Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua of Philadelphia says :
Speak for yourself, motherfucker. If MY son raped small boys, I’d neither have compassion NOR forgiveness. I’d be agonized for the rest of my life trying to figure out WHY my parenting had failed so wretchedly, but I’d also stand by while he was incarcerated. For a long, long, goddamned time.
However, this being the Roman Catholic Church and all, we are told by Bishop Bevilacqua to show forgiveness. Rapist as victim much, Bishop?
By a vote of 239-13, their new guidelines have passed and the American Bishops have decided that defrocking a priest for fucking a child just doesn’t sit well with them. Instead, they’re going to find a role for each and every rapist that will bar them from face to face contact with parishoners.
Here’s a chance for any RC Priest Doper to stand forth, and educate us all. Tell us exactly what jobs these are? What task can a priest perform for the Church where he will NOT be face to face with a parishoner, ever???
They have closed ranks and voted to keep their own safe. It is a low point in this country’s history of religious freedom to see that these American Bishops ( who claim to set policy for roughly 178 mainstream dioces ) have decided it is more important to comfort the rapists than it is to protect their flocks.
Shame on every one of the 239 of them who voted “yes”.
May they burn in Hell for the vote they cast this week.
These rants work better when you don’t completely reverse the statement of the persons you’re trying to vilify.
The bishops said only that those priests would not be automatically defrocked. Every statement that I have seen has said that there is no role that these men can fullfill in the church, and that, therefore, they will be prohibited from ever serving in any capacity, ever again.
(This includes men who, twenty or forty years ago, had as much as a single incident with a seventeen year old that they have never repeated as well as the actual serial pedophiles.
Incarceration and compassion/forgiveness are not mutually exclusive notions. One of the Gospel messages, one of the harder Gospel messages…is that we are called to forgive and have some compassion sinners…even vheinous sinners. I’ll spare you the long list of Gospel references…but 7 times 70 is an important number.
**
See above. The Gospel message calls all of us to forgive
**
Well no. You’re wrong. Again. The bishops decided to not make defrocking automatic. However, there is nothing to stop the local bishop from doing so, on the advice of an advisory committee mostly made up of lay people. (See here
**
As far as “active” roles (which the bishops do not say are guaranteed these men)…many academic/research positions might be appropriate. If the issue is male-to-male pedophilia, perhaps service to a convent would be appropriate.
**
The confirmed rapists are without a job, at the very least. They may, of course, also be subject to criminal prosecution. (Public reporting of these events is now explicitly mandated, as is forbidding the signing of confidentiality papers).
It’s certainly fair game to question whether these policies will actually be implemented at the local level. Tip O’Neill once said that all politics is local. The same reality applies to Roman Catholicism.
As tom suggested, make sure you have your facts straight about your outrage.
Besides, Belivaqua is one of the most conservative, old-fashioned bishops you can find. (I still remember when he was Bishop of Pittsburgh, and caused an uproar at our Parish because he refused to allow women to participate in the foot washing ceremoney on Holy Thursday-when he came to visit our parish. Women had always done so before at our church.)
Of course, I have to say, I’m lucky to have a Bishop like Donald Wuerl in this case. You might want to look him up.
As for compassion and forgiveness-that doesn’t mean they’re going to pat the guy on the head and say, “there there.”
Actually, the line that has appeared in quite a few news stories (suggesting that either all the news outlets are using a single wire service or that it was an actual explanatory statement from the bishops) was:
If they can’t ladle out soup and cannot celebrate mass or hear confessions, they are not going to be acting as teachers or chaplains.
All I could think after reading of the decision was “The church is stopping short of defrocking it’s members; If only someof their priests could do that.”
Sorry about that…
I stand corrected then. I was just guessing at possible roles that would answer the OPs question. Apparently the bishops have answered the question in an even more narrow fashion.
I remember that Bishop Wilton Gregory was emphasizing that the policy was designed to eliminate any contact between confirmed molestors and young people. Apparently the details of the policy will remove the men from any hint of ministerial duty.
Well, I understand their reasoning and their rationalization, but I still think it was a bad move, if they really wanted to restore trust in the eyes of their flock.
Would it not have been possible to initiate laicization of all priest-molesters, but include the ability to allow arguments for less harsh punishment in the process?
I did not, in fact, reverse anything. I quoted him accurately. The Bishops said that priests would not be defrocked. In fact, they will not be defrocked in accordance with the vote just taken. That is fact, not reversal of fact.
That is not a lie, it is a quote. If you are accusing me of fabricating a quote, then have the balls so say that. Otherwise, I’ll be waiting by the Rectory door for an apology.
I find it beyond the pale that these priests will not be defrocked. I thought I made that fairly clear in my O.P., but I will be glad to state it again.
I find it disgusting that the priests involved in child rapes, be it last week or 35 years ago, are permitted to still be priests. There. Got that? That’s the thrust of my rant.
I don’t’ really care what newspapers YOU read, tomndebb, I read a paper that quoted the Bishop, and I used that quote. They will not be used in face to face dealings with parishoners. They will also not be defrocked. How many times do you need to read that, to know that it’s an accurate legitimate quote?
Your last sentence in the quote above is fantastically chilling. Please correct my interpretation here if I am wrong, ok? It SEEMS to SOUND like what you said in that last sentence is that it’s not right to equate rape from 20 or 40 years ago, with a fresh new sexual assault. Did I get that about right? You said, “twenty or forty years ago, had as much as a single incident with a seventeen year old that they have never repeated”.
So, it’s A-OK to have committed an act of Pedophelia 24 years ago, just as long as it was one isolated incident?? You sure made it sound as though the old crimes were hardly worth glancing at, whereas these new fresh accusations are worthy of a more thorough vilification.
Try running that by a sexual assault victim who suffered the rape oh…say…26 years ago? See how that plays, m’kay? I think the ice you’re kneeling on is so thin, you are’t quite aware of what you said up there…
Having just read on Preview…Qadgop, it is the very idea that this decision is SEES as Reasoned or Rational that has me so deeply distressed.
You can dress up a Pedophile in a nice neato impressive outfit, and let them hide behind a few thousand years of Administrative Powers, and you know what?
They’re still deeply ill men, who pray on trusting young boys. Don’t dress it up, don’t dilute it. Best to call it what it really is.
Calm down, toonie. What I feel is reasonable is that all cases cannot be treated exactly the same. 25 years ago, a 19 year old seminarian had a consensual relationship with a 16 year old girl, got caught, continued on in the vocation, became a priest, and has lived an exemplary life since, and has to get thrown out???
These are the cases where some judgement could be used. They’re probably less than 2% of the total cases, but they are there.
That’s why I raised the question about starting the expulsion process for all, but see if it could take the above into account during the process.
On the other hand, perhaps the church should just be ruthless, and sever these from the body catholic also, if they really want to show they’re serious. That would probably do less damage in the long run.
Cartooniverse, you took one single line out of context and deliberately posted in a way to make it look as though those priests are still going to be walking around endangering children with the sanction of the church.
This was your lie:
Those are your words and they are in direct contradiction to every single published report since yesterday. Every report has said that they will be allowed no role in the church, whatsoever.
You have also changed what I said–effectively lying, again. My statement regarding an incident with a seventeen-year-old was not in regards to rape. (17 would not even invoke statutory rape charges in any state of which I am aware.) If you want to pretend that the only way any event could occur would be through rape (or even seduction), that is your privilege. You will be wrong, but you are welcome to the belief.
I am aware of people in their 20s and even 30s (male and female) who have found themselves in sexual relations with late teens. Such relationships are usually fraught with problems (and if one partner was a priest, it indicates a serious breech of trust with the teen, the community, the church, and with God). However, it is possible that a person could go into and then get out of such a relationship, recognize their errors (on all the levels involved) and never allow themselves to enter into any such relationship again. For you to insist that such a person is the equivalent of someone who has seduced or raped young children, demonstrates that you have no desire to pay any attention to facts.
You have an overwhelming desire to rage and you are not going to let any aspect of reality come between you and that rage. That’s your problem, not mine, but when you bring it to a public forum, I will point out you illogic, your errors, and your deliberate misrepresentations. Qadgop?
My personal, cynical view? They covered up the problem to avoid bad publicity and they invoked a mindless, one-reaction-fits-all, draconian punishment to escape bad publicity (by finally looking “tough”).
As a group (there have been indivual exceptions) they have reacted to the whole situation with the least possible thought throughout the last 20 years.
Cartooniverse, you took one single line out of context and deliberately posted in a way to make it look as though those priests are still going to be walking around endangering children with the sanction of the church.
This was your lie:
Those are your words and they are in direct contradiction to every single published report since yesterday. Every report has said that they will be allowed no role in the church, whatsoever.
You have also changed what I said–effectively lying, again. My statement regarding an incident with a seventeen-year-old was not in regards to rape. (17 would not even invoke statutory rape charges in any state of which I am aware.) If you want to pretend that the only way any event could occur would be through rape (or even seduction), that is your privilege. You will be wrong, but you are welcome to the belief.
I am aware of people in their 20s and even 30s (male and female) who have found themselves in sexual relations with late teens. Such relationships are usually fraught with problems (and if one partner was a priest, it indicates a serious breech of trust with the teen, the community, the church, and with God). However, it is possible that a person could go into and then get out of such a relationship, recognize their errors (on all the levels involved) and never allow themselves to enter into any such relationship again. For you to insist that such a person is the equivalent of someone who has seduced or raped young children, demonstrates that you have no desire to pay any attention to facts.
You have an overwhelming desire to rage and you are not going to let any aspect of reality come between you and that rage. That’s your problem, not mine, but when you bring it to a public forum, I will point out you illogic, your errors, and your deliberate misrepresentations. Qadgop?
My personal, cynical view? They covered up the problem to avoid bad publicity and they invoked a mindless, one-reaction-fits-all, draconian punishment to escape bad publicity (by finally looking “tough”).
As a group (there have been indivual exceptions) they have reacted to the whole situation with the least possible thought throughout the last 20 years.
Though I do think that - this is JMO - the deep thinking on the issues this day are getting them slaughtered in the press, which needs a basic response to report. A catch phrase. Something. “We will assist local authorities in prosecuting pedophiles.” “We want to differentiate between poor judgement and predatory behavior.” Why won’t they invest in the PR? The right issues are being addressed but one has to search for them.
You seem to be unhappy that I’ve used the word rape in my postings. Interesting. Okay, fine, if you feel the need to sully my distress with semantics, I hereby politely apologize to any Roman Catholic Priest Pedophiles out there for calling you rapists. You are not a rapist. You are a Pedophile.
There. Happy?
As for the lie you seem to be determined to prove, I will be glad to reiterate yet again: I don’t give a flying FUCK what all the published reports are that you have read.
( My Bold Type Added )
You said that every report you read said that they will have no role, my report - and I admit of course, that next to your daunting skills as a reporter and Knower of All Things True and Not Lying, The Associated Press doesn’t know shit- states that in fact they WILL BE KEPT IN THE PRIESTHOOD BUT WITHOUT FACE TO FACE CONTACT WITH PARISHIONERS WHICH IS WHAT I SAID IN MY O.P.
Gosh. I know, I know, it makes you feel powerful to keep calling me a liar. You do need to get on the phone, and convince every fucking newspaper in America to stop using the Associated Press though, since they’re liars too. Boy, you’re gonna have a busy day.
And, in other news ( also reported by The Associated Press, so we can assume that TomNDebb will prove that this is a lie as well…),
You still feel all pissy that I’ve used the word rape here, TomNDebb? I dunno, you got a better word for a priest who shoots child porn and is convicted of sexuall assault of a child? Well, then again, you know best- you might wanna add the Omaha District Attorney to your long, long list of people who are liars and are using the wrong words in describing these poor, misunderstood victim priests. You lemme know how fighting the good fight goes, ok?
I did not lie. I accurately quoted the newspaper report that I used in my Original Posting in this thread. You fucking deal with it.
It is indeed pitiful that you have chosen to attack me as a way of deflecting attention in this thread from the real issue.
I quoted a real article, that accurately reported a real isse that I find deeply disturbing. The names I used, and the quotes I used are all real. ( Unless of course, you’re going to now tell me I lied in creating the name Cardinal Bevilacqua… ).
I did not quote erroneously. In case this is a news flash to you, it is the policy of the Chicago Reader to frown upon members here who copy wholesale an entire copywrighted document and paste it into a thread in this Message Board. My O.P. didn’t copy much of anything, and the answer I just posted copied just enough to prove my point. I refuse to copy any more from that one article, I’m not interested in risking a Banning just to prove to you that The Associated Press knows a thing or three about accurate reportage. I would have been glad to give the name of the author as well, but at least my newspaper only credited the news wire as source.
Stop with the smokescreens, it’s tiresome and inappropriate. I credited the direct quotes I USED- I think if you are going to call me a liar, and say, " Oh, oh, oh, everything I read proves you’re a liar", then perhaps you ought to do your homework too, and provide cite that is the basis of that accusation.
Accusing tom, (or anyone else who has responded to your rant) of wishing to “deflect attention in this thread from the real issue” is way beyond the pale. Please think a bit before making that kind of accusation.
There is a link to the entire charter that the Bishops produced here.
The relevent section (I think is Article 5)
If you have specific objections to parts of Article 5 (or what is not in article 5), or other parts of the charter, it might be easier to respond from a direct look at the text.
I did think a bit before making that kind of an accusation. I made it anyway. It’s my prerogative. Deal with it. He accused me of being a liar when in fact I was quoting the Associated Press. As I mentioned up there, if he feels the A.P. is lying, he’s got much bigger problems than a thread on the SDMB to deal with. So yes, I made that accusation and I stand by it. He has his point of view, I have mine. I truly don’t give a shit if you chose to side with him, a pile-on doesn’t invalidate my point of view, or the accuracy of the reportage I chose to quote. It simply doesn’t, no matter how much you wish to the contrary.
As for the cite, thank you so much for finding the complete text. While my OP was based upon direct quotes from Cardinal Bevilacqua, it’s surely helpful to read from the actual text. You asked if I have specific objections, and I do.
You asked if I have objections. I do.
It was my wish that Priests, Bishops, WHOMEVER is a trusted cleric be immediately defrocked. I say “whomever” because it does occur to me that like any political machine, priests are promoted into higher offices, and to continue to JUST mention Priests is in fact doing the rest of the Religious Officiate a great disservice. No doubt there are Pedophiles who have been promoted highly.
DEFROCKED. Stripped of the shield of the Roman Catholic Church, to stand in a community as any other convicted sex offender. Since when should they, or ANY sex offender be granted some special white glove treatment or deference?? What, because they’re Priests? If they followed the teachings of Christ and the doctrines of Papal Law, they’d have kept celibate.
It’s pretty straightforward, really. I feel that they should be defrocked the day they are convicted, to spend the balance of their lives outside of the cloistered protections of the very political machine that hid them for years or decades.
You asked for specific objections. I answered.
On another point, TomNDebb quoted me as lying, and then said that the quote of mine was in direct contradiction to everything he had read. He provided NO cite as to WHAT he had read. I provided as much direct quote as I felt was appropriate without incurring the wrath of Administration by wholesale copying of a newspaper article. It was really great of beagledave to have delivered the Article 5 part of the new Charter, and again I thank him. I’m still waiting for accurate cite on the “facts” that TomNDebb claims prove I am a liar.
And again, IMHO, that’s just a smokescreen because he doesn’t like what I said.
What I said is this: ** The Priests convicted of child rape and molestation should be defrocked the day they are convicted**. That is what I said, that is how I felt, that is how I still feel. Calling me a liar won’t change that one iota.
No. You quoted one statement that has been widely reported from Archbishop Bevilacqua and whined that he had the temerity to speak of forgiveness. You then claimed that the bishops claimed that they would “find a role for each and every rapist that will bar them from face to face contact with parishoners.” when, in fact, the bishops declared that those men would have no role in the church. That was the statement that I accused you of turning around.
I initially made no mention of you lying, just getting your facts wrong. It was only when you returned to this thread and continued to post your misstatement (additionally changing the meaning of my statement) that I accused you of lying.
Generally, (especially on these boards), if someone is accused of having their facts wrong, they will go back and verify them–or, better, seek alternative sources as cross-references. You chose to not do that. Hence, it appears that you are more interested in raging than reading or understanding.
From AP, your wire service of choice, (actually from the very article that you quoted without fully reading):
Further, your insistence that all their actions would be considered pedophilia continues your willful ignorance. Engaging in sexual acts with a muture teen is not pedophilia. Since this subject is very dear to your heart, you should have been paying attention to those distinctions (widely reported in the press and on this message board). Ephebephilia is an unhealthy attraction to teens. A single incident of adult-teen sexual activity is not considered ephebephilia.
For a priest to engage in sexual activity with an older teen is wrong. It is morally repugnant. It is a breech of trust. It should have very specific consequences that go beyond stern lectures or mere wrist slaps. However, it is not necessarily rape and it is not pedophilia.
If you choose express outrage that the bishops did not automatically defrock every individual, that is your choice. You have, however, gone beyond that claim and have deliberately chosen to mischaracterize both their statement and mine.
Basically, the bishops have said that those men [ul][li]cannot wear clerical garb[/li][li]cannot present themselves to anyone as priests[/li][li]cannot celebrate Mass or perform any other priestly function[/ul]The only thing that was left to them was that they would not be stricken from the rolls of the priests, although they would be forbidden to use the title. (You should actually be in favor of this, because it gives the bishops leverage in controlling their actions. Once the priest is defrocked, the bishop has no final tie to the man. While the man wishes to still be regarded as a (wholly inactive) priest, he has to do just about anything the bishop orders him to do.)[/li]
Now, feel free to come back and rant some more, mischaracterizing my statements and those of the bishops. I am not interested in beating you down, only in letting the facts be demonstrated in this thread. I would not have referred to your statements as lies, leaving that a matter of simple misunderstanding, except that you deliberately changed the meaning of my statement.
By the way, this statement is simply your uninformed opinion.
The conference resolution specifically stated that the civil authorities were to be notified, immediately. There is no protection for being called a priest. Defrocking or not defrocking changes nothing as regards to either civil law or the new church discipline voted on by the bishops. (And it was never a valid shield, anyway.)
Again…the man may not present himself as a priest in any way, shape or form. He may not wear the collar…celebrate mass, use the title Father…etc.
There are legitimate issues about the charter. For example, as tom suggested, they appeared to try for a one size fits all approach to dealing with the problem…something that might be more easily “explained” to the media and parishioners, rather than a more flexible policy. Also, there is little, if anything, in the charter about what happens to the Bishops who knowingly shuffle these men around.
Claiming that the decision to not vote for immediate defrocking is an effort to “close ranks and keep their own safe” is demonstrably false.
By a vote of 239-13, their new guidelines have passed and the American Bishops have decided that defrocking a priest for fucking a child just doesn’t sit well with them. Instead, they’re going to find a role for each and every rapist that will bar them from face to face contact with parishoners.
Here’s a chance for any RC Priest Doper to stand forth, and educate us all. Tell us exactly what jobs these are? What task can a priest perform for the Church where he will NOT be face to face with a parishoner, ever???
[quote]
This is the part where you’re mistaken. A priest need not have a role to be a priest. He may ,as the Bishop’s charter clearly states remain a priest but have no ministry.Just as priests who marry without being laicized remain priests but have no ministry.
And in fact, the Bishops charter doesn’t say that none of them will be laicized.It simply states what should happen in the case of one who is not laicized.
[quote]
In every case, the processes provided for in canon law must be observed, and the various provisions of canon law must be considered (cf. Canonical Delicts Involving Sexual Misconduct and Dismissal from the Clerical State, 1995; cf. Letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, May 18, 2001). These provisions may include a request by the priest or deacon for dispensation from the obligation of holy orders and the loss of the clerical state, or a request by the bishop for dismissal from the clerical state even without the consent of the priest or deacon. For the sake of due process, the accused is to be encouraged to retain the assistance of civil and canonical counsel. When necessary, the diocese/eparchy will supply canonical counsel to a priest or deacon.
[quote]
It doesn’t even require that they be convicted for the bishop to request dismissal. (and in many of the cases now coming to light, a conviction wouldn’t even be possible due to the statute of limitations)
And according to the footnote, it appears this policy will apply even to some acts that may not be prohibited by law
If you know of a instance where a convicted priest has been been given deference or white glove treatment by the criminal justice system, please provide a cite. If you want to say they should be automatically defrocked upon conviction because of what they did, fine. But that’s altogether different from saying they should be defrocked so they don’t get special treatment.
So in other words, you want them defrocked after they are convicted of violating the law. The Bishops charter states that they should be laicized after an investigation shows that they violated canon law {which includes any sexual activity with a child under 16 even if it doesn’t violate civil law) and in cases where , for some reason the priest is not laicized, he is not to publicly celebrate Mass, wear clerical garb or publicly present himself as a priest. Seems to me their policy will laicize more than yours will of the past offenders, and it should be nearly as many of the present and future offenders, if not more (Surely you don’t think every guilty defendant gets convicted)