www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall I don't get it

I'm very sympathetic to what Stuart is saying here. However, in the case of clerics who are guilty of sexual abuse, I simply believe that they have no place in ministry. I certainly do not believe that they cannot be forgiven. Furthermore, I'm not convinced that they never can be rehabilitated. But I do believe that the potential for scandal and the possibility of repeated abuses of authority are adequate justifications for the Church to remove offenders from the exercise of ministry permanently.

I also think that it is prudent for other institutions that are involved in the care of children and those who are handicapped or otherwise unable to defend themselves to exclude from the workplace those who are guilty of sexual abuse. Just as clerics who are guilty of sexual abuse can be forgiven, school teachers, daycare workers, hospital workers, prison guards, etc. who commit such crimes also can be forgiven. However, I don't believe that forgiveness involves giving them the right to return to working in places where they would have ongoing access to potential victims.

Of course there is no place in ministry for sexual predators against whom charges have been substantiated, but the Dallas Charter is draconian, sets the standard for what constitutes a credible accusation very low, and has an implicit assumption of guilt. There is no real due process here, and despite the bishops' protestations that they have a pastoral responsibility to their priests, the policy essentially tosses accused priests to the wolves (We'll help you find a lawyer, but we won't pay for him--good luck!). Even when a priest is vindicated (found innocent, charges dropped or no charges brought at all) it is extremely difficult for them to return to ministry at all. Tainted goods and all that. Just how is an accused priest to get back his good name?

Few people realize the same policy applies to non-clergy employees and even volunteers within the Church. When it was first implemented, I was told that I would have to undergo a background investigation (I hold a Top Secret clearance from the Department of Defense, so what is this namby-pamby, pro-forma BI by some rent-a-cop agency supposed to do), as well as sign a statement that I would not diddle little kids. I was also interested to see that if I was a accused of sexual misconduct, the Eparchy would not stand by me, but would help me retain legal counsel. Thanks a lot, Your Grace! I'll stand by you the same way, when the shoe is on the other foot.

So, I told my priest I would not comply with this policy, finding it insulting, un-Christian and legally dubious. Insulting, because for half a dozen years, the parents of the parish had been entrusting their kids to me for religious education, while I entrusted my kids to other parents. Moreover, I did not see very much in the way of a problem with parent volunteers, but quite a bit of a problem with the priests and the bishops--why should I be tarred with the same brush, just so they can cover their financial asses?

I also told him I doubted that a background investigation would help uncover sexual predators--my experience with BIs in defense and intelligence, where the investigations are far more extensive and thorough, shows they have not really been able to uncover or reduce the instances of spying, the requirements for which are quite similar to those for being a sexual predator (no offense to any current or retired intelligence officers).

I told him that the policy was un-Christian, because of its lack of discretion, presumption of guilt, and violation of the concept of the parish as an extended family. Families (or at least good ones) don't hire sleuths to investigate its members.

And so, despite protestations that the policy was "for the children" and was a "minimal imposition", I said that I would not comply, and if I could not continue as an ECF instructor, then so be it. Enough was enough.

Unfortunately given a media and a public looking for quick and easy fixes (i.e. the same culture that buys into certain Christian sects' views on 'once saved' etc...) that just loves 'zero tolerance' policies. CAUSE...you don't have to think or make moral choices or take a stand on anything. It is one of the results of 'group think' and a step on the road to either acceptance of authoritarian or even totalitarian rule.

Between the opportunistic members of my profession who fuel the fires of public paranoia with the promise of a payday, the inanity of insurance underwriters and accountants, the cravenness and refusal to think by any sort of bureaucrats (public, private, secular or religious),we have abdicated our common societal obligation to each other and our so-called dedication to our basic human and constitutional rights.

Good for you for saying no, and too bad for the kids who will only be exposed to vanilla pudding in their lives.

There is no room for predators to ever work with kids, but to presume that everyone is a predator and to work from there is to put aside common sense, rationality and hard work.

Right or wrong, it seems the zero tolerance policy may not be being followed.

Stuart:

I can identify. Good for you. I'm supposed to work with two underage people this afternon to prepare them as lay readers. But I need a chaperone to meet with them on parish property. So be it.

Given the experience of some adults, I'm concerned about false accusations. There is almost as much danger to adults by teens in this age as the other way around.

Bob