Plotting Nicea III Could Be Pope Francis's Masterstroke

[TimelessTheist]

Several dioceses have been forced to make some personnel files public, eg, Boston, Chicago, Fort Worth, Los Angeles, Louisville, Philadelphia, San Diego, and some others, but I don't have a complete list.

Well, I'll have to look into that. Though, this case was pretty much what I was talking about when I claimed to know what you meant. Sending accused priests and victims to get psychological treatment instead of prison, in the past, wasn't just something the Church did, it was something the secular justice system did, as well, with cases such as these. Also, I'm curious about the context. For instance, the priests transferred, were they transferred before their trials, after their trials, or were they just 'not' prosecuted altogether? Again with the priests that denied allegations. Was this before the trial, after the trial? Were they found guilty or innocent? Or where they just 'not' prosecuted by anyone? I need to look into this.

[robrecht]

Well, I'll have to look into that. Though, this case was pretty much what I was talking about when I claimed to know what you meant. Sending accused priests and victims to get psychological treatment instead of prison, in the past, wasn't just something the Church did, it was something the secular justice system did, as well, with cases such as these. Also, I'm curious about the context. For instance, the priests transferred, were they transferred before their trials, after their trials, or were they just 'not' prosecuted altogether? Again with the priests that denied allegations. Was this before the trial, after the trial? Were they found guilty or innocent? Or where they just 'not' prosecuted by anyone? I need to look into this.

Actually, in the case I described, which is about the tamest one I could find, compared some others reported in the presss and documented, it was only the victim that was required to undergo a psychological evaluation, supposedly to evaluate if she was telling the truth, but the psychologists' evaluation that the victim seemed to be a truthful person of integrity was ignored and, meanwhile, the accused priest was merely taken at his word when he denied the abuse and was moved to a high school where he worked as a counselor. There was no reporting to the police on the part of the diocease, no trial, no legal settlement, no agreement to provide any support services to the victim as requested. Their final rationale was twofold, one, that that the abuse could not be proven and their lawyers had advised them to offer any support might be construed as an admission of guilt and the victim had told others of the abuse and therefore was not, as expected, keeping quiet about what had happened. This was in the 90s. Finally, in 2002 the case became public and the bishop of the diocease where the priest had transferred complained to the original diocease that no one had informed his diocease of the allegations. They had actually told the previous bishop of the new diocease but no one had taken it seriously enough to keep the records of the allegation or the results of the church's investigation of the matter, which amounted to nothing more than taking the priest's word for it and requiring the vicitm to undergo psychological evaluation, which they ignored.

[robrecht]

Well, this thread has gotten thoroughly off-track.

At least it is dealing with an issue that could bring improvement to the Roman Catholic Church policy of mandatory priestly celibacy. Rome could learn from the East in this regard. It's no panacea, but I think it could bring improvement.

[TimelessTheist]

Actually, in the case I described, which is about the tamest one I could find, compared some others reported in the presss and documented, it was only the victim that was required to undergo a psychological evaluation, supposedly to evaluate if she was telling the truth, but the psychologists' evaluation that the victim seemed to be a truthful person of integrity was ignored and, meanwhile, the accused priest was merely taken at his word when he denied the abuse and was moved to a high school where he worked as a counselor. There was no reporting to the police on the part of the diocease, no trial, no legal settlement, no agreement to provide any support services to the victim as requested. Their final rationale was twofold, one, that that the abuse could not be proven and their lawyers had advised them to offer any support might be construed as an admission of guilt and the victim had told others of the abuse and therefore was not, as expected, keeping quiet about what had happened. This was in the 90s. Finally, in 2002 the case became public and the bishop of the diocease where the priest had transferred complained to the original diocease that no one had informed his diocease of the allegations. They had actually told the previous bishop of the new diocease but no one had taken it seriously enough to keep the records of the allegation or the results of the church's investigation of the matter, which amounted to nothing more than taking the priest's word for it and requiring the vicitm to undergo psychological evaluation, which they ignored.

Oh, well, that's fine. I thought you were talking about priests that had been proven to be abusers, and then were either protected, or the evidence misconstrued, by the Church. The case you named was simply about a person who made an accusation, 'chose' to never press charges, and thus, the accusations were never proven to be true in the first place. Untrue allegations towards priests, aimed at getting money from the Church, are nothing new, and surprisingly prevalent, so unless the accusations were actually proven 'true', I don't see a problem here.

Not telling the police about an unfounded accusation is not a crime. Especially considering, by the sound of it, this same accusation was on the table for quite a while, and by the sound of it, the victim didn't ever actually chose to press criminal charges against the accused priest.

[TimelessTheist]

At least it is dealing with an issue that could bring improvement to the Roman Catholic Church policy of mandatory priestly celibacy. Rome could learn from the East in this regard. It's no panacea, but I think it could bring improvement.

I provided you with solid evidence that this does not affect abuse rates, sorry.

[robrecht]

I provided you with solid evidence that this does not affect abuse rates, sorry.

Actually you did not provide the evidence (link did not work) but only alluded to the study and did not answer one of my key questions about it (re homosexuality). From what you did describe, that the study used convictions, begs the question of whether priest abusers have indeed been brought to trial as consistently as other populations. With respect to this question, the timeframe of the study is also important. We do know that the church has settled many caess out of court with confidentiality agreements with financial resources that greatly exceed what might be expected in the general population. I am not saying that your study is wrong, but we cannot even evaluate it if we do not know the methodology and data.

[robrecht]

Oh, well, that's fine. I thought you were talking about priests that had been proven to be abusers, and then were either protected, or the evidence misconstrued, by the Church. The case you named was simply about a person who made an accusation, 'chose' to never press charges, and thus, the accusations were never proven to be true in the first place. Untrue allegations towards priests, aimed at getting money from the Church, are nothing new, and surprisingly prevalent, so unless the accusations were actually proven 'true', I don't see a problem here.

Not telling the police about an unfounded accusation is not a crime. Especially considering, by the sound of it, this same accusation was on the table for quite a while, and by the sound of it, the victim didn't ever actually chose to press criminal charges against the accused priest.

There were plenty of cases of known abusers (confessed, repented, or treated) being reassigned; you should have no trouble finding these. The particular case I described was not turned over to the civil authorities by the church, as it should have been, but the victim did go to the police. The police were unable to proceed because the abuse had taken place when she was a child and the statue of limitations had expired by the time she had enough courage to start addressing the issue directly. The police did take the allegation seriously enough to notify the diocease of the allegations. The diocease merely took the priests word for it and transfered him and allowed him to move to another diocease, where he continued to have direct responsibility for children and the new diocease did not seem to take the allegations seriously until it was brought to their attention by the media. Prior to that, the only one whose truthfulness and psychological stability were questioned was the victim and not the priest. Unfortunately, diocease allowed their conflict of interst to impair their impartiality in investigating allegations, and eventually this case was settled in a civil lawsuit, where the jury seems to have disagreed with the diocease' practice of giving the priest the benefit of the doubt. Becuase of this conflict of interest, it is indeed now a crime not to report allegations of abuse of children to the civil authorities, regardless of whether the church thinks the allegations have been proven.

[TimelessTheist]

There were plenty of cases of known abusers (confessed, repented, or treated) being reassigned; you should have no trouble finding these. The particular case I described was not turned over to the civil authorities by the church, as it should have been, but the victim did go to the police. The police were unable to proceed because the abuse had taken place when she was a child and the statue of limitations had expired by the time she had enough courage to start addressing the issue directly. The police did take the allegation seriously enough to notify the diocease of the allegations. The diocease merely took the priests word for it and transfered him and allowed him to move to another diocease, where he continued to have direct responsibility for children and the new diocease did not seem to take the allegations seriously until it was brought to their attention by the media. Prior to that, the only one whose truthfulness and psychological stability were questioned was the victim and not the priest. Unfortunately, diocease allowed their conflict of interst to impair their impartiality in investigating allegations, and eventually this case was settled in a civil lawsuit, where the jury seems to have disagreed with the diocease' practice of giving the priest the benefit of the doubt. Becuase of this conflict of interest, it is indeed now a crime not to report allegations of abuse of children to the civil authorities, regardless of whether the church thinks the allegations have been proven.

There were plenty of cases of known abusers (confessed, repented, or treated) being reassigned

I know. I even named one in archdiocese of Chicago. However, I had no problem with that, as he served his sentence, and strict restrictions were put on him to make sure he had no unsupervised contact with children. This case isn't even comparable, as the priest in question wasn't even convicted.

The diocease merely took the priests word for it and transfered him and allowed him to move to another diocease, where he continued to have direct responsibility for children and the new diocease did not seem to take the allegations seriously until it was brought to their attention by the media.

You seem to be arguing from the viewpoint that the priest is guilty to start with. If some random guy came up to me, and claimed my best friend raped him as a child, with no other witnesses, evidence, and not to mention, claimed to have waited (what I assume to be) literal decades before relaying this information (Nothing suspicious about that) , I would take them about as seriously as a crack addict, and rightfully so. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty, exactly?

Becuase of this conflict of interest, it is indeed now a crime not to report allegations of abuse of children to the civil authorities, regardless of whether the church thinks the allegations have been proven.

I'm not aware of this being a law anywhere. I know that it's illegal not to report 'evidence' of a case, or, if you witnessed it yourself, and therefore, know about it. I don't know of any law that demands you call the police because of 'allegations' being tossed towards someone you know.

[JonathanL]

You seem to be arguing from the viewpoint that the priest is guilty to start with. If some random guy came up to me, and claimed my best friend raped him as a child, with no other witnesses, evidence, and not to mention, claimed to have waited (what I assume to be) literal decades before relaying this information (Nothing suspicious about that) , I would take them about as seriously as a crack addict, and rightfully so. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty, exactly?

I agree with you that people should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, but are you seriously implying that you find it inexplicable why someone would be hesitant to come forward with information that they've been sexually abused as a kid? And that simply because they never had the courage to come forward with that information until "decades later" they deserve to be taken "about as seriously as a crack addict?" Really?

[TimelessTheist]

I agree with you that people should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, but are you seriously implying that you find it inexplicable why someone would be hesitant to come forward with information that they've been sexually abused as a kid? And that simply because they never had the courage to come forward with that information until "decades later" they deserve to be taken "about as seriously as a crack addict?" Really?

Well first off, that was hyperbole, and secondly, that wasn't the only reason, and probably the least important one. Yes, I agree that simply not having the courage to come out with it until you're an adult would be an acceptable explanation, however, there are 'certain' accusers, in the past, that have tried to use other explanations that follow along this line, such as the completely discredited, only exists in movies, phenomenon of "repressed memory".

[robrecht]

I know. I even named one in archdiocese of Chicago. However, I had no problem with that, as he served his sentence, and strict restrictions were put on him to make sure he had no unsupervised contact with children. This case isn't even comparable, as the priest in question wasn't even convicted.

Some had no restrictions put on them even after multiple allegations had been made. Notice I said "or". And, yes, I realize the case I described is much less dramatic, as I believe I already said when I first described it.

You seem to be arguing from the viewpoint that the priest is guilty to start with.

No, that is false. I do not presume guilt.

If some random guy came up to me, and claimed my best friend raped him as a child, with no other witnesses, evidence, and not to mention, claimed to have waited (what I assume to be) literal decades before relaying this information (Nothing suspicious about that) , I would take them about as seriously as a crack addict, and rightfully so. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty, exactly?

If your friend was responsibe for the care of children, and if you had any kind of position of responsibility, I believe you would be required to report the allegation so that it could be investigated by the proper authorities. If it is determined that there is enough evidence to go to trial, the accused is, of course, innocent until proven guilty. As this person's friend, you are not the proper person to do such an investigation. It is not necessarily suspicious for children who have been abused to come forward much later, if they come forward at all. It can be severely traumatic and create dissociative states, a great deal of shame and misplaced guilt, and it can be deeply repressed.

I'm not aware of this being a law anywhere. I know that it's illegal not to report 'evidence' of a case, or, if you witnessed it yourself, and therefore, know about it. I don't know of any law that demands you call the police because of 'allegations' being tossed towards someone you know.

I could be wrong. I am not a lawyer and have not studied this issue, but I believe it is the law in many states, if not all. Psychologists, teachers, social workers, ministers, and other people with responsibility for children are sometimes called 'mandatory reporters'. Not everyone is a mandatory reporter, but a variety of people with responsibility for the care of children are, I think, required to report their own suspicions and allegations.

[One Bad Pig]

I could be wrong. I am not a lawyer and have not studied this issue, but I believe it is the law in many states, if not all. Psychologists, teachers, social workers, ministers, and other people with responsibility for children are sometimes called 'mandatory reporters'. Not everyone is a mandatory reporter, but a variety of people with responsibility for the care of children are, I think, required to report their own suspicions and allegations.

I think the seal of the confessional is involiate. IMO, however, whenever someone confesses a criminal act, a prerequisite for absolution should be turning oneself in to the authorities.

[robrecht]

I think the seal of the confessional is involiate. IMO, however, whenever someone confesses a criminal act, a prerequisite for absolution should be turning oneself in to the authorities.

Yes, indeed. I did not mean to imply otherwise. I have also heard of cases when this was used implicitly or explicitly to justify lack of compliance with reporting standards when, in fact, knowledge of abuse was not obtained merely under seal of the confessional. Ironically, this too can be a violation of the sanctity of confession, as if a priest could ever disclose that particular knowledge had been thereby obtained.

[robrecht]

Well, this thread has gotten thoroughly off-track.

Despite the importance of the issue of celibacy, I agree that it is not one which fundamentally divides East and West, and I hope that this thread has not been hopelessly derailed such that there might not be other discussion of the proposed synod and issues that do divide East and West. For example, on the issue of the (what I heretically [from Rome's perspective] consider optional) doctrine and theology of the Immaculate Conception, which has always been one of my favorite dogmas, by the way, are you familiar with the book by Christiaan Kappes, The Immaculate Conception: Why Thomas Aquinas Denied, While John Duns Scotus, Gregory Palamas, and Mark Eugenicus Professed the Absolute Immaculate Existence of Mary (Academy of the Immaculate Press, 2014), xx+252pp? The author is interviewed here on what he considers to be the Immaculate Conception's Roots in Byzantine Theology:

http://easternchristianbooks.blogspo...-roots-in.html

I have not read the book or even the interview yet, but I thought it might be an interesting topic to explore.

[One Bad Pig]

Despite the importance of the issue of celibacy, I agree that it is not one which fundamentally divides East and West, and I hope that this thread has not been hopelessly derailed such that there might not be other discussion of the proposed synod and issues that do divide East and West. For example, on the issue of the (what I heretically [from Rome's perspective] consider optional) doctrine and theology of the Immaculate Conception, which has always been one of my favorite dogmas, by the way, are you familiar with the book by Christiaan Kappes, The Immaculate Conception: Why Thomas Aquinas Denied, While John Duns Scotus, Gregory Palamas, and Mark Eugenicus Professed the Absolute Immaculate Existence of Mary (Academy of the Immaculate Press, 2014), xx+252pp? The author is interviewed here on what he considers to be the Immaculate Conception's Roots in Byzantine Theology:

http://easternchristianbooks.blogspo...-roots-in.html

I have not read the book or even the interview yet, but I thought it might be an interesting topic to explore.

Interesting. I may have to track that down. I have not yet come across the idea of 'pre-purification' but there is much I have not yet read. I'll have to keep an eye out for that. (In my more-or-less chronological reading of the Church Fathers, I'm still working on Gregory of Nyssa.)