A study in contrasts
Nov. 23rd, 2005 07:26 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jaunthieTwo interesting church-related articles in the news today, showing how very different institutions react to sexual abuse of parishioners. Today, the Washington State court system held the Church that supports, tolerates, hides, or otherwise remains passive in the light of sexual abuse of children fiscally responsible for not responding to allegations of abuse. Two girls were abused for years by their stepfather, a Mormon priest. The girls reported the abuse to other church elders years and years before any of them did anything about it except recommend prayer. From The Seattle Times:
"In a decision that could reverberate through clergy sexual-abuse cases everywhere, a King County Superior Court jury has awarded $4.2 million to two sisters who were sexually abused for years by their stepfather, a Mormon priest.
The civil jury found The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly referred to as the Mormon church, liable for intentional misconduct and negligence and ordered the church to pay most of the award. The remainder of the award would be paid by the girls' abuser, Peter N. Taylor, who is no longer their stepfather or a priest."
I haven't read the decision, so I can't say if it's good law, but it certainly sends a message.
On the other side of the coin is Pope Ratz's latest move to address the abuse problem within the Catholic Church: ban actively gay men from becoming priests. From the Washington Post article (free, but signup required):
"Vatican prohibitions on sexually active gays becoming priests are not new, and a 1961 document says homosexuals should be barred from the priesthood. But the issue came to the fore in 2002, at the height of the clergy sex abuse scandal in the United States.
A study by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice found most abuse victims since 1950 were adolescent boys. Experts on sex offenders said homosexuals are no more likely than heterosexuals to molest young people, but that did not stifle questions about gay seminarians. In addition, some Catholic researchers said "gay subcultures" in seminaries were alienating heterosexuals, prompting them to drop out.
The new document underlines that long-standing traditions and church teaching consider homosexual acts "grave sins" and also intrinsically immoral and contrary to natural law. "Therefore, in no case can they be approved," it says."
So they're not addressing the abuse that's already happened, but specifically acting against a group that is no more inclined to abuse than any other. Never mind the message to good, longstanding priests who also happen to be homosexual.
I think the courts have the better approach going here.
"In a decision that could reverberate through clergy sexual-abuse cases everywhere, a King County Superior Court jury has awarded $4.2 million to two sisters who were sexually abused for years by their stepfather, a Mormon priest.
The civil jury found The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly referred to as the Mormon church, liable for intentional misconduct and negligence and ordered the church to pay most of the award. The remainder of the award would be paid by the girls' abuser, Peter N. Taylor, who is no longer their stepfather or a priest."
I haven't read the decision, so I can't say if it's good law, but it certainly sends a message.
On the other side of the coin is Pope Ratz's latest move to address the abuse problem within the Catholic Church: ban actively gay men from becoming priests. From the Washington Post article (free, but signup required):
"Vatican prohibitions on sexually active gays becoming priests are not new, and a 1961 document says homosexuals should be barred from the priesthood. But the issue came to the fore in 2002, at the height of the clergy sex abuse scandal in the United States.
A study by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice found most abuse victims since 1950 were adolescent boys. Experts on sex offenders said homosexuals are no more likely than heterosexuals to molest young people, but that did not stifle questions about gay seminarians. In addition, some Catholic researchers said "gay subcultures" in seminaries were alienating heterosexuals, prompting them to drop out.
The new document underlines that long-standing traditions and church teaching consider homosexual acts "grave sins" and also intrinsically immoral and contrary to natural law. "Therefore, in no case can they be approved," it says."
So they're not addressing the abuse that's already happened, but specifically acting against a group that is no more inclined to abuse than any other. Never mind the message to good, longstanding priests who also happen to be homosexual.
I think the courts have the better approach going here.
