U.S. Cardinals’ Proposal on Priests Falls Short

Re “Cardinals Call for Policy to Defrock Abusive Priests,” April 25: So, the Catholic Church feels it can put an end to this scandal by agreeing to dismiss any priest “who has become notorious and is guilty of the serial, predatory sexual abuse of minors.” And the church decides who is a serial abuser and who isn’t? And the first-time abuser gets a walk? I don’t think so.

The church’s first obligation is to protect the community. Its leaders’ first step must be to turn an alleged child abuser over to the police--the first time. Let a jury decide whether the man is guilty. If it decides he is not, everyone can apologize. If it decides he is, then he can go to prison, where he belongs, where he will no doubt learn the real meaning of abuse.

Defrock? Who cares? In or out of the church is not the issue. The issue is in or out of prison.

Bart Braverman

Los Angeles

*

Jesus said it’s better to be thrown into the sea with a heavy millstone around your neck than to cause children to sin. Any priest who molests a child even once is not fit for the clergy. The American cardinals’ refusal to remove “first-time” pedophile priests is a sign that the problem is either in epidemic proportions or clergy are held to lower standards than regular citizens.

I suppose nobody would mind if “first-time” pedophile policemen, Boy Scout leaders, judges, baby-sitters, etc., were given a stern warning not to do it again. How absurd for criminals and perverts to hide behind the cloth, and how insane for the church to protect them.The American cardinals should be arrested as accomplices to child molestation for knowingly allowing pedophiles to operate within the ranks of the church and granting all priests a “one time only” fall from grace. There is nothing that needs to be purged faster than a false witness. How many lost their faith because a man of God molested them?

Lionel De Leon

Garden Grove

*

Notoriety? That’s the new standard? After all the protestations of caring for the victims of priestly abuse, all that our U.S. cardinals have come up with is that an ordained molester will be dismissed only when his case becomes “notorious” enough. I guess Cardinal Roger Mahony’s revealing e-mails were right about one thing. It’s all about the PR. With the cardinals’ return home, my faith remains unshaken, but I have never been so ashamed of the leadership of my church.

Tom O’Brien

Los Angeles

*

Imagine a school district that crafts a child sexual abuse policy that states that if a teacher abuses or rapes only one student, the teacher can stay on in good standing but if that teacher abuses or rapes many students, then the teacher most go. This is precisely what the church is proposing. The church’s policy should not be tolerated by Catholics. I would go so far as to say that the church itself would not tolerate such a policy if there were an ample supply of men in the priesthood. Deviant priests would be expelled quickly.

If the church were to change its stance on celibacy, we would have an ample supply of men entering the priesthood and we would have a true “zero-tolerance” sexual abuse policy. For me, that answers Ellen Goodman’s question (Commentary, April 25): “What’s celibacy got to do with it?”

Mary Ellen Barnes

San Pedro

*

There’s no doubt that celibacy frees priests to devote themselves more to the church family. However, celibacy is not a requirement for all in the priesthood. Married converts (Anglican, Eastern Rite, etc.) are accepted in the U.S. priesthood--and these married priests, performing their priestly duties and living the sacrament of holy matrimony, are no less holy than their brother priests. The holy in the church laity are no less holy. Holiness comes from God and exists in all callings and in service to all God’s children.

Vi Patmas

Mission Viejo