If the system itself allows for predators to indulge and hide the fact of their sin (and it has) then it also will allow for the exposure and remedy of the sin. In fact, I can't think of a better system in the world that could solve the problem any better than the Catholic Church could.
Randy Tucker wrote at RefCath:
In the worst cases across the United States, we are seeing between 0.4 and 1.5 per cent of Catholic clergy being exposed for any form of sexual misconduct over a 50 year period, or 225 out of 46,000. This is shameful but it is hardly the epidemic being suggested by the current media frenzy. Recently the Herald Sun, Melbourne, reported (2 June 2002, p.28 ) that up to 400 doctors in the Australian state of Victoria had been reported for sexual misconduct in the last five years. This is 13 per cent in just one Australian State! Most of those doctors were obviously married.
You can also read the AP story about Protestant clergy and sex abuse. Over the same time frame there are literally almost an equal amount of sex abuse cases and we know that most Protestant clergy are married. I already linked that story on another thread. It was a study conducted by the insurance companies that insure churches.
Comment by Randy Tucker — November 14, 2007 @ 6:04 am
Plus…it is a fact that in the same period over 98% of priests were celibate and were never accused of sex abuse.
What percent of married men in any walk of life are connected with abusing a child? I bet it is more than 1.5%.
Comment by Randy Tucker — November 14, 2007 @ 6:05 am
It's true that Catholic apologists were as outraged as the rest of us over this situation. However, how many apologists called on the pope to remove those bishops who enabled the abuse? I recall some catholics actually defending the unwillingness of Rome to remove people like Bernard Law(less).
There is no excuse for any of the sexual abuse, Protestant or Roman Catholic -- all is abominable.
But, why did the Pope NOT remove those priests, like Bernard Law? Jeb asks a good question.
He's been removed from his diocese. I don't know all the further details. I would like to know myself.
Dave,
I believe he resigned and Rome accepted his resignation. I don't consider that "removal."
Well, I just meant "he's not there anymore."
I believe Law offered to resign and it was initially refused. Then he made all the records public. Those contained some very embarassing details and that prompted Rome to accept the resignation. To date, no other diocese else has made all the records public and no other bishop has lost his position.
There was a legal situation in Boston that limited the finacial risk in doing what Cardinal Law did. Still he is to be commended for doing what he knew would cause him great personal embarrassment and dire professional consequences. It was the right thing to do. The Boston archdiocese has made a much quicker and stronger recovery because of it.
Rome has been very hesitant to remove a bishop when he is under fire. That remedy has been reserved for the most extreme situations. The idea is that they don't want every decision people don't like to be appealed to Rome. The bishops word should be pretty much final.
Commenting by HaloScan
