More truly sickening detail about yet another priest whose molestation of minors and teens was constantly covered up, forgiven, and ignored. And, again, it is in Boston, and, again, the most damning evidence comes from diocesan documents and letters.
In December 2000, Law wrote the Vatican asking that Paquin be defrocked. ”Father Paquin has engaged in sexual molestation of numerous boys since and before he was ordained” and 18 cases have already been reported to the archdiocese, Law wrote Cardinal Angelo Sodano, secretary of state for the Vatican. ”It is my judgment that he is the cause, potential and actual, of grave scandal.”
No, the scandal was caused as much by the hierarchy which let him continue his sickening predation for decades without kicking him out and turning him over to the police.
Pardon me while I go off and fume …
Do you think this will lead to a change in the celebacy policy of the church? This makes me wonder why we’ve just heard about molestation cases in the United State. What about priest who’ve been transferred out of country?
1. No. I don’t think the issues are related, and the Old Men in charge of the Church seem to have no interest in relating them. They’d rather blame it on gays in the priesthood.
2. There have been some scandals come to light in other parts of the world, too, and some bishops have resigned (one in Ireland I can recall, and at least one other). Part of the “problem” is that the laity and the civil authorities aren’t rolling over for the Church, so the publicizing and pursuit of the scandal is continuing here, whereas in other countries, it is presumably business as usual.
3. I don’t know how frequent that is, to be honest. Actually, we import a lot of priests already to US. And given the relative coddling of these guys here, I don’t see why anyone would feel the need to ship them overseas.
I’d be curious to see if there were statistics on the priests that we export. It would seem the best way to cover up the “unpleasantness” that is occuring.
I need to clarify the Celebacy comment. If the rule were lifted, perhaps married men would be more apt to become men of the cloth. I’ve noticed that the priesthood is a fairly well aged group. And most convents as well.
They seem to have done fine just transferring them within their own diocese, or, if they’re particularly troublesome, sending them off to other dioceses without mentioning any past problems.
I have little doubt that allowing married men (not to mention women, ahem) into the priesthood would revitalize it, and certainly increase the supply of good people in that ministry.
I just think it extraordinarily unlikely we’ll see it approved by Rome in the next thirty years. The current folks in power are far too conservative (that JPII has appointed over half of the Cardinals is both indicative of that and a bad sign in and of itself), too dedicated to the celebacy cause, particularly since they’ve (ostensibly) made that sacrifice themselves.
I’m not sure that there is a correlation between marriage and molestation, or lack there of. I think that statistically the children at the greatest risk are those who live with males, (husbands or live-in boyfriends) who are not their father. I would be surprise if the ratio of molesters that are married was very different from the population as a whole.
I’ve certainly never heard of any correlation between molestation and marital status. It does seem to be more common among males; I’m not sure if blood relationship is a factor, though. It seems more a matter of opportunity (as a generalization). But a good point.