Court's ruling on church responsibility the correct one

Justice MacDuff has also laid an exquisite legal foundation for dismissing the erroneous argument of the Holy See that the bishop is not "an employee" of the Pope. Now on to the International Court of Justice at The Hague with the prosecution of Pontiff Ratzinger for crimes against humanity.

Justice MacDuff has given the parents and victims of child abuse committed within the statute of limitations strong encouragement to proceed against Rome and bishops. In the case of the latter, many have persisted in the transfer of alleged pederastic priests from diocese to diocese.

Penn State's trustees did for their institution in one evening what Rome and most bishops haven't done in centuries. The entire Catholic Church's prelatical culture is on trial now. It's decades of handling child abuse cases was made to look not only corrupt, but completely self-serving.

Benedict XVI, his bishops, and those propped up over the years since John Paul II's reign need to go.

BY THE WAY WHY HAVENT PSYCHIATRISTS WHO ADVISED BISHOPS TO RECYCLE PEDOPHILE PRIESTS AS CURABLE-WHY HAVENT THESE SHRINKS PAID DUES TO VICTIMS

ONE COMMENTATOR NOTED
A]Did BISHOPS not rather follow, with disastrous results, the best 'scientific' advice they could obtain about how to deal with these men? If the latter, then why has there been no calling to account for this catastrophic advice? The first 'expert' who failed the victims was Sigmund Freud. When he began treating women who manifested hysteric symptoms in Vienna, these women all told him the same story: 'I was raped by my father, or step-father.' Had Sigmund Freud been more scientifically oriented, he might have made the induction: there is a positive correlation between a history of child sexual abuse and the manifestation of hysteric symptoms. But he made the deliberate choice to disbelieve their stories. In canonical Freudian psychology, when a woman says, 'I was raped by my father,' the analyst is supposed to interpret this to mean: 'I fantasized that I had sex with my father.' This is called the Electra Complex, and it's one of the pillars of that system. She wants to be raped, but it never actually happened. So the first offense by Freud against justice for victims of child sexual molestation was this: A tendency to disbelieve the victim's story.
The second point is, unwarranted and unjustified sympathy for the perpetrator over and above the victim, because he is 'sick.' The analogy between sin and sickness is a very old one, in fact it's in the Bible. It is a multi-faceted likeness; sin is really very much like a sickness in many ways. Sin-sickness is progressive; when left 'untreated' it gets worse, until it ultimately destroys its victim. So we read, "Is there no balm in Gilead; is there no physician there? why then is not the health of the daughter of my people recovered?" (Jeremiah 8:22), and "When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." (Mark 2:17).
B]But there is one point at which this otherwise serviceable and flexible analogy breaks down, and that is the one point which accounts for its modern popularity: we don't blame sick people, because 'it's not their fault.' Many categories of sex offenders, including pedophiles, were reclassified as 'sick people' and progressive-minded people thenceforward viewed them with sympathy rather than anger or disgust. This was not the Christian temper of forgiveness: it offered not pardon but exoneration, 'He couldn't help it, he's sick, he needs help.' This was said about rapists and pedophiles by people who felt they were showing how 'enlightened' they were by saying so, and this view of the matter tended to drive sentences down. From the time Freudian psychology took hold in this country in the 1920's, sentences for sex crimes began to trend downwards. Many people even felt it was barbaric and unenlightened to send these people to jail at all, because they are 'sick' and they need to be 'treated.'
C]The third point is, ineffective proposals for cure. 'Quack' cures can cause real harm when their futile pursuit prevents the sufferer from seeking a real cure. People used to say, back in the hey-day of Freudian psychotherapy, that if psychotherapy were a drug the FDA would not let you sell it, because it was never able to demonstrate any clinical efficacy in the trials that were done. People who said they valued 'science' nevertheless continued to believe in Freudianism, though it had been proved ineffective! But the fact that they had never once done so did not discourage the psychotherapists from promising gullible customers that, yes, of course they could cure pedophilia, just as successfully as they cured all other mental disorders.
D]But they never actually cured anyone of anything; Freudian psychotherapy was a 'quack' therapy in the purest sense. For instance they used to tell schizophrenics, people with a very real and very severe mental disorder, 'You had a schizophrenogenic mother, that is why you are a schizophrenic.' They felt it was very important to get people to accept their story as to why they were the way they were; this was part of the 'cure.' So if they persuaded the schizophrenic that his mother had made him crazy, this was a victory, a breakthrough. But it didn't make him any better. Freudianism was not so much overthrown as it was by-passed, when the pharmacists finally began to offer hope to sick people like schizophrenics, by offering therapies that actually worked. The Freudians had mocked the search for drug therapies as a hold-over from the barbaric, backward past of their discipline. People had always looked for drug therapies for mental illness, back from the time of the ancients with their hellebore. That approach turned out to be the most promising, even 'modern' if you will.
E]One of the things the Catholic hierarchy did in the U.S. was to bring pedophile priests to an institute in New Mexico where they received psychotherapy. Now people only refer to that as 'shuffling them around,' because isn't it past being obvious that if you get a pedophile to sit down and talk about his childhood, that isn't going to stop him from molesting children? Since this therapeutic approach yielded no results at all, it was just the same as moving people around. Imagine if the Catholic hierarchy had been told: this is an offense with an extremely high recidivism rate. There is no cure known to the psychiatric profession. Though Roman Catholicism, a hierarchical church, tends to over-value clergy over against laity, I expect they would have acted differently if they had understood these facts, and they are facts. But this is not what they were being told by the men in white coats. They were told: 'We can cure this.' This was pure quackery, and its victims are the children.
F]When Freudian psychotherapy was in vogue, its constituency was not so much people with real psychiatric disorders, for whom it offered nothing, but the 'worried well,' for whom it offered much the same attractions and rewards as a religious cult. In fact it is actually very difficult to distinguish Freudian psychotherapy from a religious cult. Like Scientology, it claims to be 'science' or 'medicine,' but not because its insights were ever derived from any research program. Rather their principles were derived from the poetic and visionary insights of the founder. If you asked a Freudian, 'How do you know that,' the answer was not a study some researcher had conducted at some time, but a page number where the master had said it. Yet the system greatly appealed to some people. Much of Freud's vocabulary came from classical myth. He presented a very dense and complex system of mythology, which took a long time to learn, but after mastering it some people felt it added an extra dimension to their experience of life. It was very 'deep.'
G]However, in spite of the popularity of this system in academia and in the mainstream media, a lot of people did not like it at all. They responded with 'Harrumph.' And indeed you have to wonder why the audience hearing this system expounded did not burst out laughing. There was a big 'gross-out' and 'ick' factor, because everything was referred back to childhood sexuality. To Freudians repression was the original, and perhaps only, sin. Many Christian folk did not like it for that reason. But the Catholic hierarchy did like it, presumably because it was tinselly bright, shiny and new. They bought it, and did what the Freudian psychoanalysts told them to do with their pedophile priests, and because nobody much believes in it any more, they look like they did nothing.
H]There was a smoldering fire, a homosexual counter-culture within the Roman Catholic priesthood, on which the 'modern, progressive' psychoanalysts who were now running the show poured the gasoline of Freudian psychoanalysis, with its tendency to foster narcissism and myth-making in the 'patient,' who no longer thinks of himself as a bad person, but as an immensely interesting one. In recent years the Catholic Church has succeeded in turning the situation around, it would appear, because the rates of child molestation have dwindled down below the 'background' rate of the 1950's.
I]When the 'enlightened,' Freudian attitudes detailed above came into prominence, the pedophile priest clique entered into their Golden Age. To sum up: the 'enlightened' people, the men in white coats, the 'experts,' after Freudianism hit town, tended to disbelieve children's tales of sexual abuse. Freud's whole system rested upon reconfiguring these stories as wished-for fantasies; it is the child's sexuality which is being expressed by telling them, not the abusive pedophile's. Many people,-- police, members of the jury,-- still retained enough common sense to get convictions of pedophiles in the courts, but they were swimming against the 'expert' tide. The Freudian 'experts' were the ones telling people, 'You should not believe these stories.'
J]Just imagine what would happen if some stray theory exploded in popularity, which held as one of its tenets, 'Reports of stolen cars are usually made up.' When you call the police and tell them your car was stolen, they laugh in your face. Now to be sure, reports of car theft are sometimes false, because 'victims' may be committing insurance fraud, or may have forgotten where they parked. But if you got a lot of people to disbelieve reports of car theft, this would be the same thing as decriminalizing auto theft. No one would believe you when you complained of it, so nothing would be done. The pedophiles benefited from this. They also benefited from the sympathetic tears the 'enlightened' people shed on their behalf: 'They're sick, they can't help it,' because even if the small-town police they ran into didn't care what the white-coated 'expert' said, the offender would still benefit from the trend toward lighter sentences that was going on that whole while.
K]So the pedophile priests went to town. Maybe they even recruited others into their group, because the times were very favorable for them. The times ceased to be favorable when the victims' voices were finally heard. Even in the godless world the 'sexual revolution' was beaten back at two fronts, by the victims of child sexual abuse who explained that it meant, not liberation, but a stolen childhood, and by the feminists who whacked everyone on the head who expressed any sort of sympathy for a rapist. I don't know how many of the accused priests bought into the 'sexual revolution,'— David 'Mo' Berg's Children of God cult caught that wave, with predictable harm to children,— but the preceding course in Freudian psychology had created the perfect storm. Just as auto theft rates would spike if you convinced people not to believe owners filing complaints, so the rates of this offense spiked when credence and sympathy went over to the perpetrator rather than the victim. Fortunately the pendulum has swung back the other way. The best defense the Roman Catholic Church could have mounted was, not to swing with the world's pendulum, but to cling to the solid rock, and to make a stand on God's word, which certainly never taught Freudianism. The Catholics, who believe in moral accountability, have apologized; the Freudians, who do not, have not. There is plenty of blame to go around for this tragedy, and it is difficult to fathom why certain participants are Teflon-coated.

Dear Franciscan Priest, you speak truth and the truth will set the Church free, and hopefully other institutions that put fear of scandal and money ahead of what is right. I dispute the fact that the Church's sole function is salvation of souls, but if they believe this is true then why would they not go to any extreme to protect a child, who Jesus warned very sternly that abuse of a child would have a disastrous results for the one committing the abuse. For the sake of their own soul's salvation to let this abuse be covered up and danced around with canonical mumbo jumbo is walking on very thin ice. Not to mention the life long effects on those abused, many of whom leave the church, along with many lay people who leave because they no longer see the church as representing Christ.
The Church needs a total house cleaning and restructuring from top to bottom. Too much power, prestige, and money eventually corrupts any institution.
The Holy Spirit goes where hearts are humble. His adversary is always present where there is Pride.

Excellent and simply put, dear Franciscan presbyter from a lay member of the Body of Christ, Presence of the Risen Christ living the Gospel in the world through all the needed gifts given by the Holy Spirit to the community. I have believed the same way for 30 years at least. The current structuring of the administration of those gifts, including the priesthood more closely resembles the structure of absolute monarchies of the past, with its rank and privileges than it does that of the Early Church we read about in the Acts of the Apostles. Where is the great renewal and "return to our roots" for which the late Blessed Pope John XXIII and his brother bishops of the Second Vatican Council called, inspired by the Holy Spirit? We seem to have forgotten (and also feared) the powerful invocation of that Blessed Pope as he called the Council, that God would "pour forth upon Your Church, O Lord, a new outpouring of the Holy Spirit equal to that of the first Pentecost." Some understood and opened their hearts and minds in Faith and went to work realizing the Vision; others closed their minds, clung to past power and comfortable, secure ways, and turned away from the Vision all these years. One gets the feeling that a lot of people "left the room" at that point, fearful of what was about to happen to "their" Church if that prayer of a Pope in our time were truly answered. And I believe it was. Only the genius of that Spirit and the brilliance of that Light seems to have blinded many, or they have turned away in fear and human weakness from the Vision that the Church was given. This is sad, for the Church that we are called to be again is just the Church that this world needs, and for which it is crying out in our time. I hold fast to the Faith in all those documents, and in that prayer, that Christ will accomplish all. No one will overcome that Light. Those naysayers who would return to the dark past and their monarchical chairs, and would rebuild those medieval hiding places to escape their missionary responsibility to a hurting and darkened world will never be powerful enough to overcome the Spirit that has guarded and birthed the Church, the Body of Christ in each generation for 2,000 years. May the Vatican II Church envisioned by those faithful bishops and that holy Pope John XXIII rise up with renewed life. The sooner the better.

Amen.

Canada is a member of the British Commonwealth and has the Brish Monarch as its head of state. Our legal system is very similar to Britain's (though in this, our French speaking province, Quebec, has some important differences from the rest of the country). This, along with a significantly more socialized economy and public life, is a big difference between us the the US. We have NO statute of limitations on cases of child abuse, NONE. I suspect it is the same in our "mother country".

A first-year law student in most ABA-approved law schools should be able to recognize the dramatic elements of mediaeval contract form in the English system, the source of American common law. If that student has also read a bit of Roman law -- a source of canon law -- that student might recognize a similar practice in early Roman law, such as matrimonium per aes et librum.

The point is of course that there IS a demonstrable contract between priest and bishop, sealed with the new priest's promise of obedience (fealty) to the lord of the realm. While the ordination ceremony itself bears hallmarks of ancient origin, the considerable paperwork involved in admission to a seminary today reveals the makings of a thoroughly modern contract of adhesion, sometimes known in legal circles as a "take it or shove it" contract.

What's informal is the "privilege" that overrides the nasty consequences of, say, the bishop-priest/pedophile relationship, even today in many, many, too many jurisdictions all over the world and in the USA too. After all, bishops hire the best lawyers money can buy, regardless of the Truth!

A litmus test for independent contractor status is whether or not the individual is required to provide their own personal proof of insurance. Since priests are covered under diocesan insurance policies - property, liability, health, they are employees not independent contractors.

Yes, diocesan priests make a promise of obedience to their bishop, but as a general matter, a priest out working in a parish or chaplaincy is free to set his own schedule, draft his own homilies, decide when to say Mass or hear confessions, when to visit the sick, etc. The bishop doesn't dictate that kind of day-to-day stuff, which is generally what differentiates an independent contractor from an employee. That a priest can be reassigned or suspended by his bishop is not inconsistent with independent contractor status.
==============================================================================
Read canon law. The bishop most definitely can and often does dictate "the day-to-day stuff" and what the sermon topic and content will be. The bishop is the preacher extraordinaire in ever diocese. Priests aren't just "contractors", there joined at the hip of their bishop.

Scotus,

You are correct in your statements about how a priest sets his own schedule...but only to a point. If a priest were to reduce mass schedules, be gone too much from his office, recite homilies that were not "approved" by the bishop etc, the bishop would in fact become more involved and "make the appropriate changes" in the priest's schedule.in other words, he would step in and make the day-to-day decisions for the priest. I have seen this in several parishes in the past, so while there is freedom to a limited degree, it is only to a limited degree. And, if the bishop can step in and make those changes, he in fact is the an "employer" to the priest.

Paterno is accountable to an independent board of trustees, a bishop is accountable only to the pope, who is more committed to shielding fellow members of the clerical club than he is to serving the people at large.
=========================================================================
Thank you Kaiser for making a strong case for local and national synods of clergy and laity to whom bishops and, ultimately, popes should be subject. The often repeated nonsense spewed forth by the Opus Dei and crypto Ultramontanist and Jansenist forces claiming the Church is not a democracy are not only fallacious from an historical perspective, they border on the laughable.

We see all too clearly now the need for accountability and checks upon the actions of bishops and popes within a drastically new, modern and forward -looking code of canon law established by each national hierarchy.

And the problem with that is what exactly?

That's exactly what should happen. Then this Pope should step aside, and allow the Church to choose someone more in the mold of John XXIII.

Excuse me, sir. But you have missed something.

I know perfectly well that Canada is not under Britsh rule, that's why I used "rule". I tried just not burden my comment with explanations not needed in North America. I would like to see so much knowledge about my own country, Portugal, that is described by the most part of North Americans as a part of Spain, even if it is an independent country since the beginning of the XII century. In fact, is the oldest nation in all Europe with fixed borders. I would be grateful if you'd learn to read with a little more of atention and, by the way, learn a little more about other countries and realities. North America is not the World. That's why I meade the questions: I studied law, but I'm not familiar with the anglo-saxonic system or international law. By the way, in my country law is a legacy of Rome.

Maybe the best way to "Occupy Church" in the manner of "Occupy Wallstreet" is to fill the churches with Adoration, rosaries, novenas, lay-led Communion services and other prayerful activities. It might be time to take back the church by filling the pews with prayerful, humble people who can set an example for those clerics who have forgotten what it means to be a Christian, "poor in spirit". By supporting and being supported by the majority of "wonderful, faith filled clergy" who are being overlooked, we can begin to heal and unite a church that has been polarized and divided by scandalous behavior of the heirarchy. Let us be lead by the one who is truth itself, Jesus Christ, with the Father, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God for ever and ever. AMEN. As the Benedictines say, "Ora et labora", a good moto for lay people to follow. Stop by your parish on the way home from work and say a prayer, you might run into some very good, holy people who feel like you do.

Recently at an Irish Central Article entitled 'Bill Donohue: Catholic Church the real victim' / April 12, 2011 / http://www.irishcentral.com/story/ent/manhattan_diary/bill-donohue-catho...
in the course of the spirited discussion that flowed from this article, I introduced various excerpts from selected commentaries by Thomas Patrick Doyle to make my points, which I commended to the readers of the thread. This engendered a number of very hostile responses from a man identified with the moniker 'edmicca', of which I share the most notable.

He wrote: “For what it's worth, Fr. Doyle, canon lawyer that he is, has been banned in the Archdiocese of St. Louis from offering legal representation. Not to mention that he himself, canon lawyer that he is, is accused of the canonical crimes of abuse of ecclesiastical functions, and of the culpably negligent and illegitimate placing of an act of ecclesiastical function with harm to another.”

You seem very well-informed gilhow . . by any chance would you or anyone for that matter contributing to this discussion be able to verify if this is so?

*******

My response to 'edmicca' at the time follows:

Perhaps edmicca might be persuaded to elaborate on the charges brought against P.Doyle in layman's language! I wonder if those charges have anything to do with the expert witness testimony Mr. Doyle has given in a court of law . . testimony he felt obliged to give, both in his conscience and in the sight of God, the Judge over all! (Ps. 96:13)
God's law trumps canon law! Men with a conscience are a dying breed and whistleblowers are generally ostracized, marginalized and undermined by those who have the most to lose if they tell all! Not surprised to learn that the Vatican has put Doyle in the dock .