Originally posted by ZooMom
Oh, Lee, how sad. 
Praying for all concerned.
What makes an allegation 'credible' anyway?
Well, there is someone on the board who knows something about this and explained it to me. If someone comes to the Archdiocese and says, "Fr. So and So sexually abused me" and they ask, "Well what happened exactly?," and he says, "Well, he sexually abused me," but is unable to supply details of any kind, that is not credible.
People who have really been sexually abused remember the details, the time, the place, what happened leading up to, during and after the incident.
The person from the Archdiocese explained to us that the process has a bias in favor of the victim for the sake of the protection of children.
Still, this makes me uncomfortable, for scripture requires the witness of two or three witnesses before convicting anyone. If this were a younger man, and a recent incident, that would be different. Or if more allegations arise as a result of the publicity given this one, showing a persistent pattern, that would be different. But for a person to be removed on the basis of a single, unsubstantiated incident seems manifestly unjust, but it looks like that is exactly what will happen.
But *one* incident fifteen years old- even if true-, followed by years and years of unremitting priestly labor with no further blemish of any kind makes it a very different sort of thing. If we Catholics do not believe in the forgiveness of sin, the healing of personalities and consciences, we might as well close up shop.
Of course, for the sake of children, it has to be clearly established that there were no other cases, or that there was a clear point at which father reformed his life.
I ran across this at Zenit.org from Nov 5. it is the head of the Chilean Bishops Conference:
"I think that there is something that fails in the concept of zero tolerance. I understand it perfectly well in the case of individuals who have no possibility of rehabilitation. When here is no rehabilitation, the person cannot continue in his office as a representative of Jesus Christ, the Good Shepherd...."
However, to apply zero tolerance to all cases "does not work," the cardinal stressed.
Also, I realize that Fr. Geoghan got a clean bill of health from psychologists as being rehabilitated, and then went on to do incredible damage. Personally, I think a big part of our problem is our acquiesence in the raising of psychologists to a quasi priesthood to which various dioceses defer in the cure of souls. What about the gifts of the Spirit, the gift of discerment of spirits, the gift of counsel and so forth.
Tomorrow, there will be psychologists present after Mass to counsel the faithful. This to me illustrates our problem as clearly as can be. Psychologists far more than priests, are involved in the selection of seminarians and religious in the first place, and when they get in trouble, the Church again defers to the psychologists. To me this is totally upside down, inadequate and counterproductive.
Thank you so much for your prayers. They are badly needed and greatly appreciated.
Lee
