DU Catholics. Can you explain the Church's position on Pedophile Priests?

[Devil Dog Dem]

I seem to recall that U.S. Bishops weren't taking a hard line against them, and didn't want to defrock even ADMITTED pedophiles. Any links to their position paper? Where are we on that?
I'd like to know so I can discuss with some born-again Catholic family members who are using the Church's "guidance" as a reason for voting for Bush.

[Tesibria]

1. will look for .. in the meantime

... what specific "guidances" are they using?
The LOCAL sh*t -- or the OFFICIAL statements which include

(a) The Iraqi war is IMMORAL and UNJUST. Pope John Paul has been unequivocal in his condemnation of the initial invasion, as well as the continuing warfare

(b) It is NOT a sin to vote for a candidate who supports abortion SO LONG as his/her stance on abortion is not THE reason you are voting for him/her. You may not vote for a pro-choice candidate on the basis that the candidate is pro-choice. You can, however, vote for a pro-choice candidate based on other issues.


....I'll find you the citations to this guidance if you're interested.

[Devil Dog Dem]

6. That's great, thanks!

I look forward to reading them.

[merh]

8. Don't forget capital punishment

* laughed when the born again Christian woman was put to death. She had pleaded that he grant her a pardon when he was governor of Texas and he denied it.

That is so moral!

The Catholic Church and Pope John Paul II are against capital punishment!

[Devil Dog Dem]

9. The Bishop of Arlington, VA doesn't agree with you on that.

Someone sent me a letter he sent out, which I've posted below. It's worth the read. Here is what he says on the point you raise above:

If, however, a candidate supports abortion in a limited number of cases but opposes it otherwise, a Catholic may vote for such a candidate over another, more unsuitable candidate who is unwilling to place any restrictions on abortion.

Pre-Election Letter to the People of Arlington


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Bishop Paul S. Loverde
Special to the Herald
(From the issue of 10/28/04)

October 31, 2004

Dear Sisters and Brothers in Christ,

Nov. 2 marks a quadrennial, pivotal date in our nation — a date when we again are given the opportunity of electing a president, a vice president, and in Virginia, all of the members of the House of Representatives. This is an opportunity that the 394,000 Catholics of our diocese cannot but take seriously, for we must continue to build a "Culture of Life," as our Holy Father calls it — a culture in which our nation’s leaders will "contribute to the building of a society in which the dignity of each person is recognized and protected and the lives of all are defended and enhanced" (cf. The Gospel of Life, 90).

Since the last national election, our nation and world have witnessed Sept. 11 and its aftermath. Domestic issues such as the threat of human cloning, the attempt to legalize same-sex marriage and the ban and subsequent challenging of the ban on partial birth abortion have caused us to sharpen our focus on what is important for us as Catholics. As we examine the positions of candidates on numerous issues in the presidential and other election contests, we must allow our conscience to be guided by fundamental principles.

As my brother bishops and I have stated in "Faithful Citizenship: Civic Responsibility for a New Millennium," the critical principles by which we should judge those who run for elected office are the protection of human life, the promotion of family life, the pursuit of social justice and the practice of global solidarity.

The foundation for these principles is the first, the protection of human life, since without it the other three would be rendered meaningless. If we do not uphold and protect human life in its beginning at conception, there will be no life to uphold and protect thereafter. As we read in Living the Gospel of Life, "We cannot simultaneously commit ourselves to human rights and progress while eliminating or marginalizing the weakest among us … We must begin with a commitment never to intentionally kill, or collude in the killing, of any innocent human life, no matter how broken, unformed, disabled or desperate that life may seem" (20, 21).

To be a faithful Catholic necessarily means that one is pro-life and not pro-choice. As my brother bishops and I said in our statement "Catholics in Political Life" this past June, "Failing to protect the lives of the innocent and defenseless members of the human race is to sin against justice." To be pro-choice essentially means supporting the right of a woman to terminate the life of her baby, either pre-born or partially born. No Catholic can claim to be a faithful member of the Church while advocating for, or actively supporting, direct attacks on innocent human life. In reality, protecting human life from conception to natural death is more than a Catholic issue. It is an issue of fundamental morality, rooted in both the natural law and the divine law.

The Church’s God-given responsibility is to propose the Truth, thereby offering people the proper criterion for examining issues and making informed decisions that are morally right and serve the common good. "The Church must be committed to the task of educating and supporting lay people involved in law-making, government and the administration of justice, so that legislation will always reflect those principles and moral values which are in conformity with a sound anthropology and advance the common good" (The Church in America, 19, Synod for America, 72). There is no doubt that protecting all human life, promoting the family, pursuing social justice and practicing global solidarity are in conformity with a sound anthropology and do, indeed, advance the common good.

Keeping in mind the four priorities that I have outlined, some have wondered whether one may vote for a candidate whose stand on abortion and other life issues is contrary to the teaching of the Church if one believes that that candidate has a better position on other issues of importance to Catholics and indeed to our nation (e.g., national security, taxation, job growth, economic policy, etc.). Let me be clear: to vote for a candidate precisely because of his or her pro-abortion stance is an instance of formal cooperation in a grave evil. Such formal cooperation is, according to the constant teaching of the Church, never morally permissible.

In our common life together in society, it is sometimes not possible to avoid entirely all cooperation with evil. This may be the case in electing to office our state and national leaders. In certain circumstances, it is morally permissible to vote for a candidate who supports some immoral practices while opposing other immoral practices. This is called material cooperation with evil. In order for material cooperation to be morally permissible, however, there must be a proportionate reason for such cooperation. Proportionate reason does not mean that each issue carries the same moral weight; intrinsically evil acts such as abortion or research on stem cells taken from human embryos cannot be placed on the same level as debates over war or capital punishment, for example. It is simply not possible to serve and promote the common good of our nation by voting for a candidate who, once in office, will do nothing to limit or restrict the deliberate destruction of innocent human life.

If, however, a candidate supports abortion in a limited number of cases but opposes it otherwise, a Catholic may vote for such a candidate over another, more unsuitable candidate who is unwilling to place any restrictions on abortion. In this case, the voter makes an effort to limit the circumstances in which procured abortion would be deemed legal. This is not a question of choosing a lesser evil, but rather the Catholic, by his or her vote, expresses the intention to limit all the evil that one is able to limit at the time.

As citizens and Catholics, we must be involved in the political process and in the electing of our local, state and national leaders. "The arena for moral responsibility includes not only the halls of government but the voting booth as well" (Living the Gospel of Life, 33). Once again, I urge you to weigh carefully the issues and the candidates from the perspective of the four moral priorities I outlined above, especially the priority to protect the life of all persons, pre-born and born.

In these days preceding the elections on Nov. 2, please pray and fast that the citizens of our nation will elect those leaders who will renew our communities, our state and our society by enabling all citizens to restore the culture of life.

One with you in prayer and in the exercise of our privileged right to vote, I remain

Faithfully in Christ,

Most Reverend Paul S. Loverde
Bishop of Arlington

[Tesibria]

13. he's another LOCAL... nt

[Tesibria]

20. More thots on this letter FYConsideration

From the letter: Let me be clear: to vote for a candidate precisely because of his or her pro-abortion stance is an instance of formal cooperation in a grave evil. Such formal cooperation is, according to the constant teaching of the Church, never morally permissible.

This was my point above. I.e., the “sin” justifying denial of communion is to vote for the candidate BECAUSE he is pro-choice, rather than pro-life.

From the letter: In certain circumstances, it is morally permissible to vote for a candidate who supports some immoral practices while opposing other immoral practices. This is called material cooperation with evil. In order for material cooperation to be morally permissible, however, there must be a proportionate reason for such cooperation. Proportionate reason does not mean that each issue carries the same moral weight; intrinsically evil acts such as abortion or research on stem cells taken from human embryos cannot be placed on the same level as debates over war or capital punishment, for example. It is simply not possible to serve and promote the common good of our nation by voting for a candidate who, once in office, will do nothing to limit or restrict the deliberate destruction of innocent human life.

Here, the Bishop improperly asserts that a “pro-life” platform (regardless of practice) is more important than unjust war. He walks himself right into a trap.

1). He says that you can’t compare the intrinsically evil act of abortion to the “debatable” act of war.

The Holy Father is not “debating” war. The Holy Father has said, consistently and unequivocably that the Iraqi war is evil and unjust. See, e.g., http://www.americancatholic.org/News/JustWar/Iraq/papalstatement.asp (papal statement against the war before the invasion); and http://globalsecurity.com/world_politics/pope_critical/pope_critical.htm (pope saying to Bush: "You are very familiar with the unequivocal position of the Holy See in this regard, expressed in numerous documents, through direct and indirect contacts, and in the many diplomatic efforts which have been made." (emphasis added).)

2). He equates the “intrinsically evil act of abortion” to anyone who supports a candidate who believes in abortion. This is improper. For example, if that were true, why then has the Pope personally celebrated mass with others who support abortion rights? See, e.g., http://uspolitics.about.com/od/abortion/a/08052004.htm ("On Jan. 6, 2001, at the concluding mass of the jubilee, John Paul II personally gave communion to Francesco Rutelli, who is one of the most active supporters of abortion in Italy.") How then can this bishop argue that to VOTE for someone who supports abortion rights justifies denial of communion.

3) He ignores the FACT, now well-documented, that people have been executed wrongfully (however one feels about capital punishment generally). See, e.g., http://www.freep.com/voices/columnists/egumb20_20041020.htm (“In a "culture of life," we are called to be merciful. As the governor of Texas, however, Bush approved the execution of 152 people. In one infamous incident, he publicly mocked a woman as she awaited execution on death row. The president's attorney general has ordered a federal prosecutor to seek the death penalty despite the prosecutor's own recommendation of a life sentence in at least 12 cases. In other words, current U.S. policy is that some human life does not matter.”)

3) His conclusion utterly IGNORES the FACT that the ONLY candidate who actually spoke about taking active steps to reduce abortion in our country is KERRY. Bush and his surrogates talked about getting a constitutional amendment and/or overturning Roe v. Wade. Neither of these acts will reduce abortion. Neither Bush nor his supporters provided a shred of evidence that their actions would reduce abortions.

ALL available evidence shows that there has been a NET INCREASE in abortion rates under the first four years of the Bush Administration. See, e.g., http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=sojomail.display&issue=041013#5 (“Under President Bush, the decade-long trend of declining abortion rates appears to have reversed. Given the trends of the 1990s, 52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 than would have been expected before this change of direction.”) In other words, while the rate of abortion had been decreasing steadily under the (pro-choice) Clinton administration, it is now on its way back up – under the so-called “pro life” president. See also http://www.thecatholicvote.org/Bush_Moral.html (last paragraph).

4) His conclusion also utterly IGNORES the FACT that Bush’s UNJUST war (according to the Holy Father) is actively, daily, hourly, killing thousands of INNOCENT human life in Iraq. See http://www.freep.com/voices/columnists/egumb20_20041020.htm (“War: In a "culture of life," we are called to be peacemakers. Bush, however, chose to pursue a war over the moral objections of hundreds of religious leaders, including Pope John Paul II, the U.S. Catholic Bishops and the leaders of the president's own Methodist Church. The report released on Oct. 6 by chief weapons searcher Charles Duelfer definitively proves that Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction. The evidence is now clear that the Bush administration misled the American people into the war in Iraq.)

====
For a terrific summary of the moral failings of the GWB Presidency, see http://www.thecatholicvote.org/Bush_Moral.html:

George Bush’s War in Iraq is not a just war. George Bush ignored Pope John Paul II, the U.S. Catholic Bishops, and even his own United Methodist leadership when he marched us into an unjust war in Iraq under false pretenses. His war has already killed an estimated 20,000 soldiers and civilians.

George Bush’s economic policies harm the poor and vulnerable. Instead of investing our resources in the common good, George Bush has chosen tax shifts away from the wealthiest Americans and onto our children. Meanwhile, poverty has risen every year of his Administration and over 5 million people have lost their health insurance.

George Bush has undermined the most basic standards of human dignity. The torture at Abu Ghraib has devastated America’s moral legitimacy and security. Though every person is created in the image of God, this Administration wrote legal memos validating torture, and set us back 75 years on the march towards minimum standards of human dignity on which the Pope has been such a courageous leader.

George Bush has undermined the dignity of work. George Bush is the first President since the Great Depression to preside over a net loss of jobs. He has cut job training programs, has encouraged companies to outsource jobs and refused to raise the minimum wage.

George Bush has failed as a steward of God’s creation. Bush’s administration has consistently sided with polluters instead of people. He has weakened clear air standards, supported regulations that allow more arsenic in our water, and missed a golden opportunity to wean our nation from its costly dependence on fossil fuels.

George Bush has failed to promote the sanctity of life and respect for human dignity. The U.S. Catholic Bishops urge our leadership to promote laws and social policies that protect human life and promote human dignity. New data from the conservative Fuller Theological Seminary show that abortion rates, which reached record lows in 2000, have risen every year under George Bush’s leadership. The President has taken no risks, led no workable legal initiative, and made no real effort to address the abortion issue. Because of his domestic policies, more women lack the health insurance or economic security that help them choose life.

=============
Store: www.cafepress.com/tesibria.com
Blog: www.democracyiscoming.com (explains purpose of store)

[Devil Dog Dem]

23. Thanks Tesibria

This analysis is great!

[Tesibria]

26. thanx

even if i DID forget to correct my numbering .... :)

--------------------
Store: www.cafepress.com/tesibria.com (All proceeds go to buy books for small town ("red") library.)
Blog: www.democracyiscoming.com

[DenaliDemocrat]

11. The Iraq War

Fails the Just War Doctrine of the Catholic Church. The Pope has been very outspoken on this issue. The right-wingers just blow that part off, but they LOVE to quote Catholic positions on stem cell research or abortion. They also leave out the Catholic Death Penalty position.

I mean, all the Catholics that yelled about abortion were suspiciously quiet about the Just War Doctrine and Bushies record on executions.....hmmm....do you think it's still just really about the MONEY?

[mmonk]

2. Not really

but probably fear. This country has a past of violence and laws used against Catholics that probably hasn't been forgotten. I think that is why the heirarchy for many years was too paranoid to act appropriately and while some are being protected now. I don't agree with their actions at all but suspect this is it.

[sandnsea]

3. 40 years of liberal counseling

That's the most disgusting part of this attack from the left on the Catholic Church. The cases went back to the 50's and 60's. Some priests were accused of something once, years ago, by one person and nothing ever happened again. Treatment and counseling was what the liberal social community PROMOTED in the 70's and 80's, the Church followed the theory of rehabilitation. NOW, when it's proven not to work so well, the Church is attacked by the very group of people who promoted rehabilitation for those in prison in the first place. It's okay to have prisoners released and repeat offenses over and over, keep working with them. But Catholic Priests, oh that's an evil cover-up by the Catholic Church.

I'm not saying the Church handled the problem correctly at all, but a good part of it was from following conventional wisdom on sexual offender treatment. Nobody ever wants to look at that and its in our children's best interest that we do.

[itzamirakul]

14. So, are you saying...

that instead of following conventional wisdom for rehabilitation, in reality those pedophile priests should have been beheaded at the worst or de-penised at the least? Liberals have always opted for humane corrective measures but when those being rehabilitated are really criminals at heart, psychological rehabilitation does not work.

Give the liberals credit...they had no idea of how well-orchestrated and devious the cover-up of these crimes against children was. You say one or two people reported sexual abuse by priests, I think there were far more and more recently than just the 50s and 60s. It is probably STILL going on and still being covered up.

The hypocrisy of being against abortion but in favor of supporting a President who is leading a war that kills 100,000 innocent Iraqis is unbelievable. Of supporting a President who is openly in favor of the death penalty... The hypocrisy of refusing communion to a candidate who supports pro-choice but never condemning a member (Guiliani) who has married three times,divorced twice, with the first marriage to his own cousin, (IMO: incest) is mind-boggling.

[Bridget Burke]

18. One problem was avoidance of secular authorities.

The Church hasn't had its own criminal courts or dungeons for a couple of centuries now. Especially in the past, parents would hear something disturbing from their child & take it to the Church. If we're not talking about "sexual harrassment" or some ethical gray area--but actual molestation of a child--it should have been reported to the police. The only way to put someone in jail is through legal charges & a trial; this process also gives some protection against false accusations.

In the past, people felt that the victim of a sexual crime should be ashamed,so they avoided bringing charges. There's no excuse for the Church covering up crimes in the past. But today, any parent who's willing to hush things up for payment has no excuse, either.

[sandnsea]

22. oh for pete's sake

I am so sick of extremists. Who said anything about beheading or any other extreme measure?

Do you have any idea how many school teachers are moved from district to district? That happens too.

I did not say one or two people reported sexual abuse. I said many of the cases were from the 50's and 60's, many cases were individual cases that were resolved with no further problem at all. The number of repeat offenders was no higher than the population as a whole. In addition, the problem was compounded because they followed counseling procedures recommended at the time. It isn't as simple as calling it a massive cover-up on the people. Doing that ignores what can be learned as well, when a sexual offender can be treated and when he is beyond hope. But we're so busy lumping it all together that we're missing a huge opportunity to help children from being molested by repeat offenders, whether Catholic or not. Personal anti-Catholic agendas trump caring for kids, oh I'm proud to be a liberal today.

There are alot of things about the Catholic Church that drive me nuts and need to be confronted. I'm currently much more concerned about their preventing third world nations from using condoms to save their own lives. Constantly throwing this pedophile thing around doesn't help get to the problems created by Catholic theology.

[itzamirakul]

32. I don't agree...

I don't think that being concerned about sex abuse on children is "throwing this pedophile thing around," but if it does to you I cannot change your mind nor do I intend to try.

I am concerned about the Church's hypocrisy that I mentioned in my earlier post.

[Tesibria]

4. here's the "official" website

http://www.nccbuscc.org/comm/restoretrust.htm


--------------------
Store: www.cafepress.com/tesibria.com
Blog: www.democracyiscoming.com (explains purpose of store)

[Devil Dog Dem]

25. Tesibria, can you answer some questions?

It is unclear to me what the actual outcome if for those priests who seems to imply that they will be removed "from the clerical state" (does that mean defrocked?) but that such removal is not required. Furthermore, the Boston Globe reports that the Vatican removed the requirement regarding automatic removal from the priesthood.

It is clear that such priests are permanently removed from ministry, but why are they not defrocked automatically? And what is the practical outcome? Is it not required but are all Bishops doing it anyway?

This gets to the crux of my argument: is the church drawing a harder line on pro-choice politicians than it is on pedophile priests?

[Tesibria]

27. that's a very good question

I'll look into it.

--------------------
Store: www.cafepress.com/tesibria.com (All proceeds go to buy PROGRESSIVE books and magazines for small town ("red") library.)
Blog: www.democracyiscoming.com

[Tesibria]

28. this just in ...per news story today - zero tolerance policy adopted

See http://www.timesleader.com/mld/timesleader/news/10130028.htm

Bishop Reflects on Sex Abuse Crisis
Posted on Mon, Nov. 08, 2004

A week before his term expires as leader of the nation's Roman Catholic hierarchy, Bishop Wilton Gregory said that the pressure of guiding the U.S. church through the height of the clergy sex abuse crisis "drove me to my knees" spiritually.
...
He led the bishops through nothing short of a revolution in their approach to abuse. They now have a binding policy on how to respond to allegations that includes barring offenders from church work and a national lay watchdog panel to help enforce the plan.

But in the transition, Gregory has been caught among warring factions: victims who say the policy is too weak and bishops who consider it draconian; lay people seeking more say in how dioceses are governed and conservatives demanding bishops reassert their authority over the church.

Gregory said that those who dismiss the reforms as ill-conceived public relations ploys are unaware of how thoroughly the bishops researched them. He said bishops spent months discussing how to build on the safeguards that many had already put in place in their own dioceses.

He declined to discuss the private talks among bishops in their June 2002 meeting in Dallas where, despite some resistance, they agreed to prohibit guilty priests from public ministry. But he said he was confident the policy was the right one - and he contended it should stay in place as church leaders review it over the next several months.

"I'm not trying to say everything was done perfectly," Gregory said. "But there's probably never been a meeting where we were so previously prepared."

He said keeping molesters out of public ministry - what became known as "zero-tolerance" - was necessary to reassure parents of their children's safety and remove any suspicion surrounding priests.

...morre

[Devil Dog Dem]

29. keeping them from "public ministry" isn't defrocking.

That just means they are removed from a parish and can't say mass, etc.

I am talking about removing them from the priesthood, completely.

[Tesibria]

31. it doesn't sound like they are being defrocked...

.. assuming they go to confession -- seems like they stay ..

[aden_nak]

5. Blatant hypocrisy?

[Devil Dog Dem]

Yep. They are becoming partisans.

ANd they've laid down with dogs, so they will get up with fleas!

[Devil Dog Dem]

24. Yep. They are becoming partisans.

ANd they've laid down with dogs, so they will get up with fleas!

[Tesibria]

7. And here's the Boston Globe's special section

devoted to the issue:

http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/

--------------------
Store: www.cafepress.com/tesibria.com
Blog: www.democracyiscoming.com (explains purpose of store)

[flobee1kenobi]

16. It is a MAJOR problem

The church has screwed up by not turning these monsters over to the autorities when the crime happened, and are now suffering from financial troubles due to the lawsuits. But do not lump all catholic preists into the same group. For a while, I worked for a local school/church, and there are people within the system(preists included)fighting like hell to get all of these problems out in the open so that they can be solved. Funniest thing I ever heard was listening to our preist after he was hung up on by the Archdioces of Cincy. This nice reserved man started cursing so much, all the assistants had to leave the office!
BTW--he's a Democrat! I got him tickets to a kerry rally

[OneBlueSky]

10. transfer the priests and pay off the victims . . .

getting a little old, though . . . it's bankrupting the American church, and parishes are getting wise to the transfer scam . . .

[seabeyond]

12. we are all sinners after all....................wink

[merh]

15. Give them this link

and remind them how * kept the pope waiting for 20 minutes when he had an audience with him in June or July of this year.

The weed that would be king wanted the pope to endorse him and to instruct his bishops here in the US that they should come out against Kerry, the pope refused and wished him well...

*******************

New Catholic Times, May 18, 2003

WASHINGTON DC -- According to freelance journalist Wayne Madsden, "George W Bush's blood lust, his repeated commitment to Christian beliefs and his constant references to 'evil doers,' in the eyes of many devout Catholic leaders, bear all the hallmarks of the one warned about in the Book of Revelations--the anti-Christ."


http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_9_27/ai_108881880


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=55407

[m berst]

17. maybe

It is an American problem, not a Catholic problem IMHO. Virtually all leadership and people in authority in this country are corrupted by the growing fascism and subsequent collapse of society. None of our institutions are healthy or functioning.

We point the finger at bad guys as scape goats - from smokers to OJ and everything in between - to avoid facing the tidal wave of corruption and complicity in a society of death and destruction, greed and selfishness, and ignorance and arrogance.

[Joe Chi Minh]

19. I believe

it is a cultural thing, partly, a siege mentality, difficult to avoid on account of the ambiguity of the Church's divine authority and the inevitably defective "de facto" authority of its human witness); but essentially a function of the very early change that seems to have taken place within the Church, from its pastors designating themselves as "elders" (seniority), as St Peter did, to "priests" (different caste).

St Paul went to great lengths to stress that while we are all allotted different functions, within the same body, it is always the same Spirit working within each of us.

It seems noteworthy to me that Jesus never seems to have attributed any special title to the disciples he consecrated to be his pastors, even avoiding referring to the distinction (quite real) between his "ordained pastors" and secular disciples, who, as Christians also, are called upon to be pastors, albeit secular.

For example, when he was asked by one of his disciples, "What about about us, who have left everything to follow you" (not verbatim), his reply began with the words, "Any man who ....".

He would surely have known that nothing would stop human beings from formalising their status in their "favour", just as he clearly knew that nothing would stop them dressing up (the long robes, etc., of the scribes and Pharisees). While the many good priests and indeed all of us, know that there is no substitute for "de facto" authority. Indeed nothing seems more calculated to scandalise people than a palpably deficient priest emphasising the reality of his "de jure" authority; the authority Christ had actually invested in him, but which his own sins voided of formal authority.

Up to Pope John Paul I (who, I believe, discontinued the practice), popes used to be carried on ceremonial litters, like Roman emperors. How different from Peter, who told the man who fell at his feet, "Get up, man. I am just a man, like you. Save your worship for God" (not verbatim).

The hierarchical nature of the Church (in terms of special consecration and seniority), instituted by Christ guaranteed, given our nature, that
change from within would effectively have to be by a miraculously inordinate infusion of grace within the Church. And indeed he predicted as much in many passages of scripture. And the failings would be of much the same kind as those of the Synagogue, as affected by the sins of the scribes and Pharisees of his own day. "Human" (i.e. also prey to sin), and in that sense, inevitable, but not to be confused with "human", in the good sense of "humane" and worthy of embryonic god-men (through adoption by the Holy spirit into the life of the Holy Trinity). This confusion in explanation of the horrors in the Church's history must have scandalised many enquiring souls, who would have interpreted it naturally as a defence, and not just an explanation, of what, after all, would have been indefensible among most half-reasonable pagans, and indeed rejected by them as behaviour quite beyond the pale.

Fortunately, there have always been good priests, also, in the field (probably never more so than today, since the earliest years), or Christ would have had to set up a new Church, instead of reforming the Church "as is" (or rather "as was"), by such means as Vatican II.

[ladjf]

21. Yes. CYA.

[Padraig18]

30. I can tell you what OUR bishop's policy is:

It's short, sweet and simple: let the State's Attorney and appropriate law-enforcement deal with them, just like they do with any other paedophile.