Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
It's the same old story. Priest molests children in his parish. Priest's boss finds out about the molestation. Rather than turning the priest over to the police so he can be prosecuted for one of the most heinous crimes imaginable, the church hierarchy instead puts the priest into their own private, intra-church counseling while merely telling his parishioners that he is taking a leave of absence.
Upon completion of that counseling, they move the offending priest to another parish where the public has no idea that he has a history of molesting children and they once again put him in a position of authority over children. To no one's surprise, he molests more children. One of those children grows up and sues the diocese for negligence for their actions and the diocese goes to court and argues that the case should be dismissed because of the free exercise clause of the Constitution.
Read that again. It wasn't a joke. They actually argued that if the Court rules on the issue they will "will become unconstitutionally entangled in religious doctrine, practice, or church polity" and that it will require the Court to "regulate the manner in which a Catholic bishop selects, assigns, supervises, and disciplines priests and that such regulation violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution." The word 'chutzpah' comes to mind.
Thankfully, a court in Rhode Island has rejected that claim (see full ruling here) and denied the motion to dismiss the case, writing:
The Court rejects Defendants' argument that such functions should be shielded by the First Amendment because they are performed under the Church's Code of Canon law. The Hierarchy Defendants cannot avoid the instant litigation on the argument that the alleged acts or omissions constituted obeying and applying scripture, and ministering to the priest. Contrary to Hierarchy Defendant's contentions, this case can be determined based upon neutral principles of law and will not involve inquiry into church law.
Their argument is sheer madness. They are seriously arguing that the Church be allowed to harbor felons who commit the most destructive of crimes and that no civil court has jurisdiction over their doing so. I've said it before, I'll say it again: forget civil suits, the bishops who made those decisions should be under arrest for accessory after the fact, conspiracy, harboring and anything else they can find to charge them with.
In any other profession, doing this would be criminal. If a teacher, a doctor or a therapist has knowledge of child abuse and does not report it to the police, they go to jail. Yet because the criminals in this case have an ecclesiastical title, the law does not apply to them. It's time they did, and we should be demanding it.
Comments
Excellent point. And right on the money. I've long been frustrated that acts which if done under any other circumstances would create outrage in the public, are swept under the rug when the guilty parties are preachers or priests.
What I find so bizarre is how complacent people are about this kind of stuff. Some people are shocked at the idea of prosecuting the bishops who shield abusive priests. It's like there's this switch in peoples' heads that gets flipped every time "priest" is mentioned, and turns off their reasoning faculties. For some people, it's (perhaps literally) unimaginable that a priest or preacher could do something deserving punishment. Their minds seem to reject the suggestion reflexively.
Of course, as long as the public finds the idea of prosecuting these bishops unimaginable, it won't happen. I think a big part of the issue should be getting the public to understand that a bishop's shielding a child molestor is a crime and should be punished. Otherwise, these guys will continue to get away with it.
Posted by: Wes | September 24, 2007 9:49 AM
The actions taken by the Catholic Church taken in response to the various pedophilia scandals are as morally repulsive as the original molestation crimes themselves. Let's not forget that 5 years ago, after resigning in response to public outrage, Cardinal Law of Boston was rewarded by the Vatican with key positions in Rome. It is hard to miss that signal.
Posted by: Kevin | September 24, 2007 10:07 AM
The church should be demanding ecclesiastical accountability, and by the church, I mean those trusting people in the pews. This is a cancer eating away at what little credibility their religion has left, and they should be demanding surgery.
Unless they don't care that in a hundred years, there basically won't BE a Catholic church in this country. Fine with me, but I doubt it would be OK with them if they'd think about it for ten seconds.
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | September 24, 2007 10:24 AM
'Roman Catholic Church' is an alias for Pedophiles-R-Us. It makes sense that a senior official in P-R-U would not betray a loyalist to the cause -- there's that code of honor thing that pedophiles of every stripe adhere to.
What bothers me is why the police don't treat these criminals like criminals. They give them the respectful helpful treatment that the super-rich get.
There has to be something really nasty beneath the surface, which puts the cops somehow in league with these monsters.
Posted by: Repulsed | September 24, 2007 10:39 AM
The church should be demanding ecclesiastical accountability, and by the church, I mean those trusting people in the pews.
...
Unless they don't care that in a hundred years, there basically won't BE a Catholic church in this country.
You have to understand the mentality of the Catholic Church. It is, at its essence, a feudal mentality. Members of the congregation are no more expected to be able to influence the Church's direction than serfs were able to stop their feudal lords from going to war or making any other "policy" decision.
For parishoners in the Catholic Church your choices boil down to "like it or lump it" - that's it. You can get angry about what the hierarchy has done, but your only choices are to swallow the anger and keep showing up every Sunday or leave the Church. Those indoctrinated in the Catholic faith take leaving the church very, very seriously. And even those who are only "culturally Catholic" find a lot of guilt piled onto them by their families when they leave the church - especially if they begin attending a Protestant church instead.
The current Pope's opinion on the makeup of the Church is very clear - he really wants a smaller, more conservative Church where the parishoners are content with their lot as serfs, paying their taxes and attending services every Sunday. I agree with you that this is a death spiral for the Catholic Church but the folks at the top don't care - they'd rather be dead and "right" than thriving and forced to compromise their positions. These are folks who think that the "realists" who came up with the Vatican II changes were DEAD WRONG - that the Church should have continued to bleed members rather than change bits of objectable doctrine and practice.
Posted by: NonyNony | September 24, 2007 11:18 AM
The Church's argument is a throwback to medieval mentality. I'm Catholic and a lot of Catholics have been outspoken on the this issue. These priests are criminals and should be treated like common criminals-really, worse because they take advantage of their respected position. A lot of Catholics have cut back their donations with the clear explanation that they won't support a Church hierarchy that behaves this way. And rightfully so.
Posted by: Shelley | September 24, 2007 11:37 AM
Why the hell aren't these Bishops being arrested and prosecuted for child endangerment?
Posted by: MAJeff | September 24, 2007 11:41 AM
What the church is arguing in this case is that ecclesiastic law supercedes secular law. They can't admit that outright -- only the most deranged will admit that they're theocrats -- so they resort to ploys like this one.
Posted by: ArtK | September 24, 2007 11:45 AM
What the Church is apparently arguing is that molesting children somehow falls under their religious beliefs. But they can't mean that. But there may be something else they think does fall under their jurisdiction.
I suspect that one explanation for the odd protective behavior coming not just from the church authorities, but from many of the parishioners, is their elevation of the sacred concept of "forgiveness." Every Sunday, the value and truth of repentance and forgiveness is drilled into everyone's heads, priests and public. True repentance comes from the heart. True forgiveness comes from the heart. The Lord knows. You know the Lord. Nobody understands sin like a Christian understands sin; nobody can repent like a Christian; nobody can forgive like a Christian. And faith, faith, faith -- having trust in someone when everyone else falls away. Sermon after sermon, week after week.
Don't look at statistics, look at the individual. Look at Father So-and-so, who sat up with your dying mother. Don't you think he's sorry? He thinks he's sorry (and probably is.) As his Bishop -- or as his flock -- can you refuse to believe him when faith and forgiveness was the very message of Jesus?
It's not just the Catholic church -- I've had Christian friends complain about ministers being forgiven for criminal or negligent behavior after they have put on a show of contrition. The audience has been primed on the One Best Response to a request to forgive. There is no better way to demonstrate your commitment to the true message of Christ, who has forgiven us for worse, in God's eyes.
Posted by: Sastra | September 24, 2007 12:23 PM
Can you imagine the public outcry and response of law enforcement if these molestations had happened, for example, in a private school?
You can bet the perpetrators would be behind bars and the organization would be buried under piles of lawsuits if not shut down outright.
Why the hell is the catholic church still open for business?
Posted by: ZacharySmith | September 24, 2007 12:34 PM
I don't know about this statement. Most catholics are simply cultural catholics at least Europe and the USA. Likewise statistics indicate no denomination loses more members each year to other sects or no religion than the RCC. It is dying but it's a slow death.
Posted by: GH | September 24, 2007 12:35 PM
Shelley -
A lot of Catholics have cut back their donations with the clear explanation that they won't support a Church hierarchy that behaves this way. And rightfully so.
Sure. But that's not going to have an effect on the hierarchy, unfortunately. What it will have an effect on is monetary support for causes that the Church is pushing, and, unfortunately, humanitarian relief efforts that the Church funds. The hierarchy's power doesn't derive from money, it derives from "God" - a reduction in resources my reduce the influence of the Church overall, but it will matter not a whisker toward the hierarchy's decisions.
Even leaving the Church won't influence the hierarchy because that just means that the people staying behind are the ones who will support the hierarchy no matter what they do. If the stated goal is to have a smaller, "more faithful" Church, critics leaving the Church only accelerates the achievement of that goal.
Posted by: NonyNony | September 24, 2007 12:37 PM
But Sastra - most of the priests did NOT publically repent until after their crimes were made public. If they had stood up in the pulpit, admitted their weaknesses, then begged their parishoners for forgiveness and their bishop for a position away from the temptation of children, then I myself might sympathize. I could even understand the bishops offering private forgiveness for private confession - but not for transferring the pedophiliac priests into new hunting grounds. "Forgive" does not always imply "forget" - and by failing to keep an eye on the fallen priests, that's what the Church did.
It does very much seem to me that these bishops qualify as accessories after the fact for the first abuses that were covered up, and before the fact for any that occurred after the initial reports and transfers. (Of course, IANAL.) I don't understand why they're not being charged as such.
Posted by: BobApril | September 24, 2007 12:46 PM
It seems that what they're arguing is not the molestation per se is covered by the ministerial exception, but that the policies in place to handle it are and they are therefore immune from legal liability for any negligence in designing and implementing those policies. Their problem is that the ministerial exception has always been much more limited than they're trying to make it. Basically, a church is free to make its own rules and conduct its own affairs UNLESS the way it conducts its affairs puts people, particularly vulnerable people who have no choice about subjecting themselves to the church's stupid decisions (i.e. children),in actual physical danger. That's why churches have to obey fire codes and why churches can be held liable for injuries caused by negligence in operating church programs.
They try this defense EVERY TIME and never succeed. It probably doesn't technically qualify as a frivolous defense, but you'd think, given the defense's stunning lack of success, that the Church and its insurers would tell the lawyers to leave it out for public relations reasons, if nothing else.
Posted by: AnneS | September 24, 2007 12:57 PM
"They actually argued that if the Court rules on the issue they will 'will become unconstitutionally entangled in religious doctrine, practice, or church polity'..."
Sweet Jesus Fucking Christ on a raft.
Did they just say that child molestation, and the protection of priests who commit it, is part of the Catholic Church's doctrine, practice, or church polity?
And they think that's a defense?
If this were anything other than a respected, well-established religious organization, not only would that not be a defense -- it would be an admission of guilt.
I think I'm going to be sick.
Posted by: Greta Christina | September 24, 2007 1:12 PM
Ed asserts:
Yes, Ed. Not only do they go to jail, but if their superiors are aware of the situation, they are criminally liable as well.
Although there may be issues regarding religious counseling and such, it was unconscionable for those in authority to send these molestors back into positions where they came in contact with children.
That should not be tolerated by the law. It fails its basic responsibility to protect the populace.
Although I don't always agree with Ed, in this respect we are on the same page.
-----------------------------------------------------------
MAJeff asks:
Because the criminal law was specifically written to exclude them. Not just them, but any persons in position of authority because of religious institutions. Even when the knowledge of these crimes came about outside of any religious context.
The fault lies with our spineless legislators who wrote the law that way.
Since I don't expect these people to suddenly grow backbones, the civil route is often the only way open.
Unfortunately, there are people who would bankrupt the institution they claim to care so much about to protect their personal position. They listen to their legal defense team instead of paying attention to moral principles. Not much different from corrupt politicians and CEOs, are they?
-------------------------------------------
NonyNony:
You are certainly entitled to your opinions - even though they are based on misinformation. However, those opinions are hardly germane to the issue here.
The legal remedy is quite simple and has really nothing to do with religion as such. To raise religious and theological issues as you did - even incorrectly - is just muddying up the water. It's the same thing as Ed is complaining about being done in this court case. So why are you doing it?
Posted by: Poly | September 24, 2007 1:38 PM
Sastra,
I think you've put your finger on a very important motivation for their behavior - of course, in addition to, not instead of, their desire to protect the church hierarchy.
BobApril,
Precisely. My father, who was one of the most forgiving people I ever knew, nevertheless maintained that renewed trust and respect must be earned by accepting consequences and by demonstrating, in ways that didn't put others at risk, a long-term change in behavior. The church could maintain its emphasis on forgiveness without protecting the priests from the legal consequences of their behavior or ever trusting them again around children.
Posted by: JuliaL | September 24, 2007 1:42 PM
I'm an active Christian, church goer, choir member, etc., etc.
A fundamental duty of any member of the clergy is their pastoral duty -- their duty to tend to their flock. Molesting children that are part of that flock is an absolute violation of that duty.
In turn, the hierarchy of the church has responded not as supervisory members of the clergy, but as bureaucrats. Their actions clearly show they have more concern for the structure of their organization than for the care of their parishioners.
That is the sort of betrayal that turns people away from the church.
Posted by: Jim Ramsey | September 24, 2007 2:30 PM
As a Command Chaplain in the Navy/Marine Corps system I have supervised chaplains of all faith groups (to include rabbis, Roman Catholic priests, Muslims, etc.). Early on in my career, and before I became a senior supervisory chaplain, I was aware of the fact that some Roman Catholic Bishops were "stashing" their problem priests in the military. Rather than calling them to account ecclesiastically or through the civil/criminal legal system, it was easier and less "messy" to authorize them to serve in the military. They could be stationed overseas or go to sea on a ship and "voila!" - out of sight and out of mind.
I think Garry Wills in his book, "Structures of Deceit: Papal Sin" New York: Doubleday, 2000, p. 186) gets right to the heart of the matter as it is being discussed here. Speaking of the various acts committed by priests, he says: "Whatever one thinks of the morality of any of these acts, such figures are obviously related to the thesis of this book, that the life of church authorities is lived within structures of multiple deceit." I have known Commanding Officers and flag officers who were dedicated Roman Catholics and because of this were not inclined to punish priests for various offenses. Somehow it violated their own "catholicity" to be in a position to punish a priest of the church.
I am not singling out Roman Catholics. Please understand that in my experience, ministers/chaplains of all faith groups are guilty of the same/similar offenses. On an anecdotal level, one of my seminary classmates is in prison right now for child molestation. Nobody's religious portfolio whether priest, minister, rabbi or layperson should place them above the law when they commit these heinous crimes.
Posted by: CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret) | September 24, 2007 3:00 PM
...I was aware of the fact that some Roman Catholic Bishops were "stashing" their problem priests in the military.
CAPT Holcomb, that's a scary thought. For the benefit of our non-military friends, I note that military chaplains not only perform as clergy for military personnel, but also for their family members - including young children - on bases that have them. I suppose on a ship is relatively safe, or an Army base in Korea or other hardship location, but even there, I would think they could do damage. And of course, since the Bishops (and equivalents in other sects) weren't telling you about these guys when they sent them to you, you had no way of knowing to place them in adult-only situations. That's really no better than moving them to another parish - and adds an unpatriotic anti-military flavor to their crimes.
Posted by: BobApril | September 24, 2007 3:48 PM
Bob-April:
You are correct. When they come to us they come with a "squeaky clean" record! We have no knowledge of any previous problems. It's even better than moving them to another parish because they are afforded the honor of the flag, the uniform, apple pie, mom, chevrolet and all the other benefits of American patriotism!
Posted by: CAPT Norm Holcomb, CHC, USN (Ret) | September 24, 2007 3:59 PM
There seems to be some misunderstanding of mandated reporting and civil versus criminal liability in this discussion. As a psychologist who has evaluated Catholc clergy and religious (brothers) accused of sex abuse I can offer some clarification on this issue.
I should mention that all of the priests/brothers I've evaluated had been reported to State DCFS before I saw them. Had they not been, I'd have been required to report them.
The legal issue with respect to mandated reporting is a bit more complicated than it has been portrayed here, however. Not all professions are mandated reporters and the church has not been granted a special exception to mandated reporting requirements. Only a few LICENSED, HELPING professions - teachers, psychologists, physicians, social workers and school counselors are regulated by the state and therefore mandated reporters under threat of criminal prosecution. No other persons are mandated to report crimes of any kind under the law.
Clergy are not required to report sexual abuse because they are not licensed or regulated by the state as helping professions (Catholic school teachers are required to report). Members of licensed, non-helping professions (.e.g, barbers) and members of unregulated professions are not required to report crimes, whether child abuse or crimes of any other kind. While you may disagree with the law on this, the fact is that Americans are not required to report crimes they know of, except child abuse when they are members of selected, state-regulated helping professions.
Thus the Catholic clergy and hierarchy are held to the same standards under criminal law that most of you who are not in licensed, helping professions are held to.
The legal issue related to reporting by the Catholic Church revolves around civil liability and, in some cases, lying to investigators (which is a crime). While no one but members of a few licensed professions are legally required to report child abuse, civil liability could potentially acrue to anyone, regardless of profession. There have been many court cases affirming the Catholic church's civil liability in these matters.
By the way, mandated reporters are not required to report any other crimes that have already taken place. Even if someone tells me in a professional context that they have committed a murder, not only am I not legally mandated to report that to police, I am forbidden to do so by state professional regulations. If I report any past crime other than child abuse (which I am required to report), I could be successfully sued by the patient and lose my license as a consequence of violating privilege.
This is different from duty to warn (the expectation that psychologists do what is minimally necessary to warn an individual(s) they know to be in imminent physical danger), if we know that someone intends to harm them in the near future. Duty to warn is not codified in every state, so it is a civil rather than criminal issue in many cases. We are otherwise not permitted to report knowledge of future non-violent crimes. (see Tarasoff v California Board of Regents)
Posted by: dr x | September 24, 2007 4:45 PM
*shudder*
Posted by: mollishka | September 24, 2007 5:03 PM
About ten seconds into reading this post, I thought of Henry II of England and Thomas a Beckett, and the famous (but suspect) line, "Will no-one rid me of this turbulent priest?"
Has the Roman Catholic Church ever held any other opinion than that it is the final and absolute authority on earth, and the mouthpiece of God? That all governments, being shaped by mere men, have no authority over the servants of God?
Having been raised Catholic in the fifties, when the church was freaking scary, this mindset surprises me not much. It had seemed to me, standing now on the outside looking in, that things had begun to loosen up a teeny bit. How disheartening to see how wrong I was.
Posted by: Lorri Talley | September 24, 2007 5:38 PM
One other thing occurred to me since I posted a comment above. Ministerial exception is not an altogether alien concept even outside of ministry. Ministerial exception as it has traditionally applied to priests has an analogue in patient privilege - the patient has control over information revealed in an evaluation or treatment.
A few years ago I saw a religious accused of abusing a minor. This patient had been turned in to authorities in the state of Michigan where the accuser and the accused had resided. The Michigan prosecutor declined to prosecute criminally for reasons beyond the scope of this discussion. The victim did sue the the accused, his religious order and the diocese in Michigan where this patient had resided.
I was treating this individual in Illinois and was subpoenaed in the Michigan civil case. Since I believed that patient privilege applied, I discussed the matter with someone from the Illinois state ethics board and an attorney supplied by my malpractice insurer. Both advised that I refuse to comply with the supoena or risk a successful suit by the patient and legal disciplinary action in Illinois. I spoke with the plaintiff's Michigan attorney who apparently did some checking before deciding to let the matter go.
I never got as far as learning about Michigan law on the matter, but was advised that if the judge ordered me to testify in the case that I should consider avoiding travel to Michigan until the civil case there concluded. It never got that far. I suspect that the plaintiff's attorney learned that patient privilege applies in Michigan as it does in Illinois. While I'm mandated to report child abuse to DCFS, I can't testify against patients in civil or criminal cases of any kind other than with regard to what I reported as a mandated reporter. If I'm not the reporter in the case, then I can't testify.
Posted by: Dr X | September 24, 2007 6:35 PM
can you refuse to believe him when faith and forgiveness was the very message of Jesus?
Yes, but he also said "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's". And 'forgive' is not (and never has been) synonymous with 'trust implicitly thereafter', 'forget', or 'ignore'.
The complicity of the Church hierarchy in the sexual abuse of its members (not just children) is a guarantee of a one-way ticket to Hell. That and its recrudescent sexism and lust for power were the reasons I walked away. And I feel no guilt whatsoever.
Posted by: Justin Moretti | September 24, 2007 6:49 PM
Dr. X-
I know that the law does not require them to report such a crime; my point is that the law should require that. At the very least, a superior who has knowledge of a priest's crimes in this regard who then transfers that priest to another parish where they again have an opportunity to do it again should be charged with aiding and abetting and accessory after the fact. This should not merely be subject to civil action; it should be criminal.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 24, 2007 7:12 PM
Dr. X, It's not that simple. First, the scope of the psychotherapist privilege very much depends on the jurisdiction - the states and the feds have varying scopes of protection and varying exceptions - and, in any case, has absolutely nothing to do with whether you are breaching the privilege in testimony against the patient or in testimony against a third party. Second, the governing standard of whether the patient can assert a privilege-based challenge to your testimony is the standard of the jurisdiction whose privilege rules apply, not the standard of the jurisdiction in which the psychotherapist is licensed.
Finally, and most importantly, you absolutely should not be held civilly liable or suffer professional sanctions if you comply with a court order to testify, except that you may be required to cooperate with the patient's legal challenge or mount a bona fide legal challenge when the patient is unable or unavailable to do so. On the contrary, a valid court order is just as mandatory as a statute and you could face serious civil and criminal sanctions for disobeying one.
It's possible, but highly unlikely, that Illinois law is different on this last point and your licensing board was probably right to tell you to stay out of Michigan. However, I have some experience with professional licensing boards and would not recommend that anyone take any advice from them in complicated cross-jurisdictional legal matters - they're wrong about 50% of the time under the best of circumstances and have zero duty to be right. If push comes to shove, professionals should ALWAYS spring for a lawyer who specializes in health care law, preferably one who's done a significant amount of work before licensing boards and with hospitals. Health care licensing and confidentiality is a weird, quirky area of law, especially when it involves crossing state lines. You should distrust anyone who gives you a quick, purportedly definitive answer to anything but the most basic questions in this area. Including me.
Posted by: AnneS | September 24, 2007 7:33 PM
Well, it should be noted that the Catholic Church is not alone in this. Evidence is emerging that the Boy Scouts have also been in the business of brushing child molesters under the rug for decades. And I find it hard to believe that Ted Haggard's taste for illegal drugs and gay prostitutes were completely unknown to the other leaders in his church and the National Association of Evangelicals.
I think a bigger problem is the fact that many (though probably not most) religious people have a sort of kneejerk reaction against the idea of a religious organization knowingly participating in things they consider immoral. They can fathom perhaps a few isolated individuals being evil--"Oh, but that one priest/preacher wasn't a real Christian..."--but the idea that a whole organization, like the BSA or the church, might do something like this seems unthinkable to some people. The Boy Scouts and the Catholic Church are "godly"--so though there might be a bad apple here and there, the higher ranks of the organizations couldn't possibly be to blame as well.
Posted by: Wes | September 24, 2007 9:12 PM
I think its orders from the top. If you look at what Pope Benedict has been doing over the last few years, it's pretty clear that he personally longs for the "good old days" when the church was allowed to practice its own secular (i.e. worldly) jurisdiction. The mainstay of this, in some countries even into the 1800's, were the clerical courts. This argument, an argument that claims those clerical courts are a legitimate example of catholic religious practice and not an example of the church wielding secular power, is fairly transparent in trying to further the Church's political pull.
What I don't understand is why they tried to pull it in the U.S.; our federation was struck by a population which, down to every man and woman, was fervently anti-clerical (by the standards of the time of course; we may see the Massachusetts Bay colony as pretty dang clerical, but thats a view they'd have taken exception to). I wouldn't have been surprised if they'd push it somewhere like Brazil or Uruguay, or even South Africa, but the U.S. is a weird choice. Maybe they think that with Scalia, Alito, and Roberts they've got a chance. I'd like to think even Scalia has enough integrity not to humor nonsense of this type.
Posted by: Julian | September 25, 2007 1:56 AM
A lot of people are bringing up the issue of how much this hurts the Catholic church congregation-wise, in that it causes a loss of membership in the U.S., South America, and Europe. This is definitely true, but what if they don't care, in the long term? What if they see their major growth areas being in third world areas like Africa, India, South-east Asia, China, and Micronesia? I know that seems counter-intuitive to my statement above, but demographically those are the regions seeing a growth in Catholic membership and somehow I doubt that parishes in Zimbabwe are hearing about these pedophilia cases.
If they do see the western nations as a lost cause, and their concern is protecting and strengthening the missions in the developing world, then would they be willing to hemorrhage believers in the West to protect doctrines of church authority and infallibility elsewhere? Something to think about at least.
Posted by: Julian | September 25, 2007 2:05 AM
I agree with BobApril (and others) the truly intolerable part is that they just offered the offenders new opportunties to harm children.
I could almost (almost, mind) tolerate their response if they sent the offenders to minister to prisoners, or given them administrative position, or sent them to a monestary, or sent them to a seminary (if they are only attracted to small children).
If the biblical God existed (especially the Old Testament one), the Vatican should be a smoking crater by now.
Posted by: James | September 25, 2007 4:29 AM
The governing standard of whether the patient can assert a privilege-based challenge to your testimony is the standard of the jurisdiction whose privilege rules apply, not the standard of the jurisdiction in which the psychotherapist is licensed.
Both the treatment and my license are in Illinois. The civil suit was filed in Michigan and the suit pertained to an incident that actually occurred in yet a third jurisdiction where the action in question was not considered criminal and where civil liability would not likely have been found. While a judge can issue any order he pleases, I wonder if it is correct to assume that a state judge in one state can merely order a practioner in another state to breach confidentiality of a treatment that took place in another state. Not only did my state board advise that I should not comply with this out of state order affecting a treatment in my home state, but an independent attorney paid by my malpractice insurer advised me not to comply.
A valid court order is just as mandatory as a statute and you could face serious civil and criminal sanctions for disobeying one.
Which is why both attorneys I consulted suggested I stay out of Michigan if push had come to shove. Instead, an attorney representing me would have challenged the order. I would assume that a judge in one state does not simply have carte blanche to order citizens of another state to violate the laws of their home state. At the least, this can be challenged and, in fact, the Michigan attorney for the plaintiff did back down in this case without a formal legal challenge to the subpoena.
Ed,
I understand your point. Perhaps some existing state laws could apply to these cases, but maybe it would require changes to state criminal codes. It seems like a good idea to me.
Posted by: dr x | September 25, 2007 3:39 PM
My (quite limited) understanding of Catholic ritual is that you 'confess' your sins to a priest, who then 'absolves' you of them. I would assume that any subsequent mention of said sins to anyone else, including any other priests would not be considered 'confessional'. So, if a large subset of the clerical hierarchy is aware of a particular crime comitted by a priest, at most one of them should be able to claim privilege.
Incidentally, how strong is the legal support for claims of clerical privilege? Is it something like Attorney-Client privilege, breaking which carries criminal liability, or is it closer to a reporter's promise to not disclose her source's identity? The latter of course, carries no legal protection against being forced to testify and reporters have been sent to prison over their refusal to do so.
Irrespective of the privilege issue, it seems clear to me that superiors who provided a priest with continued access to children despite knowledge of multiple instances of abuse are guilty of child endangerement and should be prosecuted for the same. In particular, I would like to see Cardinal Bernard Law extradited back to the US and charged.
Posted by: Stagyar zil Doggo | September 25, 2007 3:54 PM
dr. x: Michigan may have jurisdiction over the case, but they do not have jurisdiction over you unless you consent to such jurisdiction. Thus, until you place yourself under the jurisdiction of the Michigan court (something which having your attorney challenge the jurisdiction in court does not do) you are ok in ignoring the summons.
As for whether you comply with a given state's confidentiality requests, this is not your issue. The privilege, if any, belongs to the patient or penitent, not the counselor or priest. If Michigan had valid personal jurisdiction over you (say you had an adjunct office inside the state, or regularly consulted on other cases before the Michigan courts) then you would have no choice but to obey the statute.
Posted by: kehrsam | September 25, 2007 10:38 PM
My (quite limited) understanding of Catholic ritual is that you 'confess' your sins to a priest, who then 'absolves' you of them.
The absolution given in this case has a religious definition, not a legal one. A priest can give you absolution if you confess to stealing money from your employer (although you're supposed to make restitution as well.) In Catholic doctrine, confession is a reconciliation with God, not a quick way out of your secular, material problems. In this case, it wouldn't prevent your employer from either pressing charges or suing you, and "He already confessed his sin to a priest!" is not a legal defense.
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer and haven't been a practicing Catholic for more than 35 years. But nowhere in my early religious instruction were we told that we could deliberately break a law and then evade it just by going to confession. And if diocesan officials are claiming that it violates "free exercise of religion" to hold a priest legally accountable if he abuses kids, they're blowing smoke out of their cassocks.
Posted by: Julie Stahlhut | November 19, 2007 8:29 PM
In other words, because they're "not subject to civil law," keep out of churches. Is that the message that the Church wants to send? Well, power to them.
They're sunk either way.
Posted by: Kristine | November 20, 2007 2:10 PM
Actually, pastors are not above this law. If a person confessed to me that they had abused a child-even if it were another member of the clergy-I am required to reprot it to the law. What I am required to do is stop the person immediately in their confession and say, "Before you go any further, I must inform you that I am required by law to turn this matter over to the police." I have already had one counseling situation in which this happened. (Fortunately the mom was having mental issues, and the abuse really didn't happen to her kids-and she got the mental health care she needed.)
If I were to molest a child, my bishop would immediately remove me from my call and would get the authorities involved. Unfortunately he has had to do this before with other clergy in my synod. The ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) has weathered such lawsuits; and seeks to be open and transparent whenever such allegations arise.
Posted by: Rev. AJB | November 20, 2007 3:10 PM
I wanna comment on Fr. AJB's comment. What he is talking about is counseling not the sacrament of reconciliation. Under the vow of confession seal, (here Vow is not a promise or oath, a vow is made to God and promises and oaths are made to people like Bishops e.t.c. example is celibacy is a promise whereas Chastity is a Vow), you cannot use the sacrament of Reconciliation to convict people. If the person came for counseling that is another thing. The sacrament of reconciliation is a doctrinal matter has nothing to do with the crime only deals with sins and can be protected by ministerial exception as immunity to civil law. If priests did use confessions of people to convict the penitents, then you are making grades in sins that some sins are greater than the others. I do not believe that. And that would mean that every one who has a grudge can come to a priest for information. What about people who confess murder, you think that people who rape woman and kill them their families are not in pain? Do not preach your own doctrines. Without the Sacrament of Reconciliation, there's not Christianity. And if people can no longer trust in the sacrament of Reconciliation, that means that they no longer trust in the mercy of God, and so we shall be responsible for the faith of the people.
However, there are many injustices that have been committed by Bishops and those loyal to him, who are beneficiaries of their corruptions. Yes, they have covered themselves under the ministerial exception clause which has made them look like gods and above the law and the long deceptions the church has made on their ignorant and fanatic followers that they cannot make mistakes, they represent God. Time is now; we know that it is just a job. The Church uses authoritative and indoctrinative power to govern. The tool is divide and rule and keeping followers ignorant. Let us look at something like celibacy. It is called obligated celibacy. The Old priests cannot support marriage of priests coz they cannot get this blessing because of age and jealous of young priests. Some join priesthood because they are shy to confront and make a relationship with a woman and so priesthood is a refugee camp and these are mostly the child sex molesters because they think that children cannot talk about their evil acts, and believing in the common belief that children lie and yet these kids suffer the whole of their life. Bishops are very aware of these people. In their seminary life, they pretend a lot, they always show that they do not like women, which is true to their nature. They are very friendly to their male seminarians especially the young ones and they are always recommended, while in seminary, as community life guys, whereas they are just comfortable. When they get ordained, they are alone in the parish and the closest finds are young children. It cannot hide for a long time, and there the job of molestation begins. Being very pious people in nature, Parishioners believe in them and when the news breaks, it is a shock to every one, but the warning signs are there in his seminary records. In the seminary, when a man is challenging superiors is never worth, but these are mostly the best priests to have because they are very smart and developmental.
The remedy for this is for the Congress to limit which cases should be pulled out of the ministerial exception cover and those which should remain protected. Allow investigations and then determine which case could be treated under this confusing ministerial exception. Acts like Hate statements, discrimination, racism and prejudice in appointing, defense of human rights in all its aspects should be addressed. Did you know that if the Bishop or any person close to the bishop can make your priesthood miserable and nothing can be done about it and did you know that some priests are the worst, they insult their parishioners and yet they are given benefits from year to year because Bishops answer to no body? And then they go out to preach Oh Jesus is just, Love one another. They vote and so should be jailed like any other citizens or else they go to another world where they can work for themselves. As long as they need other citizens that means they live in the world in which we live and they are not above the laws of our world. Time is over of being deceived by the so called Bishop. The Catholic Church as those big fat cats claim is NO LONGER INFALLIBLE IN MATTERS OF MORALS. The church can no longer protect morals while it is the same church breaking the morals. I t can stick to the Infallibility in matters of FAITH only and their they can claim ministerial exceptions.
Posted by: Tere | June 26, 2009 11:23 AM
I wanna comment on Fr. AJB's comment. What he is talking about is counseling not the sacrament of reconciliation. Under the vow of confession seal, (here Vow is not a promise or oath, a vow is made to God and promises and oaths are made to people like Bishops e.t.c. example is celibacy is a promise whereas Chastity is a Vow), you cannot use the sacrament of Reconciliation to convict people. If the person came for counseling that is another thing. The sacrament of reconciliation is a doctrinal matter has nothing to do with the crime only deals with sins and can be protected by ministerial exception as immunity to civil law. If priests did use confessions of people to convict the penitents, then you are making grades in sins that some sins are greater than the others. I do not believe that. And that would mean that every one who has a grudge can come to a priest for information. What about people who confess murder, you think that people who rape woman and kill them their families are not in pain? Do not preach your own doctrines. Without the Sacrament of Reconciliation, there's not Christianity. And if people can no longer trust in the sacrament of Reconciliation, that means that they no longer trust in the mercy of God, and so we shall be responsible for the faith of the people.
However, there are many injustices that have been committed by Bishops and those loyal to him, who are beneficiaries of their corruptions. Yes, they have covered themselves under the ministerial exception clause which has made them look like gods and above the law and the long deceptions the church has made on their ignorant and fanatic followers that they cannot make mistakes, they represent God. Time is now; we know that it is just a job. The Church uses authoritative and indoctrinative power to govern. The tool is divide and rule and keeping followers ignorant. Let us look at something like celibacy. It is called obligated celibacy. The Old priests cannot support marriage of priests coz they cannot get this blessing because of age and jealous of young priests. Some join priesthood because they are shy to confront and make a relationship with a woman and so priesthood is a refugee camp and these are mostly the child sex molesters because they think that children cannot talk about their evil acts, and believing in the common belief that children lie and yet these kids suffer the whole of their life. Bishops are very aware of these people. In their seminary life, they pretend a lot, they always show that they do not like women, which is true to their nature. They are very friendly to their male seminarians especially the young ones and they are always recommended, while in seminary, as community life guys, whereas they are just comfortable. When they get ordained, they are alone in the parish and the closest finds are young children. It cannot hide for a long time, and there the job of molestation begins. Being very pious people in nature, Parishioners believe in them and when the news breaks, it is a shock to every one, but the warning signs are there in his seminary records. In the seminary, when a man is challenging superiors is never worth, but these are mostly the best priests to have because they are very smart and developmental.
The remedy for this is for the Congress to limit which cases should be pulled out of the ministerial exception cover and those which should remain protected. Allow investigations and then determine which case could be treated under this confusing ministerial exception. Acts like Hate statements, discrimination, racism and prejudice in appointing, defense of human rights in all its aspects should be addressed. Did you know that if the Bishop or any person close to the bishop can make your priesthood miserable and nothing can be done about it and did you know that some priests are the worst, they insult their parishioners and yet they are given benefits from year to year because Bishops answer to no body? And then they go out to preach Oh Jesus is just, Love one another. They vote and so should be jailed like any other citizens or else they go to another world where they can work for themselves. As long as they need other citizens that means they live in the world in which we live and they are not above the laws of our world. Time is over of being deceived by the so called Bishop. The Catholic Church as those big fat cats claim is NO LONGER INFALLIBLE IN MATTERS OF MORALS. The church can no longer protect morals while it is the same church breaking the morals. It can stick to the Infallibility in matters of FAITH only and there they can claim ministerial exceptions.
Posted by: Tere | June 26, 2009 11:26 AM
I agree with you Poly. Nony does not know what is talking about. It has never hit him/her. These kinds of Nonys are the ones who think a priest is god when he is sweeping off all her/his treasures. It like Dick Cheney who believes that he is a conservative. Conservative repblicans oppose civil unions, are against abortion, preach against gay rigts and premarital babies. When his daughter pronounced she was gay, Cheney changed his view, now he likes gays, he supports civil unions but only to be a State by State issue. Is it only when we are directly hit by the problem that it becomes a problem, or a problem is because it really is? Nony if you are one of the beneficiaries of the Power of Bishops, wait for your turn, it will be too late. By the way, the power of Bishops is only when they are alive and when they have buildings and people to maintain them. If you Nony has a lot of money, and you think that God wants your money, you are wrong. God wants our hearts, good hearts. Even Bishops go to HELL if they are not pleasing to God. You did not know that, now you know.
Posted by: nemo | June 26, 2009 12:05 PM