A new symbol of false sex abuse allegations

It's surprising that Allen, given his usual "kissy-pooh" relationship with the curia, would write a story that denigrates the Vatican's delusional ideas about its self-importance?!?

Jerry Slevin (below) is basically right: The long historical arc representing the church's membership in the world's power structure [you remember the "Second Estate"] dating from the time of Constantine has been falling back to earth for more than a century.

J23 with Vatican2 tried to drive a stake through the heart of the "Church Triumphant" before his time ran out - but it looked very hopeful for a while. When Albino Luciani (JP1) died prematurely 15 years later after only a thirty-three day papacy, J23's heroic efforts essentially died with Luciani: The legacy of JP2 and B16 has been to dismantle Vatican2 which by most measures have been very successful to the woe of most Christians around the world. [Notice that millions of Catholics worldwide have abandoned the church of their birth!]

With the advent of the child rape scandal, we have been witnessing the slow implosion of the corporate hegemony of the hierarchy over the church. No wonder more and more governments are embarrassed to even have an ambassador at the Vatican. In a sense, I suppose Catholics should be thankful for this. But, it is very painful to watch.

As B16 leads the discredited hierarchy into a historic emotional and intellectual retreat behind Vatican walls, probably for a century or two until their fat investment portfolios run out and when there are no more boy priest vocations offered up to fill the clerical ranks, what emerges to lead the rest of us left to wander in the religious and spiritual desert remains to be seen.

In any "oasis" church, it will be up to Catholic women and men to ensure the survival of the Gospel - don't look for any help from the soon-to-be extinct hierarchs.

We must TEACH. Pass on the traditions of the BEATITUDES and CORPORAL WORKS of MERCY to new generations. Take matters into our own hands. Hope for the day when new ideas can be spoken aloud again in our own church.

Thank you for your comment. As the mother of a Catholic priest, I know, for a fact, that you are right. Additionally, all it takes is an accusation not only of sex abuse against a minor but also things like a boundaries violation with an adult. Let me give you an example: Father 'X' is couseling Mrs. and/or Mr 'Z'. The marriage is not too stable emotionally in addition to spiritual concerns. Mr. 'Z' wants Father 'X' to 'advise' Mrs. 'Z' to act in a certain manner. Father 'X' tells them both at this point to see a marriage counselor. Mr. 'Z' is furious at his wife... and at Father 'X' for not jumping to his tune and complains to the diocese that he believes Father 'X' is too chummy with Mrs. 'Z'. Result: Father 'X' is relieved of his faculties. He now has no salary and no place to live. Father 'X' had better be able to afford about one year out of his life; at least $30,000 for a canon lawyer and a psychiatrist to battle to get his faculties restored. It happens!!!!

To "Anonymous" old priest:

If you or your fellow priests fear some accusation coming forward from a survivor, are we then to conclude that you and other priests do in fact have regrets or misgivings or doubts about past behaviors and relationships?

I hope that you are not suggesting that you believe that you and other priests indeed have eye-witness accounts of sexual assault and exploitation by your fellow priests but have not reported them?

If so, then I would say that it would be best for you to contact your bishop or superior and ask for a complete investigation of these events BEFORE ANY ACCUSER COMES FORWARD. You could report any questionable behavior preemptively. It would be taken as a sign of good faith and sincerity.

If any priest were to do so, I have to believe that survivors and their advocates would be cautious, yet supportive of the diocese or religious community continuing to maintaining the priest for the duration of any investigation. [After all there are years and decades of betrayal, silence and complicity to overcome.]

Of course, church and civil authorities should take every precaution to insure the safety of children today - the most important consideration of all.

Of course, mandatory reporting laws need to be respected. Of course, the legal implications must be worked out with the appropriate law enforcement agencies.

Of course, any potential survivors need to be sensitively contacted [because I could envision that some survivors might not want to acknowledge their assaults, or want their family/friends informed - many survivors have lived for years in terror that the story of their abuse would come to public knowledge]. Of course, survivors' needs for appropriate treatment and compensation should be taken into account.

I would not want to give the impression to anyone that I think that the knot of the child rape scandal in the church can easily be unraveled and undone. It cannot.

The question for priests and bishops is do you want to live out your priesthood in fear and shame? Or, do you want to live in the light of integrity and forgiveness?

My best advice: My sainted sixth-grade teacher, Sister Mary Adelaide, would often add her special twist to the famous quote from John's gospel: ""The Truth will set you free." But first, it will make you miserable."

yes because with alito, roberts, thomas or (OMG!!) scalia, kennedy even, logging in, this blogsite loses absolutely ANY credibility at all!

That person may be referring to Duns Scotus....

“…we are instructed to call the police the very instant we suspect child abuse”

Dear Dan
If that is the case, that is indeed great news.
But please tell me, where are these rules written down, in what Church documents? Can you please give links and/or references?
I have looked and have not found this in any documents posted by the Bishop's conference nor in my local diocesan web page. If you can please give an example of an official US Church web page that says this, that would be great.
Sincerely,
Tom

Another thing to keep in mind is that it is almost never the case in child sex abuse situations that the Church (or any institution -- school, scouts, little league) hears the allegation of abuse at a time contemporaneous with the abuse actually happening. Talk about getting the kid to the emergency room and all that is a little overwrought. Most cases only come about when allegations are made many years after the fact, most times when the alleged victim is not even a child anymore (and in many of the cases brought against the Church, only after the priest is dead).

That was way over the top - really not appropriate.

Gosh I'm so sorry you missed the REPUBLICAN CONVENTION of 2008 where Bishop Thomas Wienski gave the invocation and of course spoke of the never ending abortion problem. Perhaps if we as a nation took proper care of the POOR as JESUS said we should, aborion would drop as it did under the Clinton administration, when people such as single women could earn a living. It is time for you the sexless ones to stop worrying sbout what goes on in bedrooms and concentrate on the BOARDROOMS where the policy is made that clearly IGNORES the teachings of JESUS. All you mention after immigraion would be problems that Jesus would side with the DNC on. The elephant in your room has NO MERCY except for the RICH.

Both Bruskewitz and vasa have implemented better programs than the Dallas Charter: More protective towards children and far better regarding safeguarding the legitimate rights of the priest. Are you aware that the Dallas Charter applies only to priests & not to bishops? Read it. Abuse allegations against a bishop obviously do not result in his faculties being lifted. Check it out. One California bishop continued to lead his flock even though there were two allegations of abuse.

Please note Marci Hamiltons, Voice of the Desert, Nov 9 2010, 'Roman Catholic Bishop's 'Shell Game with Child Sex Abuse"

See below:

In fact, United States bishops and their lobbyists spend tremendous resources fighting legislation that would require clergy to report abuse. A recent episode in Maryland is eye-opening.
Two Maryland children died at the hands of known, registered sex offenders after family members permitted them to reside or associate with the sex offender. In the case of Irwin Harris, the police, school personnel, and a drug counselor knew that his mother had permitted him to associate with Melvin Jones, the sex offender, but did not report their knowledge to the Department of Social Services (“DSS”), which is charged with protecting children at risk.
Quite sensibly, Maryland soon thereafter considered a bill that would require professionals to report to DSS if they suspected a child was living with or permitted to associate with a registered sex offender. We all know that recidivism among sex offenders is high, and that one key measure to protect children is to reduce their access to offenders. So this seemed like a no-brainer.
That is, until the Maryland Catholic Conference (“MCC”) became involved and decimated it.
Each state’s Catholic Conference is the lobbying arm for the bishops of that state. The MCC argued that the new reporting requirement regarding sex offenders would affect educators and human service workers, and, therefore, priests and other clergy would be implicated. Thus, when clergy were acting as teachers or social service providers, the MCC wanted a religious exemption.
Here is how the Conference explained it to Senator Delores G. Kelley in its letter of February 2, 2009: the law should not impinge on the sacred obligation of priests, clergymen, and ministers of an established religion to maintain strict confidentiality regarding all communications made under narrow circumstances such as the Catholic Church’s sacrament of confession, when bound to do so by canon law or church doctrine.
This is in fact not a benign request, because until that moment, when clergy acted as teachers or as social service providers, they were treated as mandatory reporters without any exceptions. In other words, to this point, a clergy teacher or clergy social service provider had been under the same obligation to report abuse as all other teachers and social service providers.
The MCC wanted to introduce a loophole to permit its priests acting as teachers and social service providers to avoid reporting in the context of children endangered by known sex offenders. The request for exemption, therefore, was nonsensical, because the confessional is not a part of a teacher’s or a social service provider’s job. But it does make sense once one learns that religious groups, including the Roman Catholic Church, routinely argue that a communication from a congregant is “confessional” and, therefore, confidential even when it happens outside the confessional box. The obvious intent was to create an argument to avoid reporting by later arguing that a communication was enough like a confession that it could be kept secret.
For those who are unaware of the actual play of the Catholic bishops on these issues, public education is needed. Despite their empty rhetoric of “zero tolerance,” the Vatican and bishops have worked extremely hard to keep as many secrets as possible, as evidenced by the 1962 document from the Vatican, Crimens Sollicitationes, which threatened excommunication for any one in the Church who told outsiders about a priest having sex with a child, another man, or an animal.
Their demands did not fall on deaf ears. The resulting bill watered down the reporting requirement for all professionals, not just clergy. Instead of making such a report mandatory, it made it discretionary. Now, in Maryland, a professional “may” report to DSS that a child is at risk through proximity to a sex offender. So much for protecting the children.