Posted on 01/02/2011 6:20:20 PM PST by Salvation
Thanks for that link. I was looking for it last night.
That has been happening. Here is a FR story from 2004 about a seminary being shut down.
From 2005 in the U. S.
I believe that the overwhelming majority of priests have behaved impeccably throughout their careers. Unfortunately, even a handful of cases in which a pedophile priest is transferred and his behavior covered up creates a climate of suspicion which will take many years to dispel.
“So, just because YOU think these guys are innocent, that its OK for them to molest boys?”
There is no rational way to get from what I said to the proposition you advance.
We *know* that many of the accused were innocent. They were not molesting young men in the first place, so protecting their rights in no way justifies any crime.
“Its a chicken and egg thing. You are mad because people came forward AFTER these cases were exposed to try to get money. Am I right?”
I am not writing in anger, but in fully justified indignation at false accusations, and at the refusal of some to admit that such accusations were false.
“My point is that the Church covered up, for lack of a better term, these cases beyond the point where they could have been held for criminal trial.”
Firstly, I will stipulate that young men were molested by *some* priests, and that *some* bishops wrongly protected *some* of them from prosecution. However, in many of these cases, the victims and their parents were complicit in the cover-up, as they agreed to a monetary settlement in lieu of prosecution. In others, the victims remained silent. In still others, the victims were not believed by their own parents.
While every one of these young men was the victim of a terrible, terrible crime and offense against their immortal souls, the responsibility for hushing these things up cannot be laid solely at the door of the Church.
I assure you that your contempt for and righteous anger at the *guilty* does not exceed my own. However, we have a moral duty not to let those feelings splash over onto the innocent.
Further, while some of the Bishops who put these homosexuals back into parishes or otherwise into contact with young men were beyond a doubt homosexuals themselves and completely guilty of knowingly protecting predatory sodomite priests, the number of such cases is nowhere nearly as great as you seem to think.
Remember Heinlein’s razor—Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. Some of these bishops were actually trying to do the best thing for everyone. They reasoned (approximately) thusly: It can be (even more) devastating for a young man’s anal rape to become public knowledge; thus a private settlement is protecting a minor. Psychiatrists say that this priest can be treated and returned to active duty, and the Catholic Church is about nothing if not redemption. It would be better for all concerned to protect the minor’s privacy, reach an understanding acceptable to the victim and his parents, and get counseling for both the victim and perpetrator.
It is easy to forget at this point in time that it used to be much more common to think it better to cover up a rape than to drag it through the courts, which some women described as being raped a second time. Things have changed, and while hardly anyone will today admit to that opinion, it is commonly held that rape remains an under-reported crime.
George Herbert wrote, “Go not for every grief to the physician, nor for every quarrel to the lawyer, nor for every thirst to the pot.”
“The ONLY recourse that was available was civil litigation—which lead to the fraud you address.”
You don’t see the hand of Satan in that? Letting all this build up like magma rising beneath a volcano, to be released all at once at the most inopportune time? Can you deny that this has greatly damaged the image of the Church in many people’s eyes? And is still doing damage, even though the great majority of these crimes were committed decades ago, and the number has since plunged? This is especially true in light of the comparisons with other organizations not in the white-hot spotlight. (See the links in a post above.)
“I believe that the Church should come out and say the following…I believe they are either unwilling or unable to do this.”
Funny, I thought that was the Church’s position. Are you sure you didn’t just miss it?
“That is my final comment on the subject.”
I hope it’s not your final thought on the subject.
“I wish you a very Happy and Healthy New Year. God Bless us all. Methinks we are going to need it going forward.”
And the same to you. May God look not upon our sins, but upon our faith.
When class action lawsuits are involved, people will say literally anything about anyone to get that money.
The number of these claims that are simply not credible is more than 50%.
And, as I've said before, the vast majority of believable abuse allegations in the US center again and again on a group of priests that came from Ireland via Boston and Brooklyn in a period spanning from about 1950 - 1975.
For all the people who claim via astroturf trial lawyer organizations like VOTF that they want "the truth", almost everything about this atrocity seems to be kept as vague as possible from their perspective.
The Catholic haters will not accept this as the truth.
Thank you, dsc, for mentioning the FACT that a whole lot of parents took the hush money offered to them by the bishops. In my opinion, this makes them equally complicit in any coverup that happened.
That said...You know...I am a cradle Catholic. I spent way more than my share of time in and around the church, as did my brother. Though I did not attend Catholic school, I was involved in all the other activities (Sodality, Altar Society, Youth Group, etc.), and to that list you can add my brother’s participation as an altar boy. I NEVER saw or heard anything to make me think that any particular priest was doing anything wrong to anyone - boy, girl, or young man.
Additionally, had anything like that actally happened to my brother or me, I can assure you that there would have been no going to the bishop and no taking of hush money. No, Father Fancypants would have had a MUCH more serious problem than what to tell the bishop. He’d have had DADDY to deal with, and it wouldn’t have been pretty.
Regards,
I don’t personallly know of any but I’ve long suspected this was largely a case of fasle accusations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.