse and overall child maltreatment.

With absolutely no apologies or excuses for the alleged conduct of officials in the Philadephia Archdiocese and the Roman Catholic Church at large, I still can not help but wonder, nor do I doubt, that similar systemic behaviors exist throughout our highly sexualized and self-centered society. This pattern consists of first 'disbelieving' the accusations, followed by 'minimalization' of the accusations, followed by 'denial' and finally by a 'hide the problem and hope it goes away' type of 'solution'.

The very nature of a hierarchical or pyramidal corporate structure subtly encourages such thinking . In addition to the church, many other organizational structures behave in a similar fashion, including, but not limited to, the military, education, public safety, medicine, social service organizations - and the worst offender - the family itself.

All that being said, as someone both deeply involved with the clergy and with secular CPS experience, I am more offended and upset by failings within any Church or religious organization because of the message that sends to the world and to the enemies of God.

However, we can't blind ourselves to the overall societal problem of child abuse by using tunnel vision and focusing only on the misdeeds of a church and its leaders. As municipal and county budgets get squeezed in the years to come, we have to ensure that our efforts to protect the most vulnerable of our citizens are not thrown to the sidelines while we focus our attention solely on one small, but outrageous, example of organizational abuse.

Campaign builds for rethinking zero tolerance on sex abuse

Debate on the Catholic hierarchy's response to the sex abuse crisis is typically framed in terms of just one question: Has the church done enough? Some important voices in Catholicism are arguing that the church has already done too much. It's a view that's finding traction among Catholics who believe that the church's doctrine are being sacrificed upon the altar of short-term PR and legal relief.

http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/campaign-builds-rethinking-zero-tolerance-sex-abuse

The Priesthood and Justice

While everyone recognizes that bishops must pursue just canonical and civil penalties against those who have betrayed their sacred office, there remain enduring theological questions about the severity of certain of these actions.

http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/01/the-priesthood-and-justice

I couldn't disagree more with Fr. Thomas Guarino. I certainly agree that sins of sexual abuse are not beyond God's ability or willingness to forgive. However, a man who engages in such sins has no place in the priesthood. The risk of scandal-to the victim and the victim's family, to those who are victims when to re-offending begins (in many cases, an inevitability) to the faithful, and to those outside is too great. I fear some people within in the Church (including Fr. Thomas) have learned very little from the scandals of the last ten years. Would Fr. Thomas like to have to face a victim of a re-offending priest? I think not. He should consider that horror before advocating a retreat from the no tolerance policy.

Both articles are disturbing.

Has the church done too much?? Does apologizing "undercut the moral credibility of the church" (as opposed to what actually happened and how it's been handled maybe undercutting credibility)??

Good lord.

AtL,

I agree completely. Fr. Thomas seems to be rather naive, especially where he states: I mean, all this sounds great, but does he really think that this ideal situation set forth by V2 was the NORM in RC dioceses prior to "Zero Tolerance?"

I certainly agree that Zero Tolerance is a less-than-ideal solution to this problem, but it does represent an acknowledgement that we no longer live in a world where problems like this can be officially declared not to exist--God forbid we should ever wish to return to such a state!


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Zero tolerance policies are everywhere and in all circumstances an abrogation of responsibility by persons in authority. In place of their individual judgment and discretion, they rely on an abstract set of rules, applied in a procrustean manner that invariably results in idiocy and outright injustice. On the other hand, it protects them from making hard choices on the one hand, and from legal liability on the other.

Such policies are also antithetical to Christian ethics, which demand that human beings be treated as individual persons rather than as objects.

I hope we are all on the same page as to what zero tolerance means.If it means an "accusation" then I agree with Stuart. If it truly means "conviction", this was stated in a comment on Fr.Guarino's article, the priest or religious be sent to a monastery for the remainder of his or her days to pray for forgiveness and salvation of their souls if they are not in jail.

I'm very sympathetic to what Stuart is saying here. However, in the case of clerics who are guilty of sexual abuse, I simply believe that they have no place in ministry. I certainly do not believe that they cannot be forgiven. Furthermore, I'm not convinced that they never can be rehabilitated. But I do believe that the potential for scandal and the possibility of repeated abuses of authority are adequate justifications for the Church to remove offenders from the exercise of ministry permanently.

I also think that it is prudent for other institutions that are involved in the care of children and those who are handicapped or otherwise unable to defend themselves to exclude from the workplace those who are guilty of sexual abuse. Just as clerics who are guilty of sexual abuse can be forgiven, school teachers, daycare workers, hospital workers, prison guards, etc. who commit such crimes also can be forgiven. However, I don't believe that forgiveness involves giving them the right to return to working in places where they would have ongoing access to potential victims.

Of course there is no place in ministry for sexual predators against whom charges have been substantiated, but the Dallas Charter is draconian, sets the standard for what constitutes a credible accusation very low, and has an implicit assumption of guilt. There is no real due process here, and despite the bishops' protestations that they have a pastoral responsibility to their priests, the policy essentially tosses accused priests to the wolves (We'll help you find a lawyer, but we won't pay for him--good luck!). Even when a priest is vindicated (found innocent, charges dropped or no charges brought at all) it is extremely difficult for them to return to ministry at all. Tainted goods and all that. Just how is an accused priest to get back his good name?

Few people realize the same policy applies to non-clergy employees and even volunteers within the Church. When it was first implemented, I was told that I would have to undergo a background investigation (I hold a Top Secret clearance from the Department of Defense, so what is this namby-pamby, pro-forma BI by some rent-a-cop agency supposed to do), as well as sign a statement that I would not diddle little kids. I was also interested to see that if I was a accused of sexual misconduct, the Eparchy would not stand by me, but would help me retain legal counsel. Thanks a lot, Your Grace! I'll stand by you the same way, when the shoe is on the other foot.

So, I told my priest I would not comply with this policy, finding it insulting, un-Christian and legally dubious. Insulting, because for half a dozen years, the parents of the parish had been entrusting their kids to me for religious education, while I entrusted my kids to other parents. Moreover, I did not see very much in the way of a problem with parent volunteers, but quite a bit of a problem with the priests and the bishops--why should I be tarred with the same brush, just so they can cover their financial asses?

I also told him I doubted that a background investigation would help uncover sexual predators--my experience with BIs in defense and intelligence, where the investigations are far more extensive and thorough, shows they have not really been able to uncover or reduce the instances of spying, the requirements for which are quite similar to those for being a sexual predator (no offense to any current or retired intelligence officers).

I told him that the policy was un-Christian, because of its lack of discretion, presumption of guilt, and violation of the concept of the parish as an extended family. Families (or at least good ones) don't hire sleuths to investigate its members.

And so, despite protestations that the policy was "for the children" and was a "minimal imposition", I said that I would not comply, and if I could not continue as an ECF instructor, then so be it. Enough was enough.

Unfortunately given a media and a public looking for quick and easy fixes (i.e. the same culture that buys into certain Christian sects' views on 'once saved' etc...) that just loves 'zero tolerance' policies. CAUSE...you don't have to think or make moral choices or take a stand on anything. It is one of the results of 'group think' and a step on the road to either acceptance of authoritarian or even totalitarian rule.

Between the opportunistic members of my profession who fuel the fires of public paranoia with the promise of a payday, the inanity of insurance underwriters and accountants, the cravenness and refusal to think by any sort of bureaucrats (public, private, secular or religious),we have abdicated our common societal obligation to each other and our so-called dedication to our basic human and constitutional rights.

Good for you for saying no, and too bad for the kids who will only be exposed to vanilla pudding in their lives.

There is no room for predators to ever work with kids, but to presume that everyone is a predator and to work from there is to put aside common sense, rationality and hard work.

Right or wrong, it seems the zero tolerance policy may not be being followed.

Stuart:

I can identify. Good for you. I'm supposed to work with two underage people this afternon to prepare them as lay readers. But I need a chaperone to meet with them on parish property. So be it.

Given the experience of some adults, I'm concerned about false accusations. There is almost as much danger to adults by teens in this age as the other way around.

Bob