10 Myths about Priestly Pedophilia

[bankside]

Or just hire monasteries to take them, since in prison they get special protection, which costs the taxpayers more? It's a LOT cheaper to put them in a monastery!

Though I would be happy to incarcerate people in a monastery for life, it still carries an air of freedom, and, in some circles, respectability. It seems obvious to me why these things should not be afforded to a pedophile priest.

 

[Kulindahr]

Though I would be happy to incarcerate people in a monastery for life, it still carries an air of freedom, and, in some circles, respectability. It seems obvious to me why these things should not be afforded to a pedophile priest.

Freedom????

Far less than in a prison. If you want, send them to penitential monasteries where they get no underwear, just a robe, and sandals only in winter, and take bread and water for meals in their cells except on Sunday, where they get a bit of meat and fruit in a common meal.

Or if you want really stiff (don't know if they do this any more), send them to one of the places where the penitent gets barred in, the cell door hinges and latch welded, and never sees another human face but his confessor once a week.

 

[Kulindahr]

You don't really understand monasteries, do you?

The sort these guys would be sent to don't have exits.

 

[bankside]

The bottom line is, regardless of anything else, these pedophile priests are subject to the law whether they like it or not. A monastery would have no authority to detain one. It wouldn't matter if the bars were welded shut, because he'd have every right to leave. If they weren't allowed to leave it would be forcible confinement, which is of course, another crime on the part of the church.

The Catholic Church cannot substitute kidnapping its own members for a judicial process.

 

[Kulindahr]

If I did, I wouldn't have asked the question


your right, I don't have a clue about monasticism
..but I understand a cover up when I see one

So, I'll ask again

It seemed a rhetorical question dismissive of the ability of a monastery to do its job.

What stops these [STRIKE]wayward[/STRIKE] scum bag child molesting priests from leaving the monastery if they decide to leave?

They don't have the keys to their own doors (in the sort of penitential place I have in mind), and the doors lock from the outside. If you're not happy with Roman Catholic monasteries, there are Greek Orthodox ones where no one who goes in ever comes out, and the only way in is riding in a basket usually used for hauling supplies up a vertical cliff. (As I said, no exits.)

Or if you're really worried, there are some Coptic monasteries in Sinai I'm sure the Pope could make an arrangement with -- and for a small fee, I'm sure the Muslim Brotherhood would happily make sure these priests never left.

..do they have armed guards?

what legal authority does a monastery have to hold them against their will if these "priests" weren't convicted in a court of law...?

as if I'll actually get an answer...

They would have the signed statement of each priest requesting that they be held -- probably for life. The Jesuits, if no one else, are very good at writing such things, and they'd be as binding as a civil commitment by psych-docs.

 

[Kulindahr]

The bottom line is, regardless of anything else, these pedophile priests are subject to the law whether they like it or not. A monastery would have no authority to detain one. It wouldn't matter if the bars were welded shut, because he'd have every right to leave. If they weren't allowed to leave it would be forcible confinement, which is of course, another crime on the part of the church.

The Catholic Church cannot substitute kidnapping its own members for a judicial process.

No crime involved: these guys have already taken a vow of obedience to Rome. Going where they're told is no more kidnapping than a captain ordering a sergeant to drive to the other side of a base.

And if you like, the Roman Church has a nice supply of its own psychiatrists, who could sign commitment papers designating the monasteries as the location of commitment.

 

[bankside]

No crime involved: these guys have already taken a vow of obedience to Rome. Going where they're told is no more kidnapping than a captain ordering a sergeant to drive to the other side of a base.

And if you like, the Roman Church has a nice supply of its own psychiatrists, who could sign commitment papers designating the monasteries as the location of commitment.

A vow of obediance to Rome has no legal significance. It has as much meaning as vowing to be obedient to the local bowling league.

They're free to leave at any time, because while an army has legal authority to govern its soldiers so as to restrict their liberties, a church does not. If a church would impede or preclude a member from departing, it would be guilty of forcible confinement.

 

[thewiz]

As a Catholic who was preparing for ordination, I find the article defective.

Beginning with #4, the reason the church instituted celibacy was because of the repeated fights over church property. Even in Rome, the papacy was often willed to the heir and it created huge problems. Non-married priests are cheap; much like nuns. Married priests carry with them the baggage of family support and responsibility. If one also believes that the purpose for God becoming man in Jesus the Christ, it was to experience everything that man faced in the flesh but he overcame it. He would, therefore, have had to have been attracted to women (or men).

Number 6 -- The Catholic hierarchy did a lot of writing on the subject; their actions do not match their flowery words. The Code of Canon Law is now into the hundreds of pages of "dont's" which is rather funny because if one reads Scripture, Jesus was sent to free those trying to live under the First Covenant which had been mired in hundreds of "don'ts" instituted by the Pharisees. Yes, they did rely on the opinions of the time that pedophiles could be "cured" and paid to send them to institutions in New Mexico. But they also moved priests around, hid them from congregations, paid off claims, etc. The fact that even Cardinal Law fled the U.S. and was given a royal treatment in Rome says a lot for what the "official" church position is. After studying ordination, the priesthood is a "good ol' boys club" that protects anything and everyone who comes into its fold. It is also extremely gay. I would guess in the dioceses I have worked that 50 to 60 percent of the priests are gay but are "hiding" more than anything else and think that being a priest magically cures all. Well, they are human and if one believes God created everything, then he must have created gays and we should be PROUD not hide what God created. If we are ashamed of our God's creation, what does that say about what He should be to us?

The biggest problem I see is the unrealistic stance of the church. For centuries, being "gay" was an illness and had to be cured by prayer. Now the church recognizes (or at least claims) that being gay is not wrong -- just acting out and having any gay fulfillment is wrong. Denying that we are sexual beings, created by a Creator who saw that as beautiful -- is the church's problem; it does not know how to deal with the issue.

It also seems to be hypocritical on the issue of celibacy. As a gay man, I am supposed to be celibate and never experience love of the kind of uniting my body with another man's. Yet the church teaches how priests accept the "gift" of celibacy and that not all are called and not all have that gift. So we force it on gays and straights who are perhaps not going to be married and expect the outcome to be any different than when the "gift" is forced upon priests? I also know many priests who left the priesthood after realizing they were not given the gift and they were treated as absolute dirt by the church; most end up leaving it altogether. It is sad because many are brilliant scholars or orators and it leaves the church with many who do not have that gift as well.

 

[Kulindahr]

The whole celibacy thing is a streak of heretical gnosticism running through Rome and its minions.

I've met guys who left the Roman church precisely because they felt the call to the priesthood but not to celibacy. One decided to become a Lutheran priest/pastor, where he realized Rome was wrong on a lot of other points, too.

Something common to many gnostic sects was the insistence that they were never wrong, always right. In that light, I see Rome as a gnostic sect, refusing to admit mistakes or error, wrapping itself in an invented cloak of "infallibility" -- and generating horrid consequences for its followers in its wake.

 

[cocksucker4use]

We know that, at law, the monastery route is not even an option. A prison sentence requires, arrest, arraignment a trial (unless there is a guiltly plea). Every time a priest, teacher, scout leader, accountant, whomever is arrested for child abuse, it is news. If allowed to commit a priest to a monastery, the process would lack transparency. Do we know of any pedophile priests in the US being committed to monasteries to protect any more victims? Again, by the time the Church decides to put a pedophile priest in a monastery, there has already been a crime committed, and even a monastic commitment would be aiding and abetting and/or conspiracy.

 

[Kulindahr]

Remember that the monastery option was introduced as an alternative to just shuffling priests around. It would have prevented many abuses.

 

[bankside]

Remember that the monastery option was introduced as an alternative to just shuffling priests around. It would have prevented many abuses.

In that context it is an interesting alternative, but still a consensual one on the part of the priest. That means while it might be a step up from the pedophile priest shell game, it is no substitute at all for the criminal justice system.

 

[FirmaFan]

Just keep in mind that Monastic Silence, which means no talking, no TV or Radio, and the only times Silence is broken is when speaking to the Superiors, Community recreation, and Divine Office. for those Priests that cannot stand the sounds of Silences...it can be a serious trial for them, then again God does speak through that Silence, and yes, that can be a frightening experience at first. It is in Silence that one gets to know their true self, etc. So yeah, Monasticism would be in many ways be a heavy trial on the guilty priest,maybe more so than the Prisons. Many prisons today have too many luxuries.

No matter what you believe about the monastery, whether it be a harsher, more just, more effective, etc punishment for crimes committed by priests, subverting proper criminal prosecution to administer your own form of justice is illegal and can not be tolerated any more than the original crime. Sending them to monastery or just shuffling them to a different church, it's all the same - it is a deliberate concealment of a heinous crime and no profession or membership to any organization, religious or otherwise, exempts or allows for alternative punishment outside the confines of the law as established by this country. Some people takes this freedom of religion thing and go WAY to far with it, further than ever intended, and further than it actually grants.

 

[Jacquemar]

The priest would not be allowed to leave the Monastery, as part the Discipline of Monasticism, that priest would need permission not only from the Bishop of the Diocese he's from, but also the permission from the Abbot/Superior of the Monastery. and....if the courts agrees, that priest may never be allowed to step foot outside the Monastery for the rest of his life. Silence is very difficult to practice when one is very used to the Noises of the secular World.

Mikey, this is ridiculous. The poster is correct. You care nothing for the victims, only the priests and your church. Regardless of how difficult you think a vow of silence is, it doesn't compare to the rat trap that is the prison system. They need to be punished, and all you're doing is enabling their vices and helping them avoid taking responsibility for their crimes.

 

[FirmaFan]

The priest would not be allowed to leave the Monastery, as part the Discipline of Monasticism, that priest would need permission not only from the Bishop of the Diocese he's from, but also the permission from the Abbot/Superior of the Monastery. and....if the courts agrees, that priest may never be allowed to step foot outside the Monastery for the rest of his life. Silence is very difficult to practice when one is very used to the Noises of the secular World.

Everything you have just described is false imprisonment and is prohibited by law. Are you honestly trying to defend using crime as a solution to another crime? The church has no more authority to detain its parishioners than do the members of the Jane-Austin-book-of-the-month club. False imprisonment for a crime in a monastery is the church equivalent of a lynch-mob. The days of pitch-forks and torches are over. Punishment for a crime is not contingent upon the personal beliefs if the offender.

 

[FirmaFan]

People can go too far the other way too, ie; it is a two-way street.

I hope that is not to imply that not allowing a child rapist priest to avoid criminal prosecution in lieu of some inter-religious seclusion is a violation of religious liberty.

 

[Jacquemar]

^^ Mikey, that has NOTHING to do with what he said.

 

[Kulindahr]

In that context it is an interesting alternative, but still a consensual one on the part of the priest. That means while it might be a step up from the pedophile priest shell game, it is no substitute at all for the criminal justice system.

Not precisely consensual -- I doubt many priests would be thrilled about having their life path changed to lie totally within one small compound or even building.

But it would allow something else: let the criminal justice system work, too -- they'd certainly know where the priests were to be found. And when convicted, the priests wouldn't even have to be moved.

 

[Kulindahr]

..and that is that the child molesting priest CAN LEAVE ANY TIME HE WANTS TO

How?

We've explained how in this sort of monastery there is no leaving: a penitent goes in, and comes out only in a pine box.

Though I still like the desert monastery idea, with trigger-happy Muslims outside.

 

[FirmaFan]

There are child rapists in just about all the Civil/Criminal (teachers, Reform Schools and Youth Detention centers), and Religious Institutions regardless of denominations, and I dare say that there are child rapists amongst the Scouts, and Atheists, and Agnostics, etc...so, You cannot place blame/single out just the 1 institution.

To continue this discussion further, I would ask that you re-read the correspondence we have engaged in, for this response simply does not fit with what I have been discussing about proper punishment for crimes. I am not quite sure which posts, if any, I have made in this thread would generate a response such as this.