This post here is a continuation of the discussion in the “Incomplete Analysis” section.
I also used to think that the problem was that bishops just didn't want to deal with the problem because it is too emotionally wrenching.
But at this point it's not that simple.
Even after the lawsuits began to turn into a flood in the early 1980s, and the word spread among the bishops that THE basis of liability in the lawsuits was bishops shifting priest-wolves around to new, unwary flocks, THE BISHOPS CONTINUED SHIFTING PRIEST-WOLVES AROUND TO NEW, UNWARY FLOCKS.
MOST of the priests were being shifted MULTIPLE times. When the priest-shifting bishops look at the files following the priests being shifted, they know what the score is.
So, think: What is the difference between, on the one hand...
(a) a bishop shifting a priest, being followed by sexual predator accusations, to his third parish, with no warning to the new flock, aware that lawsuits are being filed, at that moment, to make money from the bishops decisions like that which abet other priests' sex acts;
...and, on the other hand...
(b) a bishop AGREEING WITH the predator priest, by a wink, to shift the predator priest to another location, SO THAT the predator priest will have access to a new group of innocents from which to solicit sex paid for with Church funds.
The difference is the space between these two lines...
...because in the first case there is no wink.
Stand back and look at the Church, panoramically.
Several years ago, to "come to grips with the problem," the Church paid for the John Jay Study.
What did the Study do? Look at available data, and use various investigative measures and statistical means to estimate the true dimensions of the problem?
It counted beans.
The John Jay Study counted only:
(1) cases in which there had been an admission by the priest;
(2) cases in which there had been a criminal conviction of the non-admitting priest; and
(3) cases in which money was paid-out by the Church.
By doing this, the study found a little over 10,000 victims.
Yet, investigation after investigation by police and reporters have found that in the vast majority of cases, BISHOPS FAILED TO REPORT PARENTS' CLAIMS TO AUTHORITIES.
There are CLEARLY several tens of thousands of such instances generated by the mass production efforts of notoriously promiscuous priests. (Believe this, Tom: As I pointed out in a previous article here, the evidence is enormous that male homosexuals are innately promiscuous.)
The unreported cases were not studied at all. The bishops did not go to the John Jay people and say, "Listen, we are actually aware of about 3 times as many accusations as there are confirmed cases."
In effect, our current pope is accused of LYING about such cases.
Compare this NYT article...
...with this admission by the Judicial Vicar of the Munich Diocese...
The New York Daily News article says that RATZINGER CHAIRED THE MEETING WHICH TRANSFERED THE SEXUALLY-ABUSIVE PRIEST, WHO HAD BEEN PLACED WITH THE MUNICH ARCHDIOCESE FOR THE PRECISE PURPOSE OF RECEIVING PSYCHOTHERAPY TO TRY TO STOP HOMOSEXUAL-STYLE ANAL AND ORAL ABUSE OF BOYS BY THE PRIEST, TO FULL DUTIES IN A NEW MUNICH PARISH WITH NO WARNING.
In effect his defense, today, is, "I got behind the wheel of the car, but I did not touch the steering wheel, and I was not even AWARE OF the steering wheel -- so don't accuse me of driving the car into that crowd."
In effect, you are looking at no change.
In effect, after DECADES of lawsuits, the same attitudes seem to be prevailing.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not ready to quit the Church.
I love the Church.
But that's the point: I love the Church.
So, read these words carefully: EVEN OUR POPE HAS ENGAGED IN THE BEHAVIOR WHICH ENABLES HOMOSEXUAL PRIESTS, WITH ZERO SELF CONTROL, TO PREY UPON NEW AND UNWARY FLOCKS.
AND HIS PRESENT MODE IS REALLY AN EXTENSION OF THE SECRET TRANSFER POLICY: RUN AND HIDE.
Don't be discouraged. Pray. God always answers prayers.
But remember: Our nasty public criticism of such behavior may be part of the answer to our own prayers.