US priests accused of sex abuse get a second chance by relocating to South America

[thejazz97]

Read your response again. You have endorsed it. The 'yes' below in bold is in response to the question "Do you seriously think that an innocent child should pay the price for a pedophile priest's 'second chance'?"

Yes, if.

You assume they'll go in for round 2 (or round x) ASAP. That's why it has to be a controlled environment, and a mutual agreement between parents and kids if they're going to risk getting themselves hurt to help someone else out.

It's a terrible situation to begin with. But how much trouble are you going to go to to help someone out when they need it the most?

I get that all trust has been lost. It's just a plain bad thing to do. But how are they ever going to gain that trust back? Forget whether they deserve it or not, because in all actuality, no one really deserves anything. How can they gain that trust back, even if they never get back in the position they were before?

[Cerridwen]

Yes, if.

You assume they'll go in for round 2 (or round x) ASAP. That's why it has to be a controlled environment, and a mutual agreement between parents and kids if they're going to risk getting themselves hurt to help someone else out.

It's a terrible situation to begin with. But how much trouble are you going to go to to help someone out when they need it the most?

I get that all trust has been lost. It's just a plain bad thing to do. But how are they ever going to gain that trust back? Forget whether they deserve it or not, because in all actuality, no one really deserves anything. How can they gain that trust back, even if they never get back in the position they were before?

You answered 'yes'.....there is no 'if' that can apply any sort of validity or mitigation to your answer of 'yes'. You support and endorse an innocent child having to pay the price for a pedophile priest's 'second chance'. You've stated so. Trying to weasel out of it or couch it in more 'flattering' terms does not change what you have said.

And this was your first statement on the topic, in case you have forgotten it:

Thejazz97, on 17 Sept 2015 – 3:23 PM, said:

It's good that they're getting a second chance. But if they screw up again, they should be dealt with accordingly by both legal and religious authorities. They're leaders of the community, they're not supposed to be monsters.

[aeromotacanucks]

send them to the jungles in SA.

the Indians will LOVE the fresh meat. especially if the meat doesn´t speak Spanish or Portuguese...

B-E-A-U-T-I-F-U-L

[thejazz97]

You answered 'yes'.....there is no 'if' that can apply any sort of validity or mitigation to your answer of 'yes'. You support and endorse an innocent child having to pay the price for a pedophile priest's 'second chance'. You've stated so. Trying to weasel out of it or couch it in more 'flattering' terms does not change what you have said.

There's nothing flattering about this. People don't have to help. The yes is conditional, I can also make it a conditional no if that makes you feel better. If parents and their children cannot come to an agreement about providing a healthy environment to rehab a pedophile, then he won't be around children for another 10 years at least.

I'm not trying to weasel out of this; I'm saying that if parents and children mutually come together and mutually help the pedophile rehab, then I will gladly welcome their help, and we will encourage change together. If not, then me and those who are brave enough will have to create that healthy environment on our own without children.

Would you let a person who's been in an accident drive again? Would you let someone who's flunked a test take a test again? Then we have to let them around children sometime again in their lives. Perhaps first strong personal supervision, and then a little less enforced personal supervision, and then impersonal supervision, and then finally trust would be a good way to go. If you take this to mean prison, house arrest, rehab, and then trust, so be it. If you don't like the "trust" bit, no one said you had to like it. But I want to commit to seeing people change.

[Dr.Strangelove]

I'm not going to speak about this specific case, but people in this thread should understand that sexually offending against a prepubescent victim does not necessarily mean that that individual has pedophilic sexual interests.

Speaking specifically about juvenile sex offenders, most juveniles that sexually offend against children show sexual preferences for peer-aged females.

This is not a post 'in defence' of pedophiles.

Oh definitely and I'm glad someone brought this up since alot of people aren't aware of this, however even if they don't have primarily pedophilic tenancies the one time they did commit a sexual offense against a child is enough to say they shouldn't ever be allowed a job that puts them in contact with young children.

[Mr. Ambien]

Oh definitely and I'm glad someone brought this up since alot of people aren't aware of this, however even if they don't have primarily pedophilic tenancies the one time they did commit a sexual offense against a child is enough to say they shouldn't ever be allowed a job that puts them in contact with young children.

Yep.

Has all the outrage that derailed this thread subsided? Boy that was entertaining.

So this is why these crimes are virtually never life imprisonment. People either make mistakes, are screwed in the head, etc.

We understand (or should, first and foremost, understand) the impact it has on children. I mean, look at the way the Vatican used Crimen Sollicitationis to threaten people of excommunication from the church if anyone spoke out about sex abuse cases until 10 years after the victim reached adulthood.

Contrary to the outrage of "zomg it should never happen again, blah blah outrage yadda", people do make mistakes, but the churches have often been far too secretive and trying to sweep it under the rug. How can anyone gets past their transgressions for forgiveness if they refuse to acknowledge their wrongdoings by confronting them responsibly?

There's so much wrong here. All in all, more transparency, more openness. Oh, and more rationality and less outrage.

[Dr.Strangelove]

Ok Jazz I've taken some time and read through your posts and I partially agree with you on your most basic point that being that people do deserve a second chance at being a part of society even if they've committed a violent crime I myself don't think people who commit crimes against children fall into that category but for the sake of argument let's ignore that and move onto the more important discussion. Even if I where to believe that the priest mentioned deserves a second chance This doesn't mean he should be allowed a second chance as a priest .

For example a priest that has molested a child should be immedietly defrocked , turned over to the authorities and then after serving their jail time be permanent barred from holding any position within the church. This is of course in addition to being a registered sex offender and the various penalties that stem from that. This means that while he will have a second chance to be a contributing member of society he will have extremely minimal opportunity to re offend. There are also methods such as hormone therapy that can be utilized to make the offender less likely to re offend The problem in this case is the fact that the church simply moved them to another area and took minimal steps to ensure they wouldn't re offend not to mention prevented the individuals from facing justice or any real ramifications for their actions.

Now there is one last thing I'm going to say on this subject there is no 100% surefire way to ensure that a sex offender cannot re offend short of a life sentence which is incredibly impractical. However with the system currently in place in the US it is possible to offer second chances with a minimal risk to society.( there are tragic cases the make me question this however notably Nathaniel Bar-Jonah) The problem that has arisen in this case is that it was swept under the rug and then the offenders shipped off to another location this means that they simply known to the people in their new parish as a man of god. In the US the law would require him to be on the sex offender registry which is easily searchable not to mention state specific laws which would bar him from working a job which put him in contact with children and or being anywhere near schools and the like. In short the fact that the church covered these crimes up and then sent them to an area where it is much more likely they will re offend if they so desire is absolutely horrific.

[Hobble]

Considering the men of clothe have not been struck down by lightening for their crimes, leads me to believe that there is either no God or that it supports pedophilia.

[thejazz97]

Considering the men of clothe have not been struck down by lightening for their crimes, leads me to believe that there is either no God or that it supports pedophilia.

Or that there's forgiveness/total judgment coming at a date TBA.

Ok Jazz I've taken some time and read through your posts and I partially agree with you on your most basic point that being that people do deserve a second chance at being a part of society even if they've committed a violent crime I myself don't think people who commit crimes against children fall into that category but for the sake of argument let's ignore that and move onto the more important discussion. Even if I where to believe that the priest mentioned deserves a second chance This doesn't mean he should be allowed a second chance as a priest .

For example a priest that has molested a child should be immedietly defrocked , turned over to the authorities and then after serving their jail time be permanent barred from holding any position within the church. This is of course in addition to being a registered sex offender and the various penalties that stem from that. This means that while he will have a second chance to be a contributing member of society he will have extremely minimal opportunity to re offend. There are also methods such as hormone therapy that can be utilized to make the offender less likely to re offend The problem in this case is the fact that the church simply moved them to another area and took minimal steps to ensure they wouldn't re offend not to mention prevented the individuals from facing justice or any real ramifications for their actions.

Now there is one last thing I'm going to say on this subject there is no 100% surefire way to ensure that a sex offender cannot re offend short of a life sentence which is incredibly impractical. However with the system currently in place in the US it is possible to offer second chances with a minimal risk to society.( there are tragic cases the make me question this however notably Nathaniel Bar-Jonah) The problem that has arisen in this case is that it was swept under the rug and then the offenders shipped off to another location this means that they simply known to the people in their new parish as a man of god. In the US the law would require him to be on the sex offender registry which is easily searchable not to mention state specific laws which would bar him from working a job which put him in contact with children and or being anywhere near schools and the like. In short the fact that the church covered these crimes up and then sent them to an area where it is much more likely they will re offend if they so desire is absolutely horrific.

Yes, I agree with you.

Although, I should mention Matthew 18:15-17:

“If your brother sins against you, go and rebuke him in private. If he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 But if he won’t listen, take one or two more with you, so that by the testimony of two or three witnesses every fact may be established. 17 If he pays no attention to them, tell the church. But if he doesn’t pay attention even to the church, let him be like an unbeliever and a tax collector to you.

This is how the church has dealt with it, according to scripture, leading me to believe they've changed and now they've been given a new life somewhere else.

It may not have been the wisest move to do this for a leader, however.

[D-Money]

It's good that they're getting a second chance. But if they screw up again, they should be dealt with accordingly by both legal and religious authorities. They're leaders of the community, they're not supposed to be monsters.

It's one thing to be ignorant. It's another to willfully suspend all logic and say there is anything positive about this.

As a religious person myself, I want to smack some sense into you. But as a parent of two young children, I'm afraid I wouldn't know when to stop.

[Mr. Ambien]

It's one thing to be ignorant. It's another to willfully suspend all logic and say there is anything positive about this.

As a religious person myself, I want to smack some sense into you. But as a parent of two young children, I'm afraid I wouldn't know when to stop.

I don't agree with what he said at the start (there's a good reason why even seal of the confessional is no argument in court), but the rest of his post clearly indicates he doesn't condone these acts, he's just soft on them (A Canadian problem). But, the beauty of outrage is, as shown from all the flip out posts up and down the first two/three pages, you don't need to read the rest of the post and get any context, you just read one sentence and SLDKGFSOFHOLAL DLASF KJFHN;KJAD ;KLJHA DKJASFH OUTRAGE. People are so funny.

[Cerridwen]

I don't agree with what he said at the start (there's a good reason why even seal of the confessional is no argument in court), but the rest of his post clearly indicates he doesn't condone these acts, he's just soft on them (A Canadian problem). But, the beauty of outrage is, as shown from all the flip out posts up and down the first two/three pages, you don't need to read the rest of the post and get any context, you just read one sentence and SLDKGFSOFHOLAL DLASF KJFHN;KJAD ;KLJHA DKJASFH OUTRAGE. People are so funny.

If you have an issue with me, Ambien, have the guts to heft up your balls and take it to PMs instead of following me around the board with this passive/aggressive trolling nonsense.

[D-Money]

Does anyone try to help them change? Or do we just fear that they'll do it again? Being afraid of people does no one any good.

Giving someone "another chance" does not mean you have to put them in a position where the public will trust them with their children. The safety of even one potential innocent child is more important than this criminal's supposed right to the exact life he had before harming others.

If a high school teacher sleeps with his/her student(s), should they "get another chance"? Not with children - not for a second. Their "second chance" at life will be at some other career.

In my religion, there is an official procedure out that anyone who has been guilty of inappropriate conduct with a minor can still repent and be a member - but they can never, ever have any sort of special position again, for the rest of their life. Nothing that would ever suggest to any parent that they can trust this person with their children.

I believe that one day the Catholic Church (as a whole - not just individual dioceses that fold when sued) will finally be held responsible for each of these monsters, and have their power and wealth completely stripped.

[Mr. Ambien]

If you have an issue with me, Ambien, have the guts to heft up your balls and take it to PMs instead of following me around the board with this passive/aggressive trolling nonsense.

Wtf are you going on about? Please stop being so self-centred, I said up and down this thread for two/three pages. You're far from the only one. Not everything revolves around you. Go be dramatic somewhere else.

[D-Money]

I don't agree with what he said at the start (there's a good reason why even seal of the confessional is no argument in court), but the rest of his post clearly indicates he doesn't condone these acts, he's just soft on them (A Canadian problem). But, the beauty of outrage is, as shown from all the flip out posts up and down the first two/three pages, you don't need to read the rest of the post and get any context, you just read one sentence and SLDKGFSOFHOLAL DLASF KJFHN;KJAD ;KLJHA DKJASFH OUTRAGE. People are so funny.

Nope - I read all his posts on the first page before replying.

He's saying that what they did was terrible, but also saying it's good that they are being given a second chance...to do it again, and again, and again... The church has moved pedophile priests many times before, and in most cases, it just allowed them access to new victims. (Probably even more than we know of.)

You just don't put a pedophile in a position where parents and children will trust him to be alone with them. It's not safe. It's like an alcoholic going back to being a bartender. Only an alcoholic usually just hurts himself - these guys completely destroy entire lives.

This whole story is simply terrible. Anybody who thinks otherwise is a bloody fool.

[Mr. Ambien]

Nope - I read all his posts on the first page before replying.

He's saying that what they did was terrible, but also saying it's good that they are being given a second chance...to do it again, and again, and again... The church has moved pedophile priests many times before, and in most cases, it just allowed them access to new victims. (Probably even more than we know of.)

You just don't put a pedophile in a position where parents and children will trust him to be alone with them. It's not safe. It's like an alcoholic going back to being a bartender. Only an alcoholic usually just hurts himself - these guys completely destroy entire lives.

This whole story is simply terrible. Anybody who thinks otherwise is a bloody fool.

A second chance does not mean do it again and again. You either failed to read the "if they do it again.." part, or just deliberately glossed over it.

[Cerridwen]

It's good that they're getting a second chance. But if they screw up again, they should be dealt with accordingly by both legal and religious authorities. They're leaders of the community, they're not supposed to be monsters.

Is the point being deliberately missed that another innocent child (children) is going to have to be the 'sacrifice' and be sexually assaulted by the time this priest screws up his second chance and should then be dealt with 'accordingly'? People are going to knowingly and deliberately put a child at risk of having their life destroyed just so a pedophile priest get's his 'second chance'? If he screws it up, it's too late. There should be no second chance. Is the quality of life of a priest who has already massively 'screwed up' more important than that of an innocent child who is victimized by the 'second chance'?

The recidivism rate of pedophiles is well documented.

[Mr. Ambien]

Is the point being deliberately missed that another innocent child (children) is going to have to be the 'sacrifice' and be sexually assaulted by the time this priest screws up his second chance and should then be dealt with 'accordingly'? People are going to knowingly and deliberately put a child at risk of having their life destroyed just so a pedophile priest get's his 'second chance'? If he screws it up, it's too late. There should be no second chance. Is the quality of life of a priest who has already massively 'screwed up' more important than that of an innocent child who is victimized by the 'second chance'?

The recidivism rate of pedophiles is well documented.

The comical part is how much you're elevating one sentence of one person's opinion, as if his opinion is even remotely how the justice system works. Other than that, after the 50 other times in the thread that you've pointed it out, we fully get that you don't like his opinion.

[Warhippy]

Who said they didn't? I'm not saying you have to give it back.

And why would the Catholic Church not give them a second chance? Literally the whole reason they exist is because Jesus died to give any human being unlimited second chances to change. Liars, thieves, murderers... pedophiles even. But it's all dependent on whether their heart and actions change, and you'll never get that if they don't get another chance. As dangerous a spot as it is to put people in.

I totally understand everyone's stance on here and why they would have it - it's a perfectly rational POV. This is my stance.

Sure, what they did was absolutely terrible. Unforgivable. Inexcusable. But they're people, and people can change. If you don't want to help them, fine. Leave it to people who do.

People aren't their actions.

Jazz

I'm your family priest. You entrust me with your 8 year old son.

I rape molest and sodomize him mercilessly and then threaten him with eternal damnation of him and his families mortal souls if he tells you about it.

I look you in the eye every day and tell you how you should be a better person if you want into gods house as I take your weekly donation to charity

Then I rape your son again the second I have a chance.

Do I in essence a second chance to do the EXACT same thing where there is virtually no chance I'll ever be caught?

I'll await your answer over here in the "molesting children is wrong crowd"

[D-Money]

A second chance does not mean do it again and again. You either failed to read the "if they do it again.." part, or just deliberately glossed over it.

The problem is, in substantially more cases than not, relocated pedophile priests do 'do it again'. And when they do, they don't just do it once - they 'do it again and again'...leaving a trail of destruction and betrayal.

Statistics suggest that in all likelihood, each of the priests already has multiple victims in their new location. But, just like their previous cases, these often take years to come out in the open.

So, your suggestion that these situations are in any way OK is either flat-out ignorance, or cruelty of the worst kind.