Question:
JMJ Los Angeles Times: IN BRIEF Catholic Church Scandal Takes Toll on Attendance From Staff and Wire Reports December 28 2002 The nation’s Roman Catholic Church has suffered some loss of regular attendance at Mass since the outbreak of this year’s sex scandals, according to a new survey. A second survey shows Latinos continuing to move away from the church. A poll released this week by the Gallup Organization shows that attendance at Mass has dropped slightly this year. The number of Catholics who said they had attended services in the last week fell to 41%, compared with 46% for the same period in 2001, the poll showed. The rate of Catholic Church attendance is now lower than that for Protestants, who have lagged behind Catholics in their worship rate in the decades since Gallup has been measuring attendance. The latest poll found 47% of Protestants said they went to church in the last week. Gallup also found that four in 10 Catholics were less likely to donate to the church because of the clerics’ sex abuse crisis. The survey of slightly more than 1,000 adults was conducted Dec. 9 and Dec. 10, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 7 percentage points. The second study, an outgrowth of last year’s American Religious Identification Survey, found the percentage of U.S. Latinos who are Catholic had dropped from 66% in 1990 to 57% in 2001. The percentage of Latinos with "no religion" doubled from 6% to 13% over the same period while the number of Latino Protestants — about a quarter of the overall Latino population — has remained stable. Ariela Keysar, the study’s lead author, said the data disprove the widespread notion that Latinos are leaving the Catholic Church for Pentecostal and other Protestant churches. The study, coordinated by researchers at the City University of New York, surveyed 50,281 people in the continental United States. 2002 Los Angeles Times unquote Jim Carew sfo
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – JMJ Los Angeles Times: IN BRIEF Catholic Church Scandal Takes Toll on Attendance From Staff and Wire Reports December 28 2002 The nation’s Roman Catholic Church has suffered some loss of regular attendance at Mass since the outbreak of this year’s sex scandals, according to a new survey. A second survey shows Latinos continuing to move away from the church. A poll released this week by the Gallup Organization shows that attendance at Mass has dropped slightly this year. The number of Catholics who said they had attended services in the last week fell to 41%, compared with 46% for the same period in 2001, the poll showed.
Strange, when others mentioned this Catholics in the group leapt to say how attendance had improved in the parishes. Must be a very local fall off. — Alan "the Full Monty" Ferrit ()’.’.’() ( (T) ) ( ) . ( ) (")_(") eligo, ergo sum Atheist #1211 Denizen of Darkness #42 EAC(UK)#252 Ironic Torture Div.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – JMJ Los Angeles Times: IN BRIEF Catholic Church Scandal Takes Toll on Attendance From Staff and Wire Reports December 28 2002 The nation’s Roman Catholic Church has suffered some loss of regular attendance at Mass since the outbreak of this year’s sex scandals, according to a new survey. A second survey shows Latinos continuing to move away from the church. A poll released this week by the Gallup Organization shows that attendance at Mass has dropped slightly this year. The number of Catholics who said they had attended services in the last week fell to 41%, compared with 46% for the same period in 2001, the poll showed. Strange, when others mentioned this Catholics in the group leapt to say how attendance had improved in the parishes. Must be a very local fall off.
It very well could be. While I don’t doubt that the scandals have turned some people off overall, it could be parish-specific. My guess is in the more liberal, modern parishes, people are going to leave more than in the more conservative, devout parishes. The reason being that modernists and liberals tend to view the Church as more of a social thing, so they will rather easily give up their beliefs based on scandals and things like that. IOW, the Catholic Church’s teachings somehow lose their truth and meaning because of what some bad men do. The more conservative, devout people realize that just because some men pervert the Church to their own ends does not make the Truth found in the Catholic Church any less true. To them, religion is something you don’t just give up on, like tastes in TV shows or music. I’m of the latter mindset. To me the solution isn’t to sit at home in protest or become an Episcopalian. I believe the Truth is the Truth is the Truth, so I couldn’t imagine leaving the Church. I believe the solution is to remove the bad people from the Church. It’s like people who say buying oil feuls terrorist states. In a sense it’s true. But the solution is not to stop buying oil, a totally legitimate action, it’s to get rid of the terrorists who pervert oil money to their own evil ends. Not a great analogy but one that might make a little sense. —- "I have cancer so you’re not allowed to disagree with me." – Pete Panaro.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – JMJ Los Angeles Times: IN BRIEF Catholic Church Scandal Takes Toll on Attendance From Staff and Wire Reports December 28 2002 The nation’s Roman Catholic Church has suffered some loss of regular attendance at Mass since the outbreak of this year’s sex scandals, according to a new survey. A second survey shows Latinos continuing to move away from the church. A poll released this week by the Gallup Organization shows that attendance at Mass has dropped slightly this year. The number of Catholics who said they had attended services in the last week fell to 41%, compared with 46% for the same period in 2001, the poll showed. Strange, when others mentioned this Catholics in the group leapt to say how attendance had improved in the parishes. Must be a very local fall off.
Uhhhhhhhhh…….you know, a national poll has a bit more creedence than what "people say" … don’t you???? It very well could be. While I don’t doubt that the scandals have turned some people off overall, it could be parish-specific. My guess is in the more liberal, modern parishes, people are going to leave more than in the more conservative, devout parishes.
Translation … thinking people are more apt to leave than brainwashed believers. The reason being that modernists and liberals tend to view the Church as more of a social thing, so they will rather easily give up their beliefs based on scandals and things like that.
No. Liberals tend not to see the church as a source of absolute correctness. IOW They don’t buy lies! IOW, the Catholic Church’s teachings somehow lose their truth and meaning because of what some bad men do.
Even if that corruption goes all the way to the top? The more conservative, devout people realize that just because some men pervert the Church to their own ends does not make the Truth found in the Catholic Church any less true.
Which makes them no different than the followers of Benny Hinn, Reverend Moon, Heaven’s Gate, or any other fanitical cult. Those who see the RCC as a HUMAN organization recognize that it can be, and is, flawed. Those who theinik the RCC IS god – are blind to that! To them, religion is something you don’t just give up on, like tastes in TV shows or music.
Who the hell ever said the people who left the RCC gave up on religion? Giving up on a corrupt, egomanical, tyrannical organization has nothing to do with giving up on religon. I’m of the latter mindset. To me the solution isn’t to sit at home in protest or become an Episcopalian. I believe the Truth is the Truth is the Truth, so I couldn’t imagine leaving the Church. I believe the solution is to remove the bad people from the Church.
Oh .. and the "bad people" are judged by …… you? BTW .. I guess you’re so brainwashed that you cannot even comprehend the possibility that Episcopalians might know the "truth". It’s like people who say buying oil feuls terrorist states. In a sense it’s true. But the solution is not to stop buying oil, a totally legitimate action, it’s to get rid of the terrorists who pervert oil money to their own evil ends. Not a great analogy but one that might make a little sense.
No. It doesn’t. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – —- "I have cancer so you’re not allowed to disagree with me." – Pete Panaro.
Response:
Pete, very well said. I’m with you. -mk – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The more conservative, devout people realize that just because some men pervert the Church to their own ends does not make the Truth found in the Catholic Church any less true. To them, religion is something you don’t just give up on, like tastes in TV shows or music. I’m of the latter mindset. To me the solution isn’t to sit at home in protest or become an Episcopalian. I believe the Truth is the Truth is the Truth, so I couldn’t imagine leaving the Church. I believe the solution is to remove the bad people from the Church.
Response:
Pete, very well said. I’m with you.
** as the twig is bent, so … … … The more conservative, devout people realize that just because some men pervert the Church to their own ends does not make the Truth found in the Catholic Church any less true. To them, religion is something you don’t just give up on, like tastes in TV shows or music. I’m of the latter mindset. To me the solution isn’t to sit at home in protest or become an Episcopalian. I believe the Truth is the Truth is the Truth, so I couldn’t imagine leaving the Church. I believe the solution is to remove the bad people from the Church.
– Rich, 805-386-3734, www.vcnet.com/measures, remove ^ from adr.
Response:
. A poll released this week by the Gallup Organization shows that attendance at Mass has dropped slightly this year. The number of Catholics who said they had attended services in the last week fell to 41%, compared with 46% for the same period in 2001, the poll showed. Could it be that at this time last year people were still grieving over 9/11/01?
No. CeCe — I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use. –Galileo Galilei
Response:
I’m of the latter mindset. To me the solution isn’t to sit at home in protest or become an Episcopalian. I believe the Truth is the Truth is the Truth, so I couldn’t imagine leaving the Church. I believe the solution is to remove the bad people from the Church.
Problem is, you are at the moment powerless to do that. — Alan "the Full Monty" Ferrit ()’.’.’() ( (T) ) ( ) . ( ) (")_(") eligo, ergo sum Atheist #1211 Denizen of Darkness #42 EAC(UK)#252 Ironic Torture Div.
Response:
. A poll released this week by the Gallup Organization shows that attendance at Mass has dropped slightly this year. The number of Catholics who said they had attended services in the last week fell to 41%, compared with 46% for the same period in 2001, the poll showed. Could it be that at this time last year people were still grieving over 9/11/01?
Very possible. Those who suddenly get faith after a tragedy, often loose it as the feelings of loss become more bearable. — Alan "the Full Monty" Ferrit ()’.’.’() ( (T) ) ( ) . ( ) (")_(") eligo, ergo sum Atheist #1211 Denizen of Darkness #42 EAC(UK)#252 Ironic Torture Div.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – . A poll released this week by the Gallup Organization shows that attendance at Mass has dropped slightly this year. The number of Catholics who said they had attended services in the last week fell to 41%, compared with 46% for the same period in 2001, the poll showed. Could it be that at this time last year people were still grieving over 9/11/01? Very possible. Those who suddenly get faith after a tragedy, often loose it as the feelings of loss become more bearable. —
With Scout Lady, her whole life is a tragedy of emptiness and boredom, so that’s why she leans so heavily on "faith" or least the fact that going to church breaks up a dull dreary routine. Paul
Response:
<<I believe the solution is to remove the bad people from the Church.
Problem is, you are at the moment powerless to do that. And you already know enough to determine exactly who the "bad people" are? We have a priest in my diocese who’s been on suspension for over six months. The tip against him was anonymous; he’s never had any other charge made, and there’s been no proof brought forward. But he can’t say mass, wear his collar, or in any other way act as a priest. He receives his "salary", but he does not live in a church facility and therefore really does not get enough to live on. He’s currently hanging around his elderly mother’s house, from what I hear, and has no assurance that he’ll EVER be allowed back to the priesthood. That’s the OTHER side of this issue; the witchhunt "if there’s smoke, there must be fire" approach to this scandal that punishes those who may not be guilty. In the past, the church took an "innocent until proven guilty" approach, and sometimes erred on the side of protecting the guilty. No chance of that today! Now it’s a 180; guilty until proven innocent; even an accusation gets you the penalty box. Got a priest out there you want to "get"? Call in an anonymous accusation of molesting, and you’ll put him in the hot seat maybe forever. The Vatican is right: there needs to be church due process, even if the good folks out there don’t like it. Things like statutes of limitations and presumed innocence can’t be abandoned just because there’s a witchhunt on. Old evidence is cold evidence; twenty and thirty year old accusations are inadequate foundations for justice, because there are so few fresh memories to call upon and many witnesses are no longer even alive. The accuser has to MAKE a case and not just make an accusation.
Response:
<< A poll released this week by the Gallup Organization shows that attendance at Mass has dropped slightly this year. The number of Catholics who said they had attended services in the last week fell to 41%, compared with 46% for the same period in 2001, the poll showed.
It’s well known that Catholics overreport their mass attendance. If everyone who SAYS they’re in mass each Sunday actually came, we wouldn’t have enough churches. What I think we’re seeing is some of these losing a little of their guilt because of the scandal and reporting more honestly. I can only speak for my parish, but we haven’t seen any major loss in church attendance. Our baptism numbers are about the same, even up a little, and our other numbers are also about the same. Our collections are down about 8%, but that could be due as much to the economy as to any residue from the scandal. (AND we had two priests on the bad guy list, so it’s not as though our folks could say, "Didn’t happen here.")
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -<<I believe the solution is to remove the bad people from the Church. Problem is, you are at the moment powerless to do that. And you already know enough to determine exactly who the "bad people" are? We have a priest in my diocese who’s been on suspension for over six months. The tip against him was anonymous; he’s never had any other charge made, and there’s been no proof brought forward. But he can’t say mass, wear his collar, or in any other way act as a priest. He receives his "salary", but he does not live in a church facility and therefore really does not get enough to live on. He’s currently hanging around his elderly mother’s house, from what I hear, and has no assurance that he’ll EVER be allowed back to the priesthood. That’s the OTHER side of this issue; the witchhunt "if there’s smoke, there must be fire" approach to this scandal that punishes those who may not be guilty. In the past, the church took an "innocent until proven guilty" approach, and sometimes erred on the side of protecting the guilty. No chance of that today! Now it’s a 180; guilty until proven innocent; even an accusation gets you the penalty box. Got a priest out there you want to "get"? Call in an anonymous accusation of molesting, and you’ll put him in the hot seat maybe forever. The Vatican is right: there needs to be church due process, even if the good folks out there don’t like it. Things like statutes of limitations and presumed innocence can’t be abandoned just because there’s a witchhunt on. Old evidence is cold evidence; twenty and thirty year old accusations are inadequate foundations for justice, because there are so few fresh memories to call upon and many witnesses are no longer even alive. The accuser has to MAKE a case and not just make an accusation.
nobody minds due process, but open dues process. We have seen already where even the new rules have been broken by a Bishop, where all but the priests on the investigation Panel resigned because the Bishop ignored them and re-instated a priest off his own back. These inquiries should be performed by independent people. — Alan "the Full Monty" Ferrit ()’.’.’() ( (T) ) ( ) . ( ) (")_(") eligo, ergo sum Atheist #1211 Denizen of Darkness #42 EAC(UK)#252 Ironic Torture Div.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <<I believe the solution is to remove the bad people from the Church. Problem is, you are at the moment powerless to do that. And you already know enough to determine exactly who the "bad people" are? We have a priest in my diocese who’s been on suspension for over six months. The tip against him was anonymous; he’s never had any other charge made, and there’s been no proof brought forward. But he can’t say mass, wear his collar, or in any other way act as a priest. He receives his "salary", but he does not live in a church facility and therefore really does not get enough to live on. He’s currently hanging around his elderly mother’s house, from what I hear, and has no assurance that he’ll EVER be allowed back to the priesthood. That’s the OTHER side of this issue; the witchhunt "if there’s smoke, there must be fire" approach to this scandal that punishes those who may not be guilty. In the past, the church took an "innocent until proven guilty" approach, and sometimes erred on the side of protecting the guilty.
Bull Shit!!!!!!! Get your head out of your ass! They protected PROBABLE criminals by MOVING THEM. They DID NOTHING to discover guilt or innocence. The knew SOME were guilty, and did NOT report them to the police, but sent them for counceling. They did NOTHING to help the victims – only paid them off to keep them quiet. This was no more an "error" than it would have been to hide Ted Bundy in your basement! No chance of that today! Now it’s a 180; guilty until proven innocent; even an accusation gets you the penalty box.
That is what the CHURCH may do. Don’t you dare suggest that is the fault of the legal system of general society! Eiether way – in the case of a possible child molestor – extreme caution IS the best approach! Got a priest out there you want to "get"? Call in an anonymous accusation of molesting, and you’ll put him in the hot seat maybe forever.
Got a child you don’t like – sent him to a RCC church! The Vatican is right: there needs to be church due process, even if the good folks out there don’t like it.
What the "good folks" don’t like is the arrogance that the RCC wants to use "chcurch due process" a replacement for the legal system. No one really gives a damn what the church does (as long as it is NOT their usual "hide the molestor" shell game), as long as they respect the LEGAL process and report the allegations to the proper authorities. Things like statutes of limitations and presumed innocence can’t be abandoned just because there’s a witchhunt on.
They are respected in the legal community. The problem is the church did, and is still doing, anything it can to subvert the legal process! Old evidence is cold evidence; twenty and thirty year old accusations are inadequate foundations for justice,
That’s not your decision to make! because there are so few fresh memories to call upon and many witnesses are no longer even alive. The accuser has to MAKE a case and not just make an accusation.
And the church has to report it to the legal system in order to let them make their determination. All they have done is HIDE everything. That’s one of the MAIN reasons that the cases are so old! Those criminals should not avoid prosecution because their allies did a god job in hiding the crime. The church be prosecuted for hiding the crime!
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <<I believe the solution is to remove the bad people from the Church. Problem is, you are at the moment powerless to do that. And you already know enough to determine exactly who the "bad people" are? We have a priest in my diocese who’s been on suspension for over six months. The tip against him was anonymous; he’s never had any other charge made, and there’s been no proof brought forward. But he can’t say mass, wear his collar, or in any other way act as a priest. He receives his "salary", but he does not live in a church facility and therefore really does not get enough to live on. He’s currently hanging around his elderly mother’s house, from what I hear, and has no assurance that he’ll EVER be allowed back to the priesthood. That’s the OTHER side of this issue; the witchhunt "if there’s smoke, there must be fire" approach to this scandal that punishes those who may not be guilty. In the past, the church took an "innocent until proven guilty" approach, and sometimes erred on the side of protecting the guilty. Bull Shit!!!!!!! Get your head out of your ass!
Yours is the one stuck up there Dil… They protected PROBABLE criminals by MOVING THEM.
Sending them to counseling, and treatment, and then, once certified ‘cured’ by a trained psychologist, reassignment. They DID NOTHING to discover guilt or innocence.
They sent the priest for counseling, as psychologists at the time believed that pedophilia was "curable." The knew SOME were guilty, and did NOT report them to the police, but sent them for counceling.
Which, in the past (80s, 70s, 60s, etc.) was a normal ‘action’ for pedophilia – psychologists thought they could treat it. They did NOTHING to help the victims – only paid them off to keep them
quiet. Actually, they did much to help victims, paying for counseling, etc. This was no more an "error" than it would have been to hide Ted Bundy in your basement! No chance of that today! Now it’s a 180; guilty until proven innocent; even an accusation gets you the penalty box. That is what the CHURCH may do. Don’t you dare suggest that is the fault
of the legal system of general society! Eiether way – in the case of a possible child molestor – extreme caution
IS the best approach! So, you wouldn’t mind if someone called you in as a possible child molestor and ruined your life for nothing more than an anonymous tip? Got a priest out there you want to "get"? Call in an anonymous accusation of molesting, and you’ll put him in the hot seat maybe forever. Got a child you don’t like – sent him to a RCC church!
Why? The RCC Church is a great place. There are millions of children who were never molested… since the percentage of priests who have been even accused of this in the past year is under 1% of the number of priests in the Church. (350 vs. 46,000). The Vatican is right: there needs to be church due process, even if the
good folks out there don’t like it. What the "good folks" don’t like is the arrogance that the RCC wants to use "chcurch due process" a replacement for the legal system.
Nope… nobody said it was a replacement for the legal system. If the victims choose to come to the church to deal with the situation, that is their choice. They can choose to not have it go to court. No one really gives a damn what the church does (as long as it is NOT their usual "hide the molestor" shell game), as long as they respect the LEGAL process and report the allegations to the proper authorities.
The Church does respect the legal process. Are you suggesting the victims who did not report it, but went to the Church first also didn’t respect the legal process? Things like statutes of limitations and presumed innocence can’t be abandoned just because there’s a witchhunt on. They are respected in the legal community. The problem is the church did, and is still doing, anything it can to subvert the legal process!
Not now and not then. There was nothing that prevented the victims from going to the legal authorities. Old evidence is cold evidence; twenty and thirty year old accusations are inadequate foundations for justice, That’s not your decision to make!
But, the legal system wouldn’t touch a case that was only based on the anonymous tip. No chance they’d arrest or incarcerate someone simply because of 1 unsubstantiated 20-30 year old tip. because there are so few fresh memories to call upon and many witnesses are no longer even alive. The accuser has to MAKE a case and not just make an accusation. And the church has to report it to the legal system in order to let them
make their determination. All they have done is HIDE everything. That’s one of the MAIN reasons that
the cases are so old! Where is the legal requirement for the Church to report? Give you a clue Dil – it ain’t there. That’s why no Bishop or Cardinal or other Church authority has been arrested for any violation of the law in that area. Those criminals should not avoid prosecution because their allies did a
god job in hiding the crime. You consider the victim their ally? Since the victim didn’t report it, but in many cases, went to the Church to resolve it quietly and without police involvement. The church be prosecuted for hiding the crime!
By your logic, the victim should also be prosecuted for hiding the crime. You probably would like to prosecute rape victims for not reporting the rape, domestic violence victims for not reporting the crime, and any other victim who chooses to not report the crime. Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com – Still Only $9.95 – http://www.uncensored-news.com <<<<<<< The Worlds Uncensored News Source <<<<<<<<
Response:
The knew SOME were guilty, and did NOT report them to the police, but sent them for counceling. Which, in the past (80s, 70s, 60s, etc.) was a normal ‘action’ for pedophilia – psychologists thought they could treat it.
Not totally true and ignores those moved and covered up for in the 90’s. It ignores the clear warnings that were ignored. — Alan "the Full Monty" Ferrit ()’.’.’() ( (T) ) ( ) . ( ) (")_(") eligo, ergo sum Atheist #1211 Denizen of Darkness #42 EAC(UK)#252 Ironic Torture Div.
Response:
The knew SOME were guilty, and did NOT report them to the police, but sent them for counceling. Which, in the past (80s, 70s, 60s, etc.) was a normal ‘action’ for pedophilia – psychologists thought they could treat it. Not totally true and ignores those moved and covered up for in the 90’s. It ignores the clear warnings that were ignored.
** the laugher is that Bernard Law was told – in no uncertain terms – by two psychoanalyists that paedophilia was untreatable, yet he sought them out for a second opinion over a year later. What was Law thinking? – or was he ? In any event, Law subsequently transferred yet more paedophile priests to fresh hunting grounds. — Rich, 805-386-3734, www.vcnet.com/measures, remove ^ from adr.
Response:
The knew SOME were guilty, and did NOT report them to the police, but sent them for counceling. Which, in the past (80s, 70s, 60s, etc.) was a normal ‘action’ for pedophilia – psychologists thought they could treat it. Not totally true and ignores those moved and covered up for in the 90’s. It ignores the clear warnings that were ignored.
NOpe… doesn’t ignore it.. just points out that those screaming are ignoring OTHER facts (like "normal" treatment thoughts that existed in earlier times)… hindsight is 20/20 Alan. Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com – Still Only $9.95 – http://www.uncensored-news.com <<<<<<< The Worlds Uncensored News Source <<<<<<<<
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The knew SOME were guilty, and did NOT report them to the police, but sent them for counceling. Which, in the past (80s, 70s, 60s, etc.) was a normal ‘action’ for pedophilia – psychologists thought they could treat it. Not totally true and ignores those moved and covered up for in the 90’s. It ignores the clear warnings that were ignored. NOpe… doesn’t ignore it.. just points out that those screaming are ignoring OTHER facts (like "normal" treatment thoughts that existed in earlier times)… hindsight is 20/20 Alan.
Hindsight should also tell you that after the 3rd time of sending a man for treatment that he will never be cured, especially when warned. Even in the 80’s the records show they were receiving warnings against letting certain people work with children but decided to ignore it. But anyway, even in the 80’s child abuse was illegal. That never changed. — Alan "the Full Monty" Ferrit ()’.’.’() ( (T) ) ( ) . ( ) (")_(") eligo, ergo sum Atheist #1211 Denizen of Darkness #42 EAC(UK)#252 Ironic Torture Div.
Response:
<<nobody minds due process, but open dues process. We have seen already where even the new rules have been broken by a Bishop, where all but the priests on the investigation Panel resigned because the Bishop ignored them and re-instated a priest off his own back. These inquiries should be performed by independent people. You want a church with checks and balances; that’s what an independent inquiry is — a balance to the authority of the bishop. The church does not have checks and balances. In this authority is strictly hierarchial rather than dispersed. The bishop is subject to no higher authority than God and the bishop above him in the hierarchy, who is the pope in the Western Church. Of course, there certainly is moral power in the prophetic voice of the people, so movements like VOTF are part of the traditional moral voice of the church. But they influence, they don’t control.
Response:
<< That’s the OTHER side of this issue; the witchhunt "if there’s smoke, there must be fire" approach to this scandal that punishes those who may not be guilty. In the past, the church took an "innocent until proven guilty" approach, and sometimes erred on the side of protecting the guilty.
Bull Shit!!!!!!! Get your head out of your ass! They protected PROBABLE criminals by MOVING THEM. You’ve shifted the "they"; you are talking about the bishops who moved priests around, and I’m talking about one of those priests. You seem to assume that its easy to determine whether a particular priest is a probable criminal. Is the priest I described a "probable criminal"? And if a priest is innocent until proven guilty, even if you have suspicions, what would you have the bishop do? "They DID NOTHING to discover guilt or innocence. The knew SOME were guilty, and did NOT report them to the police, but sent them for counceling." Yes, some of the bishops were remiss, too quick to assume either that the problem didn’t exist or that the priest just needed some counseling help to get squared away again. But some of the bishops DID work with the police, and the police couldn’t get enough evidence to file a case. All you have is suspicions. You’re the bishop. What do you do now?
Response:
<< No chance of that today! Now it’s a 180; guilty until proven innocent; even an accusation gets you the penalty box.
That is what the CHURCH may do. Don’t you dare suggest that is the fault of the legal system of general society! Eiether way – in the case of a possible child molestor – extreme caution IS the best approach! Ah, now you go from "probable" to "possible" – possible child molester. Why, it’s possible that YOU’RE a possible child molester. After all, it’s a well known fact that those who protest the loudest are most likely to be perps themselves. Since you protest loudly, ergo…. Hey, I don’t have any proof, but I have my suspicions…. According to you, that ought to be enough to act on. What should we do with you? Suspend you from your job? We can’t just move you someplace where you’re not known; you’ve already condemned that alternative. What DO we do with you?
Response:
<<Got a priest out there you want to "get"? Call in an anonymous accusation of molesting, and you’ll put him in the hot seat maybe forever.
Got a child you don’t like – sent him to a RCC church! But you have to be very select. After all, there are only 400 accused out of 40,000 priests, so you have to hunt around to find one of the 1%.
Response:
The Vatican is right: there needs to be church due process, even if the good folks out there don’t like it.
What the "good folks" don’t like is the arrogance that the RCC wants to use "church due process" a replacement for the legal system. No one really gives a damn what the church does (as long as it is NOT their usual "hide the molestor" shell game), as long as they respect the LEGAL process and report the allegations to the proper authorities. Church due process does not replace the legal system. It solely decides matters of ecclesiastical penalties. One of the main objections that I hear from church canon lawyers is that the handful of culpable bishops did NOT use the canonical system either. Decisions about the priests was made informally, without invoking either the civil or the church legal systems. What many Catholics (and others) don’t know is that you can bring canonical charges against a priest in the Church courts if you think you have a case. Canon 1395 #2 specifically states that "a cleric who has offended in other ways against the sixth commandment [Thou shalt not commit adultery], if the crime was committed by force, or by threats, or in public, or with a minor under the age of sixteen years, is to be punished with just penalties not excluding dismissal from the clerical state if the case so warrants." If you know a priest out there who’s a perp, you can go after him in the canonical courts. In the diocese it’s called the Tribunal.
Response:
<<Things like statutes of limitations and presumed innocence can’t be abandoned just because there’s a witchhunt on.
They are respected in the legal community. The problem is the church did, and is still doing, anything it can to subvert the legal process! You’re frothing. Wipe your mouth. "The church", "they": all these loosy goosy terms. There are about 200 dioceses in this country; some have been very good and a few have been horrid, and the others somewhere in between. Each bishop had his own policies, and sometimes bishops inherited the policies of those before him without paying much attention to what they were. You’re demonizing the guys as a unit, and that’s just another form of stereotyping and bigotry. A few priests (400 out of 40,000) turn out to be suspected predators. A few bishops have been caught playing Watergate with probable perps. A few have resigned, and I expect we’ll see some more. Good riddance. But you are not careful to just attack A FEW priests; you act like the 400 is 4,000 or 40,000, and that’s just not true. You attack the bishops as a whole, even though we find that many of the accused have already been suspended or dropped or retired from the priesthood by bishops who were on top of the issue. How often we hear "former priest" or "retired priest" when we hear about the accused priests. There are guilty out there and they should be punished. But you’ve lost any sense of proportion with your wild accusations and buckshot approach.
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.