A Choice For New York Priests In Abuse Cases

The New York Times ^ | August 31, 2006 | Andy Newman

[VidMihi]

As the Roman Catholic Church struggles to repair itself and its image in the wake of the sex abuse scandals, one of the more confounding questions church leaders face is what to do with priests accused of abuse. Some priests whose crimes fell within statutes of limitation are in jail. Some have been defrocked. But others — because they are elderly, because of the nature of their offenses, or because they have had some success fighting the charges — cannot be defrocked under canon law. These priests occupy a sort of shadow world, stripped of most duties but still financially supported by the church and fairly free to move about, both angering the critics of the church and exposing the diocese to further liability. Cardinal Edward M. Egan, head of the New York Archdiocese, is trying something new. Since June, he has offered seven priests that the archdiocese believes have been credibly accused of sexually abusing children a choice. They can spend the rest of their lives in closely supervised housing, where, in addition to receiving regular therapy, they must fill out a daily log of their comings and goings. Or they can leave the priesthood and the lifetime security net that comes with it.

[VidMihi]

Use the Link to read entire article. While all would agree that abusive priests should be removed from ministry, a troubling element of this story is that the priests have been accused and nothing has been proved. Furthermore in many cases they have not been given a chance to defend themselves. I grew up as an American and learned that one was innocent until proven guilty. None of these priests seem to have been proven guilty in a court of law.

All it takes, apparently, is for some smart lawyer to find a person who was once friendly to a priest, possibly one who was invited into a priests room where the priest tried to interest him in going to the seminary, and who is told if he says he was abused (using just vague words -nothing specific ) the diocese will suspend the priest and possibly even pay off the accuser and of course the lawyer. No trial, no opportunity for defense - guilty just by being accused. Same could go for a girl who fell in love with a priest (I understand many do) and since he would not leave for her she can get even by making an accusation - and besides she (and her lawyer) could use the money.

[the invisib1e hand]

thought I'd share a statistic I heard recently, just for perspective.

There were more abuse cases brought to light in the New York City public school system last year alone than in the entire Church during the entire abuse scandal.

Abuse is intolerable and devastating by clergy, teachers, parents, by any party, especially one in authority; but I just wanted to offer this perspective because, given the amount of criticism, unfavorable press, and sheer dollar cost, you'd think it was quite the opposite case.

I may have gotten the numbers wrong: it may the NYCPS over the past 5 years or something -- I'll double check. But it made the Church issue statistically insignificant compared to the NY school system alone. Please note, I said statistically insignificant. It is by no means morally insignificant.

[the invisib1e hand]

shades of a witch hunt.

[nmh]

Instead of protecting their priests, they should have been turned in and tried in court. THAT is what we have LAWS for.

[Campion]

I think we're all in agreement that people who violate the laws should be reported to the police.

Do you have any comment on the actual article. Did you bother to read it?

See VidMihi's comment

All it takes, apparently, is for some smart lawyer to find a person who was once friendly to a priest, possibly one who was invited into a priests room where the priest tried to interest him in going to the seminary, and who is told if he says he was abused (using just vague words -nothing specific ) the diocese will suspend the priest and possibly even pay off the accuser and of course the lawyer. No trial, no opportunity for defense - guilty just by being accused.

This is happening, right now, to innocent men.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Nihil Obstat]

and some of the accused priests are now deceased. What defense can be offered in their case? There is a case in Australia where the accuser (who is diagnosed clinically insane) is making preposterous claims against a deceased priest. The diocese is offering settlement money anyway even though the accusations are totally baseless.

[sitetest]

Dear Campion,

"All it takes, apparently, is for some smart lawyer to find a person who was once friendly to a priest, possibly one who was invited into a priests room where the priest tried to interest him in going to the seminary, and who is told if he says he was abused (using just vague words -nothing specific )"

This sends shudders down my spine. I think of the good priests who tried to recruit me to the priesthood. I was very close to one priest in particular, and often went up to his room in the rectory. He was always trying to interest young men in the priesthood; I'm sure many visited with him in his room. It is horrifying to think of all the men who could now make accusations against this holy priest of God.

St. John Vianney, protect our good and holy priests.


sitetest

[Remole]

I agree with you, and the damage extends even to other situations. My children are in elementary school, and they have very sweet and kind friends. I hold back my natural urge to give a hug or even a friendly pat on the shoulder to any of these wonderful children, in the fear that they may tell their parents ("oh, yes," they may report, "Mr. Remole is a very nice man--he gives me a hug whenever I am over at his house"), and then they suspect me of molestation. So I wonder how many children of this generation will grow up without the experience of other adults giving them gestures of affection, actions which bolster their own self-worth, etc?