I think people expect more from a long process and therefore give it more meaning than it has, regardless of the words used.
I do not understand why it would take more than a week for a bishop to determine whether an accusation is manifestly false, nor more than a month for a board to make the next determination about whether the accusation is credible (perhaps "believable" would be better language).
Getting to that stage in less than a month would be better for real victims and better for falsely accused priests, and it would make it clear to the public that the trial is just beginning.
Father, so true. Yet when you get the USCCB together they get scared. The media is outside trying to get in, there is a great chasm between how bishops handle accusations. Their priests are wondering if the Conference is going to issue new norms, the laity want quick answers at the expense of false judgement.
And, lets not forget the insurance companies...lots of pressure comes from that sector, especially after all the payouts.
But being a priest you know that a case can go to Rome or be mandated to be held in the diocese. The priest can be, beyond a doubt exonerated, but his bishop will not reinstate him.
Also, even if Rome says the cases must be decided upon within 90 days it will be ignored by bishops.
I was told once that bishops can act as if they believe they are canon law unto themselvees. No one states this publicly, of course. Behaviors though show the truth and reality of what one thinks.
Once, I attend an Orthodox Ordination of a bishop. The older priest sitting next to me (who I knew for years) murmured, "Now he has been given the fullness of the Holy Spirit...once ordained a bishop though they lose their minds."
> Initially, the bishop is only supposed to determine if the allegation is “manifestly false or frivolous” — that it doesn’t allege a person committing a crime in a place at a time that would be clearly impossible.
The two halves of this statement have opposite senses. Call the copy editor!
When a bishop jumps the gun and publishes on local and National media what he perceives as credible that priests reputation is impugned and those words cannot be taken back. When “ complaints” are given the same accusatory stance as real abuse it raises a real question of the seriousness of the “complaint”. Folks complain about everything including priests. The destruction of a God created human being lies in the proper balance.Trust me, I speak from experience. It is time this whole process is re-evaluated and the bishop should not be the sole,proprietor of the decisions nor should his hand picked review board.
I think people expect more from a long process and therefore give it more meaning than it has, regardless of the words used.
I do not understand why it would take more than a week for a bishop to determine whether an accusation is manifestly false, nor more than a month for a board to make the next determination about whether the accusation is credible (perhaps "believable" would be better language).
Getting to that stage in less than a month would be better for real victims and better for falsely accused priests, and it would make it clear to the public that the trial is just beginning.
Possible would be even better language.
Father, so true. Yet when you get the USCCB together they get scared. The media is outside trying to get in, there is a great chasm between how bishops handle accusations. Their priests are wondering if the Conference is going to issue new norms, the laity want quick answers at the expense of false judgement.
And, lets not forget the insurance companies...lots of pressure comes from that sector, especially after all the payouts.
But being a priest you know that a case can go to Rome or be mandated to be held in the diocese. The priest can be, beyond a doubt exonerated, but his bishop will not reinstate him.
Also, even if Rome says the cases must be decided upon within 90 days it will be ignored by bishops.
I was told once that bishops can act as if they believe they are canon law unto themselvees. No one states this publicly, of course. Behaviors though show the truth and reality of what one thinks.
Once, I attend an Orthodox Ordination of a bishop. The older priest sitting next to me (who I knew for years) murmured, "Now he has been given the fullness of the Holy Spirit...once ordained a bishop though they lose their minds."
> Initially, the bishop is only supposed to determine if the allegation is “manifestly false or frivolous” — that it doesn’t allege a person committing a crime in a place at a time that would be clearly impossible.
The two halves of this statement have opposite senses. Call the copy editor!
When a bishop jumps the gun and publishes on local and National media what he perceives as credible that priests reputation is impugned and those words cannot be taken back. When “ complaints” are given the same accusatory stance as real abuse it raises a real question of the seriousness of the “complaint”. Folks complain about everything including priests. The destruction of a God created human being lies in the proper balance.Trust me, I speak from experience. It is time this whole process is re-evaluated and the bishop should not be the sole,proprietor of the decisions nor should his hand picked review board.
I move to suspend Vos estis lux mundi and replace it with the Hobo Ethical code of 1889 forthwith and in perpetuity.