photo: facebook
As if the previous crimes committed by child molesting priests have not given ample chance for the people legislating this kind of crime to prevent its recurrence, the latest case of malfeasance by the church, with the tacit support of the law, outlines exactly what is wrong with not persecuting offenders in the church as harshly and as relentlessly as possible.
To avoid retrial, a Catholic priest, father Fugee, made a bargain to attend rehabilitation and counseling, after having been found to have groped a teenage boy. This leniency allowed him to escape not only conviction, but some sort of management by the Catholic church that would have precluded him from contact with children again.
Instead, the priest has gone back to affiliate himself with youth groups, attended retreats and hear the confession of minors in violation of a signed agreement with the prosecutor who exercised leniency on him which spelled out a lifetime ban on any activity that would have placed him near or in contact with minors.
And his return to activity with minors has had the blessing, no pun intended, of his Church superiors, who well know of the crimes he has committed and the agreement in place with the prosecutor's office. The archbishop overseeing the management of father Fuee, the child molester now free to do as he pleases, is Newark archbishop John J. Myers.
And that is notwithstanding a charter the Catholic Church signed in 2002, during a conference of bishops in Dalls that spelled out guidelines in a plan called the 'Charter for the Protection of Children and Young Pople" that implied a stricter oversight and management of priest abuse cases.
These fact, involving father Fugee, reiterate the need to show absolutely no leniency when it comes to offending priests, and that reliance on the Church to self manage these cases is futile and puts young children at risk. The Catholic church is either unable or unwilling to do what it takes to stop offending prelates.
Although Fugee could be found guilty of violating the terms of his agreement with the prosecutor, there is no telling what if any findings could be established to warrant his prosecution. The Church for its part has already signified that it knew nothing of the priest's activities.
In fact the archdiocese has even responded to accusations of negligence by saying that the agreement Fugee signed, which was underwritten by the Archdiocese Vicar General, by saying that their interpretation of the agreement was that father Fugee could work with chidlren as long as he was under the supervision of lay ministers and priests who knew of the agreement.
In fact the archdiocese contends that father Fugee has adhered to all the stipulations of his agreement, making their contentions even more egregious.
But father Fugee has a significant past. In 2001, he was charged with criminal sexual contact with a minor, after he was accused of fondling the genitals of a 14 year old boy. The priest actually confessed to doing so, and said he did it because it excited him. He was sentenced to five years probation at the time.
And yet, the vicar general of the archdiocese, not only contends that father Fugee was in truth the victim in the 2001 case, but has appointed Fugee as co-director of the Office of Continuing Education and Ongoing Formation of Priests.
Again, and as always, the recklessness of the church and the offending priest is alarming, according to Barret Doyle, co-director of BishopAccountability.org a watchdog group that monitors church activity in respect to the conduct and monitoring of priest abuse cases.
Ope-Ed
Partial Source: njcom 4.28.13
No comments:
Post a Comment