Catholics and Child Abuse Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Former Adventist Fellowship Forum » ARCHIVED DISCUSSIONS 2 » Catholics and Child Abuse « Previous Next »

Author Message
Violet (Violet)
Posted on Saturday, August 10, 2002 - 7:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The waters are churning here in Oklahoma. One of the main stories was about priests being required to not tell, by the church, if someone confesses to molestation in the confessional. I was brought up worrying about being thrown in jail by the catholics, now I wonder if the priests will be thrown in jail for not disclosing molesters as required by Oklahoma law? Kind of ironic.

What do you all think, should the priests tell if someone confesses to child molestation or not? If they tell they will be excommunicated from the church and not be allowed holy communion.

I know this is kind of an off subject, but I think it is relevant to how we relate to different denominations. I was racking my brain as to how would I respond if I was on a jury would you send the priest to jail or not? Should we make allowances for religions or should he be willing to go to jail for his beliefs and breaking the law?
Sabra (Sabra)
Posted on Sunday, August 11, 2002 - 10:55 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jesus said if anyone offends one of these little ones it would be better for a milestone to be hung around his neck and cast into the sea.

They should pay for keeping quiet, they could have helped a child by turning an abuser in instead of trying to cover their own's sins and causing more devastation to the child.

These priests seem to be oblivious to the enormity of the destruction going on in these children's lives. It makes me very angry to see them so uncaring. I'm disapointed that the Pope hasn't set some strong, steadfast rules in removing the abusers and the facilitators from their positions.
Violet (Violet)
Posted on Sunday, August 11, 2002 - 12:24 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I agree that the priest who molests a child should be hung out to dry, but I am talking about a priest the hears someone, any one, confess to a molestation in the confessional booth. This person may be just a member of his parish. Should the priest who listens to the confession be put in jail for not telling the authorities? See the difference?
Sabra (Sabra)
Posted on Sunday, August 11, 2002 - 12:28 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yes!! If you will re-read my post you will see that I understood your question exactly and am appalled that anyone would even CONSIDER NOT telling! If you knew of a child being molested could you keep quiet just to make the church look good? UGH! That is desregard for the child! How does that child feel when NO responsible adult stands up for them? The whole situation makes me sick!
Violet (Violet)
Posted on Sunday, August 11, 2002 - 1:07 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I do not think that they are keeping quiet to make the church look good. They are keeping quiet because they believe that if you don't confess your sins to a priest they cannot be saved, and if the confessional booth is not in full confidence then the catholics may not confess all sins and they will not be accepted in the kingdom of God. Likewise if a priest breaks that confidence then the priest will be excommunicated and he is giving up his eternal salvation.

In other words, if you truly believed that you were giving up you eternal life would you tell?
Jerry (Jerry)
Posted on Monday, August 12, 2002 - 12:53 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I think this situation speaks to what happens when people form religious beliefs that are not according to Godís will.

These priests, who hear a confession about a terrible crime and do not reveal it to authorities, find themselves in an impossible dilemma. They are taught that the confession is holy and that to violate that sanctity is a rebellion against God. The sinner is taught that they must confess to a priest in order to be forgiven.

James 5:16

Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

The Bible says we must confess to each other, not to a select few. There is no mention of an intercessor other than Jesus. There is no mention of secrecy.

Certainly, there is mention of discretion as in Matthew 18. However, that stops after the sinner fails to address the problem in a reasonable time.

Therefore, a priest who has heard a confession of a child abuser cannot act in the love that Jesus taught. That love would insist that the harm be stopped against the children.

This action to protect past and potential victims must be swift and careful. We know that time is of the essence in these situations.

I think this sort of doctrine is a tragedy.
Gracehound (Gracehound)
Posted on Tuesday, August 13, 2002 - 6:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If someone goes to a counselor or a therapist, the therapist is required to keep anything said between them and the patient quiet. HOWEVER, if they are made aware of a crime, intent to commit a crime, suicidal intentions, or any illegal activity, they are required by law to report it to the authorities. I understand that the confessional is supposed to be a sacred place where the confessor can confess all without judgement, however, we were not put on this earth to commit crime without punishment. If someone molests a child, it is a sin and a crime. The sin is forgiven, but the crime should be punished.
Colleentinker (Colleentinker)
Posted on Wednesday, August 14, 2002 - 9:34 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Good point. I know that, as a teacher, I am required by law to report anything I see or know about a student experiencing abuse or behaving in a dangerous way, even if the information is supposed to be privileged. Such requirements do create a crisis of conscience at times; I've come to the place where I tell my students that I must report anything I know of this nature so they do not feel betrayed if such reporting happens.

I once had to turn in a student's journal because this very bright but troubled student outlined a plan (just months after the Columbine incident) for blowing up our school. I mean, he had a plan, and this student was more than capable of carrying it out!! The police were called, the student's locker and home searched, and he never returned to school. He was enraged, as were his parents, because I had reported what was written in his journal.

Crimes must be prevented; children must be protected. And overarching all these "musts", God is trying to redeem each person involved. In these situations, there's always some party that feels unjustly treated, and even those intervening feel some amount of guilt. I struggle with some anxiety because I had led that student to believe his journal would be private, but I could not keep such an entry private. I now struggle some with wondering what I prevent students from writing when I tell them I would have to report evidence of abuse or criminal activity. I just pray that God will be in charge of all the interactions I have with my students.

Colleen
Violet (Violet)
Posted on Thursday, August 15, 2002 - 6:00 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

You have brought up good points. It is sad when one thinks they have to conceal a wrong in order to remain in good standing before the Lord.

But no one has answered it they would put a priest in jail for consealing the confession?
Jerry (Jerry)
Posted on Thursday, August 15, 2002 - 11:22 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hello Violet,

I apologize for failing to answer your question directly.

Yes, I would support a law (if one does not exist) to jail a priest in this circumstance. This means that a priest told by a penitent about direct involvement in serious crimes against children and does nothing to alert authorities on this should be jailed.
Pathfinder (Pathfinder)
Posted on Thursday, August 15, 2002 - 3:26 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I'd be interested to know if this story about the church having a policy that gags priests who hear confessions from child molestors is in fact, true. The reason I doubt this story is because child molestors are not a confessing breed. That the Catholics had the foresight to imagine such a confession and create a policy in that event stretches my credibility.

According to my reading on the subject of pedophilia, and according to my personal acquaintence with several child molesters (most of them Adventists), a child molestor is often an intensely religious person. He may well be a man who reads the Bible through several times a year, attends services regularly, and leads in some capacity. He does not perceive himself as guilty of any great sin. Why should he? The Bible does not address itself to the violation of children.

The child molestor does not, therefore, run into any Biblical passage that pertains clearly to what he is doing; although though he does want to keep his activities hidden, realizing that society disapproves.

It would behoove all churches to examine this odd vacuum in the scriptures in regard to what God's intentions may be for the treatment of children. It is clear enough that the sexuality between persons of the same gender is not approved of in the scriptures; I will never understand why the Bible comes down so hard on a consenting sexual relationship--when it has nothing whatsoever to say against a coerced sexual relationship such as that between an adult and a child. Both our civil and our religious laws need some contemplation here.

The cases that I have heard of in the recent news concern the disclosures of VICTIMS, both present and former--not by molesters confessing. In either event, a molestor is revealed. And that is really the gist of Violet's question.

To answer the question--if it was proven that the priest harbored knowledge that a colleague was molesting children -- and if there was a law that addressed this as a crime -- I would not have a problem giving him a sabbatical in prison. And no, I don't think an allowance should be made if his religion condones the violation of human beings.
Colleentinker (Colleentinker)
Posted on Friday, August 16, 2002 - 2:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

While the Bible does not explicitly speak against molesting children, Deuteronomy 18 is very clear about unlawful liaisons. These unlawful marriages and liaisons include mother, father, sister-brother, aunt-nephew, sister-in-law, daughter-in-law, sex with both a woman and her daughteróetc. These liaisons are prohibited because of close relations and dishonoring family.

Molesting children, by the way, regardless of what else might be said about it, violates the seventh commandment if the molester is married. Sex outside of marriage is adultery and a violation of the marriage vow. It amazes me how many women AND men never consider that a spouse abusing their children is not only violating the children but clearly violating the marriage vow.

BTW, the Bible does not clearly speak out against abortion, either. The Mosaic law required a fine if someone attacked a pregnant woman and killed the fetus, but it required death if the woman was killed. Children were part of a person's property property and wealth.

The point, I think, is that in the New Covenant in which we are filled with the presence of God by means of the Holy Spirit, we are held responsible for far more than a written code of specific behaviors. We are held responsible for our minutest thoughts and motives. We are held responsible for acting in love as God loves. That's a large responsibilityóimpossible without a new birth and the indwelling power of God motivating us.

The full answer to the question of how to treat children, I believe, is found in Matthew 18:6, 10: "And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. But if anyone causes one of thewse little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. See that you do not look down on one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven."

Molesting a child is clearly causing that child to sin, even though he or she is an innocent victim. Against that child's will and completely without his or her consent or ability to defend him or herself, that child is being subjected to behavior and treatment that will mark him or her for the rest of his or her life. Sin is being forced on and perpetrated against that child, and they cannot stop it.

The lifelong effects of that sin will create emotional reactions in that child that will set him or her up to have unhealthy or even abusive relationships themselves. It's not the child's fault, but that child will bear the consequences and will be pre-programmed to hurt others. It is only the amazing grace of God that can heal such deep scars and wounds of shame and betrayal. Even counseling, while invaluable, cannot heal the results of such sin in the child without the grace of God transforming those wounds into healed scars of strength.

The perpetrator of such sin, according to Jesus, will not be innocent. Think of the personal implications: if we sin against a child or cause him to sin, that violation is immediately before the Father's face, brought there by the child's angel.

Regarding consenting sexual relationshipsóthe New Testament is also clearer on such things than is the Old. Adultery and fornication is expressly forbidden. In the Old Testament multiple marriages were allowed although not recommended. They are not allowed for Christ-followers in the New.

The problem I see with unmarried consenting sexual relationships is that regardless of the reasons for such an arrangement, a person IS withholding from their partner if they refuse to make a commitment. A person cannot fully give him or herself to another if there is not a rock-solid commitment. If a person is afraid to lose somethingófinancial independence, freedom, identity, lifestyleóor is afraid to take on somethingóaccountability, responsibility for another's well-being, self-sacrifice, etc.óthat person cannot truly love another. If a person cannot truly love another with completely self-sacrificing love (read Ephesians 5:22-33), they really have no business taking what they can get from another.

A sexual relationship equals "one flesh". Without a complete willingness to give onesself, all of onesself, to the relationship, the sex becomes a travesty and is a form of using the other. It becomes a convenience.

Paul is rather startling in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20 regarding sexual immorality. He declares that when a person is born again, he is one with the Lord in spirit. (v. 17) He even says, if a Christian man has sex with a prostitute, he is then uniting the members of Christ with the prostitute. Paul ends this passage by saying, "Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body."

The implications of this passage are that Christ-followers have an even more serious call to purity than are non-Christ-followers. We are now the literal temple of God, and by violating our vows or by not commiting to permananece and stability, we are bringing Christ himself into a relationship that is completely contrary to the way Christ loves and operates in us. We have no business bringing Christ, who completely sacrificed himself for us and eternally unites himself with us, into a relationship in which we are not committed to behave toward that person as Christ loves us.

"A new command I give you:" Jesus said, "Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love ont another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." (John 13:34-35)

Uncommitted, non-permanent, and non-accountable sexual relationships really do betray Jesus who holds nothing back from us. And I think it goes without saying that child molesting and abortion also betray Jesus's kind of completely self-sacrificing but non-victimizing love.

I just praise God that he calls us, cleanses us, and commits himself to us for eternity!

Colleen
Pathfinder (Pathfinder)
Posted on Saturday, August 17, 2002 - 10:05 am:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Your post is well spoken, true and obvious to most of us; however, it is clear you are not a child molester, for you do not think like one. The Good Book does not specifically say that adults should not sexually fondle children, and that is all the religious child molester cares about. He interpets the 7th commandment to be about married adults, in particular, married adults performing a specific sexual act with someone who is not their spouse. Child molestation frequently doesn't include that specific act--so, like the high school girl who will "do everything else but", he considers himself innocent of adultry (or fornication, for that matter).

He condemns immorality in general, despising, for instance, the woman who "sleeps around". He does not, perhaps cannot, extend his definition of immorality to include his own actions with children. His mind is compartmentalized, his aberration existing in a separate box from the rest of himself. In order to function in society, particularly if he is a minister or teacher or priest, he is probably completely out of touch with this other aspect of himself. He does not examine it, he does not soul search it. Like a compulsion, which I believe it to be, it lies dormant between triggering events; while it is dormant, it does not exist for him. He can hold his head up, he can read his Bible, he can lead the people in the straight and narrow. Confession is the least likely act he will ever perform--unless he is caught, and then he will deny it until he can deny it no more.
Colleentinker (Colleentinker)
Posted on Sunday, August 18, 2002 - 2:39 pm:   Edit PostDelete PostPrint Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

You're right, Pathfinder. True child molesters and other people with compulsions of all kinds rationalize their sins so they can justify continuing them. I believe, actually, that many child molesters "split" or dissociate, so their main personality doesn't own or think about what they do.

The one thing I do know is that when a person is split, as you in the example where you describe an offender preaching, holding his head up, etc., his or her "witness" lacks power even if they speak truths. A person who is split inside is not experiencing God's grace for his sins, and even if those sins aren't consciously part of his public self, they are still part of him or her. No one can lead a person beyond the point of his own healing. At the point where his own sins are unresolved, that is point where his therapeutic or spiritual helpfulness ends when he deals with other people.

You're rightóconfession is the least likely thing that person will do. Unfortunately, it is often the job of the victims of such a person to face the truth and break the cycle.

Colleen

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration