Over the course of many years, the Catholic Church shielded priests who were molesting children from prosecution. In response to the scandals, they've brought internal action against many of these priests and have, in most cases, defrocked them.
I'm pretty sure that everyone (well, except the current Pope) agrees that the Church didn't live up to it's responsibilities when it was hiding these priests and their crimes. The question I'm asking is what is their responsibility now?
These priests have been removed from the official ranks of the priesthood, so, as far as I understand it, the Church doesn't have a particularly strong claim on them. However, due to the actions of some Church administrators, these sexual predators were never prosecuted for their crimes, many of which are beyond the statute of limitations, so, again, as I understand it, legally there aren't many recourses.
For example, it's not legal to put these ex-priests on the list of sexual offenders, so community members can be left unaware that these priest, some of whom were serial molestors, are moving into their neighborhoods. I don't think they can be forced to submit to monitoring or treatment.
So, what responsibility does the Church bear in regards to these ex-priests? Should they take it on themselves to warn the community or monitor these child molestors, even to the point of doing it surreptiously? Something else?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I don't know. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That's why I don't think they should have been defrocked - the Church lost the hold of obedience over them. They should have been assigned to places with no children. If the priest left the Church, I'm not sure what they should have done.
That's assuming the coverup took place and can't be corrected at this point.
As it is, I have no idea. Certainly keep tabs on there whereabouts. Try to find them jobs where they can have NO interaction with children. As far as reporting? Don't know.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I won't dispute your data -- but have they really been de-frocked? I'm surprised, if so. Priesthood isn't just a job, it's a commitment. It's more like disowning a child than firing an employee.
And if not, Dagonee's idea would work, and the Church has some great places for it: monasteries.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
I think the foremost responsibility of the Catholic Church is quickly addressing any current/future claims of impropriety by priests (getting law enforcement involved), so that this problem is not perpetuated.
I don't know that there really is anything they can do about those ex-priests who never faced charges. Wouldn't any attempt by the Church possibly be considered libel or slander?
It is extremely frustrating to me that not much can be done legally about abuse from decades ago. While it doesn't help anything in the here and now, I firmly believe that God will hold them (as well as those who covered up for them) accountable.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Those are tough questions. I guess my base question is "Does the Catholic Church know beyond a reasonable doubt that all of the defrocked priests did in fact commit the molestations they were accused of?"
I think that if someone knows that a person poses a danger, then they have a responsibility to warn potential victims. Or in this case, parents of potential victims. Since it is neither responsible nor Christ-like to publish a newspaper spread with the names of defrocked priests and their current known residences, it is, IMO, the obligation of the Catholic church to make a reasonable effort to keep an eye on their former flock-tenders. And where necessary, warn those closest to them. And when I say warn, I mean send out one of their not-defrocked priests to personally speak to the people closest to the molester and be involved personally in the community.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
The church can offer to employ these guys in some out of the way place and give them counseling. Just because they stopped being priests doesn't mean the church can't hire them in some other capacity.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
And if they won't take the job? And how does being their employer keep them from molesting children?
The way I see it, the Church bears the responsibility for these ex-priests not being convicted of their crimes. Had they been convicted, they would have been punished, undergone treatment (even up till chemical castration), and it would now be the law that their movements be kept track of.
If one of these men molests another kid, the Church is partially at fault, especially if they haven't put out a lot of effort to keep it from happening. I'd even say that the victim should be able to sue the Church again, even if they did try to prevent more molestations.
I really don't know what they should do in this situation. Shooting from the hip, I think what jeniwren suggested is a good start. I also think that they need to monitor the ex-priest and make sure they keep away from kids. I don't know how they would go about doing that though.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
It seems to me as though the fact of their being priests (or former priests) somehow entitles them to an exemption from standard judicial process, and I don't think that's fair or appropriate. They are still men first and they should still be beholden to the same laws and punishments as the rest of us.
I'm not quite sure I understand Jeni's comment with regard to publishing names and residences, given that convicted sex offenders are required to register with the police department and maintain current registration every time they relocate. I've never seen a newspaper spread of offenders names and addresses in the Tribune or Sun-Times, or even in any of the small community papers. But if I go to the state police's website or even the county sheriff's site, I can retrieve a list of registered offenders - including street names but not house numbers - in my area. Is this any less Christ-like or responsible than making the same information available with regard to priests who did the same thing?
I think that they SHOULD be required to register on the sex offender database, they SHOULD be required to go through whatever therapies are required for other offenders. Because, as Dags said, if the Church has lost its control of these people, and the rest of us have no idea who is moving into our neighborhoods because they're still being protected, what happens if/when they do it again? Will they finally be treated like an everyday citizen or will the Church jump to their rescue?
Posted by OlavMah (Member # 756) on :
Child molesting priests were, for a while, put away from children. There was a monastary in the Jemez Moutnains, New Mexico that they were sent to, but that practice has been discontinued. Don't know why.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
They should have been arrested for their crimes when it happened rather than shunted from one diocese to another. The damage these priests have done to their victims and the reputation and honour of the church cannot be measured.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Just because you know that they are child molestors doesn't mean that they can be convicted of it.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Goody, the reason I don't think that the Catholic church should publish a list of the defrocked priests is that they were never convicted of a crime. I don't know why these former priests were not formally charged other than the statute of limitations. There isn't a religious exemption or immunity like diplomats get for the Catholic church that I know of. I more get the impression that they hid the crimes (which is also a crime, as far as I know...but who do you indict, and if the statute of limitations is expired on the crime itself, isn't the statute of limitations on concealing a crime also lapsed? I don't know.)
I think the point of Squicky's question was not what SHOULD have happened, but what should we do with the situation we have. The men are not going to be on a sex offender's list. They're just not. And I don't think they should be, largely because they haven't gone through a trial and been found guilty.
I think, because the Catholic church undertook to protect these men from secular justice, they should continue to protect them from re-occurance of their crimes, and even better, work to help these men make restitution to their victims.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:I'm not quite sure I understand Jeni's comment with regard to publishing names and residences, given that convicted sex offenders are required to register with the police department and maintain current registration every time they relocate. I've never seen a newspaper spread of offenders names and addresses in the Tribune or Sun-Times, or even in any of the small community papers. But if I go to the state police's website or even the county sheriff's site, I can retrieve a list of registered offenders - including street names but not house numbers - in my area. Is this any less Christ-like or responsible than making the same information available with regard to priests who did the same thing?
The difference is that the priests in question have not been convicted (and can't be, due to the Church's interference).
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Stupid jeniwren and her stupid posting before me. Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
quote:Over the course of many years, the Catholic Church shielded priests who were molesting children from prosecution. In response to the scandals, they've brought internal action against many of these priests and have, in most cases, defrocked them.
I don't really know what defrocked means, at least in the Catholic church, so I looked it up in two online Catholic almanac/dictionaries and in my own Catholic Almanac and didn't find the term. So I wonder exactly what happens to those priest who failed their internal review. Once a person is a priest, he is a priest forever, kind of the way Catholic marriage is forever. To get a marriage annulled, one has to apply to Rome and go through this process and try to prove that at the time of the marriage, there was already a problem big enough that the sacrament of marriage was flawed all along. Prove that, and the marriage is annulled. I think the same sort of process applies towards priests that want to get out of holy orders. He has to apply to Rome and prove that at the time of ordination, he was not really prepared. I THINK this is the way it works.
So if a priest is felt to be a child molester, and is no longer working as a priest, he either 1) has been told not to do any priestly work or 2) actually had that ordination annulled (there might be a special word for priesthood annullment that I don't know)
If he is still a priest, then he is bound by certain rules and the church ought to know where he is. He probably still gets money to live on from the church. They would be expecting him to live Catholic lifestyle and would be watching for problems. If he is not a priest, then, I don't know what duty the church has. He isn't convicted of a crime. Who can they tell NOW that wouldn't be slanderous? And if they offer help, and it is refused, how can the church fight that? They have no means to enforce anything.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:there might be a special word for priesthood annullment that I don't know
I believe the word for this is "defrocked."
Actually, I have known several former priests--I worked with one last year, in fact--and they are simply not considered priests any longer. They are not in the employ of the Church or anything like that. (The former priests I know are guys that decided they wanted to get married. There but for the grace of God . . . )
I have heard the always a priest thing, but in recent decades it seems expediency has made that as much a technicality as permanent marriage and annulment. (Heck, my father was offered, unbidden, an annulment on his 29-year marriage when he got divorced. You know, the one that produced me. These days, it seems that nobody gets turned down for one.)
[ August 16, 2005, 08:44 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
If it is a real Catholic word, why isn't it in any of the dictionaries?
The only expriest I know spent about four years waiting for the decision.
Rome called and asked your dad if he wanted an annulment? O_o Surely you must mean someone offered to help start the paperwork.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
No, Rome didn't call. A priest offered it to him. Whether he has the power on paper to do that or not, do you doubt for one second that it would have gone through if he wanted it to?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
This website suggests that annulments are carried out within diocese, and do not require approval from Rome.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Theaca, look up laicize in your dictionary. I think that's the formal term.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
"If an annulment is granted by the court of first instance, it must be upheld by an appeals court in another diocese (the court of second instance). You need two concurring affirmative decisions before the annulment is final. If there is a split decision between the two lower courts, the case must go to the Roman Rota for a final resolution"
So, two diocese or the Roman Rota.
I do in fact doubt that all requests for annulment are automatically granted. Most priests do take these things seriously, Icarus.
I still have confusions over laicize and defrock. The one sounds voluntary. The other sounds like a punishment. If they do in fact take the sacrament of Holy Orders from a person as a punishment for child abuse and then the church has feels it has no further responsibility, then yeah, I do feel that that isn't right.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
If neither party contests it, I bet the requests are denied a vanishingly small percentage of the time. It seemed with my father (who was not actually interested in an annulment) that the priests he knew were attempting to coach him in the right buzz-phrases to use to ensure that a potential request would be approved.
In a cynical way, it's easy tpo see why this would be the case. Say somebody gets divorced, and some time later, falls in love again. If the Church will not grant the annulment, do you believe that this person will be satisfied to not remarry? Much more likely, the person will remarry anyway, and leave the Catholic Church. Now you can say all you want that the Church should not care, that anybody who would leave that easily was not a good Catholic in the first place, yadda yadda yadda, but the fact is that they would simply lose too many people this way in our present society, where divorce is a fact of life. Falling in love is a nearly irresistable pull, and most people won't walk away from it if it happens.
The web sites I saw in just a minute or two of googling made it pretty clear what they were looking to hear from people wanting an annulment. I haven't gathered statistics on successful annulment rates in the US, but I'd be willing to bet they're pretty high.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
btw, Theaca, this is the second time you have striven for the most literal possible interpretation of my words in order to contradict me. Lets assume that Rome isn't calling people, and that I don't mean to say that 100% of annulments are granted, okay? Why don't you address the meaning that is clearly behind what I say--or are you just bored tonight? Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
I wasn't contradicting you. I was answering your question. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Aw, I didn't mean to make you sad!
Now stop being a fussbudget! Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
I don't think being called stupid has ever made me smile quite so broadly.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)