One item touched on ny beagledave’s cite, but seldom mentioned: the Roman Catholic Church in the United States is not autonomous. Whatever the bishops come up with must be approved by the Vatican–and there are a number of senior officials there who are dead-set against “interference in Church matters” by secular authorities. Furthermore, there are some who seem to have no concept of the Common Law principle of presumption of innocence, and no doubt see this as the beginning of a new persecution.
(Indeed, there is a statement by a non-US bishop [Honduras?] to the effect that this was “all got up by the press,” and furthermore would return the US Catholic Church to the days of Diocletian and Nero. Fortunately, when this was brought up in today’s Meet the Press, Bishop Gregory responded emphatically that the press didn’t originate the story–it’s the result of a long-standing pattern of [in]action by some within the Church.)
Also, IIRC a bishop does not normally have the power to laicize or defrock a priest; that has to be done by Rome. If I’m incorrect about this, I trust that I will be corrected.
Am I, personally, satisfied with the conclusion that was reached (as if it matters)? No, for many of the reasons stated above–especially the failure to address adequately those bishops who colluded with the offenders by paying hush money and shuffling them around. But it’s a good start, and pretty much the best that could be done under the circumstances. Let’s just hope that it survives the scrutiny of Rome.
That’s right. It wasn’t a whine, either. It was a straighforward expression of absolute disgust. Get it right.
Nah, I don’t need to misrepresent a thing with you. You have taken ( for reasons I personally cannot imagine) the attitude that I keep being willfully ignorant and using the word Pedophile, while you badly need me to agree with you that this is just a tempest in a teapot over one Priest who had some sex with a 17 year old girl. I never used the word ephebephilia for good reason. Do your homework. Show me that not a single conviction ANYWHERE in the United States involves a child who was at the time under the legal age of consent.
You’re trying to make this about " Oh, poor Priest, so he fucked a 17 year old, give him a break, that’s over the age of consent". I never used anything but the word pedophelia for very good reason. Because there are plenty of cases of young boys being sexually molested by Priests.
Why do you keep trying to sway that issue away, and throw in later-aged teens in the mix? Okay, forget the fact that a Priest fucking a 17 year old girl or boy has forsaken his vow of Celibacy. As you accurately pointed out, in that case it’s poor judgement, abusing the trust of a teen, etc. I agree with you there. BAD move by Father Wetwick.
However, this problem isn’t really about late-age teens having sex with Priests, it’s about Priests having sexual relations with very young boys.
Stop trying to shift what I said, and the focus of my distress, into something else. I wasn’t addressing late-age teens ( and by that of course, I mean teens OVER THE AGE OF LEGAL CONSENT IN THEIR GIVEN STATE OF RESIDENCE). You know that, too- but you threw in a fancypants paragraph or two to try to make it look as though I didn’t get it.
I get it. Teens sleep with Priests. That’s not what this Pit Thread is about, despite your seemingly urgent need to try to put those words into my mouth. I have no problem re-iterating again.
** The Priests who forced young boys and girls to have sex with them when they were below the age of legal sexual consent in that state of residence should be defrocked immediately upon conviction**. That is my feeling, and really- trying to insult me for not using the right word won’t change that feeling.
It just makes you look smallminded. You need to win this argument? Go for it- show us all that not one SINGLE Priest has EVER molested a child who was UNDER AGE. Prove that, and I will publicly castigate myself and admit that I was 100% wrong.
Cartooniverse, your hysterics are only making you look less and less credible and trustworthy on this subject. You have what seems to be an almost personal bias about these scandals. It’s not terribly easy to defrock a priest…“you are a priest forever…” and all that. And the local diocese cannot do it, as OttodaFe noted. It has to come from the Vatican, which truthfully would probably just rather the whole thing be swept under the rug and forgotten tomorrow. But you can’t blame the American bishops for not putting an “instant defrockment” clause in the new policy…they don’t have that power. They only have the power to keep those priests away from all pastoral duties.
You really are out to prove that you simply post in froths of rage, aren’t you?
See, you’re lying again.
You made the following statement regarding my post.
However, my statement was a direct comment on the fact that the bishops’ new policy does, in fact, punish the man who had a single incident with an older teen 40 years ago in the same way as the man who serially raped dozens of kids. Your lack of reading comprehension is amazing. If you are going to read my remarks out of context and blast me for what I did not say, then I am going to point out your dishonesty.
I’ll type this slowly so that you can follow:
[ul][li]The bishops declared that no one with any incidents on their record could ever serve as priests.[/li][li]You wrongly twisted that to say that the priests were going to be shifted out of parishes with no other sanctions imposed. (And the very article you quoted says that those men will never serve as priests–you simply did not bother to read the article.)[/li][li]I pointed out your error.[/li][li]I further noted that the bishops went beyond what they might have, by imposing the identical sanctions on men who had single incidents with older teens.[/li][li]You deliberately changed my statement to claim that I was defending pedophilia and rapists.[/li][li]Now, you are claiming that I have changed the discussion when it has been your failure to read the initial AP article and your misrepresentation of what I posted that has caused the conflict.[/ul][/li]I don’t need to win points. I just want you to begin reading for comprehension for a change.
I’m wondering why you try to make it sound like a negative trait, that I have a personal reaction to adult men sexually abusing young children. I’m proud of having a moral code that precludes approving of such behavior, I hardly need to look credible OR trustworthy. Interesting words. You seem to feel that by stating my extreme distress at pedophile priests, this makes me untrustworthy? Your words, right up there.
How odd.
And yes, I did read the AP article, twice. I am aware that the Vatican has to vett the new Bishops’ Charter. I’m distressed that the Bishops did NOT chose language that included automatically defrocking any priest convicted of sexual crimes against children.
They didn’t decide to take that step, so OBVIOUSLY the Vatican has an easy job of this now. I’ve no clue how long the review process will take, if there are any real Vatican experts reading in, please tell us if we’re looking at weeks or months or longer?
I’ve no need to apologize to you, or anyone else, for having a visceral reaction to visceral crimes. From where I come from, that makes me human, and humane.
Personally, I think trying to paint everyone who disagrees with your oft-repeated but apparently not very well understood opinion as a champion of pedophilia and unrestricted priestly access to the minor children of parishioners is the very model of the term “jerk”. But I’m no moderator…
Personally, I think trying to paint everyone who disagrees with your oft-repeated but apparently not susceptible to the concept of “possible at the moment” opinion as a champion of pedophilia and unrestricted priestly access to the minor children of parishioners is the very model of the term “jerk”. But I’m no moderator…
Cartooniverse, flailing furiously at any approach by the Church to discipline pedophile priests which doesn’t preclude any form of spiritual forgiveness = jerk
Cartooniverse, treating one of the most reasonable posters on the boards as if he were as crazy-obsessed as JDT = jerk
Cartooniverse, implying that anything other than full-blown support for all particulars in his own unique plan to chasten pedophile priests is support for priestly pedophilia = giant economy-sized uberjerk
There have been several stupid statements by various individuals within the Vatican.
There have been statements that allowing a man with a homosexual orientation to be a priest has caused it. (Stupid.)
There have been statements that it is the “relaxed” character of seminaries that has caused it. (Ignoring that many, perhaps most, of the accused were ordained back in the “good old days”–even before Vatican II.)
There have also been some incredibly stupid statements by various bishops around the world that do seem to play down the issue.
I have not seen any official statement from the Vatican that the American bisshops were, themselves, “making an issue of this.”
A direct order from the pope summoning all the top brass to Rome is hardly an indication that he thinks there is not much to it.
The earliest reports indicated that some people in the Vatican (including the pope) did not understand why the story was breaking in the way that it did. This, however, is a direct reflection of the fact that they were under the impression–based on statements from the National Council of Catholic Bishops ten years and thirteen years ago–that the issue had been properly addressed, then. The fact that a bunch of bishops went home from those meetings and carried on as they always had is a reflection of their stupidity and evil, not an indication that the Vatican, where their words were trusted, countenanced their behavior.
In that case, you’ll be waiting a long time for the satisfaction you seek, since many of these cases have long since passed the statute of limitations for prosecution.
Cartooniverse, I’m not a RC but I think the nature of the RC Church (for several obvious reasons) is not to be like a large corporation’s HR department and do an absolute “You have 10 minutes to clear out your desk and don’t let the door hit you in the ass” purge of the misbehaving components of the workforce. In the RC Church and most Christian denominations a fundamental component of dealing with sinners and sin is forgiveness. To say "Well OK you can forgive all that other crap but this … well there’s no forgiveness for *this * ,would be hypocritical.
I am the father of two kids including an 11 year old boy who is quite devout. If I knew that anyone (including a Priest) had molested him I would be an incredibly angry man and would be inclined to kill the perpetrator him with my bare hands. In the real world and under the rule of law and justice, however, I need to separate my visceral response from a practical social response. Re the issue of age I do think there is a practical moral difference in levels of abuse and evil, between a priest making a move on a 16 or 17 year old and a priest making a move on a 10-12 year old. Both are despicable but IMO the 16 and 17 year olds are more independent actors and have the potential power to say “no”. The issue is more problematic with younger boys and IMO the sin much more evil. The fact that the slope is slippery does not mean that the slope does not exist.
The Bishops are not evil, waffling weenies. They are trying to bring order to a dis-ordered situation and because their faith prevents them from shunning or banning the bad priests they have to muddle through as best they can. You can make any one of a number of arguments as to how the RC Church has come to this pass but in the end they have to deal with it as Roman Catholics not vigilantes.
I was referring specifically to the Vat. spokesman’s (yes, really - official news conference, the whole bit) remark that “The fact the questions are in English is revealing” (may not be an exact quote, but close). My source was natcath, and was posted on these boards.
The DISTINCT impression I have of the overall (initial) Vatican response was “yeah, so what?”. It was only after it became apparent that the stonewalling was not going to work that the other interpretations (“gay Priests”, Liberal Semanaries, Vat II, et. al.) were trotted out.
And, for your theoretical 17 year old girl, 20 years ago - that was a free shot, was it not? Wasn’t the Catholic age of consent raised from 16 to 18 within the last 2 years?
**Guin - ** always nice to hear form you… But… since i’m going to spend an eternity in Hell (oh, dear - I was BAPTISED! - I DO hope that doesn’t spoil my chances!), I see no need to get an early start (besides, my childhood has to count as a chunk of Hell, anyway)
I’m not aware that the Catholic church has any “age of consent” separate from that of the countries where its members live.
In any event, it was clearly wrong for any priest to so indulge himself. I was only pointing out, earlier, that it did not qualify as pedophilia, but that the bishops are (belatedly) acting on those incidents, treating them as if they were the same as pedophilia.
I had a different perception of the Vatican’s response over the last five months, but if we’re simply talking perceptions, we are unlikely to come to any complete agreement.
Since you want to know what it will take for us Catholics to leave the Church in disgust, I’ll answer with an allusion to Mike Judge’s brilliant “Office Space.”
If you haven’t seen it, there’s a character in it, and engineer named Michael Bolton… and he’s constantly griping about how much he loathes that singer, and how miserable his life has been, ever since that long-haired, gravelly voiced singer by the same name came along.
After listening to him gripe, asks, well, if you hate him so much, why don’t you change your name?
The engineer scowls, "No way! Why should I change? HE'S the one who sucks!"
I couldn't sum up my feelings better. I'm a Catholic, and I believe in what the Church teaches and in what the Church stands for. If Cardinal Bernard Law and other leaders are scummy, corrupt SOBs, well, why should I leave the CHurch? THEY'RE the ones who suck! Let THEM leave! Let THEM be prosecuted and sent to prison, if need be. But no way am I going to let those creeps push me out of MY Church.
Does that satisfy you? (Well, actually, it doesn't HAVE to- it satisfies ME.)
Well, Guin, a lot of people feel they were severely damaged by religious authorities. Catholic, Protestant, Muslim. I’ve worked with a few patients who were quite profoundly physically and sexually and mentally abused under the auspices of the catholic church, by priests, nuns, and lay workers. These same individuals at some point generally tried to tell their parents or other authority figure what was happening, and got more abuse for their efforts. Some still have difficulty sleeping without nightmares, achieving mutually loving relationships with their parents, spouses, and children, and accepting themselves as worthwhile human beings.
All of them that I have worked with have a great deal of profound rage over their situation and what was done to them. And for some of them it is frankly quite therapeutic to see these issues being brought out into the light, and to be able to say in public and be believed “see, I was right! It was them! Not me! I am not evil! They are!”
Should they be taking pleasure in all this being revealed? I think so. It’s part of their recovery process. It is therapeutic for them to have this pushed into the face of not just the Catholic community, but the larger american community.
Should these people remain Catholic? That’s quite a personal decision, and quite variable. Many won’t, some can’t, some do and thrive. But don’t expect these people to quickly “get it out of their systems” and quiet down. Many will continue to publicly confront their pasts, some constructively and some destructively, for a good while to come.
And many will take apparent pleasure in the pain they see in the catholic church. And I don’t necessarily think that’s a wrong thing to do for some of them, if it helps them come to terms with what was done to them in the name of God.
Please don’t label me anti-catholic. I have in the past held a high degree of respect for many principles of the church, their emphasis on good works, their intellectual capacities, and the eventual triumph of reason over superstition in some areas. And as a non-catholic I always felt that how they ran their church was their own business, as long as it did not contravene our laws. These days I’m a lot less charitable towards the church, and frankly I don’t trust them to do the right thing for the people if it might conflict with the good of the hierarchy. But I still do recognize that they have been and still will be a force for positive change in many areas.