How can the church let this happen ?!!

Great Debates
1

In 1971, 30 year old Gilbert Gauthe was ordained after an undistinguished career as a seminarian. He was assigned by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Lafayette, Lousiana to a church post in nearby Broussard.

Two years later, nuns at Broussard Catholic school began refusing to let boys visit the rectory alone because the boys often returned visibly distressed and with disheveled clothing. Gauthe was transferred to Our Lady of Perpetual Help in New Iberia, about 15 miles away.

The fact that authorities were never called and that Gauthe was simply shipped off to another church to molest more boys in an unconscionable act on the part of the church.
An isolated incident of poor decision-making by the church you say? Read on …

In New Iberia, Bishop Gerald Frey learned that a counseler was treating a boy who claimed he was molested by Gauthe back in Broussard. Frey warned Gauthe that he would face sanctions if the behavior was repeated. Not arrest … SANCTIONS !

The very same year, a New Iberia altar boy accused Gauthe of molesting him. Surely Gauthe was arrested then, right? WRONG! He was transferred again, this time to Abbeville, 30 miles away.

Two years later (1976), church officials learned he was doing the same damn thing in Abbeville. Their solution? You guessed it! Another transfer!

He became pastor of St John Catholic Church in tiny Henry, LA, right outside of Abbeville. He then began a five year period of sexual abuse of ELEVEN local boys, some as young as 8. Parents started to come forward with accusations and the church eventually settled their cases out of court to the tune of over $18 million between 34 victims.

In 1985, Gauthe told a New Orleans psychologist that he had some form of physical contact with over 400 children! Later that year, he was FINALLY arrested for the first time. For all his sick crimes, he spent only ten years in jail under a plea bargain agreement!

In 1995, he was released and arrested again just a year later for FONDLING A THREE YEAR OLD in Texas. For that he got a paltry 7 years probation! How fucking horrible is that?

So what I want to know is why the hell isn’t there any kind of public outcry against the Catholic Church for allowing his sexual abuse to continue for TWELVE YEARS??? How many hundreds of children could have been spared lifetimes of emotional anguish had the church simply turned this scum over to authorities at the first sign of foul play? Why aren’t the church officials who covered up the abuse prosecuted criminally? Concealing knowledge of a crime is a crime in and of itself, is it not?

How horrible is a church that will allow little kids to get RAPED just so they can save face? This makes me fucking sick! HOW CAN THIS HAPPEN???

Any ideas? Any Catholics want to defend the church’s actions? If so, I’d sure like to hear it …

Once there was a time when all people believed in God and the church ruled. This time is called the Dark Ages.

2

It’s a horrible situation.

But you appear to be taking the actions of a very small number of people and generalizing them to the entire Roman Catholic Church.

If a priest molests, then he should absolutely face the criminal consequences. If diocese hides those actions, then whoever made those decisions, in an effort to save face or otherwise, should also face criminal penalties.

But there is no official (or unoffical) policy of the Roman Catholic Church that permits shielding of molesters. In fact, in response to cases such as these, the Church has revised its guidelines to bishops so that it is absolutely clear that hiding such a problem is not tolerated. This is not to suggest that it ever was tolerated, but rather to forestall an individual’s rationalizing that it might better for the community and even for the victim if there is no public airing of charges.

If a public school teacher molests one of the children in his care, and we discover that the school system initially sought to cover it up, we are righteously angry at that decision, but we do not impute to the entire school system, or to public schooling in general, the odious idea that they somehow approve of molesting or “allow” molesting.

To the contrary, we recognize their actions as wrong, and deal with them. But we do not argue from the individual incident to the general case.

  • Rick
3

It seems like more than “a very small number of people” to me. Of course I don’t know how many church officials a diocese has, but I do know that the diocese of Lafayette has at least a 60 mile radius, if not larger. So not only do you have the church officials who moved this guy around everywhere, but you also have other priests and other various religious folk at all these churches he was at who knew what was going on. They never called the cops.

The fact that it had become such a widespread problem that the church had to make a rule that the bishops report the abuse says something, and it ain’t pretty. I think it would just be common sense to call the cops when kids are getting raped.

The crazy thing is that, since his release, Gauthe has been moving around a lot, staying with friends, many of whom ARE ALSO PRIESTS!
What fucking priest in his right mind is going to stay friends with an admitted child molester?!

“The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.”
–George Bernard Shaw

4

Not to mention all the “good Christian” parents who would rather take the church’s settlement money and run rather than see Gauthe prosecuted so he couldn’t do it to any more children.

“The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.”
–George Bernard Shaw

5

The problem started in the 60s when the Church had problems with declining enrollment of Priest and relaxed their standards and strict screening practices. Unfortunately some gay people slipped through and took jobs that put them in contact with children. It is very unfortunate but happens in all walks of life.

These types of problems exist in all religious orders of all denominations but they are not made as public as in the Catholic Church. Because of the publicity of these few cases it appears worse than it really is. If this were to happen in a Mosque or Temple it would be handled on the spot and without media fanfare.

It is curious that the very same people that decry gays in religious orders, understandable, are all for having gays serve openly in the Military. All the Liberals wanted EVERYTHING open to EVERYONE so it is no surprise that some problems would arise.

To handle yourself, use your head. To handle others, use your heart. unknown

6

Puffington, what’s your opinion on the Michael Jackson situation?

In that case, too, we have parents taking a settlement rather than press forward with criminal charges, we have a man accused of pedophilic behavior but shielded by staff, and not a one of them motivated by the Roman Catholic Church.

I mention this to show that such behavior is not an aspect of “good” Christians, but possible by people of any ilk.

Other than a general sense that “they must have known,” what is your evidence for suggesting that a large number of people were aware of the situation you describe? Undoubtedly the bishop was aware, if the facts you initially presented are correct. But presumably this priest was not molesting children in the church parking lot on a makeshift stage; he obviously had some motivation to keep his illicit activites secret. So from where do you conclude that all manner of people must have known about it?

Finally, if the man is out of prison, are you suggesting that all his former friends should turn away from him? Without question, he should not be allowed to be around children anymore. But perhaps these priests who have offered him lodging are simply compassionate, Christ-like, and forgiving.

You may feel that his crime merits death, or life imprisonment. But even in prison, he would be entitled to visit with clergy. He is apparently legally out now. Why should he be denied that now?

Frankly, it seem sas if you are taking this case as an opportunity to attack the Catholic Church. This is an unfair attack. The Church does not support such sick and twisted actions. It clearly calls them sinful.

How many priests were serving in the mid 1970s in the Diocese of Lafayette? What percentage of them were pedophiles? How about across the United States? The world?

Do you even know the answers to these questions? You should, because they are the necessary predicate to establishing that the Catholic Church is a haven for pedophiles.

And it just isn’t so.

  • Rick
7

Addendum:

His plea bargain was decided upon by Church officials? His sentence was handed down by the local cardinal?

I notice, in re-reading, that you’ve mentioend these terrible things under a general ambit of the terrible Catholic Church. But in fact, it was the prosecutors and judges that imposed those terms, was it not?

Where is your rage against them?

  • Rick
8

I think that if parish after parish after parish after parish is involved in covering up pedophilia, some of us just might begin to see a pattern involving the Church.
Just a a collection of individual coincidences? Sorry, my mistake.

9

Once again, we see how ignorance is no obstacle to the ignorant. The problem, J-J, is not with the priest being gay. The problem is that they are pedophiles, an entirely different class of sexual behavior which has nothing to do with whether the perpetrator is homosexual or not.

While you’re railing against gay pedophiles, be sure to remember there are almost certainly many more heterosexual predator-priests diddling their female students. Not to mention the ones who take advantage of the emotional vulnerability of single Catholic women to “whip it on 'em”.

The real problem here stems from our society’s willing collusion with religious institutions of all denominations, in hiding these excesses behind a false assertion of freedom of religion.

Y’know what I find ‘curious’? I find it curious that anyone so ignorant of a subject has the temerity to display their ignorance on a public forum.

So that’s what yer really bitchin’ about – those damn Liberals. Yeah, right. ‘Liberals’ are to blame for all your disappointments with the world your abysmally ignorant viewpoint perceives.

No, little man. The problem isn’t liberals, it’s the legions of doofs who think they’ve earned the right to call themselves ‘conservative’ when they’re really only pseudoconservatives masking their closeted bigotry.

I do not ‘decry’ gays in religious orders of any sort, and never have, and I consider myself far from what seems to pass for Liberal these days. The problem is homophobes such as you, so terrified of facing the homosexual component of your own personal place on the continuum of human sexual behavior that you seem to believe you have the right to try to stamp out something that has existed in all human societies throughout history, and subject those who display the feature to attack. There would be no problem if gays could live, work, and serve openly.

And, yeah, I’m very much in favor of letting gays serve openly in the military. I don’t see why being ‘sexually left-handed’ (as I think of it) should be any exemption from service, or debar a man or woman from serving voluntarily and honorably, as uncounted numbers of gays already have.

And JFTR, I am not gay nor do I (as far as I know) have any gay friends or relatives.

If I throw a stick, will you go away?

10

When I was dating my wife, she lived in Adelphi, MD. Just about a mile away from her house was a home for pedophillic ex-priests. I betcha that made property values plummet.

Wrong thinking is punished, right thinking is just as swiftly rewarded. You’ll find it an effective combination.

11

Some general statements, some particular ones:

The approach taken by the RCC up until the late 1980’s was a wrong one. There were, however, different factors that led to different bad decisions.

The worst aspect is the general tendency of any large institution to “close ranks.” This is what led to the constant reshuffling of assignments (especially when this was done without telling the next parish or pastor why the priest was being moved). There is no defense against this activity.

The second aspect of this problem that often gets missed in these discussion is the opinion of the psychological community. It was not until the late 1980’s that it was put forth that pedophiles may not be “curable” (whatever that means). The majority of the pedophile priests who were identified were ordered into counselling–just as their alcoholic and OCD brethren were. And, just as an alcoholic priest continues to celebrate mass, including drinking from the cup of wine, once he has completed his treatment program, pedophiles were too often allowed to return to parish ministry on the grounds that they had been treated.

This does not explain the actions of any diocese who encountered repeat offenders.
I offer no excuse and I condemn the activity.

It would be interesting to find similar stories regarding priests who have had their pedophilia deliberately hidden by their diocese in the last eight years. If you find them, I would support proecution of the bishop in that diocese.
Note that I have not defended the actions in my previous statements. However, hindsight is wonderful. The laws we currently have regarding the prosecution of pedophiles and those who shield them were all written at about the same time that the psychological community decided that pedophiles could not be “cured” and at about the same time that the National Council of Catholic Bishops put forth formal procedures to prevent any shielding of the perpetrators.
In other words, as the society as a whole took a new look at a specific problem, everyone who looked at the problem came to similar conclusions and took similar actions.

There is another aspect to this story. There is no evidence that there is a specific problem with pedophilia among priests that is greater than with the society at large. The difference between the reports of pedophile priests and any other pedophile is that it is easier to go to the records of the RCC and collect numbers. When Deacon Jones of the First Church of Reading the Bible Aloud gets caught, he gets thrown out of his parish and finds a new church to work in. There are no records kept to be held up as a great scandal. [sarcasm](Besides, everyone knows that the real pedophiles all work as coaches and athletic supervisors.)[/sarcasm]

I will repeat. There is no evidence that the percentage of priests who are pedophiles exceeds the percentage of pedophiles in the general population. When Joe Smith gets caught, the news media reports that that individual was a pedophile; when Fr. Murray gets caught, the news media reports that a priest was a pedophile.

Those diocese who have shielded priests should be compelled to offer compensation to the victims, apologies to the community, and should be watched like hawks to be sure they do not do it again.

Specific points.

Given that he is not in jail, everyone has to live somewhere. As long as the the host priest does not allow Gauthe to come in contact with any children, what is your problem? Christianity is about forgiving the sinner while not tolerating the sin. If Gauthe is under the watchful eye of a priest who will keep him away from kids, he is less likely to be molesting kids than if he gets a one-room apartment and takes a job as a janitor somewhere.

Since homosexuality has no correspondence to pedophilia I’m not sure of the point of the last statement.
As to the “relaxed standards,” I keep hearing about them from FOAF’s, but everyone that I know in the seminary business can point to how the standards have actually been tightened. The only standards that were lowered in the 60’s were the academic requirements. Once the seminaries were not so full that they had to turn kids away, they lowered some of the older arbitrary academic bars. At the same time, they increased the psychological testing and the amount of peer-review that went into allowing candidates to go forward. (Note that Gauthe was already a priest in 1971. This means that he would have entered the seminary before the drop-off in applicants that did not occur before 1965.)

Tom~

12

Just stopped in to say a quick “bravo” to messrs Papoon and Tomndeb.

13

Pedophilia has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Last statistic I saw was that 90% of pedophilias were straight men acting against female children.

And remember, the Catholic church preaches “love the sinner, hate the sin”; it is perfectly acceptable for a gay person to serve in the clergy, as long as he doesn’t do gay things. This was made very clear by the last Catechism {sp?}.

This situation, however, is deplorable and, frankly, ungodly.

Esprix

Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.

14

George says:

You know, no matter how justified the tirade, it’s really bad form to use the same tactics for which you deride another. I know of no instance in any religious denomination where the defense for hiding pedophiles was “freedom of religion”.

This is not he only example of hyperbole in your response, just the one I found the most ludicrous.

The overwhelming majority of people have more than the average (mean) number of legs. – E. Grebenik

15

What you think you know and what really is (whatever the hell that means!) may be two different things.

Shall I point out to you the occasions in the recent past when certain religious denominations have been found to allow pedophilia as practiced by their ‘pastor’, e.g., the Branch Davidians? There are several other such Christian cults which think nothing of compelling the marriage of their youngest females to some of their oldest males. Whenever such things come to the attention of the authorities, the first resort is that it is a matter of religious belief. Usually what has happened is that one member of a married couple can no longer abide what is going on and attempts to break away, which is how the story comes out.

What did the man say? "Ludicrous is and ludicrous does . . . "

If I throw a stick, will you go away?

16

George said:

Just so I’m clear – in another response to this, you mention the Branh Davidians. I’m not familiar with their practices, so I won’t comment… but with respect to the OP, which asserted a Roman Catholic problem – you’re not suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church ever defended pedophilia with a claim of freedom of religion, are you? If so, please provide a cite.

  • Rick
17

I have to agree with slythe on this one. When I read the OP, it was SO similar to what happened at my church, it was scary. Our priest molested several altar boys (I was young, so I don’t remember the exact number), and his only punishment was to have to move to Western Maryland and serve in a different parish. (IIRC, he was put on the board that counsels married people as well. Bet he was REAL helpful.)

But…I will also agree with tomndebb. The times have changed when it comes to the RCC and pedophilia. The victims are more willing to come forward, and the churches are being forced to offer apologies. I don’t know of a case since the late 80’s, tom…the incident in my church happened before 1985. However, the church has a LONG way to go in owning up to everything a priest does.

(Fair warning in the interests of being truthful. In the parish where I grew up, the first priest had an affair with the church secretary. The second was the man described above. The third had an affair with a parishioner and broke up her marriage, hurting her kids. He is still getting his pension. So, I will freely admit I have some bias towards the RCC and how it treats “bad” priests.)

18

The situation described in the OP is indeed deplorable. But as Tomndebb pointed out, hindsight in such cases is 20/20. The important thing is that the Catholic Church has taken steps in an attempt to deal with the problem and to try prevent to future occurrences. (Note I said “try.” Unfortunately, I don’t think it’s possible to guarantee it.)

Have you ever considered the possibility that parents who accepted settlements wished to save their children from the trauma of going to trial?

There are always feelings of high indignation expressed when criminal behavior on the part of a religious figure comes to light - just take a look at how the media grab onto such stories. And please correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems that on the SDMB the people who are loudest are those who have a bone to pick with religion. (For whatever the reason.)

To those folks who feel that the case described in the OP is just one more reason to rage against organized religions: what is your response to the “blue wall of silence”?

There have been numerous publicized cases in which our law enforcement officials have committed crimes that were covered up by their fellow officers (the Abner Louima case here in NYC immediately springs to mind). One of the newsmagazine shows (can’t remember which offhand) once showed how easy it was for police officers dismissed from one jurisdiction for criminal activity to simply join a police force in another town or state. If caught, individual officers are infrequently severely punished, and their C.O.'s might not be hit with anything more severe than a suspension or a demotion.

Such cases are no different from the sort of “conspiracy of silence” you accuse the Catholic Church of. Why not be more vocal about those cases as well?

19

Hello? How can you simultaneously quote me for the sake of including one part of the sentence, and seemingly read right past my reference to “religious institutions of all denominations”? (emphasis added)

But, to be more specific – no, I cannot provide a specific cite to a specific case of the RCC specifically trying to hide a pedophile priest behind a claim of religious privilege . . . however, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that it has occurred. Pedo-priests could not be a recent occurrence in the church, only the awareness of them, and the rise of proactive policies.

One does not even have to look very hard to find the sordid history of the RCC in most countries where it achieves a major social presence. For all the ‘missionary work’ and ‘community service’ the Church has accomplished, you can point to an abuse of human dignity that, in the light of recent days, appalls any person sensitive to the rights of other human beings, and calls into question any claim the Church might have to moral authority.

There was a famous case in Newfoundland where a priest molested generations
of boys before one finally came back as an adult and exposed him.

In Ireland, the church took in ‘fallen women’ who had had the audacity to become pregnant by their faithless lovers – and turned them into domestic dogs’ bodies, working them for decades for pennies a day until the public revelation of the abuses led to a shutdown.

In Australia, English orphans were used as captive labor, beaten for showing any kind of resistance, and after decades, received only the most flaccid sort of apology. Many, in fact, were not orphans at all, but the children of impoverished families whose parents believed they would only be giving up temporary custody.

The list could go on, but these examples should serve to make my point. In each case, only the political strength of the RCC, working under the surplice of freedom of religion, made such long-term abominations possible.

And, please – no charges of ‘anti-Papism’; my mother was a devout Catholic until the day she died.

If I throw a stick, will you go away?

20

Puffington,

If it is any sort of consolation, the catholic church is in financial distress here in Texas. The reason? They lost a $19 million (or was it $119) lawsuit for knowingly letting a convicted child molester Rudy Cos work with kids (many of whom were molested). The thing is, the church knew that Cos had “issues” before he was transfered to D\FW, and after his problems came to the surface here, he was transfered again.