Has anyone been following the cases in the news alleging pedophile crimes against Catholic Priests in New England?
It seems to me we may be able to get some more attention to the policies of the Watchtower on this issue and help influence a review of the laws pertaining to ecclesiastical priviledge and criminal offenses. This issue is not limited to Catholic Priests in New England. What can we do encourage the media to cast a glance over at the WTS and similar groups who also have policies that shield pedophiles from the law?
I found this discussion on Delphi. For the benefit of those who can't log on to Delphi for some reason I will paste my conversation with a few of the participants there so far. But please check out the whole link since this clip is only my side of the issue and there are many links to the media stories as posted by the forum participants.
Link - http://forums.delphiforums.com/perlaw/messages/?msg=46273.1
Here's the paste of my replies:
XXXXX said:
"While there was a grain of truth to the basic ideas you were conveying, I have to say that I have a bit of an advantage in this subject matter."
Please elaborate. What is this advantage you speak of?
"People dont seem to realize that child abusers are everywhere, they always have been"
On what do you base this statement? Who are "people" who don't realize. I realize it. Why should I assume that other people do not?
"I think that children today feel safer, in perspective, at school, and around most adults, which is why more cases get reported. Teachers in schools have gone through more extensive training as its seemed necessary. Schools have school psychologists now."
Do all children feel safer? What statistic shall we use to point out to the victims that we now live in a safer world and that they should not misinterpret the acts of the adult as predatory? I want to know who decides that an allegation of misconduct is a fabrication? Is it the teachers who have been trained? The psychologists? Or should there be an investigation by police agencies? Is it because the child felt safe with the adult that they let their guard down and fell victim to a predator? Or is it a case of an unsuspecting adult who fell victim to a clever ruse orchestrated by a five year old? Who decides these things? Are you going to rely on the statistics to protect your child? Do you want your child to be the one who comes to you in tears or anger or freight because they fell victim to a "trained" teacher? As distasteful as it is to give so much attention to pedophilia it is more important to investigate fairly every allegation of abuse and determine it's validity. Assuming the case will follow the statistical line is dangerous and irresponsible. The child must be protected and the adult must be dealt with fairly.
"As far as how does the religious angle fit in, well, a few things. First, I believe that a big part of it has to do with the fact that Catholicism, in general, is a sexually repressed religion."
Again, I ask, on what do you base this statement? Are you inferring that priest celibacy rules equate to a sexually depressed religion? Are you saying that celibate priests are sexually depressed? Are you saying that sexually depressed people are more likely to be sexual predators and child molesters? On what study have you based your conclusions? It is easy to make that connection and many people will probably agree with your statement. But how do we explain the existance of similar cases of pedophilia among religious organizations that do not require a celibate priesthood? I think the problem is more complex than sexual repression or celibacy and that it may not, in fact, be a "big part" of the issue.
"Child abuse is NOT about sex in most cases, probably 99%. Its about control. The abuser needs to feel control, maybe they feel their own life is out of control. Or maybe they have a dominant side, and obviously if their a priest than that need wouldnt get met either."
You are making declaratory statements as if you speak with authority. Please point me to the studies and data that support these statements. I have the idea that pedophilia is precisely about sex in most of the cases. Are you saying that adults are being accused of child abuse primarily because they are excercising their power over the child? Are most of these cases due to a misundertanding on the part of the child? Have they mistaken a slap or a spanking for "abuse"? Or is there something else at play here? Are these children grossly incompetent in deciding what is appropriate and inappropriate contact with their bodies? Can you explain to me why the abuse should not be considered of a sexual nature when the adult fondles the childs private parts or buttocks or breasts?
Is it about power? Probably. Control, dominance, repression? Maybe. Is it sexual? I think you know the answer.
"Child abuse doesnt really equal sex either. Alot of times its just inappropriiate contact."
Well, we certainly do not want to ignore general child abuse, in any form. But the subject at hand is pedophilia and child molestation. You're right, child abuse does not "equal" sex. But you are diluting and clouding the real issue in this topic.
"just to ram my point home about how you never know who's a child abuser (or accused), one of the New Hampshire priests is the priest that married my best friend. He also baptized her son and daughter. He has been her priest since SHE was a kid. Her parents have known him since she was like 1 or 2 years old.
She had NO idea, never suspected a thing."
It's true, I suppose, that you never know who's a child abuser. I assume you are grouping this New Hampshire priest in with child abusers. Does that make you suspect every priest? or every New Hampshire priest? Or, should you suspect everybody?
It really is not about suspicion. The issue is about whether we have adequate legal means of dealing with pedophiles and other sexual predators in our society? I suggeted that there was a direct correlation between the believers belief that these men and women are appointed by God and their reluctance to speak up in their own defense. You proceeded to throw several strawman arguments into the discussion that have no bearing on my supposition.
I doubt that we will ever be able to perfectly litigate against and punish sexual predators. I also doubt we will ever be able to eliminate false accusations and perfectly protect innocent people. But I beleive there is much we can do to change the laws that allow "ecclesiastical priviledge" to be used to shield pedophiles from criminal prosecution. The media may be guilty of sensationalizing the issues but it does contribute to positive discussion of the issues that we all face. Clear heads and reasonable discussion may lead to better laws that help protect the children from what is currently a real and terrible threat. No adults are so revered as are the parents and the priests (of whatever religion). Children are taught to trust them and obey them. Should they not be held accountable to a higher standard of justice and be willing to be probed and investigated in the interests of the children?
Sean
-----
XXX said:
"Perhaps priests have more access to boys than girls (until recently it was only boys who could be "altar boys" -- and there are still many churches where girls are not permitted to do that). And of course boys may still aspire to be priests, and so have contact with priests to discuss that.
Unfortunately there is a huge number of priests being discovered in this situation, now that the press is looking for them. But I've heard of lots of other cases of children being assaulted by people in charge of them -- teachers, scout leaders, camp instructors come to mind. Just not so many in so visible a situation...."
There is no valid reason to dispute that pedophiles have been exposed as being part of various groups and often in some position of authority. Teachers, scout leaders, camp counselors, baby sitters, doctors, etc. As already noted they can be anywhere and in any organization or distinctly apart from any organization. But is it because priests have more opportunity? Do not teachers have at least as much opportunity? Camp counslors? There is ample opportunity in many groups.
I propose that priests are unique among all other groups (with the possible exception of parents) because they are granted by the faithful believers a position with God. A priest has a seat of high esteem beyond a teacher, or camp counselor or baby sitter. They are a direct representative of the believer's God. The believer assigns to them a holiness and purety that is free from suspicion of ill-repute. If not the individual priest, at the least the "priesthood" itself is held as above suspicion becasue it is the very arm of God. This is why so many people say something like: "I never suspected a thing. He/she was a good friend and a confidant. I never believed he/she could be capable of such a thing."
It is very upsetting to a believer to even think of accusing a priest or his/her church with a heinous crime. If there is inappropriate behavior by a priest or elder it is chalked up to "human imperfection" and individualized as the sole responsibility of the lone priest or elder. The mother organization is never supsected as a possible haven for these sexual predators. It goes against their beloved belief that their organization is clean and a messenger for God. If the mother organization chooses to cover up the incidents of pedophilia among her ranks, whether clergy or the rank and file, the believers will give them the benefit of the doubt and fail to investigate the anomolous behavior of their fellow believer and especially their priest. This condition in the controlling type churches in our society allows the predator to often escape detection and, if caught, to avoid prosecution. The law of our land allows the churches to decide among themselves how these predators will be dealt with. I believe it is time to change our laws so that the victims have a better chance of getting restitution and so that the offender has a better chance of getting prosecuted.
Sean
-----
XXXXX said:
"It has not been established that this is, in fact, a huge problem or that there was a coverup.
What we do have is a series of accusations involving 10 percent of the priests in the Boston Archdiocese. Are they valid accusations? We don't know.
Was there a cover-up? The Archdiocese is not a mandatory reporting agency. So, by definition, they cannot "cover-up" unless they used their influence to bury or obstruct criminal investigations--something that has never been alleged.
Why are they not a mandatory reporting agency? Often the accusations and investigations involve testimony protected under confessional secrecy. Nor are complaints filed with the Archdiocese with the expectation they will be reported to law enforcement. If people wished to file a criminal complaint, they would be free to call the cops."
How much of a problem does it need to be to be considered "huge"? I suspect that if your children were involved it would be huge enough for you.
"By definition". I'm sorry, but I fail to see what you are defining. Are you saying that a cover up is not a cover up if the law says they can cover up the evidence legally? If that is the case than I strongly suggest that our laws are inadequate to deal with this problem of sexual predators among the religious organizations. Will you be happy to grant "confessional secrecy" to the alleged perpatrator when your child has become involved in an accusatory case against said perpatrator? How far can ecclesiastical priviledge go in protecting an alleged pedophile? Should the law allow for disclosure of incriminating evidence when a confession is made to a priest? Should the priest be allowed to protect the confessor on the grounds of secrecy when there is evidence to suggest that such a confession will be incriminating?
Your statement that victims are "free to call the cops" is the same argument used by the mother organizations in cases involving the conduct of one of their appointed priests. In reality, these people are not really "free" to speak of the incident to anyone, especially the cops. The freedom of these people is restricted by their belief that the priests and the mother organization are their mediator in their personal relationship with God. They cannot separate their priest and their priesthood from their God. If the priest or the mother organization instructs the victim and their family to keep it inside the group they will comply. If the priest threatens the victim with sanctions if they speak to anyone about the incident they will keep quiet, so as to not lose their connection to God. The position of authority that the priest has in the mind of the victim is what prohibits their freedom of complaint. Your understanding of the freedom these victims have is sorely lacking.
"Now, what DO we have?
First, we have a curious crop of complaints involving alleged molestations over two decades in the past--each seeking major financial compensation and punitive damages for largely unspecified harm.
Second, we have a media anxious to report scandal and sensation, especially if it involves religion.
Third, we have various constituencies (anti-Catholic harpies, homosexual advocates, feminists, etc...) who eagerly jump onto any chance to paint the Catholic Church--or Christianity in general--with a black brush.
What we DON'T have is anyone considering why all these cases are so similar, or why the profile of the attack so closely parallels the native schools lawsuits in Canada--lawsuits that now promise to bankrupt the Anglican Church of Canada.
If we wish to talk about conspiracy, why not start with the question of whether the lawsuits themselves are a conspiracy against Christian churches."
Lets not let talk of conspiracy distract us from the real issue. You can site many example of sensationalism and uncorraborated charges. These do not automatically make all accusations of pedophilia unworthy of our investigation. Each case must be decided on it's own merits. No reasonable person will try to paint Catholics or Christians with a "black brush" because simply because the media is focusing their attention on those cases now before the Catholic Church in New England. You wish to distract onlookers from the real issues. You would rather the cause of these incidents be chalked up to homosexuality? to feminism? anti-christianity? Please, address the real issues and the real situations. The facts indicate that the people involved in the cases prominently addressed right now in the media are Catholic. Is there room for questioning the Catholic religion and similar controlling religions as to their policies for handling pedophiles found to be in their midst? Other reports may focus on Jehovah's Witnesses who are involved in cases of pedophilia. Is there room for questioning the policies that allows a pedophile in that group to remain an elder and victimize several children over years of appointed service simply because no victim could provide a second eye-witness to the same event? Is such examination of the policies of these religions the same as harping on their religion or attacking their right to their own set of beliefs?
Sean
-----
XXXXX said:
“You're being defensive. Crimes against children should always be reported”
Yes, I am being defensive. Since when should we not be defensive when we are under the authority of people who protect the guilty and blame the innocent. I truly hope you never have to face the situation many faithful and trusting religious people find themselves facing with this issue of pedophilia. Your comment that "crimes against children should always be reported" is correct but you have ignored the issue I have raised about the authority of the priest or elder and his/her ability to protect himself/herself from accusation. To state that a crime should be reported is to state the obvious. To acknowledge that many of these crimes are not reported and to attempt to find out why is quite another matter.
If you have some constructive criticism for me than let me hear it. It will be much more meaningful to onlookers who are interested in this issue than picking a fight.
Sean
-----
XXXXX said:
">>>To state that a crime should be reported is to state the obvious<<<
And that then raises the issue of why they were not reported.
>>>To acknowledge that many of these crimes are not reported and to attempt to find out why is quite another matter<<<
It's been reported that the Church's policy was to transfer the offending priest and to get him counseling. The Catholic Church's policy apparently did not include reporting the alledged crime to the police.
>>>If you have some constructive criticism for me than let me hear it<<<
An observation is not the same as criticism.
>>> It will be much more meaningful to onlookers who are interested in this issue than picking a fight<<<
Again, I was not trying to pick a fight. I can fully understand how a person that is a practicing Catholic would be upset with these developments, and I sympathize with you in that. I was raised as a Catholic but no longer consider myself one. But that aside, I understand that the religion is made up of good men and women. BTW, most of the kids I went to parochial school with are still practicing Catholics and I'm still in touch with some of them. "
XXXX,
I don't know you and you don't know me. I read through this entire thread and the links and made direct comments in response to some of the comments made here by some other forum members.
You then interjected your "observation" with very little indication of what your intentions were and then followed it up with what seemed to me to be an obvious attempt at being ignorant. I appologize if you are taking my forward approach as combative. But I do admit to being deeply defensive on this subject and believe it needs more attention and honorable discussion. As stated, I do not know you and I am only a recent visitor to this forum, having been attracted by the front page on Delphi advertising this subject here in the Personal Law forum. You may be a very respected person here and your comment may have been understood by regular participants as merely an observation. However, in it's context, it looked like a hit and run.
Now, your further comments here seem to me to be circular and I can't tell where you stand on the issue. I clearly stated why I believe many crimes of pedophilia by priests or elders in a religious organization are not reported. I see the policies within such religions as tactics to protect the reputation of the organization regardless of the cost to the innocent children. You seem to be saying that such crimes should be reported but are not because the Catholic Church's policy does not include reporting of an alleged crime.
I would agree with your understanding of the churches policy. It is my contention that it is this very policy, and others like it in other religious organizations, that can no lobger be tolerated by law. The various churches claim an ecclesiastical priviledge to police themselves and the legal system rarely attemps to challenge this priviledge. What I am saying is that it is time to challenge these policies that tend to protect the offender from prosecution and leave the victim with no legal weapons with which to fight back.
I can fully understand how any human being would be upset with these developements. This is not simply an issue about Catholics. It is an issue about pedophiles and their ability to manuever events in their lives that shield them from being prosecuted for what is clearly a criminal offense. I hope you are sympathizing with people of all faiths who have been victimized by men and women who they believed were "good".
All religions are made up of good men and women. They are also made up of bad men and women. The same can be said for any organization or group of men, religious or otherwise. What I would like to see is the removal of those laws that allow religious organizations to hide criminals behind ecclesiatical priviledge. I would like to see the passing of other laws that will give some legal power to innocent victims who have been subjected to bad men and women masquerading as good religious people.
Ask some of your school buddies who still practice their religion if they think it is ok to harbor a child abuser and protect him/her from legal prosecution under the law. They will likely say "No". Now ask them if they would risk losing their mate, job, reputation, and communion with God in order to help expose their church's policies as woefully inadequate for the protection of their children and for aiding in the prosecution of pedophiles. Now ask yourself if you think there is no good reason to get defensive about the power and authority the priests of various churches have over their parishioners.
And, you will note that I did not say I was a Catholic, as if that matters. I was raised in another controlling religion who uses similar tactics to defend their organization as the only way to God. But because the religion of my youth is lesser known, and considered by catholic and protestant alike as heretical and a cult sect, they get little attention in the media. I feel it is important to be careful so as to not vilify any particular religion as if it were the religion itself that abused the child. Nevertheless, there does seem to me to be a connection between ecclesiastical power and authority and the mishandling of cases of pedophilia. The cases involving the Catholic priests can be of enormous help in studying the relationship of ecclesiastical authority to the covering up of the existence of pedophiles within these religious organizations. Maybe it will lead to rethinking our laws on ecclesiastical priviledge as they relate to the prosecution of sexual predators.
Sean