American bishops: less than zero tolerance

[fable]

DALLAS (AP) — After months of scandal that tore at the heart of the Roman Catholic Church, American bishops adopted a policy Friday that will bar sexually abusive clergy from face-to-face contact with parishioners but keep them in the priesthood. The national policy is intended to be binding on 178 mainstream dioceses, representing a major shift from the voluntary discipline guidelines the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has relied on for years. The bishops will need Vatican approval to make the policy binding. The prelates stood and applauded after they approved the policy on a 239-13 vote.

*Keep them in the priesthood* is the relevant phrase, above. The policy has already been condemned by many American victims of former sexual abuse by priests, who claim that it is not unlike allowing a disgraced policeman to keep his gun. What are your opinions of the bishops' conclusions?

[thantor3]

Sad... predictable... and repugnant.

[C Elegans]

I am not familiar with how the US clergy system works, but the two things that strikes me, except for depression, is:

1. Aren't clergymen supposed to represent the church and their god? Why would the church wish to be represented by convicted pedophiles? Do they not want to take stance against pedophilia, but instead approve of it?

2. Wouldn't the clergymen still have other contact with the people in the church, even if they are not allowed face to face contact with parishoners? How should children belonging to that church be protected? Would they go back to work after serving their time in jail, or what would it mean?

[Weasel]

Originally posted by fable
DALLAS (AP) — , American bishops adopted a policy Friday that will bar sexually abusive clergy from face-to-face contact with parishioners but keep them in the priesthood.

I'm not up todate on the duties of priest, but what can they do (Job wise) in the church that will keep them from coming into contact with the parrishioners?

This reminds me of the sayin..."Out of site , out of mind"

[fable]

The whole thing does indeed smell of whitewash. Significantly, during the opening address which lashed out at pedophiliac behavior by members of the RCC, not a word of criticism was uttered of the church officials who have deliberately protected the offenders and fostered the practice--not even in general terms.

I suspect they intended to put the offenders at desk jobs where their contact with parishioners would be extremely limited. To my mind, I admit this is the height of hypocrisy. A predator is no less dangerous for being moved out of your apartment onto another floor of the same building.

I suspect reaction will be largely negative to this development. The Vatican, too, might have several words regarding this. After all, the Pope had called for "zero tolerance," and while he's extremely conservative and protective of the hierarchy, he's just as protective of his own position's control over matters; and he's presumably not going to like having his own statements countermanded by the American bishops.

[Weasel]

I hope there will be an negative reaction.

But I will admit my views on this issue (most church issues) are not without a bit of basied (sp) on my part.

I was raised in a Pentecostal Church..from age 5 till 13..at 13 I had enough of hearing I was going to burn in brime stone. Since then I have not attend any church..(I was married in a church..Baptish, but I don't consider this attending it.)

[HighLordDave]

I think the RCC's reaction is bourne out of two basic reasons, one ideological and one practical:

First of all, the RCC has seen itself as reporting directly to God and not responsible to earthly authority. That's why they prefer to keep their investigations "in house" as opposed to turning their pedophile priests over to secular governments for trial.

Second, there is a very real decline in the numbers of priests and the church believes that it simply cannot afford to lose any of their clergy, whether they're sexual predators or not.

For years the church has been able to move abusive priests from parish to parish and pay hush money to victims. They believed that a scandal would hurt the numbers of men and women entering the priesthood and convents, so they chose to keep the entire thing under wraps. Unfortunately, their plan has come back and bitten them in the ass because the public is not only outraged by the fact that the RCC has tolerated pedophiles in the clerical ranks, but they've covered it up and protected them and not in isolated incidents but on an institutional level.

Apparently no one in the world has learned from the Clinton administration and the harm that befalls a cover-up. If the RCC had come forward years ago, apologised to abuse victims, purged their rolls of sexual predators and attempted to pay some sort of reparations, they wouldn't be in the middle of the public relations nightmare they're in now. Sure they would have take a blow to their image, but the Vatican would have retained a few shreds of credibility. As things stand now, they are being seen as reactive instead of pro-active and people still think there is a culture of secrecy within the church.

[Alienbob]

I still wonder how all of these priests could commit an act that was so completly against what they believed in. and why would the bishops want to keep all of these hypocrites<sp?> in their church? none of it makes sense. all i know is that it sure as hell doesnt make me want to convert to catholosism.

[Weasel]

Originally posted by Alienbob
why would the bishops want to keep all of these hypocrites<sp?> in their church?

I believe HLD hit it close to home with...

They believed that a scandal would hurt the numbers of men and women entering the priesthood and convents, so they chose to keep the entire thing under wraps.

And most likely it would have. But the cost in the long run will most likely show hiding this will hurt the numbers even worst. I personally could not have any faith in a group who would do this....but I might be in the minority.

[fable]

I think a certain mindset of separatism from "material society" is also a part of the priesthood culture in most religions where priests are considered an elite corps, with long and involved special training. The RCC priesthood has considered itself outside secular jurisdiction since at least the 13th century AC, when the Popes began asserting that only the Holy Church had the right to try its only representatives caught in crimes by local authorities. As the hierarchy has chosen its own successors over the centuries, a degree of tradition has built up at the cost of a certain flexibility of view. I think it is genuinely impossible for some members in the upper ranks of the clergy to conceive of the value of punishment from American society for such crimes as pedophiliac abuse. Simply put, the laws of the US do not extend upon religious ground, which includes the clergy itself.

[dragon wench]

While there are clearly differences....the American bishop's stance on this particular matter is reminiscent of the position the Catholic Church assumed with Nazi Germany. By not condemning the actions of their clergy they are implicitly condoning heinous human brutality.

As others have stated....these recent developments do not come as a shock.

[Littiz]

I didn't understand all that you said, but I give my PoV.
I have these clerics here in my dear land.
I HATE them.
I strongly think that moral actions don't need a DIVINE guidance.
We just all KNOW what is good or not.
You think you need a divine guide? Right, it's a personal thing.

Those people act as they are the moral guide for all, feed themselves of this role, people have faith in them and send their kids to them.

But they're simply another structure of Power, who protects their members when the do the NASTIEST things one could imagine.

[Weasel]

Originally posted by dragon wench


As others have stated....these recent developments do not come as a shock.

Recent developments..as in the priests being caught and having this come out in public? (If so I agree)

Or as in the RCC decicion to go "Less than zero"

(Which I was kind of surprized. From my way of thinking, and to save what little respect I still had, I would have went all the way and say "It stops here". No more will I allow a place of God to be used to hurt or abuse the children. I cannot put the job/life calling of a abusing priest over what he has done to a child.

[fable]

As victims of priestly sexual abuse pointed out yesterday in Dallas, where the bishop's conference is winding down, a small portion of every dollar that's placed in the collection plate will continue to go to feed and clothe known child molesters within the RCC. And the fact that the bishops have discretion to simply move pedophiles in the priesthood out of the ministry while still keeping the collar has provoked outrage in some quarters--as has the fact that the approved document specifies priests and deacons, and deliberately leaves out bishops, themselves. Nor is there any measure of accountability imposed; that's apparently still on the table, for discussion at some future date.

On the positive side, church dioceses will be barred from entering into confidentiality agreements, "gagging" victims and their families. Church officials will be ordered to report any allegation of sexual abuse to civil authorities.

I really don't think the bishops see the depths of the credibility issue the RCC now has in the US (and in Europe, at least, too). There is a certain triumphalist mentality about major religions--or should I say, the people who form the bureaucratic structure of major religions--that can enable individuals to face horrific conditions with calm and dignity, and offer support when chaos and bloodshed reigns. It also creates a skewed world view that
divides humanity into "us," "ours," and "them," the "us" being the ecclesiastics, the "ours" being the dull flock we prod to victory, and the "them" being those who are beyond the pale. Much as I loathe the notion of pedophilia, particularly when it also involves abuse of spiritual office, I admit to being equally repulsed by the notion that the souls of sexual predators in the first group are worth more than those they molest in the second or third groups. The crimes of the pedophiles are now coming out, but the crimes of the bishops who hushed these matters up, ignored calls from psychological experts for treatment and simply moved pedophiles around among parishes, go unpunished.

[Nippy]

I'm not a 'relegious' person, I'll occasionally utter a prayer (I pray before an important sports fixture or before an exam, go figure...) but I don't attend church. When I hear of this sort of paedophilia I can see why some people won't attend church, and fair play to them. It's their choice and as long as they have their reasons for it, it's their perogative. It is a disgusting thing and the compulsion to do it it evil and twisted, in my opinion, and I think that no matter what happens, being in a church does not excuse from the local law. If a paedophile down the street is convicted, then so should the priest, it's as simple as that. God layed down laws, and for his priests to contradict not only his laws, but also the local law, is completely contradictory.

[dragon wench]

Originally posted by Weasel


Recent developments..as in the priests being caught and having this come out in public? (If so I agree)

Or as in the RCC decicion to go "Less than zero"

(Which I was kind of surprized. From my way of thinking, and to save what little respect I still had, I would have went all the way and say "It stops here". No more will I allow a place of God to be used to hurt or abuse the children. I cannot put the job/life calling of a abusing priest over what he has done to a child.

I meant both actually.....

I guess the reason I am not surprised is because of the RCC's history. I don't really think this is the thread to list their countless abuses, most of which people will already be familiar with, suffice to say that their past is soaked with blood and replete with hypocrisy.....

[Ode to a Grasshopper]

I think that abusive priests should be subject to the same laws and punishments as any other abusive person in any other profession. Let them be judged by the same laws as the rest of us, pure and simple.

[HighLordDave]

Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper
Let them be judged by the same laws as the rest of us, pure and simple.

I think we're going to see the RCC (at least in the United States) yield to the pressure to turn over the priests it knows have been abusive and change their culture from one of secrecy to one of compliance. Sadly, I don't think they're going to do it for the right reasons.

It is my belief that the church would sweep this scandal under the rug if it could. I do not think that they would open up their clergy to secular prosecution if they could avoid it. I think the reason why they'll defrock sexual predators in the priesthood and sack the bishops who have covered for them is because Americans give a lot of money to the church, and if they don't do something about it, their collection plates will dry up.

The culture of the RCC will change not because it's the right thing to do but because the latest scandal has hit them in the wallet.

[Robnark]

legally speaking, wouldn't witholding information on known sex offenders be a criminal offence, and how would this decision be permissable under american law? i am frankly shocked. even if the priests cannot do work that puts them in contact with potential victims (which didn't happen before, and isn't particularly realistic IMO), there will be no safeguards in place on the priest outside of official duties. even if it is achievable and works - and the sentence may be the same as a very lenient court ruling - it is nonetheless a criminal offence, and how can harbouring them be excused under US law?

[fable]

Originally posted by Robnark
legally speaking, wouldn't witholding information on known sex offenders be a criminal offence...

Think of what you're writing: known sex offenders. What establishes the status of being a "sex offender?" Not until they're found guilty in a court of law is a person considered a sex offender, and until now, none of the cases has gone to court because the RCC has paid hush money to gag the families of abused children.

Earlier I posted that I thought the Vatican wouldn't accept something less than zero tolerance. According to what I just read in an online article of the Boston Herald, the "...National Catholic Reporter appears to back up the contention that Pope John Paul II and other Vatican officials would not allow American bishops the power to defrock accused priests without due process." In other words, the Vatican would have refused to authorize anything that actually enforced zero tolerance. Here's a quote from a piece in the NCR:

"Bishop Matthew Clark of Rochester, N.Y., called for bishops to deal with the scandal before them “publicly, honestly, openly and humbly.”

With each bishop answerable only to the pope, Clark questioned whether a national policy was possible, given the autonomy bishops possess. “The bishops could commit themselves to a policy unanimously. My best understanding is if one bishop said no, I don’t think he’d be obliged to go along,” Clark said. “I don’t think that [a national policy] is likely to happen for that reason. That’s not to say we won’t come out with a very strong statement.”

Charles Clohessy, national director of the Survivors’ Network of those Abused by Priests, known as SNAP, said, “We’re not tremendously optimistic. These are largely the same men who got us into this mess to begin with.”