Comments
Posted by Stella on March 30, 2002 5:25 PM:
Ali - I'm still upset with this. I'm Catholic and I've been attending Sts. P&P since I came to HI, but ever since this story broke out I'm not sure if I should still keep on going there. (Never was a registered parishioner, anyway.) I mean, every which way you look at it, even if you consider the facts of the case, the church just does not have any business countersuing! (KHNL.com broke the story earlier on Thursday) The fact remains that the family has been through enough anguish even while the abuses were ongoing, and no matter what the church or its leaders or whoever had the F'ING BRILLIANT IDEA to pursue the countersuit will say, there's no way they can ever be able to cover the Church's ass on this one. I was so upset that I even boycotted Good Friday because of this. As much as I try to stay true to my faith - and this is coming from someone who already defies all definitions of a "good Catholic" - I cannot, and will not, stand by the actions of the people who think they can make these sorts of horrible decisions in the name of the Church. It doesn't matter to me any more whose parish I belong to as long as I never lose that relationship with God and I practice my faith in my own way.
Posted by Ryan on March 30, 2002 9:15 PM:
Gah. Sadly, churches don't retain public relations professionals. Countersuing the family makes as much sense as... well, as Clyde Arakawa suing Dana Ambrose's family for the damage done to his car... when he slammed it into Dana's and killed her.
Religion, believe it or not, makes sense to me, and I respect and encourage my wife's Catholic faith. However, the _institutions_ that represent the faith are very frequently fallible.
Posted by ali on March 30, 2002 10:39 PM:
Exactly. Religion should and does make sense. Faith is important, especially in these times. The REAL Church is made up of individual people and the faith within their hearts. No matter how illogical Clyde Arakawa's suit is, it is still the countersuit of an individual. The idea that the "institution" supposedly represents the collective parishoners in initiating a countersuit is what I find particularly repugnant. I really don't think the parish or people of the Catholic faith believe that the victim or his family are at fault. By initiating a countersuit, they alienated some (if not many) of the very people whose interests they claim to serve. In this season where many find or reclaim their relationship with God during Easter services, the institution has made a decision to pursue a dark path. It is heartbreaking that Stella didn't feel comfortable in what should be her own church.
Posted by Maggie on March 31, 2002 10:10 AM:
Hi, Ali. Thanks for the heads up on this new site and a big "well done" to those responsible for it.
Now, on this issue - Here's one Catholic who thinks the Church should defend itself. Why is the Church responsible for the actions of this monster? He wasn't a priest. He worked there.
If, for instance, I meet the yard guy of the Church, he invites me to his home for dinner, I get there and I'm assaulted, is the Church culpable because my assailant worked for the Church? Not in my opinion.
The paper said the mother allowed her children to spend nights at Feliciano's home. Why did she allow that? Where does her responsibility lie?
It's my opinion that lawyers take one look at any connection to the Catholic Church and see a cash cow. Let the accusers have their day in court, but let the accused have theirs also.
That's the way it's done in this country, even if it IS the Catholic Church.
Posted by ali on March 31, 2002 12:13 PM:
Glad to see you, Maggie! I read your 3/29/02 entry and agree wholeheartedly! I've often wondered about it, myself.
My original entry above was based on the one link from The Hawaii Channel. It did not give many details. I have since read another article by the Honolulu Advertiser (3/29/02). With all due respect, I still believe that there is a difference in the level of trust afforded to a groundskeeper versus the level of trust given to the laity official who trains altar boys. This person has direct contact with children while acting as a representative of the Church. He could not have trained altar boys without the knowledge and permission of the Church. The claim is that the offender used his position of authority within the Church to "groom" the victims. This is common behavior for sex offenders. In general, they present themselves as being caring and helpful to the potential victims and espcially to the parents or guardians of the child. Why? Over time, the parents (or more often, vulnerable single mom) develop a higher level of trust--they grow to believe that the sex offender is a genuine "friend" and allow more and more access to the child. Eventually, they may even allow their child to spend the night with the monster. Parents need to be educated--the vast majority of child molestations are committed by people that the children and parents consider a "friend" or family member.
As stated earlier, I don't have all the details of this particular case. My view is based on the idea that the Church is saying that it has no responsibility for "an employee." Many organizations do extensive background checks even for unpaid volunteers because the actions and behavior of the employee or volunteer reflects on the organization as a whole. I think any organization that deals with children, Church or secular, has a responsibility to be aware of signs and symptoms of sex offenders so that they can protect the children in their care . . . as well as their own organization.
Posted by Maggie on March 31, 2002 1:08 PM:
"I think any organization that deals with children, Church or secular, has a responsibility to be aware of signs and symptoms of sex offenders so that they can protect the children in their care . . . as well as their own organization. - Ali"
That's very true, Ali, but I believe that responsibility extends to the caregivers (i.e. parents) of the children as well. Child abuse isn't hidden anymore. The signs and symptoms of an abuser are certainly public knowledge, in this day and age. You simply do not send your children into the arms of strangers, though parents do it every single day.
Here's an example; My roommate and I are the safe house for our neighborhood watch group. We acquired that distinction simply because I'm home all the time.
Not one parent in this neighborhood, after 8 years of living here, has ever come to our home to see how we live, yet they allow their children to come on a daily basis. In fact, I haven't even met some of these parents. There is a 3-year-old who wanders the neighborhood at will, and he visits daily, asking for chocolate.
Although all of these parents (those I have met) are very nice people, they are completely irresponsible with their children's safety, IMO. Not to mention very lucky.
Now, what would happen if I was an abuser of children and no one knew ... not even my roommate? Would she be responsible, as the owner of this house, for my actions? Would she be more responsible than the parents who willingly and enthusiastically sent their children to me, without so much as a "How do you do"?
Anyway, my point is this, if the abuser can gain the trust of innocent parents, why is it unreasonable to believe the Church gave it's trust innocently also? And, if the Church did offer trust innocently, how does that make the Church more culpable than the parent?
Being the cynic that I am, I believe it's because the Church has deep pockets and makes an attractive target.
Posted by ali on March 31, 2002 4:22 PM:
"You simply do not send your children into the arms of strangers, though parents do it every single day."
Because of his status as an "employee," the offender was not a stranger. He was someone who trained altar boys . . . worse than a stranger. I don't know--deep pocket or not, I think people tend to feel more trustful of Church employees because they hold a position of respect within the Church. Same with teachers--like most parents, I didn't do background checks on every employee in my kids' school and I don't know every faculty and staff member yet I send my children to school and trust the school more than I would a stranger. Therein lies my problem--I want to be able to trust that the Church is a safe place, that the Church is alive and caring. I want to know that by disavowing responsibility they are not opening the doors for child molesters to abuse the trust, authority, power and goodness of their "employee" status.
Posted by Stella on March 31, 2002 5:37 PM:
Well, well, well. The debate's still raging. Meanwhile I'm staying away from Sts. P&P until the countersuit is pulled. While I've never doubted that the Church has deep pockets - and therefore never doubted that anyone will sue the church for money - in this particular case I'm more liable to blame the legal team representing the Church on this issue. The point being this: What will this lawsuit prove, anyway, if it ever gets pursued? Okay, so it does help to know that there already was abuse in the kids' home before all of this had happened. And the Church itself is already seemingly guilty (and I'm trying to be very, very careful with my words here) of not being a good protector for these kids, not just from employing the molester but also from not being able to get through to the parents as well. There's already considerable anguish between all sides involved that I'm sure is completely irreparable. But again, is it really necessary to prove all of this with a costly lawsuit? The countersuit, I'm sorry to say, is counterproductive - it's already a bad PR move, if that's what everyone's after, and even with the continuous rehashing of the facts of the case (whatever they are, since it's apparent that we will never really have a chance to know all the facts in this case) the only people I can see benefiting from this costly grudge match is whoever ends up collecting the legal fees once it's all over. Let the Church defend itself, for once, but don't let the wolves get the better of it.
Which goes back to the two original points:
1) People are fallible.
2) Once a trust is broken, it is difficult to regain and earn once again - and this applies to any person and any institution.
I've since started going to another parish that's more (geographically) accessible to me - I'm still somewhat thankful that I'm a "freelance Catholic" and not tied down to a single church community, as long as it does not affect my relationship with God and how I share my beliefs with others. I continue to pray for the Sts. Peter and Paul community, and that whatever happens, it is my sincere hope that His will, whatever that is, shall be done.
Happy Easter, everyone. :)
Posted by Maggie on March 31, 2002 6:46 PM:
"And the Church itself is already seemingly guilty (and I'm trying to be very, very careful with my words here) of not being a good protector for these kids, not just from employing the molester but also from not being able to get through to the parents as well. - Stella "
And this is exactly what bothers me. The Church wasn't the perpetrator. The Church didn't molest anyone. The Church wasn't convicted in a court of law. But, the Church, however, is again and again, tried AND convicted in the court of public opinion and they are expected to simply pay off and keep quiet.
And the irony of that statement is when they do pay off and keep quiet, they're accused of covering up crimes and protecting criminals.
"Let the Church defend itself, for once, but don't let the wolves get the better of it. - Stella"
How? If not in court, how can the Church defend itself?
If that isn't a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't, I don't know what is.
This whole thing has me steaming, but I guess I've said enough and there's no use repeating the same argument.
Hope you all had a Happy Easter.
Posted by Stella on March 31, 2002 8:30 PM:
Okay, so here's one last word, and hopefully no more.
I was talking to my Mom about this on the phone. Like I've said, I'm still upset, but now I see where the other side is coming to, and I'm still trying to make sense of it all. No one wants to be the bad guy, but no one wants to be the doormat either. So maybe it does make sense to put the whole thing through the court of law, at least, even at the expense of PR and the "wolves" in the media. If this is the risk to be taken for the truth - any truth, whichever truth that is - then so be it; I'm not saying they're right in doing it, but at least I'm seeing the validity of the point.
Vengeance is the Lord's, His will be done, and all that. Not to mention that people are fallible, and the real issue here, as it has always been, is power. Then again, we've wrestled with these questions all our lives in the greater community, as well. Yet faith - maybe it's religious, or in due process, but there's always faith - always prevails, and for good reason. What a mystery in itself!
So when do I plan to go back to Sts. Peter and Paul? I'm not sure yet, but I'm still praying for them, and I've asked all my friends and family to do the same. Until then, good night.
Posted by Ryan on March 31, 2002 11:11 PM:
All good points, Maggie, but I still feel the church bears some culpability.
I certainly agree the way some parents neglect their children should be criminal. But there's a difference between a parent whose kid is sent knowingly to a church or "safe house" and gets molested or hurt, and a kid who wanders into a crack dealer's backyard.
There is an expectation of safety and trust with certain institutions, companies, and groups. Especially if they profit and benefit off that trust, they must protect and enforce it, and should they fail, they should most certainly be on the list of defendents if someone relying on that trust is wronged.
This is why I say the countersuit might have some legal merit, but certainly no moral merit. Sure, neither the parents or the church are innocent enough to throw the first stone here. But I would've at least hoped the church would honor its own principles enough to not to get into the stone throwing business at all.
I'm not saying, though, that they should just keep quiet and "pay off" victims. But if there's a solution here, it's in taking greater care of whom you hire - be it a groundskeeper or a priest - than going after those who cry foul when those employees go bad.
Posted by ali on March 31, 2002 11:41 PM:
I was going to write along the same lines. Ryan wrote it out much clearer. :-) Love you all! Happy Easter!
Posted by Maggie on April 1, 2002 6:15 AM:
"This is why I say the countersuit might have some legal merit, but certainly no moral merit. Sure, neither the parents or the church are innocent enough to throw the first stone here.- Ryan"
At the risk of repeating myself :^), IMO, from the information available, the Church committed no crime, legally or morally. The Church molested no one. The Church didn't send the children to spend the night at the man's house.
The first stone was thrown by the mother and her attorney when they filed the civil suit and named, not only the perpetrator (who had already been convicted and sentenced, but who probably has no money), but the local parish priests, bishop, and the entire Catholic Church.
"But I would've at least hoped the church would honor its own principles enough to not to get into the stone throwing business at all. - Ryan"
If the Church is accused under secular law, then a secular defense is a reasonable recourse.
"But if there's a solution here, it's in taking greater care of whom you hire - be it a groundskeeper or a priest - than going after those who cry foul when those employees go bad. - Ryan"
Yes. That's certainly part of the solution. And, I would bet the ranch the Church is taking that under very serious consideration.
The other part would be parents taking a modicum of responsibility for the safety of their children.
I'll give you this - if it's proven the molestation occurred when Feliciano was acting in an official capacity, i.e. it happened while he was working, or on Church property, etc., or if it's revealed the Church suggested to the mother that it would be okay to allow her children to spend nights with this man, I'll quit my grousing about it and admit the Church is liable for negligence.
BUT, if it's revealed that the molestation occured only off of Church property, in Feliciano's home, when he wasn't working in an official Church capacity, and the mother willingly sent her children there to spend nights with this man, then I'm sticking to my premise that the Church holds no responsibility for this crime. Morally or legally.
Posted by Jay on April 4, 2002 9:27 AM:
Clearly the Catholic Diocese here in Hawaii does not have a flair for public relations as evidenced in the following news articles.
March 29 - Honolulu Advertiser
March 29 - Honolulu Star-Bulletin
March 3- Honolulu Star-Bulletin
Posted by Maggie on April 4, 2002 10:05 AM:
"Clearly the Catholic Diocese here in Hawaii does not have a flair for public relations as evidenced in the following news articles. - Jay"
And, clearly the attorneys for the plantiffs, and members of the press, such as Rob Perez, have a flair for manipulation of public opinion, and trying cases in the news media.
Maybe we should disband the court system and simply use the newspapers and broadcast news companies. Think of the money we'd save in court costs.
Posted by Jay on April 5, 2002 7:26 AM:
'And, clearly the attorneys for the plantiffs, and members of the press, such as Rob Perez, have a flair for manipulation of public opinion, and trying cases in the news media.'
Excuse me lady--but what planet are you from? The Church only has itself to blame for the issues that are coming out in the media due to their mishandling of the situation. Perhaps you would prefer that the Church continue to handle it their way and perpetuate the silence and secrecy.
It is because of the media that people are being made aware of these issues and the only way it seems to get the Catholic Church to change and take action to prevent the violation of any more innocent victims.
'Maybe we should disband the court system and simply use the newspapers and broadcast news companies. Think of the money we'd save in court costs.'
Yeah, not to mention the hundreds of millions of dollars the Church has had and will have to pay to victims of abuse. Monies that could have been spent to promote its true purposes and monies that were contributed by trusting and faithful Catholic parishioners.
Posted by Maggie on April 5, 2002 8:50 AM:
Excuse me lady--but what planet are you from? - Jay"
Well, that seems kind of snotty, but I'll gladly answer you.
This might be presumptuous on my part, but I'm assuming we're from the same planet - Earth.
I, however, happen to live in the United States of America, where "innocent until proven guilty" is the rule. Where do you live?
"The Church only has itself to blame for the issues that are coming out in the media due to their mishandling of the situation. Perhaps you would prefer that the Church continue to handle it their way and perpetuate the silence and secrecy. -Jay"
Actually, I prefer to see the cases tried in a court of law, preferably in a timely fashion, but certainly not in the newspapers or with well-timed one-sided news conferences. I prefer to base my judgement on all the facts, not just the "facts" as heard from one side or the other.
The Church is under no obligation to acquiesce, without having it's day in court, regardless of media blitz or public pressure. That's the way it's done in this country, church or no church.
If you accuse me of something, I have the right to defend myself. No matter how heinous the accusation or crime.
What do they do in your country?
Posted by Jay on April 5, 2002 9:55 AM:
My My My...
If you've been keeping abreast of the news the Church has already been tried and found guilty in many courts of law across the country and have already had to pay out millions of dollars in reparations to their victims. You obviously have a computer--do a search and you'll find out this is true.
I wonder how you would feel if YOU, your child, sister, nephew, grandson or neighbor were the victims of such abuse. Would you then be so ready to defend the actions of the Church?
Posted by Maggie on April 5, 2002 10:22 AM:
"I wonder how you would feel if YOU, your child, sister, nephew, grandson or neighbor were the victims of such abuse. Would you then be so ready to defend the actions of the Church? - Jay"
Although neither of the following examples have anything at all to do with the Catholic Church, there are two cases of molestation (that we know of) in one branch of my family. One of those people is very close to me. The other person is her sister. They both feel, as I do, that the Church is entitled to their day in court.
If we go the route you apparently are comfortable with, (i.e. anyone, or any entity, accused of this reprehensible crime, directly or indirectly, is automatically guilty) then, in theory, I could accuse YOU of molesting me, call a news conference and proclaim my accusation to the world, and reasonably expect restitution of some kind forthwith.
No trial, no defending yourself, no nothing. You're simply guilty.
Now, you'd be comfortable with that, wouldn't you?
Of course you wouldn't. You, rightly, would demand your day in court.
The Church is entitled to that same right.
Posted by Jay on April 5, 2002 11:09 AM:
I repeat....the Church has been to trial in many courts of law across the country and have ALREADY been found guilty.
'If you've been keeping abreast of the news the Church has already been tried and found guilty in many courts of law across the country and have already had to pay out millions of dollars in reparations to their victims. You obviously have a computer--DO a search and you'll find out this is true.'
DO YOU KNOW HOW TO DO A SEARCH?
Posted by Maggie on April 5, 2002 11:30 AM:
"I repeat....the Church has been to trial in many courts of law across the country and have ALREADY been found guilty. - Jay"
Actually, some of the individual accused priests have been to trial and found guilty. Some of them haven't been charged, due to a variety of reasons.
The civil suits are pending, including the Hawaii cases, which is the topic.
"DO YOU KNOW HOW TO DO A SEARCH? - Jay"
You know, Jay, all of your emotional posturing will not change my mind about the Church's right to due process.
The accuser AND the accused have the right to a fair and unbiased trial ... whether you like it or not.
Posted by Jay on April 5, 2002 12:18 PM:
Excuse me--
I never once stated that the Church wasn't entitled to a jury trial. I merely stated that it already has been to trial in MANY MANY cases and has already been found liable. Don't put words in my mouth. I thinks its you who need to look back carefully at your own posts.
Also, I am not here to change anyone's mind--I am entitled to my own views as you are entitled to yours. You seem to want to turn this into something personal.
By the way, how come you never answer any of the questions I directly pose to you? DO YOU KNOW HOW TO SEARCH?
Posted by Maggie on April 5, 2002 12:35 PM:
"I never once stated that the Church wasn't entitled to a jury trial. I merely stated that it already has been to trial in MANY MANY cases and has already been found liable. - Jay"
The Church is involved in civil suits now. I'm not aware of any suit that has found the Church liable, in this country, yet.
Individual priests have been found guilty of criminal offense, but not the Church. That's not to say it won't be found liable in the future, but that isn't the case yet.
"Don't put words in my mouth. I thinks its you who need to look back carefully at your own posts. - Jay"
I haven't put any words in your mouth, nor have I misconstrued your answers.
"You seem to want to turn this into something personal. - Jay"
Excuse me? You initiated this conversation with me by saying "Excuse me lady, but what planet are you from?" Pardon me, but that sounds just a tad bit sarcastic and nasty.
"By the way, how come you never answer any of the questions I directly pose to you? DO YOU KNOW HOW TO SEARCH? - Jay"
Because that question seems to be a weak attempt at attack.
So, for future reference, I won't be bothered with debate tactics like that. I've been at this too long.
Posted by Jay on April 5, 2002 1:22 PM:
LOL!!
I don't believe you even know how to do a search. Because if you did you would be truly shocked at what you would find.
Why don't you learn how and come back after you've educated yourself a bit.
'You apparently aren't able to see through the veil of hypocrisy covering your face.'
This is a direct quotation from your own website.
Posted by Maggie on April 5, 2002 1:45 PM:
"I don't believe you even know how to do a search. Because if you did you would be truly shocked at what you would find. - Jay"
Very little shocks me, Jay. Very little. Including unmitigated rudeness from complete strangers. Why don't you just post the information you're referring to, instead of trying to insult me?
"Why don't you learn how and come back after you've educated yourself a bit. - Jay"
There ya go again. Why so nasty?
"'You apparently aren't able to see through the veil of hypocrisy covering your face.'
This is a direct quotation from your own website. - Jay"
Glad you picked up on that. Read your posts here and then think about it.
I'm sure you will correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be implying that because you believe the Church has accepted liability (i.e. settled out of court) in some of these cases, guilt should be assumed in all cases.
My stance, on the other hand, is this - in each and every case, the Church should be allowed due process.
I don't know how anyone can argue against that premise, and I certainly don't understand WHY someone would argue against it, but that certainly seems to be what you're attempting to do.
Maybe you're too emotionally involved to discuss it rationally. Maybe you're in need of a nap. Or, maybe you really believe the Church to be guilty in all cases, past, present, and future.
And, if that's the case, let's hope you are never allowed to sit on a jury, because that's not the way it's supposed to work.
Posted by Jay on April 5, 2002 2:33 PM:
LOL!!
Now look who's getting all emotional.
''My stance, on the other hand, is this - in each and every case, the Church should be allowed due process.''
There you go again repeating yourself. I never once said that the Church isn't entitled to a jury trial. How many times do I have to repeat that? I also never passed judgment on any of the Honolulu cases. You made that implication yourself. Their judgement is in the hands of the jury.
Also, don't forget, I'm not proclaiming them guilty, the courts are. I being a mere 'emotional' human being don't profess to have all the facts.
I also certainly don't care about changing your mind--again a repeat. Go ahead and hold on to your views--I really could care less. I certainly wouldn't want you to lose your status as the
"poster girl" for Catholicism.
There's a lay term for this--its called 'denial'. Certainly its easier for you to continue to hold your viewpoint because its easier than having to search your soul and see the truth because it would shatter your whole world construct--and then what would you be able to believe in.
I understand and sympathize with your position.
Posted by Maggie on April 5, 2002 3:16 PM:
Jay, are you being obtuse on purpose, or is this something you struggle with on a daily basis?
You don't seem to be able to handle differing opinions without becoming emotional, insulting, churlish, etc. That also could be construed as a form of denial. On the other hand, it could be construed as a defect in cognitive function. Who's to say, eh?
I've stated my position clearly. You've attempted to state yours, albeit not so clearly.
In one instance, you claim the Church has already been tried and found guilty.
In another post, you say the Church has already paid out millions of dollars and "will have to pay out" more.
And, in yet another post, you say the Church is entitled to due process, although clearly you've already made up your mind the Church is guilty, because of past out-of-court settlements.
Your position is clear as mud, although I do have the distinct impression you're a proponent of the Judge Roy Bean philosophy.
Trial? We'll give em a trial, THEN we'll hang em!
Incredible.
Posted by Jay on April 5, 2002 5:29 PM:
Lady,
I think you have a problem. I've stated my position clearly. You haven't. If you look closely, your posts look like emotional rantings. Go take a nap.
LOL
Posted by Ryan on April 5, 2002 5:59 PM:
Um. Jay, I don't think you're making any friends with your attitude here. Your points are reasonable and would carry more weight without the LOLs and personal attacks.
I think Maggie's point, restated, was this: "My stance, on the other hand, is this - in each and every case, the Church should be allowed due process."
Which, Jay agrees with, and I agree with. The basic point of contention with this entire discussion is, however, "Does the church, as an institution, have a problem?" Do the broad criticisms have merit?
And to that I answer, if not probably, at least possibly.
Yes, every accused priest deserves his day in court. But if after five, ten, fifteen priests have their day in court, and if a good portion of them are found in a fair trial to be guilty, then there is a problem.
(Let alone the fact that even without cases that go to court, the number of simple accusations -- even allowing for a high percentage of money-hungry opportunists and vengeful former church members -- clearly illustrates that there is a problem.)
No, it wouldn't mean all priests are molesters. It wouldn't mean every individual church has done wrong. But it proves that there is a systematic - and by all accounts, purposefully ignored or obscured - problem within the church as a whole. And if that's the case, I think it's reasonable for someone to not think highly of the entire institution. With or without the supposed bias of the media, I think a reasonable person would come to the same conclusion.
I appreciate the purpose of the church, and what it means to people. But I also don't think the institution is beyond reproach in how it earns and handles the trust and respect it's given by its members, and the general public.
Posted by Maggie on April 5, 2002 7:34 PM:
"The basic point of contention with this entire discussion is, however, "Does the church, as an institution, have a problem?" Do the broad criticisms have merit? - Ryan"
In my opinion - No. The Church, as an institution, does not have a problem. Individuals within the institution have problems.
Furthermore, I believe all of those individuals accused, no matter how horrible the crime, no matter how many go before them, and no matter how many are found guilty, require due process, for each and every case.
Without that, we're back to frontier justice and that's not acceptable to me.
Re: Media Blitz - I'm offended when the media goes on a feeding frenzy, no matter who's involved. They try and convict without trial, and that's not the way it's supposed to happen.
Mob mentality pisses me off, no matter who happens to be the target du jour.
Enough from me tonight.
Posted by Ryan on April 5, 2002 8:53 PM:
A fellow from the Catholic League was on TV tonight, and even to this frequent church detractor, he made a good case for the church, and against the current wave of church bashing. I had a better understanding of Maggie's frustration.
I still maintain the church as an institution has a fault - shifting priests between parishes when they get in trouble is indicative of a systematic problem, for example. But yes, piling on all priests (and spitting on them, as has been reported in New York) is as bad and repugnant act as attacking all Arab Americans after September 11.
Posted by Jay on April 8, 2002 9:49 AM:
Certainly, many of my best friends are priests and if one of them were accused I would want him to have a fair jury trial--I have never contested that.
However, the acts of the priests who have confessed to the sexual molestation of minors or those who have been found guilty of it (by jury trial) have put a dark cloud over many innocent priests.
The church is liable also because it shuffled these priests around or denied any responsibility for their actions and put innocent children in danger. Many of the victims have had to suffer years of psychological trauma because the Church was not proactive in dealing with these priests.
Believe me, I have firsthand experience of how the Catholic church handles stuff like this--its always denial, indifference, silence, cover-up, or blame the victim.
Posted by Ryan on April 22, 2002 11:08 AM:
From the horse's mouth:
"The crisis of clergy sexual abuse of minors is not just a media driven or public perception... But it is a very serious issue undermining the mission of the church."
—Cardinal Bernard Law
Posted by kreeesty on April 22, 2002 11:35 PM:
This past Sunday I sat through Mass at Sts. P&P (where I go when I don't wake up early enough for Mass where I'm actually registered). I'd been waiting for a homily addressing this unavoidable issue that every priest and deacon seemed to be avoiding (though to be fair, maybe I overslept the day they dealt with it). But this Sunday I was present and wide-awake at the 11 a.m. mass, where the core of the priest's message was: Pray for the Church. And I found it unbelievably tragic that the act of prayer, which is supposed to strengthen spirit and deliver hope, could suddenly feel, simply, desperate.
Due process and innocent until proven guilty aside, everyone's lowering their eyes when the priest makes his way to the front of the church to preside over mass. On the one hand: now more than ever, we need strong and trustworthy leaders. On the other hand, we thought they were all trustworthy to begin with.
I appreciated the homily, but not the same way as the people who applauded at the end of it. But I was extremely saddened because despite my aversions to certain "motions" that often seem to define Catholicism, I wasn't prepared for the Church to crumble (or, at least, falter hugely) under this particular kind of ... strain.
Not like that makes me unique.
Prayer is not a huge comfort right now, but aside from due process and what have you, it's all there is.
Posted by ali on April 24, 2002 6:42 AM:
"This is about power and trust -- not sexuality," he said. "Whether it's Protestant, Jewish, Hindu or Catholic, the more devout a person is, the more they trust their clergy -- and the more vulnerable they are."
This quote came from http://www.startribune.com/stories/614/2250326.html--"Sexual misconduct by clergy is found among all faiths" by Bob von Sternberg of the Star Tribune.
![[ talkstory Category ]](/graphics/talkstory.gif){kind=small}
![[ HawaiiAnswers.com - You ask, Hawaii answers. ]](/graphics/hawaiianswers.jpg){kind=small}
![[ HawaiiAnswers.com - Hawaii's first online news source. ]](/graphics/hawaiinews.jpg){kind=small}
![[ HawaiiAnswers.com - Let's talk story. ]](/graphics/hawaiithreads.jpg){kind=small}
![[ Chris ]](/graphics/button-keyofc.jpg){kind=small}
![[ Eric ]](/graphics/button-eric.jpg){kind=small}
![[ George ]](/graphics/button-george.jpg){kind=small}
![[ Grant ]](/graphics/button-grant.jpg){kind=small}
![[ Jennifer ]](/graphics/button-jennifer.jpg){kind=small}
![[ Kirby ]](/graphics/button-kirby.gif){kind=small}
![[ Lia ]](/graphics/button-lia.jpg){kind=small}
![[ Linda ]](/graphics/button-linda.jpg){kind=small}
![[ Mokihana ]](/graphics/button-mokihana.jpg){kind=small}
![[ 100 x 30 ]](/graphics/button-hs100x30.gif){kind=small}
![[ 88 x 31 ]](/graphics/button-hs88x31.gif){kind=small}
![[ HawaiiStories Fiction ]](/graphics/button-fiction.gif){kind=small}
![[ HawaiiStories Gallery ]](/graphics/button-gallery.gif){kind=small}
![[ HawaiiStories Poll ]](/graphics/button-survey.gif){kind=small}
![[ HawaiiStories Chat ]](/graphics/button-chat.gif){kind=small}