# Catholic church and child molestation redux **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 10, 2011, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917 "2011-02-10T18:03:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Cumberdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8c91f0/32.png) [@Cumberdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cumberdale)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2011, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/41 "2011-02-10T22:55:02Z")
The Catholic church and this very Pope along with who knows how many previous ones personally approved of child rape by protecting the priests and moving them around. And the people who excuse this nonsense are no better, and may be even worse. ---
**Author:** ![AlmostPerfect](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/74df32/32.png) [@AlmostPerfect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AlmostPerfect)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/42 "2011-02-11T01:00:46Z")
The more and more I read these threads, the more and more I begin to question the moral validity of the Catholic church as a whole _shudders_ ---
**Author:** ![Beniamino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/bcef8e/32.png) [@Beniamino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beniamino)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/43 "2011-02-11T13:22:32Z")
> [@Cumberdale](#): > > The Catholic church and this very Pope along with who knows how many previous ones personally approved of child rape by protecting the priests and moving them around. And the people who excuse this nonsense are no better, and may be even worse. This is simply not true. Just because a lot of people say something over and over again doesn’t make it true. The Pope has never “personally approved of child rape by protecting the priests and moving them around.” > [@AlmostPerfect](#): > > The more and more I read these threads, the more and more I begin to question the moral validity of the Catholic church as a whole _shudders_ It’s been said time and time again, but I’ll say it yet again. At the time the allegations were coming out (70’s and 80’s), the social science was that child molestors could be “cured”. So they put them in treatment, and reassigned them if they psychologists “cleared” them. This was later found to have been a serious mistake, as the rate of recidivism of child molestors is incredibly high. When it became clear that the problem wasn’t going away, and that they would likely never be cured, the Church changed its monitoring procedures, disciplinary procedures, and seminary screening procedures. As a result, the child molestation problem in the Church peaked in the early 1980’s, and has been on the decline ever since. Just because there are new “allegations” now (all relating to a former time period) doesn’t mean the problem is getting worse. In fact, it’s getting better, but that fact doesn’t fit in with the media Leitmotiv. There’s no “story” in a problem being fixed or allegations turning up false. People are falliable – priests, bishops, Popes; this does not weaken the moral authority of the Church. 1 out of the 12 original Disciples was a traitor. We all sin, and our past sins cannot be changed; what we can do is offer sincere repentance and reparation for our sins, to do good in the world and love God and our fellow man sincerely. God is merciful, and would not destroy a wicked city given the presence of just 1 honest man; likewise, we should not seek the destruction of the Church based on an ever-dwindling few. For those that hate the Church, well, they will always seek its destruction given any opportunity, and I suppose that can’t be helped. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/44 "2011-02-11T13:55:49Z")
> [@Beniamino](#): > > When it became clear that the problem wasn’t going away, and that they would likely never be cured, the Church changed its monitoring procedures, disciplinary procedures, and seminary screening procedures. As a result, the child molestation problem in the Church peaked in the early 1980’s, and has been on the decline ever since. Funny how that happened right about the time people actually started talking about it in public. > [@](#): > > Just because there are new “allegations” now (all relating to a former time period) doesn’t mean the problem is getting worse. In fact, it’s getting better, but that fact doesn’t fit in with the media Leitmotiv. There’s no “story” in a problem being fixed or allegations turning up false. No, it’s happening less because the moral stigma to telling people about the abuse is gone, and therefore it’s much harder to get away with it. When the abuse (including physical, non-sexual abuse) was institutionalized you couldn’t speak out against the system, especially in places like Ireland where the Church and the State colluded to cover this sort of thing up. > [@](#): > > People are falliable – priests, bishops, Popes; this does not weaken the moral authority of the Church. 1 out of the 12 original Disciples was a traitor. We all sin, and our past sins cannot be changed; what we can do is offer sincere repentance and reparation for our sins, to do good in the world and love God and our fellow man sincerely. God is merciful, and would not destroy a wicked city given the presence of just 1 honest man; likewise, we should not seek the destruction of the Church based on an ever-dwindling few. Ah, “mistakes were made.” It was just a few priests that did it, just a few fallible bishops that covered it up and just a few THOUSAND children affected. Keep waving those hands. > [@](#): > > For those that hate the Church, well, they will always seek its destruction given any opportunity, and I suppose that can’t be helped. Poor you. How persecuted you are. Those liberals and homosexuals are arrayed in ranks against you, with only your fragile faith to protect you from reality. ---
**Author:** ![Cumberdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8c91f0/32.png) [@Cumberdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cumberdale)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/45 "2011-02-11T14:03:38Z")
Here is one article talking about the pope protecting child rapists: > **[Pope 'led cover-up of child abuse by priests'](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-407808/Pope-led-cover-child-abuse-priests.html)** > > The Pope played a leading role in a systematic cover-up of child sex abuse by Roman Catholic priests, according to a shocking documentary to be screened by the BBC tonight And another where the Vatican and the current pope decide not to defrock a child rapist: [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/europe/25vatican.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/europe/25vatican.html) And these are just 2 from a quick google search. This Pope **DID** protect child rapists. This man is garbage and he and his evil empire need to hurry up and end up in the trash heap of civilization. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/46 "2011-02-11T14:07:57Z")
> [@Cumberdale](#): > > And another where the Vatican and the current pope decide not to defrock a child rapist: > [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/europe/25vatican.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/europe/25vatican.html) > > And these are just 2 from a quick google search. > > This Pope **DID** protect child rapists. This man is garbage and he and his evil empire need to hurry up and end up in the trash heap of civilization. So your point is that the Vatican acted unreasonably? Do you believe that if police and prosecutors had gotten reports from this case, they would have acted differently? ---
**Author:** ![MsWhatsit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/eb8c5e/32.png) [@MsWhatsit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsWhatsit)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/47 "2011-02-11T14:11:16Z")
Well, I don’t know about **Cumberdale** , but I certainly think the Vatican acted unreasonably in that case. As to your question about whether police and prosecutors would have acted differently: Well, I imagine so, since they don’t have the power to defrock a priest, so that option would not have been available to them. ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/48 "2011-02-11T14:17:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So your point is that the Vatican acted unreasonably? Do you believe that if police and prosecutors had gotten reports from this case, they would have acted differently? Are you suggesting that being removed from a job where one is responsible for the care of young adults is the same as being arrested and prosecuted? I haven’t read the Declaration of Independence ina while, but I’m pretty sure “Life, Liberty, and Ordination as a Catholic Priest” wasn’t how it went. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/49 "2011-02-11T14:19:40Z")
> [@Beniamino](#): > > It’s been said time and time again, but I’ll say it yet again. At the time the allegations were coming out (70’s and 80’s), the social science was that child molestors could be “cured”. So they put them in treatment, and reassigned them if they psychologists “cleared” them. This was later found to have been a serious mistake, as the rate of recidivism of child molestors is incredibly high. Bullshit. In at least one case a priest was moved [_14 times_](http://www.onewisconsinnow.org/blog/2010/04/CHWD.html). Even if they _did_ think he was cured after the first move, do you really think they were still thinking, “Well, maybe it worked this time,” after the tenth or eleventh failure? > [@](#): > > When it became clear that the problem wasn’t going away, and that they would likely never be cured, the Church changed its monitoring procedures, disciplinary procedures, and seminary screening procedures. As a result, the child molestation problem in the Church peaked in the early 1980’s, and has been on the decline ever since. Was this because the priests were continuing to not be cured, or because of the bad PR? > [@](#): > > People are falliable – priests, bishops, Popes; this does not weaken the moral authority of the Church. If it _has_ any moral authority, it does. If your God was real, and he and his human underlings were _aiding_ these priest’s offenses again and again, He would be an evil god. > [@](#): > > We all sin, and our past sins cannot be changed; what we can do is offer sincere repentance and reparation for our sins, to do good in the world and love God and our fellow man sincerely. God is merciful, and would not destroy a wicked city given the presence of just 1 honest man; likewise, we should not seek the destruction of the Church based on an ever-dwindling few. > > For those that hate the Church, well, they will always seek its destruction given any opportunity, and I suppose that can’t be helped. Let’s see, you’ve got the “Let’s not argue about who raped who, we’re all sinners” argument, the “Systemic abuses of power? What systemic abuses of power?” argument, and the “You just hate me because I’m beautiful” argument. Quite a collection. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/50 "2011-02-11T14:19:53Z")
> [@AlmostPerfect](#): > > The more and more I read these threads, the more and more I begin to question the moral validity of the Catholic church as a whole _shudders_ IMHO, if the Church wasn’t a Christian religious organization and instead was, say, a business or NGO I expect that the very least it would have been broken up in the US, its assets seized and quite possibly the Vatican would’ve been visited by some cruise missiles. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/51 "2011-02-11T14:21:48Z")
> [@MsWhatsit](#): > > Well, I don’t know about **Cumberdale** , but I certainly think the Vatican acted unreasonably in that case. > > As to your question about whether police and prosecutors would have acted differently: Well, I imagine so, since they don’t have the power to defrock a priest, so that option would not have been available to them. Perhaps it would help to think of priests as members of a union with a fairly strong contract. I think part of the problem is that people imagine the Vatican as a monolithic entity that can simply do as it pleases. But the Vatican is governed by its own code of law, and it can’t break that law. I assume that you’d be outraged if you heard that a decades-old bank robbery was being tried, even though the statute of limitations had passed, simply because we felt it was an especially heinous bank robbery - yes? I hope you would, anyway; I shudder to think of someone who would say that we should ignore our own law when we really don’t like the criminal. In this case, the crime took place in the 1970s; the Vatican didn’t get the case until 1996. And the code of canon law doesn’t permit an automatic penalty to be applied – in order to defrock a priest, there needs to be a trial, with witnesses and a judge. Is any of what I’ve said so far unreasonable? ---
**Author:** ![MsWhatsit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/eb8c5e/32.png) [@MsWhatsit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsWhatsit)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/52 "2011-02-11T14:23:55Z")
Is there a statute of limitations on offenses that would warrant defrocking? I’m asking seriously, because I don’t know, and your post seems to imply that there is. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/53 "2011-02-11T14:24:46Z")
It’s hardly a ‘few bad eggs’ when one of their aiders and abettors is head honcho. [The Pope’s cover up](http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp04122010.html) > [@](#): > > March 1977: Joseph Alois Ratzinger appointed Archbishop of Munich by Pope Paul VI. > > January 1980: Archbishop Ratzinger chairs the Munich Diocesan Council meeting where the case of a priest, Peter Hullermann, accused of sex abuse is discussed. (Hullerman, 31, had plied an 11 year old boy with alcohol and then had him perform oral sex on him.) The Council decides to refer the priest to counseling. > [@](#): > > November 17, 1981: Oakland Bishop John Cummins’ requests that the Vatican allow the laicization of Rev. Stephan Kiesle, already convicted of child molestation by a California court. Ratzinger, now a Cardinal, replies. Content of this correspondence unknown. > > \ > > November 1985: Ratzinger writes another letter in Latin to Bishop Cummins urging caution on the Kiesle case. “Consider the good of the Universal Church,” he writes. “It is necessary for this Congregation to submit incidents of this sort to very careful consideration, which necessitates a longer period of time.” He notes Kiesle’s youth at the time of the incident and urges the bishop to give “as much paternal care as possible” to the wayward priest. > [@](#): > > 2001: Razinger as prefect issues an updated version of the 1962 Vatican document Crimen Sollicitationis (“The Crime of Solicitation”) which mandates that clerical sex offenses be reported to his office in Rome, and the documents kept locally under lock and key. This produces, according to the Italian newspaper L’Avvenire an “avalanche” of over 3000 files in Rome, most arriving in 2003-4. > > The Crimen Sollicitationis according to Gorman includes a requirement for the child victim, accused priest, and any witnesses to maintain silence on the matter on threat of excommunication from the Church. > [@](#): > > 2001: Razinger as prefect issues an updated version of the 1962 Vatican document Crimen Sollicitationis (“The Crime of Solicitation”) which mandates that clerical sex offenses be reported to his office in Rome, and the documents kept locally under lock and key. This produces, according to the Italian newspaper L’Avvenire an “avalanche” of over 3000 files in Rome, most arriving in 2003-4. > > The Crimen Sollicitationis according to Gorman includes a requirement for the child victim, accused priest, and any witnesses to maintain silence on the matter on threat of excommunication from the Church. [Pope ‘led cover-up of child abuse by priests’](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-407808/Pope-led-cover-child-abuse-priests.html) > [@](#): > > Five years ago he sent out an updated version of the notorious 1962 Vatican document Crimen Sollicitationis - Latin for The Crime of Solicitation - which laid down the Vatican’s strict instructions on covering up sexual scandal. It was regarded as so secret that it came with instructions that bishops had to keep it locked in a safe at all times. > > Cardinal Ratzinger reinforced the strict cover-up policy by introducing a new principle: that the Vatican must have what it calls Exclusive Competence. In other words, he commanded that all child abuse allegations should be dealt with direct by Rome. > > Patrick Wall, a former Vatican-approved enforcer of the Crimen Sollicitationis in America, tells the programme: “I found out I wasn’t working for a holy institution, but an institution that was wholly concentrated on protecting itself.” > > And Father Tom Doyle, a Vatican lawyer until he was sacked for criticising the church’s handling of child abuse claims, says: "What you have here is an explicit written policy to cover up cases of child sexual abuse by the clergy and to punish those who would call attention to these crimes by the churchmen. > > “When abusive priests are discovered, the response has been not to investigate and prosecute but to move them from one place to another. So there’s total disregard for the victims and for the fact that you are going to have a whole new crop of victims in the next place. This is happening all over the world.” ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/54 "2011-02-11T14:29:14Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > It’s hardly a ‘few bad eggs’ when one of their aiders and abettors is head honcho. > > [The Pope’s cover up](http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp04122010.html) > > [Pope ‘led cover-up of child abuse by priests’](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-407808/Pope-led-cover-child-abuse-priests.html) Thank you for these. There’s a limit to how much searching I can do on the subject right now. I would only add that Fr Maciel was never punished until he was in his 90s, and that ounishment was a comfortable retirement. Also has Cardinal Law stepped outside the Vatican yet? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/55 "2011-02-11T14:41:39Z")
> [@saoirse](#): > > Are you suggesting that being removed from a job where one is responsible for the care of young adults is the same as being arrested and prosecuted? I haven’t read the Declaration of Independence ina while, but I’m pretty sure “Life, Liberty, and Ordination as a Catholic Priest” wasn’t how it went. The crimes took place in the 1970s. The Vatican was given the case in 1996. At that time, Fr. Murphy was not “responsible for the care of young adults” in any way. He was retired. The Church’s own law, _very similar to our country’s criminal law_, has a statute of limitations. Under those circumstances, what should the Church do? ---
**Author:** ![MsWhatsit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/eb8c5e/32.png) [@MsWhatsit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsWhatsit)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/56 "2011-02-11T14:42:36Z")
What’s the Church’s statute of limitations on enacting consequences for having molested kids? ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/57 "2011-02-11T14:44:25Z")
No. As a bishop who actively participated in the cover up of abuse he’s still being sheltered in the Vatican with a nice little sinecure even though he’s four years past when others are expected to tender their resignation. And he still hasn’t disclosed the names of undiscovered abusers he moved around. The cover up continues at the very highest level of this criminal organisation. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/58 "2011-02-11T14:45:34Z")
> [@MsWhatsit](#): > > What’s the Church’s statute of limitations on enacting consequences for having molested kids? The time it takes to have a shower afterwards it seems. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/59 "2011-02-11T14:48:51Z")
> [@MsWhatsit](#): > > Is there a statute of limitations on offenses that would warrant defrocking? I’m asking seriously, because I don’t know, and your post seems to imply that there is. Yes, five years: > [@Code of Canon Law](#): > > A criminal action is extinguished by prescription after three years, except for: > . > . > . > 2ƒ an action arising from any of the offences mentioned in canon. 1394, 1395, 1397, 1398, which is extinguished after five years; The offense here is under Can. 1395, so the five year period applies. > [@Can. 1395 ß2](#): > > A cleric who has offended in other ways against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, if the crime was committed by force, or by threats, or in public, or with a minor under the age of sixteen years, is to be punished with just penalties, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state if the case so warrants. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/60 "2011-02-11T14:52:30Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > The time it takes to have a shower afterwards it seems. No. Five years, as I cited above. And this is not markedly different from our own, secular laws as they existed at the time. In the past ten or fifteen years, many states have begun to remove statutes of limitation on crimes committed against minors, but at the time this crime took place, the laws the Vatican was using were in line with almost every state’s criminal laws. So how can you say the Vatican acted unreasonably? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917.md?page=4)