Posted on 05/04/2002 4:16:48 PM PDT by history_matters
Mary, Queen of All Saints, pray for us.
Mr. Eleanor Clift is a member of that group.
I know, shame on me.
Where the author stumbles is in his attempt (rightly or wrongly) to minimize the situation by haggling over semantics and the difference between boys under 12 and boys between 12-17. Trying to split hairs between pedophilia and garden variety boy-buggering to lessen the offense is not helpful.
IMHO, the Catholic Church just needs to take its lumps, be more careful who they ordain in the future, defrock child-molesting priests and hand them over to authorities (after the Church determines their guilt separately in a Church inquiry) and get on with it.
This type of scandal is going to pop up from time to time in any organization that has a self-perpetuating hierarchy. Eliminating the hierarchy merely contains the scandal to a smaller institution, e.g. a single church. The RC church probably should not be reorganized as a result of this particular dustup, nor should it's lay members all join the Methodist Church.
Transferring church property titles to lay church committees might help because this would eliminate real estate management from the local bishop's portfolio. This, in turn might enable him to pay more attention to the moral strength of the priests who work for him. (The Orthodox do this.)
I agree with you here. It reminds me of the semantics used by X42 to prove he did not "have sexual relations with that woman."
IMHO, the Catholic Church just needs to take its lumps, be more careful who they ordain in the future, defrock child-molesting priests and hand them over to authorities (after the Church determines their guilt separately in a Church inquiry) and get on with it.
I agree with everything you say here *except* for only handling over molestors to the authorities *after* the Church determines their guilt.
A Church inquiry is fine for determining whether the priest should be defrocked.
But, just as molesting teachers aren't entitiled to a Union run "inquiry" before the police are called, so priests should not get the benefit of such a proceeding to get off the hook.
The Church should be forced to treat these cases exactly like any other person. There is no "freedom of religion" issue involved in reporting child molestation allegations. If a school has to report allegations and a therapist has to report allegations, the Church should have to report such allegations too.
It is up to the criminal authorities to determine whether the allegations are valid---it is not up to the Church to do so. Especially, since the Church admits that their determination of these allegations must include consideration of whether the priest was "notorious" and whether he is "sorry." Neither of these concepts are part of the criminal law.
After the priest has been convicted, the Church can hold their own inquiry as to whether he should also be defrocked. And if the courts find the statute of limitations has run, the Church should still hold an inquiry about defrocking the priest. Molesting priests should not be allowed to remain in the pristhood merely because of a criminal law technicality. In fact, because of the breach of trust involved, the Church should treat them just as harshly (if not more so) than the criminal justice system can.
But such inquiries should not be used to protect priests who might be buddies with the Bishop---or who might have some information the Bishop would rather not be disclosed. Both of those things have happened in the past and that is why the Church is in the trouble it finds itself today.
The police should be called as soon as any allegations are made against a priest.
We were better off anyway when we knew who the real enemy was and they thought of us as still potent.
The fact they think us toothless, IMHO, accounts for all the stroking we got in advance of the election and with the indulgence that was asking the Pope's opinion in advance of the inevitable ESCR decision.
I don't remember Bush's leaving his audience with the Pope and announcing (as he did after a meeting with the Log Cabin Republicans) that he felt he was "a better man" for the conversation.
This could explain why the homosexuality (and otherwise "enlightened" approach to all things sexual) is not a factor in the Catholic or Condit sex scandals and politicians still feel perfectly comfortable not only appointing open homosexuals (as did Clinton) but appointing them specifically because they are homosexual, as has Bush.
Dr. Alice von Hildebrand in her discussion of spiritual blindness made pointed use of the President as someone who did not have any serious defect of vision but is totally blind in the most important moral and spiritual sense i.e., that right in front of him is the evil of abortion and commerce built upon the murder of children about which he does nothing of consequence and in the face of which he makes a bargain that is sheer parody of Solomon.
All of these 'Catholic in name only' Catholic-bashers are the very same ones who have pushed organizations like WomanChurch and Call to Action down our throats. These radical 'clubs' are the very ones which have endorsed gay and lesbian ministers, and which have brought us to this point of spiritual misery. Have they just forgotten their past endorsements or are they just attempting to cover their backsides just in case somebody does a Nexis search on them?
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.