We’ll have to disagree on this. That the U.S. Government is constitutionally bound not to interfere with the exercise of your religious beliefs in no way comprises recognition of any reality behind those beliefs. You’re getting similar treatment in this thread - posters who recognize that Catholic dogma is important to you and that you believe it to stem from an existing God and through the divinity of a son He placed on Earth etc. while simultaneously pointing out that this basis is entirely mythical.
This is, in any case, a digression. You maintain, as I understand it, that the RCC is organized in such a way that the Pope, although nominally absolute dictator, is in fact limited in what he can do to intervene in the affairs of individual dioceses, that the bishops have a degree of sovereignty to assign various priests to various duties as they see fit. Fine. Some of those bishops have been aware for quite some time that among the priests under their authority have abused children, some of them repeatedly. Regardless of official Catholic policy, does it not strike you as a moral failing on the part of a bishop to reassign abusing priests to duties where they can continue to abuse children, as opposed to assigning them to duties without access to children or attempting some form of laicization so at the very least, the abusers will no longer be in a position of authority (conveyed by the RCC) over children?
There was certainly a time in history in which it was reasonable for a bishop to believe that this was the result of a sickness, which could be cured. That opinion wasn’t limited to Roman Catholic bishops, remember – the secular criminal justice system labored under a similar belief.
But no reasonable bishop past 2002 (and really even earlier, but I pick 2002 as an absolutely inarguable endpoint) could believe that he had any course of action other than to remove a priest who is credibly accused of sexual misconduct with children to a ministry in which he has zero contact with children ever.
And if the accusations can be proven, then the priest should be dismissed from the clerical state.
Well, even in 2002 a computerized equivalent of a sex-offended registry that all bishops could access (such as described on the first page of this thread) was hardly an insurmountable technical challenge. Nowadays, it’s so easy, that one can only imagine the RCC must be seeking excuses to not have one.
He doesn’t strike me as dodging. Rather, the phrasing “When a boy comes up to a priest and says that another priest fucked him up the ass” suggests to me that it is not during a formal confession, though I admit my unfamiliarity with some of the subtle nuances of your faith.
Anyway, let’s say it was during confession - a child who feels ashamed and guilty (hardly unusual for an abuse victim) admits this to a priest. I’m going to assume for the moment that the priest will not assign penance to the child, as this would be a truly dickish thing to do, but is there truly no action the priest can take? What if the confession is given to the bishop, who has authority over the accused priest? Same deal?
Sure he was. You yourself say that his phrasing “suggests” it’s not confession, and if his original question were all that there was, you’d be right: not dodging, jut writing.
But rather than simply let his “suggestion” remain unclarified, I specifically asked what he meant.
His response to my direct question is a dodge.
You’re correct – there would be no penance, because that’s not a sin.
The priest can certainly say to the boy that he should tell his parents and the police. He can strongly urge the boy to report the abuse. But he can’t do anything himself.
A bishop who hears, during confession, an accusation against one of his priests is in the same boat: he would urge the pentitent to immediately report the crime, but he himself can’t take any action against the priest.
Now, if the boy leaves the bishop’s confessional and goes immediately to his parents, and the parents visit the bishop the next morning in his office to repeat the charge, the bishop is free to speed-dial the police and remove the priest from active ministry.
Well, to be more direct, it never even occurred to me that the statement was being offered in a confession. At most, your response should have been “The priest hearing this should perform Actions X, Y, and Z, though if he gets the information in a confession, this is modified to…” i.e. the possibility of a confession complication requires an asterisk on your response, rather than a request for clarification followed by accusations of refusals to provide clarification.
I can only speculate, of course, but I gather he thought your direct question was a stall for time.
Great. I can only hope there is some actual follow-through including taking some steps to prevent these priests from, oh, I dunno… resuming their priestly duties and regaining opportunities for molestation in South America, because that would be totally crazy.
I haven’t researched it, but it seems to be the kind of thing that would detect repeat offenders, of which the RCC has quite a few. It just strikes me as something an organization that was honest about cleaning up its act would take, even if the effect was symbolic. Frankly, and notwithstanding the alleged cuddliness of the latest Pope, I think I have an adequate basis to view the RCC’s efforts with skepticism. Don’t you?
No. Other threads rail about the TSA’s “security theater,” inveighing against the attitude that mere symbolic but ineffectual steps are of value.
The registry you mention serves no purpose that existing controls already cover.
Of course, the fact the controls exist doesn’t mean they are followed. But then… even if a registry existed, someone flouting the rules wouldn’t check it.
In each of the cases mentioned in the OP, the receiving bishop was made aware of the allegations connected to the priests, which is what the registry would do. Yes?
I didn’t say post-2002. Heck, the technology to set up an employee database with records as simple as:
Name:
Date of Birth:
Place of Birth:
Place of Ordination:
Name at Ordination:
Child molestation allegations (yes/no):
…must have been around since, I dunno… 1990 or so? When did the Pentium first come out?
I don’t care. I know that YOU support symbolic actions of no obvious utility when it suits you. TSA security theater isn’t just ineffectual, though - it adds hindrance and expense to air travel. The cost of a Vatican sex-offender registry is downright trivial by comparison.
I have my doubts about the effectiveness of existing controls, and indeed the RCC’s sincerity in implementing them.
And so do you, it seems. As I understand your description of RCC organization, flouting the rules is exactly what bishops can casually choose to do, as they see fit. And of course, simply knowing that a prospective priest has some serious charges against him means nothing, if nothing is done about it.
Actually, “nothing” might be an improvement over some of the things the RCC has done.
Sure, I guess. So? Did they do anything with this information other than pray nothing bad would happen?
Once again, if I want to say something, I’ll just just fucking write it down for all to see, because that is the second time in this thread you’ve filled in the blank(to your advantage) and assumed something that was never said.
Edited to add: If I had wanted to say “A boy goes to confession…”, that’s what I would have written.
I realize my question is ambiguous, leading to an ambiguous response. I’m stating, with a bit of understatement, that I have an adequate basis to view the RCC’s efforts with skepticism. When I asked Bricker “Don’t you?”, my intent was to ask him if he felt he had a basis to hold similar skepticism, not to ask him if he felt I had an adequate basis for doing so.
Truth be told, if Bricker believes I don’t have an adequate basis, then he is wrong. If Bricker feels he doesn’t have an adequate basis for doubts of his own, then I can hardly claim to be surprised since I predicted he wouldn’t (or would never admit if he did) in post 176.
On your own initiative, you picked 2002 as the latest the RCC could pretend the problem wasn’t serious. I feel no obligation to take consideration of your choice. The RCC could have addressed the issue years (if not decades) earlier, which is partly why they get no doubt-benefits from me today and it will be years (if not decades) before any are deserved.