There’s an aspect to the current press coverage of Pope Benedict that I don’t understand.
Yes, I know why they’re doing it. Because they need scandal to sell papers. Because they have antipathy towards the Catholic Church (except when it is in their interests no to, like when Pope Benedict visited America). And, yes, because they don’t understand what they’re reporting on.
But really.
Why are they so laser-focused on the issue of laicization or “defrocking”?
Remember Jesus’ parable about the two sons, one of whom said he would go work in the field but didn’t and the other of whom said he wouldn’t go work in the field but did?
The first son was right on symbol but wrong on substance. The second was wrong on symbol but right on substance.
Of course, the best thing is to be right on symbol and right on substance, but if it’s a choice between one of the two, Jesus clearly indicated what was more important: substance over symbol.
How does that apply to the current scandal?
If you look at the American cases that the press is currently hyperventilating about, they had all been removed from pastoral ministry long before the cases ever got to Cardinal Ratzinger’s department at the Vatican.
These weren’t cases where the priests’ bishops were moving them around in a kind of shell game, keeping them with regular access to children. They had been removed from that situation (though the Wisconsin priest, Lawrence Murphy, apparently still had some contact with the Milwaukee deaf community—which Archbishop Bertone at the CDF insisted be stopped at once).
So—in terms of substance—the Church had already largely dealt with the matter. It had deprived these priests of the pastoral assignments that put them in contact with potential victims.
Dismissing them from the clerical state—laicizing or defrocking them—would would be a less urgent matter, and one that is in significant measure symbolic (since even a laicized priest retains the powers he gained from his ordination, even if he is only allowed to exercise a few of them and only in emergency circumstances, like hearing a deathbed confession).
Yes, there are other canonical consequences—ones that would be painful to the priest (assuming he was interested in remaining a priest), like not being able to lawfully celebrate Mass any more, even in private (which assumes he cares enough about the Church’s rules to obey such a stricture; some don’t, such as LifeTeen founder Dale Fushek, who set up his own independent worship center once he was laicized).
While the Church obviously sees value in laicizing gravely errant priests (or the procedure wouldn’t be on the books), the burning issue for people concerned about children should not be “How quickly was this guy laicized?” but “How quickly was this guy removed from pastoral ministry?”
My suspicion is that the press is glossing over this issue for the reasons stated above (greed, malice, ignorance), but they seem unduly focused on the question of how quickly Cardinal Ratzinger’s office moved with respect to the laicization of priests whose bishops had already (before the case got to the CDF) taken measures to keep them from harming others.
I think that by focusing on the laicization issue the press is positively misleading the public by conveying the impression that the Church hadn’t yanked these guys from their pastoral assignments. My fear is that a lot of people will walk away with the totally false impression that unless a priest has been “defrocked” then the Church is allowing him to maintain regular contact with victims through a pastoral assignment, and that by not laicizing them at once Cardinal Ratzinger was turning a blind eye and allowing them to go on raping children in parishes with impunity. (Indeed, that seems to be exactly what Andrew Sullivan has been claiming.)
But that’s not the case—not even with Lawrence Murphy, who as far as was known when his case came up in the 90s (and as far as is known today) hadn’t molested anyone in two decades.
So why rage over how fast or whether these men were laicized if their bishops had already taken steps to stop the threat they posed? (Steps that in the Murphy case the CDF said had to be strengthened at once.)
I’m not saying that there isn’t room for criticism here, even vigorous criticism, or that these guys shouldn’t have been laicized, or that the CDF shouldn’t have acted more swiftly than it did.
Criticism—even vigorous criticism—is one thing, but blind, seething rage is another.
Blind, seething rage would be a more appropriate response to keeping these monsters in ordinary parish assignments, but they have been removed from that situation, there is more room for the judicial process to play out.
And, indeed, that’s the American church’s current policy: Yank a priest from ministry at the first credible accusation and then deal with longer-term canonical questions afterwards.
So I don’t get it.
I’m not seeing the CDF saying to leave these priests in pastoral assignments, and so while I see room for criticism, I don’t see a basis for the kind of apoplexy that the press is experiencing.
Your thoughts?
This is what I posted on the other NCR but I wanted to add something.
why defrock or lacitize quickly or remove from clerical state?
It shows the seriousness of 1) the crime 2) what the priesthood is 3) for other priests.
It doesn’t mean that aren’t/can’t be forgiven. It does mean that action is serious.
I look at it this way. Sometimes those abusers are not capable of apologizing. They aren’t.
This allows the victims and others to see the seriousness of abusing.
There is also the temptation to abuse the power/authority that someone in that position has (priesthood/leader). When that is completely taken away, the power is no longer there. They no longer have even the opportunity to “slip” through the cracks. It’s gone.
Just my thoughts.
This also allows healing for the victims and it really needs to be done as quickly as possible.
Some are encouraged to denounce their abuser – but I think in addition to this, it needs to go one step further – removing from clerical state.
There is also the sending of the message to others who may find the priesthood attractive because of potential victims/and abuse of authority.
And also, Jimmy, for us. To help rebuild trust in our leaders.
We would know that they are serious.
It would also help the victims when they fluctuate between maybe it was right/wrong mentality.
I think the healing would be cut drastically in half if not more for the victims.
But, everyone deserves a fair trial. That may take a year.
But, if you are using the deaf community as an example, Murphy would not have been a constant source of pain for them (as he was allowed to still have contact with the deaf community).
I guess the one thing that ticks me off about the various abuse scandals (not so much this particular instance) is that, if you have evidence or credible accusations that a guy has been boffing underage boys (which is almost always what this turns out to involve), whatever internal actions you take, you ought to refer the matter to the POLICE. This is a CRIME, and a serious one. That seems to have seldom been done.
Which, I agree, has little if anything to do with the current rather absurd complaints against His Excellency the Bishop of Rome… Just venting…
I think, depending on the situation, it might actually be counterproductive to laicize a priest who is a child molester. Here I am assuming that he has already been removed from active ministry. At least while he is under the control of the bishop, the bishop knows more or less what he is up to.
If he is laicized, I’m not sure that a pedophile society of defrocked priests living under a bridge and accountable to no one is such a great idea, either.
The sensible thing to do would be to stop these child molesters from entering the seminaries in the first place. Such men don’t suddenly start abusing the day after ordination, they will have a history of this sort of conduct going back to their teenage years, or even to childhood. A more thorough investigation of their background is called for, and if necessary a refusal to consider them for the priesthood if the bishop has the slightest reason to believe that there is cause for doubt about the man’s suitability. This is one instance when any benefit of the doubt must be allowed to the bishop. He and he alone is responsible for ordaining a potential pedophile.
How about doing away with celibacy so the priesthood would attract sexually normal and emotionally mature men?
To say that celibacy did not “cause” the scandals like saying the swamp did not cause the mosquitos. Both statements are technically true but completely besides the point. Since the Middle Ages, the celibate priesthood has been the biggest closet in history with percentage of gays much higher than the general population. Is it any wonder that gays coming out in the past few decades (and being able to live their lives openly in other professions) coincided with decline in the number of priests and nuns?
But this priest shortage is making this issue moot anyways. Our church is considered a mega churhc, and it only has one working priest. In his last homily, the Father introduced his three new deacons (the entire diocese ordained only two priests last year.
The future church will have to rely heavily on married deacons with a hierarchy consisting of older celibates. A situation similar to that of our wiser Greek Orthodox brethern.
Jimmy: What I don’t understand is why the police are not called right away. I would think that would be one of the first things done and if the criminal justice system determines they are guilty they spend time in prison. Are there Church rules against going this route?
“Since the Middle Ages, the celibate priesthood has been the biggest closet in history with the percentage of gays much higher than the general population.”
Evidence?
With all the empty convents and seminaries, why not set one or so aside and confine the perps to said institution, with the condition that they are to pray the mass daily, (each, not concelibrate) and spend their life in prayer and contemplation along with the possibility of perpetual adoration . If they stay there and receive no visitors without supervision, fine, if he leaves, the priest will be turned over to civil authorities and need not look for help from the church, he had his chance. think of the number of masses offered and the chance for repentance, if this is too much for the less orthodox let them try the outside world and justice
“What I don’t understand is why the police are not called right away.” – SteveL
I think you should remember that an allegation is not prima facie evidence that a crime has been committed. Any priest accused of abuse must be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and that guilt is not necessarily easy to establish, the nature of the crime being what it is. Hence the caution of the bishop, and the advice given to him by the Holy See.
“How about doing away with celibacy so the priesthood would attract sexually normal and emotionally mature men?”
As Mark Shea likes to remark, whenever similar scandals appear among teachers/doctors/lawyers/etc.: “If only teachers/doctors/lawyers/etc. could marry!”
In other words, your stupid, insulting remark applies not only to the current Church, but to the entire historical Church. And it applies to Christ, whom you apparently think was sexually abnormal and emotionally immature.
Geoffery: Well said. I do agree on all that but what I don’t understand is that when guilt has been established why are these guys not tried in court and sent to prison?
SteveL said “Well said. I do agree on all that but what I don’t understand is that when guilt has been established why are these guys not tried in court and sent to prison?”
I often wonder why the media hasn’t investigated the authorities to find answers to this question?
Brian, where’s the fun in that? In fact, no one has been hyperventilating about WHY the authorities chose to do NOTHING in the Milwaukee case.
In California, Bishops are not only citizens but mandated reporters. In such a case, an alledged criminal act and abuse of a child, the Bishop should contact the police and Child Protective Services. In other words, obey and follow the law.
I’m sure you realise, gravey, that there is a matter of defamation of character involved in these cases.
Many innocent men have been unjustly accused of sex crimes, and the efforts of the police in carrying out an investigation have simply resulted in those men being regarded as guilty by the people who find themselves being questioned by the police. Their attitude is that a person being investigated must have something to hide, and therefore the accusation must be substantially correct. It aint necessarily so.
The Catholic Church has much more experience in dealing with these matters than any police force, and that of course is the Church’s job. Sadly, it means that the sins of such truly evil men are more often retained than forgiven, such is the pernicious nature of their offences.
Ever heard of Fr John Geoghahan, Steve?
When guilt has been established, and proved in court, they certainly do go to jail. In Geoghahan’s case, he never came out – alive.
Mr. Smith, I don’t disagree with you; many innocent people are charged and sometimes convicted of crimes not committed. Our criminal justice system is not perfect but it is the best thing going. I do think your broad characterization of law enforcement is unfair (yes, I am in law enforcement). While the Church may have more experience in dealing with sin, you cannot be suggesting that members of the clergy have immunity from criminal prosecution. In the end, certain facts cannot be disputed: many priests did sexually abuse children and many Bishops tried to cover-up those acts. Punishment of these men by society is in order.
Sorry, gravey, I think I phrased my post inaccurately.
You have misunderstood me, I meant that the people being questioned by the police sometimes think that the person under investigation must be guilty, not that the police consider this person guilty.
I certainly don’t think that members of the clergy should be immune from prosecution, provided that there is prima facie evidence of their guilt. An accusation is not evidence of guilt. Their punishment in a civil court is a matter of simple justice, but again I must stress that a possibly innocent man’s character and reputation must be protected. The Fifth Commandment demands it. I do think that the priest’s bishop is the best person to conduct such a sensitive enquiry in the first place, and then report any suspicious findings to the police.
Certainly, not a few bishops have been remiss in carrying out this obligation, looking after their own interests rather than the Church’s. Their resignation has been the result, and I think we all can name a few more who should get the same treatment. Whether they should be indicted in a court, for what amounts to gross incompetence, is debatable.
I find at hard to believe that after the endless stream of child sexual abuse cases, both in the U.S. and around the world, involving catholic priests in which the suspected abuser has often merely been transferred to another parish, only to continue the cycle of abuse, that the church would even consider having its bishops establish if there is a “prima facie” case before reporting an allegation to the proper authorities.
Neither bishops, nor anyone else in the church, are remotely qualified to conduct interviews of the victims of alleged sexual abuse, seize evidence, conduct forensic examinations etc. interview other witnesses etc. in order to establish if there is a “prima facie” case. That is a matter entirely for law enforcement, or in the case of California, Child Protective Services, as pointed out by ‘Gravey’.
It was most refreshing to hear this weekend that the Pope has finally met with a group of abuse victims and expressed his sorrow to them. He also gave an assurance that everything possible would be done by the church to bring to justice those responsible for abuse and to implement effective measures designed to safeguard young people in the future. The best way to accomplish this is to publicly state that any and all allegations of criminal sexual abuse by any priest must be reported directly to the proper authorities who have responsibility to not only protect the rights of the accused, but also to protect the rights of the victim or victims.
This would send a clear message, both to the church, and to the wider public, that the church will no longer tolerate child sexual abuse. It would also prevent even a hint of cover-up by bishops or church leaders. Responsibility for investigating alleged criminal acts and deciding whether there is a “prima facie” case rest solely with law enforcement – and definitely not with bishops.
“Responsibility for investigating alleged criminal acts and deciding whether there is a “prima facie” case rest solely with law enforcement – and definitely not with bishops.”
Posted by: Mr. R | Apr 19, 2010 11:10:17 AM
Unlike you, Mr R, I have no great faith in the infallibility of law enforcement. It is not exactly unknown, is it, for an entirely innocent man to be ‘investigated’ by the police, charged with a serious crime, convicted in a court, and sentenced to a long term of imprisonment?
To be perfectly frank, I am unable to share your boundless enthusiasm for the impartiality of the local PD. Indeed, I would suggest that an interrogation by the police is designed mainly to extract a ‘confession’ from a suspect, and any regard for the man’s character and good name is a minor consideration. The climate of opinion being what is, a Catholic priest is now viewed as guilty until proven innocent, the very antithesis of true justice.
Hence, my preference to see the local bishop initiate such a delicate inquiry, rather than the local constabulary. It will, at least, ensure that the priest’s reputation will remain untarnished until he is shown to be unmistakably guilty of the alleged offense.
The Fifth Commandment demands no less.
This is not to say that the interests and feelings of the alleged victim(s) can be ignored, and they must be addressed by the bishop concerned, not by the police, but we cannot have a situation when a priest can be accused by any anti-Catholic fanatic or gravy-train rider and his entire ministry grinds to a halt while the police ‘investigate’.
I’m I really reading this correctly? Mr. Smith has now moved from having a bishop decide on whether there is a “prima facie” case to stating quite clearly that having a bishop conduct the enquiry will ensure that the suspected priest’s reputation will remain untarnished until he has been shown to be “unmistakenly guilty of an alleged offence.” By whom? The bishop?
Mr. Smith has no faith in the infallibility of law enforcement. Believe it or not, the world at large no longer has faith in the infallibility of bishops to investigate there own. If the Church continues to conduct “internal” investigations of criminal acts (and I am referring here specifically to allegations of criminal child sexual abuse), it will never recover from the paedophile scandals that have plagued it for decades if even one single case is rejected by a bishop only to have a subsequent criminal investigation prove that a crime was committed.
If a teacher is accused of child sexual abuse, you simply cannot have the headmaster of his school, or the school board, conduct a “discreet enquiry” to ascertain if there is a “prima facie case” or if he is unmistakenly guilty of the crime. It is no different from having a bishop conduct an investigation. It is unfair to even expect a bishop to attempt to conduct any sort of criminal investigation, and the inference will always be that he will naturally be tempted to ensure as far as possible this his priests’ reputations remain untarnished.
From a practical point of view I would submit that if a child, or his or her parents, make a complaint of alleged criminal child sexual abuse, the correct course to be adopted is to refer the matter immediately to the proper authorities who are trained and equipped to investigate crimes. The only decision for the bishop to decide is whether or not the priest should be suspended during the investigation. And that is admittedly a very difficult decision, just as it is if the suspect is a teacher, or in any other profession where he or she works in close proximity to children.
The biggest mistake the Church can make is to circle the wagons and still be seen to be trying to be judge and jury. Jursidictions around the world (Ireland is a prime example) are replete with cases where bishops have not dealt properly with such cases. It is, respectfully, a recipe for disaster, and will not serve the Church well.
My apologies for a spelling error in the first sentence of my last post which should read “Am I really reading this correctly?”
In reply to your post, Mr R, I refer you to the following commentary:
http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=635
“The Catholic Church has much more experience in dealing with these matters (sex crimes) than any police force, and that of course is the Church’s job.”
“(M)y preference (is) to see the local bishop initiate such a delicate inquiry, rather than the local constabulary. It will, at least, ensure that the priest’s reputation will remain untarnished until he is shown to be unmistakably guilty of the alleged offense. The Fifth Commandment demands no less.” (!!!!!)
Geoffrey Smith 2010
I regret to say that the article written by Dr. Myrus , and recommended by Geoffrey Smith, is typical of the attitude of the Catholic Church in attempting to deal, usually internally, with sexual abuse cases. The action, or lack of action by Bishop Pican, and the congratulations he received from Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, go to the very root of the problem. And the above comments quoted from Geoffrey Smith are frightening.
Before commenting further I would like to point out that I am not a Catholic, but a member of the Anglican Church, so my point of view is from the outside looking in. That in itself may incur the wrath of the Geoffery Smith’s of this world bearing in mind the comments made by Dr. Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who recently described the paedophile priests scandal engulfing Ireland as a “colossal trauma” that had caused the church in Ireland to lose “all credibility”. (Yes Dr. Williams later apologized for his remarks but did not retract them.)
Notwithstanding the veracity of Dr. Williams comments, I would like to briefly express my personal opinion with regard to how the Catholic Church can move forward on the issue of who deals with allegations of criminal child sexual abuse.
These many thousands of scandals have resulted in a complete loss of faith in the Catholic Church investigating its own priests and believing, in Geoffrey Smith’s eloquent words, “that having a bishop conduct the enquiry will ensure that the suspected priest’s reputation will remain untarnished until he has been shown to be “unmistakenly guilty of an alleged offence.”
With the greatest of respect, that approach will only serve to exacerbate an already catastrophic situation. The Catholic Church is not infallible; bishops are not infallible, nor are the police infallible. However, neither bishops nor church leaders have the skills or expertise to interview victims of alleged criminal sexual abuse against children (I am not referring to homosexual acts between a priest and another adult) but to alleged crimes against children. On the other hand, the police, often working with child welfare agencies, have the skills, experience and facilities at their disposal to conduct thorough and INDEPENDENT investigations.
The Church simply has to accept that criminal matters have to be investigated by the civil authorities. The wider public will accept nothing less, and any attempt to do otherwise will continue to eat away at the credibility of the Church.
According to a report in the Times online (13th April 2010) it was reported that the Vatican made it clear that bishops “must always report such crimes to the Police”. I have no idea who made that statement, but it appears that someone may finally be getting the message.
I had earlier asked Geoffrey Smith, who appears to have some knowledge of church procedures to explain what qualifies a bishop to investigate allegations of criminal child sexual abuse but I never get a reply, other than to indicate that the bishop would be discreet! If a bishop has knowledge of a felony (for example, the rape of a child), and he conceals it and does not, as soon as possible, make it known to the proper authorities, but rather, he decides to actively investigate it himself and takes any action which might be said to be trying to conceal it from the civil authorities, does he not run the risk of committing a “misprision of felony”. 18 U.S.C. § 4: I am not aware that bishops are above the law.
In support of my personal submission I quote a statement just issued by Archbishop Vincent Nichols, the leader of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, on behalf of the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales in expressing profound sorrow for the “terrible crimes” of child abuse carried out by priests. He stated, and I quote, “ These terrible crimes, and the inadequate response by some church leaders, grieve us all. The criminal offences committed by some priests are a profound scandal. They bring deep shame to the whole church. We express our heartfelt apology and deep sorrow to those who have suffered abuse, those who have felt ignored, disbelieved or betrayed. We ask their pardon, and the pardon of God for these terrible deeds done in our midst. There can be no excuses.”
“Furthermore, we recognise the failings of some Bishops and Religious leaders in handling these matters. These, too, are aspects of this tragedy which we deeply regret and for which we apologise. The procedures now in place in our countries highlight what should have been done straightaway in the past. Full co-operation with statutory bodies is essential.”
I do not, for one moment, expect persons like Geoffrey Smith to see the necessity of the Catholic Church finally coming to grips with this issue and accepting that alleged crimes need to be investigated by professionals who are completely independent of the church. But I would hope that younger people will recognize that if positive action is not taken moving forward then this cancer will continue to gnaw away at an institution that should be an example to the world.
Please excuse me for have peered into what is clearly a Catholic website, but it has been interesting to view the situation from within your circle. I only hope and pray that you stop circling the wagons and attacking the messengers for bringing bad news. I will refrain from further comments. Sincerely. Mr. R.
PS What on earth does the 5th Commandment have to do with this issue?
I will respond to your post of April 22, Mr R, paragraph by paragraph.
1) “The action, or lack of action, by Bishop Pican…etc”
Since neither of us is fully acquainted with the facts of this case, and an understanding of why the Bishop failed to report the priest to the authorities, or why the Cardinal approved of his decision, your comment is simply passing judgement on a suspect without any real evidence of his guilt in committing an offence against French law. You are making a gratuitous assumption that the Bishop is guilty based on nothing more than a report in the media that he was placed on probation by the court that sentenced the priest.
2) Thank you for informing us that you are a member of the Anglican Church. You have my commiseration for not being a Catholic. The opinions of Dr Rowan Williams are rarely correct, and only once have I known him to achieve any sort of accuracy, when, on a visit to Lourdes, he expressed a belief in the Immaculate Conception. On that occasion he was quite right, but otherwise he is not noted for making sensible remarks.
3) “These many thousands of scandals…etc.”
You may have lost faith in the Catholic Church’s ability to conduct an enquiry into an allegation, Mr R, but we Catholics certainly haven’t. Your assertion that such a loss of faith is “complete” is a wild exaggeration and far from being the case. Centuries, literally centuries, before any police force was even established, the Church was conducting such enquiries and investigations concerning malfeasant priests, and, if I may say so, doing it with some proficiency and justice – for all concerned. We need no lessons from wannabe DAs in how to get at the truth when a charge is levelled against a possibly innocent priest.
4) “With the greatest of respect, that approach will only serve…etc.”
Another exaggeration, Mr R! With the greatest respect, sir, the situation is by no means as disastrous as you think. An irritation, yes; an exasperation, yes; even a damned annoyance, but a catastrophe? No, I don’t think so. You see, we had already been warned that such a scandal would occur in the Church, indeed many such scandals have afflicted the Church in the past, but here we are today, just as insistent as we have ever been that our teaching, and our teaching alone, is the true and full gospel of Our Lord, Jesus Christ.
5) “The wider public will accept nothing less…etc.”
The wider public have never accepted anything that the Church has had to say, so what else is new?
6) “… the Vatican made it clear that bishops “must always report such crimes to the police.”
Agreed. When the bishops are satisfied that such crimes have, in fact, been committed.
7) “If a bishop has such knowledge of a felony…etc.”
Knowledge he would acquire only by asking questions of the people directly concerned.
In other words, initiating an investigation into the alleged offence.
8) Archbishop Nichols has said nothing that negates anything I have posted in my above remarks.
Like me, he asserts that this scenario was not caused by the Church per se, but by a small, a very small, minority of presumably homosexual priests, aided and abetted by their boyfriends in the episcopacy, such as Bernadin and Weakland.
I have never tried to claim that such a scandal is a figment of the media’s imagination, nor have I for one second been deceived by the lying allegation in the media that the whole Church is to blame for the corruption of a few.
Do you condemn an entire police force because of the corruption of a few “bent coppers”?
Incidentally, Archbishop Nichols can apologise for his own sins, publically if he wishes, but he can leave me out of it. I will apologise to God and to man for my own sins, but for no one else’s. The guilt of this sex abuse lies with the perpetrators and with them alone.
9) “PS What on earth does the 5th commandment have to do with this issue?”
I refer you to sections 2284-2287 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church in the chapter dealing with the Fifth Commandment. Related to this sin of scandal, you should also read sections 2476-2479, which deal with calumny and detraction. No. 2478 should be of particular interest to you, Mr R: it’s all about rash judgement.
I note that you have refrained from further comment. Please feel free to reply to my post as I think a serious matter such as this deserves to be addressed as fully as possible.
Justice for the victims demands it.
Jerry,
Please excuse me, but I just can’t resist one last post on the subject of the sexual abuse of children by priests, and the need for INDEPENDENT investigations.
My first point is that despite his lengthy, and some might say, rather aggressive response to my last post (he clearly has no time for any other religious group – especially the Anglican Church) Geoffrey Smith has still never addressed the central issue of the qualifications of a bishop to investigate allegations of child sexual abuse, in terms of his interviewing victims (do bishops actually interview young boys or girls who are alleged to have been raped by a priest?), obtaining forensic evidence, etc. in order to establish that a suspected priest is “unmistakenly guilty of an alleged offence”. Clearly, the Archbishop of England and Wales, Archbishop Nichols, has a slightly different view from Geoffrey Smith. Perhaps he and the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales have been contaminated by that wicked, unchristian Archbishop of Canterbury!
The other point that I would like your subscribers to ponder is just how much faith would they have in having the venerable Bishop of Bruges, Roger Vangheluwe, discreetly investigate allegations of sexual abuse committed by one of his priests? Or perhaps a discreet investigation carried out by Bishop George Mueller of Norway. The reason I pose this question is that Bishop Vangheluwe announced his resignation yesterday after it was revealed that he sexually abused a child while he was a priest. Bishop Mueller was forced to do exactly the same thing last month. (No, I’m not making this stuff up!!!)
Geoffrey Smith may find this hard to appreciate, but persons outside the Catholic Church may be more than a little skeptical to think that priests alleged to have sexually abused children may be investigated by bishops who, themselves, may have committed exactly the same crimes. Is it at all possible that those bishops may not be entirely unbiased when it comes to making decisions about priests who have only “walked in their shoes”.
Keep on ranting Mr. Smith. Keep on attacking the media, the Anglican Church, the atheists, the New York Times, the homosexuals, and anyone else who questions the infallibility of the Catholic Church to investigate its own. This cancer will continue to fester – unless and until the Church realizes that the system needs radical overhaul, and that must include completely independent investigations by the civil authorities of any alleged sexual abuse of children by its priests.
I will sit and observe as this ongoing tragedy unfolds.
PS I must confess you got me on the relevance of the 5th Commandment to this issue. Try as I might I just can’t get my head around that one.
“…many such scandals have afflicted the Church in the past…”
The worst being Holy Thursday, when the entire episcopacy (all 12 of them) failed our Lord. The Church survived.
I hope you will forgive me if I carry on ranting, Mr R.
May I say that I am not the only one who has no time for the Anglican Church. Not a few Anglicans themselves are preparing to abandon the C of E, now that they have an ordinariate, but I digress, I have a much more important matter to discuss.
I am, of course, referring to the 99% of our bishops who are blameless in this scandal, unlike the two deviants you mention. Almost inevitably, I suppose, the hierarchy will find a Judas or two in their number, given that their spiritual progenitors had at least one. However, the discovery of such a renegade did not invalidate the authority of the Church that Our Lord founded, a point well made by bill912. Hence, our bishops have the authority to govern the Church as they see fit, with the Bishop of Rome the final authority in all Christian matters.
(Perhaps I should make the point that the Apostles suffered 1 in 12 of their number failing to obey the gospel. Nowhere near that ratio is found among our bishops who behave similarly.)
I am sorry that you feel unable to approve the procedure adopted by the Church for dealing with this treachery. The Church feels obliged to clean up her own act, especially in the light of the inadequate response from the civil authorities, who appear sometimes to be unable to enforce their own law, bearing in mind the fate that befell Fr John Geoghan.
If a convicted priest cannot be kept in jail for the duration of his sentence, without being murdered, then I consider the Church to be justified in her critical appraisal of law ‘enforcement’.
A minor point: this scandalous scenario and its handling by the Church has nothing whatsoever to do with her infallibility, a subject you seem to know little about. You have admitted that the police are not faultless in their modus operandi, and I admit that the Church likewise is not without error in her procedure, but since the bishop is likely to know at least one of the parties very well, his interrogation of that person is likely to be more productive than an ‘interview’ by the police. At that point, if and when he is sure that the priest has a case to answer, he must inform the authorities, as required by the instruction from the Vatican.
Quote of the month: “The Catholic Church has much more experience in dealing with these matters (sexual abuse cases) than any police force, and that of course is the Church’s job” Geoffrey Smith 15 April 2010.
As an Anglican I’m a forgiving sort of chap so rant on!
I agree with you that the Anglican Church has its own faults although I personally agree with having women priests (we are all God’s children). I have my own criticisms of the Anglican Church, but they are not relevant to the points we have been discussing, nor does it bolster your argument to attack another religious group. It is churlish!
I’m just puzzled though by the fact that a married Anglican priest with children can convert to the Catholic faith and become a priest while his brother Catholic priests are denied the privilege of marriage and children. I happen to know a wonderful ex-Catholic priest who made the mistake of falling in love and had to leave his beloved church because he decided to marry his true love. He is now an Anglican vicar. I wonder what he thinks about the decision made last year.
I note that you continue to studiously avoid my central question as to what qualifications a bishop has to conduct an investigation into an allegation of criminal child sexual abuse by a priest except to now say that ‘since the bishop is likely to know at least one of the parties very well, his interrogation of that person is likely to be more productive than an “interview” with the police.’ Now I wonder which one of the two he will likely know very well? Would it be the suspect – or the victim? Already the alarm bells are ringing. If the bishop knows the priest very well is it possible he might be biased in any way? Should he be involved with any potential criminal investigation when he knows one of the parties very well. I think not.
But wait a minute. Do I see a perceptible softening of your stance. You initially stated categorically that having a bishop conduct the enquiry would ensure that the suspected priest’s reputation will remain untarnished until he has been shown to be “unmistakenly guilty of an alleged offence.” You also stated in no uncertain terms in a reply to “Gravey” as quoted above, “The Catholic Church has much more experience in dealing with these matters than any police force, and that of course is the Church’s job.” Yet now you are stating when the bishop is sure that the priest has a case to answer, he must inform the authorities, as required by the instruction of the Vatican.
By chance I happened to read an AP report today about the resignation of Bishop James Moriarty of Kildare who acknowledged failing to report clerical sex abuse to the police. In the same article it states:-
“The Vatican recently posted guidelines on its website instructing bishops to report abuse to police when civil law requires it. The Vatican insists that has long been church policy, though it has never been written before.” Mmmm. Sounds rather like what I’ve been trying to say which you have so strongly and adamantly refuted.
Despite your obvious belief that people like me are out to destroy the church, I would like to make a few points on which we really should be in agreement:-
• If a grown man makes a complaint to the church authorities that he was sexually abused as a child by a priest, I fully agree that the bishop should seek to ascertain the veracity of the complaint, and even if he is satisfied that there is a case to answer, in my humble view it is entirely up to the adult victim to decide whether or not to report his allegation to the proper authorities (the Police).
• If a bishop or priest is told of a sexual abuse crime, or any other crime, by a priest in a confessional (not sure of the exact terminology) he should NEVER abuse that confidence and report what he has been told to anyone else. I don’t personally believe in “confession” but I totally respect the fact that it is a core belief of the Catholic Church – and long may it continue.
• If a child, or the parent or guardian of a child, makes a complaint to a bishop, or any church official, that the child has been sexually abused by a priest, then the alarm bells should be ringing loud and clear. Yes, it makes good sense for the bishop to ask a few questions (of the parent) to establish the exact nature of the complaint and if it appears to be genuine, but in my humble view he is neither qualified nor equipped to conduct any kind of criminal investigation or interrogation or interview of a child victim, and unless there are exceptional grounds for believing that the allegation is totally unjustified, the bishop should ensure that the matter is promptly reported to the civil authorities for a thorough, professional and INDEPENDENT investigation. He should do NOTHING to try to dissuade a child, or the parent from reporting the matter to the Police. He has no right whatever to interfere with the reporting of an alleged crime under these circumstances.
Just a couple other points on which we may not agree:
• I have never “ admitted that the police are not faultless in their modus operandi”. Those are entirely your words – not mine. I have said that the Police are not infallible (using the Oxford English Dictionary meaning of the term which is “incapable of making mistakes or being wrong”). The Police can only collect the evidence that is available and that can prove difficult with the passage of time, the reluctance of witnesses to make statements, the young age of victims, the deviousness of sex offenders etc. In any event a suspected offender can go to court and a judge and jury can be wrong in convicting an innocent man, or not convicting a guilty man. Justice itself is not infallible (using the same definition).
• You make the point that a convicted priest, Fr. John Geoghan was murdered in jail so you consider the Church to be justified in her critical appraisal of law “enforcement”. Please think about that position for just a few moments. I can assure you that literally everyone convicted of paedophilia is detested by their fellow prisoners. It matters not a jot whether he is a priest, a policeman, a politician or a postman. Most prisoners have children, or nephews or nieces, and they despise this particularly class of criminals – just as you do in your comments. There is good reason to fear for the welfare of any convicted paedophile who is incarcerated. But are you seriously suggesting that we make just the one exception – that is, for priests – while all the others will be dealt with by the civil authorities, and tough luck if they are convicted and jailed. Or do you suggest that bishops try all paedophiles? Or that paedophiles not be imprisoned because they would be in great danger while serving their sentences.
• There is one group in particular who always have every reason to fear if they are incarcerated, and believe it or not, that is police officers. They are invariably hated by prisoners for the simple reason that just about everyone in jail has been put there as a result of a police investigation. That’s a darned good additional reason for police officers to avoid committing crime, just as it is for priests to avoid sexually abusing children.
• You have indicated that 99% of bishops are innocent, and I seem to recall you saying that far less than 1% of priests have committed sexual abuse. I totally accept your figures, and would even like to think that it is far less than that, and less than the average in any other occupation. My concern, and that of many others, is that a very, very small minority of priests have committed a very large number of sexual abuse crimes out of all proportion to their own number, for the simple reason that for many years the Church failed to take the necessary action, and allowed these priests to move from parish to parish to continue their cycle of abuse. I can quote dozens of names of priests who have done exactly this, but I really don’t wish to belabor the point. I hear that the U.S. Church alone has now paid some $1 billion in compensation to the victims of sex abuse by priests, and it is estimated to have cost the Catholic Church, in the U.S. alone, in excess of $2.5 billion in related costs since 1950. That may be an exaggeration, and you will surely correct me if it is, but it is an indication of the enormity of the problem.
• On the issue of the media frenzy regarding this ongoing saga, it is not a major national scandal when an uncle sexually abuses his niece or nephew, or a parent sexually abuses his own child. But there is a sliding scale. A teacher accused of sexually abusing a student can expect major coverage by the media; a scout master committing the same crime is almost off the scale because he is in a position of trust and has unfettered access to young boys. When it is a priest it is completely off the scale, for the simple reason that he, above all others is entrusted with the spiritual well being of his flock, and in Jimmy’s words, the media starts to “hyperventilate” when it is flooded with reports of sexual abuse by priests, together with numerous cases where bishops, and the Church itself, have tried to cover up these crimes.
• Finally, your comment that, “the Church feels obliged to clean up her own act, especially in the light of the inadequate response from civil authorities, who appear to be able to enforce the own law” is so outrageously twisted that it belies belief. It is abundantly clear from literally thousands of cases that the Church has, time and again, avoided even reporting alleged criminal sexual abuse cases to the civil authorities, and it is the lack of action by the Church that has resulted in the current media “hyperventilation”. It is exceedingly difficult to investigate a case when a group as powerful as the Catholic Church is doing its utmost to avoid such an investigation.
• Yes, I’m sure that the Church is now doing its utmost to stop the abuse but the most effective way of doing so, and the most effective way of ensuring that cases are properly investigated moving forward is to report all cases of alleged sexual abuse of children by priests to the proper authorities so that no-one can, in future, accuse the church of trying to cover them up. The Church will have decisions to make as to what happens while a priest is under criminal investigation, and what happens if, and when, he is convicted and sentenced. Should he be suspended. laicized etc? But his guilt or innocence of a crime MUST be decided by a judge and jury.
I sincerely appreciate Jimmy Akin allowing me to express my views on his blog. I have no expectation that Geoffrey Smith will change his own thinking in any way, but I would like to think that it might be of some use if even just a few members of the Catholic Church can take a critical look at the mistakes made in the past by the Church, and make sure that it never happens again.
“I happen to know a wonderful ex-Catholic priest who made the mistake of falling in love and had to leave his beloved church because he decided to marry his true love.”
IOW, he chose his “true love” over Jesus.
Nope. He still loves and follows Jesus and brings the gospel to others. Most of the Christians in the world get married and also have a relationship with Jesus. Sadly, he was not permitted by his Church to be a priest and be married so he followed his heart, married the woman he loved, and continues to spread the gospel. How sad that this is seen as some kind of a betrayal of Jesus.
He broke his vow to Jesus.
And walked away from the Church that Jesus founded.
“How sad that this is seen as some kind of betrayal of Jesus” – Mr R.
How sad that you see it as a virtue for a man to break his promise to God.
Not all Christians in the world get married, or even stay married for long. By permission of King Henry VIII, Anglicans are allowed to enjoy serial adultery.
I will resist the temptation to point out that there are thousands of priests who have broken their promise to God by enjoying serial sexual abuse with children. It could be argued that it was by kind permission of their bishops who deigned not to take the necessary action, which of course, is one of the reasons for my posts, that is, preventing further abuses as much as possible. It is noteworthy and sad that “The Sarge” went to the trouble of reading my post and chose to raise an issue that was nothing more than an observation. I must also confess to not knowing much about the requirement for priests not to marry. I presume it is some kind of sin. Please feel free to enlighten me on just where in the bible it requires that priests should not marry. Can you also advise if this dreadful priest, who broke his promise to God, will be going to hell. Who will decide? Do you think he has any chance of being an effective priest in another religious sect? Or is there only one true religion?
I had not realized that that old rascal King Henry VIII allowed us to enjoy serial adultery. Having been happily married for well over 40 years I never really gave it a thought. Strangely enough, I have another Catholic friend who was happily married for over 20 years with 3 children until he and his wife decided to go their separate ways. They managed to get an annulment of their marriage – an ANNULMENT – so that he could get married again. He’s quite wealthy, and rumour has it that he could well afford a hefty financial contribution.
Sometimes I feel that we see our particular religion through only one lens – the one we were exposed to as children. But then, sometimes I think that maybe we are all God’s children, no matter whether Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist, Jew, Hindu, or Muslim. Nice thought but perhaps a little too naive!
“He’s quite wealthy, and rumour has it that he could well afford a hefty financial contribution.”
That would be your basic calumny.
I would like to thank ‘The Sarge’ for his comment about priests who marry being seen to have broken their vow to Jesus, although I don’t recall making the remark attributed to me by Geoffrey Smith to the effect that I would see it, “as a virtue to break a promise to God.” To be honest, I had no idea that Catholic priests make a vow to Jesus or a promise to God not to marry. I thought it was just one of those infallible rules of the Church.
However, your comments peeked my interest, for which I sincerely thank you. The Internet is a wonderful device. I have been reading several articles related to Catholic priests marrying and the issue of celibacy, and they are quite fascinating.
I had no idea, for example, that there are now said to be over 20,000 married Catholic priests in the U.S. alone, presumably they all, without exception, broke their vow to Jesus although they are still apparently considered to be priests – but not clerics. It was interesting to read that in 385AD Pope Sirius abandoned his wife and children to gain his papal position and promptly decreed that all priests could no longer be married, although he apparently had difficulties enforcing compliance.
I also learned that it was Pope Gelasius who in 494AD decreed that women could no longer be ordained to the priesthood. I sort of presume that if they could no longer be ordained then there must have been female priests prior to the year 494. Not sure why the change of policy.
I previously had no idea that there are now more than 100 married priests in the U.S., all presumably former Anglicans or Protestants, who can administer Mass and the sacraments. Not sure what promises they have made to our Lord. Do they have to promise to be celibate in the future?
What I did find quite amusing was that the Vatican is said to have issued a ruling against the use of “alter girls” in 1987, but in view of the fact that this decree was largely ignored in Catholic churches around the world, the Vatican relented and relaxed the ruling. Is this an example of Papal infallibility?
I did read some startling statistics about the shortage of Catholic celibate priests, described as ‘critical’ in Spain for example, but a rule is a rule. It will be interesting to see if the rule on celibacy goes the way of the policy of prohibiting “alter girls”.
“I also learned that it was Pope Gelasius who in 494AD decreed that women could no longer be ordained to the priesthood.”
Evidence?
Mr. R,
It looks like you have some confusion between church disciplines (that can change) and doctrines (that cannot). The laws on priestly celibacy and female altar servers have nothing to do with papal infallibility and could be changed in any way at any time. Now, the law on priestly celibacy is definitely not about to be abolished, nor should it be, but that’s a subject for another time. The restriction of the priesthood to men, on the other hand, is related to the nature of one of the sacraments and thus is a matter of irreformable dogma.
If it is indeed true that before 494 the Church sanctioned the ordination of women, then the Catholic Faith would be proven false (because it would contradict itself in doctrine). However, I think you should carefully check the source you got that from. I would also like to see corroboration for the existence of 20,000 married priests.
Your question about where the Bible teaches that priests should not marry seems to be sarcastic, but I’ll answer it anyway: the Bible never says that, and in fact Paul assumes that priests will in fact marry when he says that a bishop should be “the husband on one wife”. However, he says elsewhere that “a singe man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord, but a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife.” It should be clear from these and other passages that there is room for variety in practice here, such as the Catholic Church allows for, without need for accusations of unbiblicalness on either side.
PachyD
“To be honest, I had no idea that Catholic priests make a vow to Jesus or a promise to God not to marry. I thought it was just one of those infallible rules of the Church.” – Mr R.
Oh dear, Mr R! You have such a lot to learn about the Catholic Church.
Before you make another comment about the Church or her teaching, I recommend you to buy a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and study it diligently. Better still, a subscription to This Rock magazine would be of enormous benefit to you. In several respects, it is now quite clear that you do not know what you are talking about, and you need to get help.
The main reasons why the media has been hyperventilating about the sexual abuse scandal is that (1) it is big news when someone in a position of complete trust and moral authority has been abusing children,and (2) there have been so many cases where the church has covered up these allegations and failed in its duty to deal with them. As an experienced journalist I can assure you that any story involving a cover-up will always make banner headlines.
As the Catholic League has pointed out on many occasions (see their April 6 and 12, 2010 news releases at catholicleague.org, for example), sexual abuse rates at public schools are much higher than among priests, and are current scandals, while most priestly abuse accusations are 25+ years old. But how often do we hear of these in the media, despite the fact that they are perpetrated by people in “position(s) of complete trust and moral authority”, and that “there have been so many cases where the (schools have) covered up these allegations and failed in (their) duty to deal with them”?
It seems that only *certain* “stor(ies) involving a cover-up will always make banner headlines”.
“As an experienced journalist I can assure you that any story involving a cover-up will always make banner headlines.” – newsguy
Not only in the public schools are abuse rates much higher than among the clergy. Social workers are well aware that most cases of sexual abuse of children are committed by parents assaulting their own children in their homes, and covering up these crimes by threatening their kids with all sorts of punishment if they should blow the whistle on them.
Regrettably, the cases are so many that any headlines in the media would soon bore the readers rigid, not to mention prick the consciences of quite a lot of them.
Hence, the studious avoidance of any such publicity by the circulation-hungry press and viewer-conscious TV channels.
Only when a particularly sensational case arises, such as the Fritzl case in Austria, do the media feel it safe to publicise the full sickening details.
Is this the same Geoffrey Smith who says the Catholic Church has much more experience than any police force, that it’s the job of the church to investigate these cases,and that a bishop should carry out a delecate inquiry until the priest is shown to be unmistakenly guilty of the alleged offense? We in the press are interested in the news,and Mr. R had it right when he said there is a sliding scale for sexual abuse cases. A father or uncle abusing a child will make the local news, a teacher sexually abusing a pupil will always make major news,and despite what Geoffrey Smith says, they are invariably reported on in detail. When the culprit is a priest it goes off the scale,and it makes matters even worse if there is any suggestion that the church has tried to cover it up. Thankfully the Vatican has now announced guidelines to bishops instructing them to report abuse cases to the police. This is a positive move in the right direction.
“We in the press are interested in the news,and Mr. R had it right when he said there is a sliding scale for sexual abuse cases.” – newsguy
Is this the same newsguy who said: “there have been so many cases where the church has covered up these allegations and failed in its duty to deal with them.”?
The Church per se has never covered up any abuse cases. Only a very small minority of bishops have covered up the crimes committed by a very small number of their priests. Needless to say, their criminal activity was unknown to the Church at large, which is why it was so successful – until now.
It is sheer journalistic bull to allege that many thousands of our bishops, over the last 50 years, have ALL been responsible for the crimes committed by less than 100 of their number.
Stick that in your banner headline, newsguy!
“Thankfully the Vatican has now announced guidelines to bishops instructing them to report abuse cases to the police. This is a positive move in the right direction.” – newsguy
If the bishops concerned pay as much attention to these ‘guidelines’ as they have to the Pope’s instruction concerning the celebration of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, the Vatican was simply wasting its time.
“But how often do we hear of these in the media….It seems that only *certain* ‘stor(ies) involving a cover-up will always make banner headlines’.”
Jimmy,
After reviewing the comments made in answer to your question about what actions a bishop should take when one of his priests has been accused of sexually abusing a minor, there is a clear trend developing. If anyone writes in support of the idea of reporting cases to the Police or the civil authorities (Mrs. O, SteveL, Gravey, Mr. R and Newsguy are examples), your correspondent, Geoffrey Smith starts to hyperventilate.
He makes it clear that he has no faith in the civil authorities investigating allegations of child sexual abuse. He insists that bishops conduct enquiries to protect the suspected priest’s reputation until the suspect is shown to be UNMISTAKENLY GUILTY of the offence. He says that the Church feels obliged to clean up her own act, especially in light of the inadequate response from the civil authorities, who in his words, appear to be unable to enforce their own law. He also claims that because convicted sexual abuser Fr. John Geoghan was murdered in jail it was the fault of law enforcement so he has no faith in the civil authorities.
He has got to be kidding.
His arguments have been totally destroyed and de-constructed by Mr. R in his reply of Apr 22. He continues to avoid the question about how a bishop can conduct a criminal investigation, interview child victims and potential witnesses, seize evidence, and all of the other requirements of any professional independent investigation before he decides whether a suspected priest is “UNMISTAKENLY GUILTY of the offence.”
He continues to argue that it is only a tiny number of homosexual priests that have committed these crimes, and only a fraction of bishops who have covered up their crimes. Again, he has got to be kidding.
This is the very attitude that has caused this never-ending scandal in the first place.
I picked up the newspaper this morning and read that the Catholic Bishops Conference of India has recommended a zero-tolerance policy on sexual abuse complaints against priests, and has framed a code which includes reporting all incidents of sexual abuse to the police, and defrocking and expelling priests found guilty of abuse. What part of this policy is difficult to understand?
Geoffrey Smith will probably lash out at the Catholic Bishops Conference of India just as he did against Archbishop Nichols, who made a statement on behalf of the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales. Archbishop Nichols apologizing for the way sexual abuse cases had been handled in the past and publicly announcing that full cooperation with statutory bodies is essential.
With attitudes like that of Geoffrey Smith there may be no alternative in the U.S. than to adopt the amendments made by the Massachusetts legislation making it mandatory for priests and other church leaders to report cases of child sexual abuse to the proper authorities.
It is time to stop bleating about the hyperventilating press and for the Church get on with reporting child sexual abuse cases to the Police so they can be fully investigated.
“He continues to argue that it is only a tiny number of homosexual priests that have committed these crimes, and only a fraction of bishops who have covered up these crimes. Again, he has got to be kidding.”
That may be “kidding” in some alternate reality, but, in this one, those are merely statements of fact.
Far from hyperventilating, or even kidding, TJ, I have never been more serious!
I have never said that our bishops should not report genuine cases of abuse to the police, but that begs the question of what distinguishes a genuine case of abuse from a mere malicious allegation.
No bishop should resort to the police if there is no factual indication that the accused priest can be reasonably suspected of being guilty of the alleged offence.
In the first instance, the bishop should determine, as far as it is in his ability to do so (and some bishops will be better at this than others), whether his priest has a case to answer. I am sorry you do not agree with this view, but that is the way it will have to be. We cannot have a situation in which an increasing number of clergy are being falsely accused by malevolent anti-Catholics, or compensation-hungry “Catholics”, and their bishops are being legally compelled to denounce those priests to the authorities, without first trying to discover if the accusations are based on truthful claims.
Sorry, TJ, but that’s how it is. You will just have to try and live with it.
Will Geoffrey Smith please provide evidence of his latest accusations, that is:-
1) “An increasing number of clergy are being falsely accused by malevolent anti-Catholics”. Please state the statistics supporting this claim. When did the review start? How many clergy were involved? Of what religious persuasion were these anti-Catholics? Christians, Jews, Atheists, Muslims? Who decided that the claims were false?
2) “An increasing number of clergy are being abused by compensation-hungry ‘Catholics.’” Again, please provide evidence other than personal paranoia. Has the Church itself made this claim? If so, who spoke on behalf of the Church and how were the statistics obtained? What percentage of sexual abuse cases were considered by this review to be genuine compared with those that were not considered to be genuine? Can you also state whether cases not proved were all considered to be without merit, or were they cases where it was decided that there was insufficient evidence for prosecution. You would surely realize the difference between the two. Most pedophiles, whether priests, scout leaders or family members, tend to commit their crimes in privacy with no other witnesses except their child victims so convictions can be difficult to secure.
An answer to “bill912”.
Attempting to gauge exactly the total number of sexual abuse cases involving priests, and those covered up by bishops, is difficult, but a good starting point is the 2004 study conducted by John Jay College of Criminal Justice and commissioned by the Catholic Bishops of the U.S. JJC had been asked to conduct a study of the nature and scope of sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clergy. Their findings, much of them based on information provided by CARA (The Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate) included the following:-
• From 1950 through 2002 allegations of sexual abuse were made against 4,392 priests (these were all cases that were not withdrawn or known to be false).
• CARA itself reported that there were 94,607 priests in the U.S. between 1960 – 2002, and allegations of sexual abuse against priests recorded by CARA during that same period was 4,127, equating to 4.3% of all priests.
• The CARA numbers yielded a total of 5% of diocesan priests from 1960-1996 with allegations of sexual abuse and 2.7% of religious priests from 1960-1996 with allegations of sexual abuse.
• Their analyses revealed little variability in the rates of alleged abuse across regions of the Catholic Church in the U.S. — the range was from 3% to 6% of all priests.
• A total of 10,667 individuals made allegations of child sexual abuse by priests. Of those who alleged abuse, the file contained information that 17.2% of them had siblings who were also allegedly abused.
• In 2002 the police had contacted about 1,021 priests with allegations of abuse, or 24% of the CARA total. Nearly all of these reports led to investigations, and 384 instances led to criminal charges. Of those priests for whom information about dispositions was available, 252 were convicted and at least 100 of those served time in prison.
These statistics alone, specifically commissioned by the Catholic Church, put the lie to any suggestion that the sexual abuse scandal involving priests is less than 1%, and that the media is hyperventilating over a few isolated cases. How can anyone consider that over 10,000 allegations of sexual abuse in the U.S. alone, prior to 2002, are just a few isolated cases?
Bearing in mind that this report deals only with statistics PRIOR to 2002, there have been thousands more cases reported since then, and the sex abuse scandal has spread through other countries as far afield as Austria, Australia, Brazil, Belgium, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, India, Ireland, Italy, Norway, the Philippines, and the UK. to name a few. The total figure is unknown for obvious reasons. The Church is hardly going to be keeping an accurate count and keeping the public informed of their latest statistics.
Although the Vatican has finally got the message and instructed bishops to report allegations of child sexual abuse to the civil authorities, Geoffrey Smith makes a very valid point. “If the bishops concerned pay as much attention to these ‘guidelines’ as they have to the Pope’s instruction concerning celebration of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, the Vatican was simply wasting its time.”
That comment alone tells me that we need the press to continue to hyperventilate if they hear of sexual abuse cases not reported to the Police.
As for Geoffrey Smith’s suggestion that we cannot have bishops being legally compelled to denounce priests to the authorities, without first trying to discover if the accusations are based on truthful claims, whoever said that bishops have to denounce priests?
What is being said, as clearly enunciated by “Mr. R”, is that bishops are simply not qualified to interrogate the victims of alleged child sexual abuse, nor should they, nor are they qualified to seize potential evidence and interview potential witnesses. Yes, they might make a few discreet enquiries to ascertain if an allegation appears to be genuine so they can then decide what, if any action, needs to be taken against a suspected priest during an investigation, but his statement that bishops conduct enquiries to protect the suspected priests reputation until the suspect is UNMISTAKENLY GUILTY of the offence (those are his exact words) is a complete nonsense. No bishop in his right mind is now going to decide on guilt or innocence. His own reputation would be destroyed if he makes even one mistake in the present climate.
Sorry Geoffrey Smith, but that’s how it is. You will just have to try and live with it.
“He continues to argue that it only a tiny number…”–TJ, 5/5/10.
“4.3”–TJ, 5/11/10
“He continues to argue that it is only a tiny number”
“4,127 priests. 10,667 victims.” You call this tiny???
“He continues to argue that it is only a tiny number”
“4,127 priests. 10,667 victims.” You call this tiny???
– TJ and 67
I do wish you would pay more attention to my posts, you two.
I did not say that it was a tiny number, I said it was a tiny percentage of the total number of Catholic priests in the world.
4.3% of all Catholic priests in the world (more than a million during the period 1950-2010), ministering throughout the entire period 1950-2010, works out at several thousands of offending clergy. That leaves 95% of all priests entirely innocent of any wrong-doing. So much for your absurd claim, TJ, that
“the Church” must be held responsible for the sexual abuse committed by a TINY minority of priests.
“As for Geoffrey Smith’s suggestion that we cannot have bishops being legally compelled to denounce priests to the authorities, without first trying to discover if the accusations are based on truthful claims, whoever said that bishops have to denounce priests?”
You did. You have demanded that bishops should inform the police IMMEDIATELY if any of their priests are accused of sexual abuse!
“How can anyone consider that over 10,000 allegations of sexual abuse in the U.S. alone, prior to 2002, are just a few isolated cases?”
You obviously have no appreciation of the enormous size of the Catholic Church considered as a world-wide religion. The parable of the mustard seed is completely lost on you. The total size of the Church in the USA is but a small fraction of the Church as a whole. Your parochial attitude leads you to believe that the 10,000+ cases in the States constitute an ‘enormous’ number of incidents throughout the entire Church, when in fact they are even more numerous than this, but nevertheless, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, a much lesser number than you think. 4.3% of 1,000,000+ equals 43,000 priests. If they had all committed an average of 10 such crimes, that would equal nearly half a million cases of sex abuse, which not even the New York Times has tried to stick on the Church – yet.
That still leaves those 95% who have never committed any such abuse. Or, perhaps, TJ and Mr R, you feel that even they should be accused, or at least suspected, of molesting boys and young adults? That would give some credibility to your absurd claim that “the Church” must be held accountable for the sins committed by a TINY proportion of her clergy. In such a case, TJ, would you mind if I held YOU accountable for MY sins?
Why not, it’s the same principle, right?
There is a higher rate of abuse by American schoolteachers than by American priests.
That’s not to excuse anything, that’s just to put the numbers in perspective.
You should read the following linked article, which talks about the problem in public schools and why the abuse is underreported and the abusers often go unpunished or even remain in teaching positions. Funny, though, no one is talking about a nefarious Cover Up by the Department of Education.
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Teacher_sexual_misconduct_rampant_in_American_schools,_says_AP
If it is only a tiny number why has Pope Benedict today laid the blame for the “truly terrifying” clerical sex abuse crisis squarely on the Catholic Church as he arrived in Portugal for a four-day visit? To quote Pope Benedict, “the greatest persecution of the church does not come from enemies on the outside but is born from the sins within the church.” His remarks are a direct repudiation of those who try to minimize the scandal (e.g. “4.3”) to a shadowy conspiracy mounted by outsiders, ranging from a hostile media to liberals within the Church. It’s time to stop demeaning and attacking victims as “compensation hungry Catholics” and it is time to face the reality that this has been, and continues to be a huge scandal. It will only stop when the perpetrators are brought to justice and the Church adopts a policy of reporting all allegations of child sexual abuse to the civil authorities as demanded by the Pope himself.
The priest abuse crisis is *both* a genuine scandal AND a continuing case of gratuitous Church bashing.
It is a shame that there have been abusive priests, and a shame that these abusers were shuffled around and given counseling rather than being prosecuted.
It is also shameful that so many in the press (and so many Catholic dissenters) have used the crisis *as a convenient excuse* to attack the Church, the priesthood, the bishops and the Pope, and have cynically tried to use it to promote their agendas.
and it is time to face the reality that this has been, and continues to be a huge scandal. It will only stop when the perpetrators are brought to justice and the Church adopts a policy of reporting all allegations of child sexual abuse to the civil authorities as demanded by the Pope himself.
It is a huge scandal not because of the breadth of the problem, but because of the depth of the problem. When a secular teacher harms a student, the student, as he grows in grace, may eventually be able to forgive the teacher and that forgiveness may let them escape the situation. In the case of clerical abuse, the very act of forgiveness is a feedback into the problem because the priest represents Christ to whom they are referring the forgiveness, so the damage is much deeper, and sadly, almost impossible to completely fix in this life, partially because the issue of spiritual abuse is so poorly understood. Even one abusive priest is worst than a thousand secular abusers.
On the other hand, the media seems to be interested in numbers. That is what people take exception too.
If you want all abusive priests to be turned over to civil authorities, then surely, you want all secular abusers to be turned over, as well. I am afraid if that happened, people might have to face the facts of how seriously depraved we are as a society because of decades of moral decay from things like contraception, abortion, etc.
The Chicken
“Even one abusive priest is worst than a thousand secular abusers.”
True, because of the sublime nature of the priesthood. It’s one thing to spill motor oil on a pair of jeans, another thing to spill motor oil on a wedding dress. As C.S. Lewis noted, a fallen man is capable of far worse than a bad dog, and a fallen angel is far worse still. The better a thing is to begin with, the further it must fall to go bad… “and great was the fall of it”.
But whether or not the secular world subconsciously acknowledges this idea, they do not accept it intellectually. Their idea, rather, seems to be that Christianity, or Organized Religion, or the Catholic Church (the Hierarchy, especially) actually – in some way – *causes* or specially encourages the abuse, which is absurd on its face.
What opens the door to abuse is the “position of trust”, in whatever context. When adults are entrusted with the care of children, especially in groups, abuse will occur. For abusers, the position of trust is an opportunity to find victims, and *because* of the halo of trust that goes with the position, the abuser enjoys a certain impunity.
The great majority of abuse – for obvious reasons – occurs at the hands of people the victims know well and trust. Abuse happens in the priesthood because priests are one of these “positions of trust” in our society.
I was abused by a doctor, a pediatrician. Now, you KNOW there is a lot of that kind of thing going on in doctors’ offices, but you rarely hear of it. The abuse within the Church is one thing, and it is real, but the vehemence of the attacks on the Church (ostensibly over the abuse scandal) reveals an animosity that has NOTHING to do with perverted priests OR the safety of children.
There is a pre-rational hatred of the Church at work. The Pope was right to ackowledge the sin in the Church, but he is (diplomatically and appropriately) leaving the defense of the Church to others.
“…those who try to minimize the scandal…”
Actually, we’re not trying to minimize the 25-50 year old molehill; we’re trying to show the anti-Catholic mountain makers for what they are.
“If it is only a tiny number why has Pope Benedict today laid the blame for the “truly terrifying” clerical sex abuse crisis squarely on the Catholic Church as he arrived in Portugal for a four-day visit?” – 67
Pay attention to my previous posts, 67. I did not say that it was a tiny number!
Papal infallibility does not extend to Benny’s opinion of what caused this scandal. He gave us the reason for this when he announced, a few years ago, that gays would henceforth be excluded from the seminaries.
“I was abused by a doctor, a pediatrician. Now, you KNOW there is a lot of that kind of thing going on in doctors’ offices, but you rarely hear of it.” Tim J.
Did you report this crime? Who did you report it to? Do you think that abuse by doctors should be investigated by senior doctors so they can establish, in Geoffrey Smith’s immortal words, “to protect the suspected (replace “priests’ with “doctors’) reputation until the suspect is UNMISTAKENLY GUILTY of the offense. Surely, if bishops can investigate priests alleged crimes then senior doctors can investigate doctor’s alleged crimes?
Our newspapers have recently been full of a story involving a well known doctor who is alleged to have abused dozens of women. Fortunately, several of his victims reported their abuse directly to the Police who sent in an undercover female police officer who was then abused by the same doctor. Needless to say he was arrested. The Police carried out a very thorough investigation and he has been charged with numerous criminal offences.
Like it or not, that’s the way it has to be with allegations against priests. If a priest is accused of criminal sexual abuse against a child, it should be reported to the Police for proper investigation.
“Surely, if bishops can investigate priests alleged crimes then senior doctors can investigate doctor’s alleged crimes?” – 67
In the UK they ARE investigated by senior doctors.
The General Medical Council holds an inquest into a doctor’s alleged professional misconduct, and if he is found guilty he is struck off the register of medical practitioners and cannot practice medicine again. He is ‘unfrocked’. The police are not involved at any stage of this enquiry.
“You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on.” (George W. Bush)
Geoffrey Smith wrongly states that in the UK cases of criminal sexual abuse by doctors are investigated by senior doctors, that is, the General Medical Council (GMC) which holds “inquests”, and if found guilty they are struck off the register and cannot practice medicine again. They are unfrocked. The Police are not involved at any stage of the investigation.
As we say in England, what a load of codswallop!
This is exactly the same faulty reasoning that has Mr. Smith claiming that bishops should investigate allegations of alleged criminal child sexual abuse to protect the reputation of the priest until he is proved to be UNMISTAKENLY GUILTY of an alleged offence.
The BMC does indeed investigate allegations of “misconduct” such as sexual impropriety by doctors. These are often cases where a doctor has had a sexual relationship with a patient and the relationship turns sour.
If you check out the BMC’s website you will see that it will take action in such cases as:-
• misconduct;
• deficient performance;
• physical or mental health, and
• a CRIMINAL CONVICTION or caution in the British Isles or elsewhere for an offence which would be a criminal offence if committed in England or Wales.
In the U.K. allegations of rape, assault by penetration, sexual abuse of children, sexual assaults etc. are considered to be criminal offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and as such they are investigated by the Police, no matter who is the alleged offender.
As stated by the BMC, they WILL take action in cases where a doctor has been tried and convicted of a criminal offence by the Court and that means the BMC will then consider striking the offending doctor from the register. This would clearly apply when a doctor has been convicted by the Courts for a criminal sexual offence.
Interestingly, that includes a doctor who has been convicted of a criminal offence abroad that would be considered to be a criminal offence in the UK. There is no packing the doctor off to another country or jurisdiction so that he can continue to commit offences against other unsuspecting victims.
The BMC will also consider suspending a doctor during the course of a criminal investigation if it deems it is in the best interests of the public to do so.
To suggest that the BMC investigates and tries cases of rape, sexual assaults and criminal sexual abuse of children or anyone else, is a complete nonsense, as is the statement made by Mr. Smith on 20 April that bishops, rather than the Police, should initiate a delicate inquiry into allegations of criminal child sexual abuse against a priest in order to ensure the priests reputation will remain untarnished until he is shown to ““unmistakenly guilty of the alleged offense.”
George Bush was right. Stick to those you can fool all the time!
Making up quotes and attributing them to someone (in this case, former president Bush) does wonders for one’s credibility.
Many thanks to “bill912” for pointing out that the oft quoted saying attributed to former President George W. Bush is as doubtful as the also oft quoted line from President Lincoln, “You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you can not fool all the people all of the time” although some Lincoln scholars still repeat it on the grounds that it is so “Lincolnesque”! In this case either quote is applicable regardless of their author.
Apologies also to the General Medical Council (GMC) for accidentally referring to it several times as the BMC (British Medical Council).
Talking of codswallop, 67, your latest post would take some beating for baloney!
Frankly, I am getting sick and tired of people like you who deliberately misquote me to give their arguments some semblance of credibility.
For instance:
(1)”Geoffrey Smith wrongly states that in the UK cases of criminal sexual abuse by doctors are investigated by senior doctors,…etc”
I stated that the GMC investigated cases of alleged professional misconduct, not necessarily cases of sexual abuse. This was in reply to your argument that doctors are not investigated by their peers.
(2)”To suggest that the BMC investigates and tries cases of rape, sexual assaults and criminal sexual abuse of children or anyone else, is a complete nonsense,…”
It certainly is a complete nonsense, but then so is the rest of your argument. I never suggested any such thing.
“Like it or not, that’s the way it has to be with allegations against priests. If a priest is accused of criminal sexual abuse against a child, it should be reported to the Police for proper investigation.”
Provided that the allegation is acknowledged by the bishop as having some basis of fact. Some of our bishops have indeed recognised that allegations were based on facts, which is why they transferred the offenders to other parishes. Do you think the bishops are all credulous idiots and easily deceived?
“George Bush was right. Stick to those you can fool all the time!”
While taking note that you have now resorted to insults to bolster your weak argument, perhaps I should remark that the President may well have been speaking to his wife at the time.
Laura Bush has recently confessed that she covered up her support for abortion and gay sex during her husband’s tenure of office, so as not to embarrass him.
She sure fooled a great many American Catholics into thinking that the Republicans are staunchly pro-life!
Look forward to responding to your latest post, but have very limited access to a computer while travelling.
Sorry to hear about Laura Bush’s stance. Did she actually say that she wanted women to run around having abortions, or did she say that she agreed with a woman’s right to choose – sort of the law of the land in the USA as I understood it. I’m surprised she supported gay sex. Was this for herself, or was she saying that she supports equal rights for all – in the land of the free and the home of the brave.
What’s the situation with Dick Cheney? I heard recently that he loves a lesbian. This just cannot be true if he is a true Republican.
“What’s the situation with Dick Cheney? I heard recently that he loves a lesbian. This just cannot be true if he is a true Republican.”
What is the definition of a true Republican? Someone who is anti-life?
“The Catholic Church has much more experience in dealing with these matters (sex crimes) than any police force, and that of course is the Church’s job.” Geoffrey Smith 15 April.
“My preference (is) to see the local bishop initiate such a delicate inquiry (into alleged criminal acts) rather than the local constabulary. It will, at least, ensure that the priest’s reputation will remain untarnished until he is shown to be unmistakably guilty of the alleged offense. Geoffrey Smith 20 April.
“Frankly, I am getting sick and tired of people like you who deliberately misquote me to give their arguments some semblance of credibility. “ Geoffrey Smith 14 May.
Perhaps Geoffrey Smith can advise if the first two quotes are accurate or if he can substantiate the allegation that he has been deliberately misquoted above to give my arguments some semblance of credibility.
In the first quote I have inserted the phrase “sex crimes” because those are the exact words GS uses in the first paragraph of his post of 15 April. He is clearly referring to “sex crimes” when stating that the Catholic Church has much more experience in dealing with these matters than any police force. More on this issue later.
The second quote was in response to Mr. R. who had referred specifically to “alleged criminal acts” but had also stated that “all allegations of criminal sexual abuse by any priests must be reported to the proper authorities”.
There is a consistency with regard to the matters that Mr. R and others have said should be reported to the police or the civil authorities, and that is any allegations of criminal acts, or alleged child sexual abuse. They are, without doubt, referring to alleged crimes.
Further to my last post, in my post of 13 May I made a comparison between bishops investigating priests, and senior doctors investigating doctors for “alleged crimes”. The alleged crimes we have been referring to are “alleged criminal acts” and “alleged child sexual abuse”. Geoffrey Smith states that in the UK doctors ARE investigated by senior doctors (here we are referring specifically to “alleged crimes”). GS goes on to say that the General Medical Council (GMC) holds an inquest into a doctor’s alleged professional misconduct etc. and goes on to say that the “police are not involved at any stage of the inquiry.”
The clear inference from GS’s comments are that criminal acts or sexual abuse cases are considered by the GMC to be allegations of “professional misconduct etc.” Nothing could be further from the truth. The GMC does not investigate cases of criminal acts, and in particular, cases of alleged criminal sex abuse. In fact, the contrary is true. If a doctor has reason to believe that a child he or she is treating has been the subject of any criminal sex abuse, the doctor has a legal responsibility to promptly report the matter to the proper authorities. The legal remit of the GMC is to investigate a doctor’s fitness to practice. The Police invariably report all cases of alleged criminal acts believed to have been committed by doctors to the GMC so that once the criminal investigation is concluded the GMC can decide whether or not to strike the doctor off their register. The GMC can also decide to suspend a doctor’s right to practice during the investigation of a serious alleged crime, with patient safety being their prime concern.
No-one has even vaguely suggested that bishops should not deal with matters relating to the professional misconduct of their priests. If a priest has alcohol problems; if he is having an affair with another adult, or is in any other way suspected of “professional misconduct” then his bishop surely has every right to investigate such matters. But that does not extend to the type of criminal acts we have been referring to. if a priest, or even a bishop, is alleged to have committed criminal acts, including child sexual abuse there is no doubt that it should be reported to the proper authorities, just as a doctor would, even if the suspect is a fellow doctor.
I would like to refer once again to the quotes by GS. It is ludicrous to suggest that the Catholic Church has more experience than the Police in dealing with sex crimes. I note here that GS has completely failed to answer Mr. R’s statement that bishops are simply not qualified to interrogate victims of alleged child sexual abuse, nor are they qualified to seize potential evidence and interview potential witnesses.
Finally, to GS’s quote that the bishop should initiate such delicate inquiries … until he is satisfied that the priest is UNMMISTAKABLY GUILTY OF THE ALLEGED OFFENSE. Maybe GS will try to allege that this is a false quote, but there it is in black and white.
So the question is, how on earth can a bishop, who can only make “discreet” enquiries, also make a decision as to whether or not the priest is “unmistakably guilty of an alleged offense.” That sounds more like a trial than a discreet enquiry. It also sounds like the opinion of an amateur DA making a pronouncement that is simply off the wall. It is certainly not the policy adopted by Archbishop Nichols and the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, or the Vatican itself. In fact we now have senior members of the Catholic Church at pains to apologize for past mistakes and giving assurances that in future such criminal allegations will be investigated by the civil authorities.
Let the bishops continue to investigate cases of “professional misconduct”, and leave criminal investigations to those best trained and equipped to carry them out – the Police and the civil authorities. It is quite a simple concept and one that applies to every profession, including the clergy.
Further to my last post, in my post of 13 May I made a comparison between bishops investigating priests, and senior doctors investigating doctors for “alleged crimes”. The alleged crimes we have been referring to are “alleged criminal acts” and “alleged child sexual abuse”. Geoffrey Smith states that in the UK doctors ARE investigated by senior doctors (here we are referring specifically to “alleged crimes”). GS goes on to say that the General Medical Council (GMC) holds an inquest into a doctors alleged professional misconduct etc. and goes on to say that the “police are not involved at any stage of the inquiry.”
The clear inference from GS’s comments are that criminal acts or criminal sexual abuse cases are considered by the GMC to be allegations of “professional misconduct etc.” Nothing could be further from the truth. The GMC does not investigate cases of criminal acts, and in particular, cases of alleged criminal sex abuse. In fact, the contrary is true. If a doctor has reason to believe that a child he or she is treating has been the subject of any criminal sex abuse, the doctor has a legal responsibility to promptly report the matter to the proper authorities. The legal remit of the GMC is to investigate a doctor’s fitness to practice. The Police invariably report all cases of alleged criminal acts believed to have been committed by doctors to the GMC so that once the criminal investigation is concluded the GMC can decide whether or not to strike the doctor off their register. The GMC can also decide to suspend a doctor’s right to practice during the investigation of a serious alleged crime, with patient safety being their prime concern.
No-one has even vaguely suggested that bishops should not deal with matters relating to the professional misconduct of their priests. If a priest has alcohol problems; if he is having an affair with another adult, or is in any other way suspected of “professional misconduct” then his bishop surely has every right to investigate such matters. But that does not extend to the type of criminal acts we have been referring to. if a priest, or even a bishop, is alleged to have committed criminal acts, including child sexual abuse there is no doubt that it should be reported to the proper authorities, just as a doctor would, even if the suspect is a fellow doctor.