# 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:** 7
**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, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/121 "2011-02-11T17:01:39Z")
To give it some context, that instruction is similar to the law of secrecy concerning grand jury proceedings. It prevents someone from sharing testimony that comes about in the context of a church trial. It doesn’t stop anyone from reporting crimes or sharing the results of pre-trial investigations. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/122 "2011-02-11T17:02:07Z")
Thank you. If you’d like to retract or apologize your accusation of lying, that’d be just peachy as well. ---
**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, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/123 "2011-02-11T17:02:53Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > Thank you. > > If you’d like to retract or apologize your accusation of lying, that’d be just peachy as well. Keep reading. It IS a lie. To be clear, YOU didn’t lie. But that accusation IS a lie. ---
**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, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/124 "2011-02-11T17:04:40Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > [National Catholic Reporter article](http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/update/bn080703.htm) This article? (emphasis supplied): > [@](#): > > A 1962 Vatican document ordering secrecy in cases of sexual misconduct by priests is not, according to canon lawyers, a “smoking gun” providing evidence of a cover-up of sex abuse orchestrated by Rome. > > […] > > For one thing, canon lawyers say, the document was so obscure that few bishops had ever heard of it. For another, they say, secrecy in canonical procedures should not be confused with refusal to cooperate with civil authorities. _ **The 1962 document would not have tied the hands of a bishop, or anyone else, who wanted to report a crime by a priest to the police.** _ > > […] > > Crimen Sollicitationis dealt with canonical cases against a priest that could lead to removal from ministry or expulsion from the priesthood. _**[U**_]Its imposition of secrecy thus concerned the church’s internal disciplinary process.\*\*\* It did not, according to canonical experts, prevent a bishop or anyone else from reporting a crime against a minor to the civil authorities.\*\*\* > > “Of course, a bishop couldn’t use this document to cover up denunciation of an act of sexual abuse,” Morrisey said. “The document simply wasn’t made for that purpose.” > > […] > > Canon lawyers told NCR that secrecy in canonical cases serves three purposes. First, it is designed to allow witnesses and other parties to speak freely, knowing that their responses will be confidential. Second, it allows the accused party to protect his good name until guilt is established. Third, it allows victims to come forward without exposing themselves to publicity. _ **The high degree of secrecy in Crimen Sollicitationis was also related to the fact that it dealt with the confessional.** _ > > Those motives for confidentiality, experts say, must be distinguished from a widespread “mentality” that sought to protect the church from scandal by not reporting sexual abuse by priests to the police. As a matter of canon law, the obligation of secrecy in canonical cases does not prohibit a bishop or other church officials from reporting crimes to the proper authorities. > > Conflicts may arise, however, if civil authorities seek access to the secret acts of canonical procedures. > > That Crimen Sollicitationis was not designed to “cover up” sex abuse, canonists say, is clear in _ **paragraph 15, which obligates anyone with knowledge of a priest abusing the confessional for that purpose to come forward, under pain of excommunication for failing to do so.** _ This penalty is stipulated, the document says, “lest [the offense] remain occult and unpunished and always with inestimable detriment to souls.” > > […] > [@tagos](#): > > Best just to ignore Bricker. He is just doing his lawyer for the ‘defence of the indefensible’ schtick again and as such will throw whatever shit he can get his hands on to see what will get in the eye without any regard for truth or human decency. I would humbly submit that use of _ **ad hominem** _ is instead the last “defense of the indefensible”. It indeed comes in handy when logic and reason are no longer part of one’s rhetorical arsenal. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/125 "2011-02-11T17:08:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > That’s a lie. Accusations of lying are not allowed in Great Debates. Don’t do this again. As a general reminder: This is GD and this thread is getting overwhelmed by personal swipes and broadsides about the RCC and religion. It’s time to dial it back. ---
**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, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/126 "2011-02-11T17:10:23Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Accusations of lying are not allowed in Great Debates. Don’t do this again. > > As a general reminder: > > This is GD and this thread is getting overwhelmed by personal swipes and broadsides about the RCC and religion. It’s time to dial it back. As I said in post #123, I had no intention of accusing **Munch** of lying – my intent was to say simply that the claim was not true, as, indeed, it isn’t. So let’s continue from that: the claim is not accurate. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/127 "2011-02-11T17:15:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > As I said in post #123, I had no intention of accusing **Munch** of lying – my intent was to say simply that the claim was not true, as, indeed, it isn’t. > > So let’s continue from that: the claim is not accurate. I appreciate that (and I did see your subsequent posts). The remainder of my note was not only in response to your exchange with **Munch** , however. ---
**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, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/128 "2011-02-11T17:16:08Z")
In reviewing the sticky, I see that my statement was indeed over the line. My heartfelt apologies. ---
**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, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/129 "2011-02-11T17:19:07Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > Thank you. > > If you’d like to retract or apologize your accusation of lying, that’d be just peachy as well. Let me reply directly to you, **Munch**. I let my frustration cloud my perception on the implications of what I was saying. I had no doubt you were simply relating the cite you read, and doing so in perfectly good faith. But in trying to type too much, too quickly, and with too little governance, I posted a pretty offensive shortcut that I didn’t at all intend. The claim itself is wrong. You, yourself, did nothing wrong, and I certainly apologize for suggesting otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Kevbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e47774/32.png) [@Kevbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kevbo)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/130 "2011-02-11T18:54:21Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Ephebophiles/child molesters/gays\* knew that the Church would protect their secrets, and that there’d be no questions why they didn’t have a girlfriend or wife. It’s only natural the Catholic priesthood would attract such people. It need not have been so premeditated. A more charitable explanation is that they devoutly held a faith that forbid them to act on their sexual preferences, and made hetero marriage unattractive prospect. . Thus the vow of celibacy was not as strong a deterrent as it would be to a man with acceptable (within catholicism) urges. They may have also entered into the priesthood in an attempt to mend their evil ways…much as I joined the boy scouts when I saw myself becoming a juvenile delinquent. My take is that most of these pedo-priests are trying to behave, but are like the Alcoholic who keeps going back to AA after falling off the wagon. I really can’t imagine a pedo-preist willingly tolerating the day in and day out condemnation of who he knows himself to be just so he can have a bit easier access to the children, and a bit of air cover from the higher ups. As a lefty it is a bit annoying to work with people who routinely spout idiotic fox news talking points. But hey, I’m not a pedo, so I can’t really say how much crap one is willing to put up with for the joy of kiddie dideling. ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/131 "2011-02-11T19:51:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Interestingly enough, two rape charges were dismissed against Geoghan because… drum roll… the statute of limitations had run out. By the Vatican? No, by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Bricker, If the church authorities had done the moral thing and reported Geoghan to the civil authorities immediately. the statute of limitations would not have run out and those charges would not have to have been dismissed. So the church took advantage of the statute of limitations to aid a child molester in escaping responsibility for his crime. I also love the way you talk about the “Vatican law” that prescribed a five-year statute of limitations, when the first argument of any defender of child rapists is that the individual dioceses govern themselves, so the Vatican can’t be held responsible. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/132 "2011-02-11T21:36:43Z")
Bricker - thank you. I do respect the position you’re trying to defend (or, at least, the act of doing so). I myself was a staunch defender of the faith for many years, but it was a matter of many many straws building up and breaking my camel’s back. Each straw could probably be strongly defended and justified - but it became too much for me. The institutional processes of the church certainly have a purpose, a history and usefulness. But I think there was an opportunity for the church to rise above those restraints and do the right thing and they didn’t do so - and that’s something that I personally cannot forgive. So I’m going to bow out of the thread now, because attacking the institution and the processes of the church is futile - they’re all internally consistent and justifiable to an extent, and attacking them is only going to frustrate me and annoy you. ---
**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, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/133 "2011-02-11T23:05:03Z")
> [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](#): > > Bricker, > If the church authorities had done the moral thing and reported Geoghan to the civil authorities immediately. the statute of limitations would not have run out and those charges would not have to have been dismissed. In the case of Geoghan… yes. In the case of Fr.Murphy, the church DID report the charges and the police and prosecutors declined to prosecute. > [@](#): > > So the church took advantage of the statute of limitations to aid a child molester in escaping responsibility for his crime. In the case of Geoghan, yes. In the case of Fr. Murphy, no. > [@](#): > > I also love the way you talk about the “Vatican law” that prescribed a five-year statute of limitations, when the first argument of any defender of child rapists is that the individual dioceses govern themselves, so the Vatican can’t be held responsible. Yes. It’s quite similar to our system, in which, say, Minnesota is the only entity that can prosecute a robbery in Minneapolis, but is constrained by the federal constitution’s basic rights guaranteed to criminal defendants. I’m glad you love it; I think our system of dual sovereignty is outstanding, even though at times it causes Minnesota to lose the opportunity to prosecute criminals. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2011, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/134 "2011-02-11T23:13:45Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m glad you love it; I think our system of dual sovereignty is outstanding, even though at times it causes Minnesota to lose the opportunity to prosecute criminals. Except Minnesota is required to respect the rights guaranteed under the Federal Constitution. In the final analysis, the barrel of an M-1A1 Abrams is what requires that. Respecting the Vatican’s rules is a voluntary thing. They should have no legal standing in the United States. If you are a Catholic in the US, follow them at your will. But if they come into conflict with US law, then expect time in prison to follow as a result. ---
**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, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/135 "2011-02-11T23:26:38Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Except Minnesota is required to respect the rights guaranteed under the Federal Constitution. In the final analysis, the barrel of an M-1A1 Abrams is what requires that. Respecting the Vatican’s rules is a voluntary thing. They should have no legal standing in the United States. But the complaint was that the Vatican failed to defrock a priest. US law is silent on that point. > [@](#): > > If you are a Catholic in the US, follow them at your will. But if they come into conflict with US law, then expect time in prison to follow as a result. Except there’s no conflict. What the hell are you talking about? ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2011, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/136 "2011-02-12T00:20:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Fine. My question remains. The result under “Roman Catholic rules and regulations” (canon law) in the case under discussion was that the Vatican would not defrock a priest. The result under US law was that the priest could not be punished. > > Why is it appropriate to excoriate the “Roman Catholic rules and regulations” and not US law? Check the OP again. There is no case under discussion. There are thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of cases under discussion. The discussion is not whether one specific priest should have been defrocked in his dotage, but rather what should we think of an organization that values its own interests ahead of the interests of the children in its care. An organization that shelters criminals from the law, and provides them with fresh victims when they are exposed. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2011, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/137 "2011-02-12T02:36:24Z")
> [@saoirse](#): > > Check the OP again. There is no case under discussion. There are thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of cases under discussion. The discussion is not whether one specific priest should have been defrocked in his dotage, but rather what should we think of an organization that values its own interests ahead of the interests of the children in its care. An organization that shelters criminals from the law, and provides them with fresh victims when they are exposed. There were specific cases in posts 45-46 that I have been responding to. More generally, I was rejecting the notion that the Vatican, as opposed to local dioceses, had culpabale conduct. ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2011, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/138 "2011-02-12T05:58:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > There were specific cases in posts 45-46 that I have been responding to. > > More generally, I was rejecting the notion that the Vatican, as opposed to local dioceses, had culpabale conduct. Any idea how many local dioceses were involved in culpable conduct? Did they just all happen to act similarly without any knowledge by the Vatican? ---
**Author:** ![Naxos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/50afbb/32.png) [@Naxos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Naxos)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2011, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/139 "2011-02-12T06:37:43Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > In short, I’m calling shenanigans on this. But I’m doing it here to avoid derailing the other thread. Call it institutionalized child abuse by anti-social deranged individuals who’d rather protect abusers rather than make the choice to be moral. It’s a tragedy so many people continue to choose to let them abuse their children. It’s one of the perks of religion. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2011, 10:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917/140 "2011-02-12T10:01:16Z")
> [@waterj2](#): > > Any idea how many local dioceses were involved in culpable conduct? Did they just all happen to act similarly without any knowledge by the Vatican? I don’t know how many, but when one is doing something wrong, one does not wish to call attention to oneself. So your use of “just happen” is incorrect. The local dioceses did not “just happen” to act similarly; they acted similarly in the same way that, say, burglars around the country act similarly, without needing to imagine a national conspiracy to train burglars. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/catholic-church-and-child-molestation-redux/570917.md?page=8)