Site on accused Catholic priests
p2pnet.net News:- The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago has launched a Web site “for the protection of minors and to assist in healing those who have been sexually abused by a priest”.
But, “Victims groups criticized the project, saying it discourages users by requiring them to reveal their names and reasons for their inquiries,” says an Associated Press report here.
To respond to your request, says the site here, it will need:
- the name of the priest;
- the name of a parish or ministry where he may serve/have served — as well as, if possible — the dates of that service;
- your name;
- your complete mailing address; and
- the reason for your request or other comment.
And, “What the Archdiocese of Chicago will provide in response”:
- Within two weeks, you will receive a written response by mail from the Office of the Chancellor about an individual priest.
- The overwhelming majority of priests serving in the Archdiocese of Chicago have never been accused of sexually abusing a child – so, only their ordination date and current assignment will be noted in the written response.
- If you inquire about a priest against whom the archdiocesan process has found reasonable cause to suspect that sexual abuse of a minor occurred, that fact will be described in the written response. The response will also include the priest’s current status and the actions taken.
- The Archdiocese will not respond to anonymous inquiries, to inquiries concerning more than one priest per request, or to inquiries with incomplete information.
But, “This is an effort to appear that they’re going to give information when it’s actually a ploy to obtain information,” Barbara Blaine, an advocate for victims abused by priests, is quoted as saying in the AP story.
March 17th, 2004 at 10:11 pm
If personal information is being requested about a priest’s current status by an inquirer, why is it so unthinkable to ask the inquirer’s name and reason for the inquiry? It is not beyond reason that the information being sought could be for the purpose of doing harm. That then would also be a “ploy to obtain information” for criminal purposes.
It would not be too much of a stretch of imagination to see a time come when burglars, bigamists, embezzlers, adulterers, liars, etc. would be on a list for anyone to view. What a world this would become if we set ourselves up to judge every other man or woman and then mete out punishment as we demand.
“Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord” has real meaning in this instance. The vengeance seeker becomes as morally objectionable as those they are seeking to heap vengeance on.
You may label me as an anonymous coward, but your methods cause me to protect my name, lest I appear on one of your lists.
March 19th, 2004 at 7:53 am
[Jesus said:] If your brother sins, reprove him … if he does not listen take along with you one or two more … if he does not listen … tell the Church … if he does not listen even to the Church, let him be to you as the Gentiles and the tax-collectors (Matt 18:15-18)
So you see, “Anonymous Coward”, there was dissension in the early Church about whether wrongdoers ought to be publicly shamed. Scriptures such as “Judge not, that you be not judged” were written, but so was the above text.
And there is another New Testament reading to reprove before all onlookers those who practise sin, but it is in the 1st epistle to Timothy, that is probably a 2nd century forgery.
These days, in many formerly Christian countries, many people including churchgoers have a blurred incorrect image of Christ as “Gentle Jesus, meek and mild” turning the other cheek and spraying forgiveness around indiscriminately. On the contrary, Christ had a balanced character. He not only taught love and helped people, but he also had a firm side. He did not hide his robust dislike of supposedly “religious” people who used religion as a mask for their misdeeds — he chased traders and moneychangers from the temple (Matthew 21:12, Mark 11:15, Luke 19:45, John 2:15-16), and railed against “religious observers” who were dyed-in-the-wool hypocritical evildoers (read his speech “Woe to you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites” — Matt. 23:13-35, Luke 11:39-52). Wouldn’t you say that clergy who teach purity and continence, but seduce children, are the modern-day equivalents of the Scribes and Pharisees? — John Massam, Perth, Western Australia.
http://www.multiline.com.au/~johnm/ethics/nonmarital.htm