Anyone who picked up a major newspaper today knows that one of the hot stories on the other side of the Atlantic is the resignation of Bishop Roger Vangheluwe of Brugge, Belgium — the latest star to fall in the current wave of clergy sexual abuse scandals in the Catholic Church.
But why did the bishop resign? This is where to plot gets more complicated. On closer inspection of the words located in between some crucial major-media quotation marks, it appears that we may have another translation problem on our hands. Yes, we’re talking about the New York Times, again.
Here is the top of one report from Catholic News Service, a source that tends to take church documents very seriously. Let us attend:
VATICAN CITY — Pope Benedict XVI has accepted the resignation of a Belgian bishop who admitted to sexually abusing a young man.
Bishop Roger Vangheluwe of Brugge, Belgium, said in a statement April 23, “When I was still a simple priest and for a certain time at the beginning of my episcopacy, I sexually abused a young man.” … In his statement, the Belgian bishop said, “Over the course of the last decades, I repeatedly recognized how I sinned against him and his family and I asked forgiveness. But this did not appease him. Nor me.”
Here is another take on some of the pivotal language in that statement, care of The Independent:
In a statement yesterday, the bishop said: “When I was still a simple priest, and for a while when I began as a bishop, I sexually abused a young man in my close entourage. I profoundly regret what I have done and I offer my sincerest apology to the victim, his family, the Catholic community and society in general.”
Note the quote that ends with “in my close entourage.” Catholic News Service appears to have trimmed that direct quote just a bit.
Now, here is how the bishop’s actions are framed in the Times.
ROME — The longest-serving bishop in Belgium resigned Friday after admitting to sexually abusing “a boy in my close entourage” many years ago, becoming the latest cleric to quit in a spreading abuse scandal.
The development added to a corrosive catalog of disclosures that has damaged the credibility of the Roman Catholic Church and shaken the trust of many believers in their spiritual leaders. In a statement issued by the Vatican on Friday, Roger Vangheluwe, 73, the bishop of Bruges since 1985, said that the abuse had occurred “when I was still a simple priest and for a while when I began as a bishop.”
Now, unless the bishop’s complete official statement — which I have yet to find online — contains two different passages containing the “entourage” language, then we have clashing interpretations of a key term. Does the bishop’s statement say that he abused a “boy” or a “young man.” Note that the Times article also says that the abuse took place over a period of years, during his priesthood and early in his episcopate.
Now, I am well aware that the term “young man” may have been used in a rather formal manner and that this does not tell us anything about the age of victim when the abuse began. Still, if the term is accurately translated as “boy,” this would point to a younger victim.
Why might — I repeat, “might” — this be important?
Once again, let me offer the following insight from a Catholic progressive here in America, a leader with years of experience overseeing the work and lives of Catholic seminarians. I am referring to Father Donald B. Cozzens, former vicar for clergy in Cleveland and rector of a graduate seminary in Ohio. He is the author of the very candid, and controversial, book “The Changing Face of the Priesthood.”
Cozzens stressed that he agrees with researchers who believe sexual orientation is irrelevant in discussions of pedophilia. But what if pedophilia is not the issue?
By definition, pedophiles are sexually attracted to boys and girls who have not reached puberty. But Cozzens said reports he has studied, and his own experience as a counselor, indicate the more common problem among Catholic clergy is “ephebophilia.” This is recurrent, intense sexual interest in post-pubescent young people — teen-agers.
The term “ephebophilia” is rarely used in church debates and the press. Yet, Cozzens said that whenever clergy vicars held conferences 90 percent of the sex-abuse cases they discussed fell into this category. Church authorities are reluctant to investigate this reality.
Does this make a difference in terms of church law? No.
Does it make a difference in terms of secular law? No.
Does it make a difference in terms of moral theology and sin? No.
But does it make a difference in terms of accurate information, in terms of understanding what is going on in the clergy-abuse crisis crisis? That is where there is fierce debate and journalists need to be covering that debate in a balanced and accurate manner. It would help if the mainstream press acknowledged that the issue exists and that it matters.
As Cozzens told me, researchers believe that there no link between pedophilia and sexual orientation. However, when dealing with ephebophilia, the patterns of abuse appear to be different. Thus, with an all-male priesthood, patterns of ephebophilia would lead to the very statistics that have been generated by the abuse crisis. Pedophilia is very, very rare among Catholic clergy. Ephebophilia is what is taking place — overwhelmingly.
Thus, it matters if the bishop abused a “young man” for several years, rather than a “boy.”
Who did the translation work for Catholic News Services and newspapers on the other side of the Atlantic? How did the New York Times — this culture’s most powerful news institution — end up with this alternative translation that differs on this one crucial point?
 | Posted at 6:27 pm |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (39) |
April 24, 2010, at 7:04 pm
I think it’s time for the catholic church to reconsider the vow of celibacy required of its’ priests. Men and women can be leaders in the church and have families of their own. In fact, that’s a healthier model.
The current model invites men who prey on the young and vulnerable to enter the clergy. It’s a broken system.
People are angry at the church for years of cover-up and quite frankly, angry that the wording used to describe the victims matters all that much. As mentioned, whether “young man” refers to a post-pubescent 13 year-old and “boy” refers to a pre-pubescent 9 year-old sends up a red-herring to the real problem: Many priests are guilty of victimizing members of their faith and the church has worked to hide this from the public.
Whether it’s pedophilia or ephebophilia is not the point. Or more accurately, if ephebophilia is the problem, and the sexual orientation of the priests involved suggests these men are attracted to post-pubescent boys; it means the Catholic church is attracting and harboring ephebophiles.
Certainly, common sense can tell us that not all homosexual males are ephebophiles (in terms of atraction to teenaged boys)any more than all heterosexual men are ephebodophiles (in terms of attraction to teenaged girls).
I’m not sure how much longer I can reconcile the deep divide between the teachings of Jesus Christ and the
actions of my church.
Finally, the New York Times should have published the quote accurately.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 24, 2010, at 7:11 pm
What bothers me is the portrayal of a long term mutual involvement as abuse. After a point, the victim is participating in the events and is no longer a victim but someone in a dysfunctional relationship. Based on a number of people I have known who had sexual relationships with priests and enjoyed the experience, I am conflicted about the coverage. The use of the man/boy distinction is something that requires a great deal more definition than the press ordinarily comes up with. And attention should be paid to ranges and variations among the boys/young men. The Gay press has covered these stories in a more nuanced way than the MSM. And has presented an alternate narrative to the one shown here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 24, 2010, at 7:26 pm
These are the texts from the press conference:
http://www.kerknet.be/admin/files/assets/documenten/Teksten.pdf
The Dutch “jongen” clearly means “boy”. Can mean both a teenager and a child. Definitely a minor however, “jongen” in formal Dutch would never mean someone over 18.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 24, 2010, at 7:51 pm
Mons Vangheluwe’s statement, in French, says “un jeune” [http://bit.ly/dvKKLE]. The English version says “a minor” [http://bit.ly/cyeftg].
Each of the French language papers I’ve looked at Friday and today online have used “un jeune” or “un jeune garçon”, which doesn’t necessarily tell us anything about pre- or post-pubescence, pedo- or ephebo- status of the victim (if perhaps only because my French/Belgian French isn’t current with up-to-date usage). But the use of the garçon instead of homme indicates the younger end of the spectrum, I think.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 24, 2010, at 8:09 pm
(I had presumed that Mons Léonard and Mons Vangheluwe used both French and Dutch/Flemish in their statements, and that VIS published the ones in the more accessible language: but that is just a presumption.)
(I am sorry that your faith is being upset, Lynn. But in spite of everything, remember that the actual number of clerical perpetrators of abuse is small, however evil the consequences of their actions. But this isn’t the forum….)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 24, 2010, at 8:24 pm
Precisely, this is NOT the forum for that discussion.
Please stick to the journalism. I will leave her comment up, since someone has already responded to it…
But no more. Journalism folks.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 24, 2010, at 9:12 pm
A technical point: there is, in fact, a difference in secular law between sex with a 15 year old and a 13 year old, at least in my state. Sex Assault is “aggravated” if it involves a girl or boy 14 or younger (or maybe younger than 14, I don’t have the reference here).
This post is interesting to me: a 49 year old gay friend has been in a relationship with an 18 year old boy/young man. Is that abuse?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 24, 2010, at 9:28 pm
It’s worth pointing out, again, that Cozzens underlying theory—blame the gays who are into teens— has been rejected by the independent researchers at John Jay who found no relationship between sexual orientation (gays) and a use not matter the age of the victim.
It is intresting that there are different translations. It is also interesting to speculate why CNA and NYT would both have journalistic reasons for picking the term they used, both suspect.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 24, 2010, at 10:03 pm
Terry:
This “ephebophilia” verus “pedophilia” issue has been a consistent question in Get Religion’s commentary. Here’s a journalism question—so what? Both involved abuse of a minor. Are you trying to say that there’s some qualitative difference between the two or just playing copy editor?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 24, 2010, at 10:12 pm
Bob,
Do you not think there’s a difference between sex with a 4-year-old and sex with a 17-year-old?
They both may be abuse of a minor but I think most folks — from psychologists to juries — would see a qualitative difference of at least some kind.
Or am I wrong?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 24, 2010, at 11:01 pm
PETER:
Many, many people — left and right — who have done tons of work in this area completely disagree with that section of the Jay document. That’s part of the debate that the press must cover in a balanced and accurate manner. Also, Cozzens is, as I said, not a conservative on these issues. He is simply someone who is trying to describe the territory he has worked in. You need to read his book.
BOB:
There are major medical differences and treatment issues — things that have complicated attempts to deal with this scandal. So, you think that a 40-year-old man who (a Cozzens metaphor here) is tempted to have sex with a six-year-old Britney Spears is wrestling with the same demons as a 40-year-old man who is tempted to have sex with a 16-year-old Britney Spears? You think that is a copy editing situation?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 24, 2010, at 11:03 pm
I note with approval Passing By’s technical point. Further, in many countries in continental Europe (not sure about Belgium), the age of consent is very low, so it may be that there was a very great difference so far as the secular law was concerned. Or not—the fact is, it isn’t just religion that the press doesn’t get, it’s often law as well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 24, 2010, at 11:22 pm
I object to the phrase “many priests are guilty..” Lynn used when talking of the number of priests who have been guilty of abuse. Of course one is very much “too many.” But statistically priests are 50% less likely (8% vs. 4%) than other men to commit such crimes.
However, you would never know it by the way inflated words are used in the media about the number of priests so involved and the miniscule coverage of continuing abuse in other fields.
The only expert (Charol Shakeshaft of Virginia Commonwealth University) who has done a thorough research study on abuse in the public schools has been quoted (in the National Catholic Register-a typical popular Catholic periodical that is ignored by the MSM ) as complaining that noone is interested in doing any more research on sexual abuse in the public schools. She says that the bureaucracy in the Department of Education and this Congress in particular have shown no interest in doing any more research into abuse in the public schools. But because there are so many more teachers (and therefore so many more abusive teachers than abusive priests) and so many more public school students (meaning that maybe 4.2 MILLION students will be abused). But who cares??? Noone in the government or the media. Thus one should gag when they say it is the children they care about when attacking priests or the Church over the issue.
She also did a study of 125 teachers who were in school systems that were convinced by the evidence they were abusers and 124 of them were either kept on staff or quietly palmed off on another school system.
But do you hear anywhere in the media the phrase “many teachers are guilty..”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 25, 2010, at 12:33 am
On another part of the same topic—the media still refuses to use the word “homosexual” as having anything at all to do with any aspect or facet of the abuse scandal in the Catholic Church.
Yet one religious wire service (CNA) in covering Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone’s comments about there being a “link” between homosexuality and pedophilia, included an interview with a Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons who specializes in treating abusers and has treated very many priests.
He said: “Cardinal Bertone’s comments are supported completely by the John Jay Study report and by clinical experience. In fact EVERY priest whom I treated who was involved with children sexually had previously been involved in adult homosexual relationships.”
When I googled this topic it was clear the media wanted no part of anything that might denote any
“links” they don’t want part of the debates on the scandal.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 25, 2010, at 3:55 am
Since both occurences are quotes, either one paper misquotes or it interpretes the words in its translation. My bet would be that the bishop said “boy”, but than the boy was actually a “young man” and the paper interpreted the term in line of the victim’s actual age. However, it would have been better to simply note the age somewhere in the article.
I would actually disagree that the question of pedo- or ephebophilia does not make a difference in terms of moral theology and sin (which is stated in the posting but taken to further heights by Lynn’s comments) - sure, sexually abusing someone in your charge is always morally wrong and sinful but abusing a child still way worse than abusing a sexually mature youngster.
And, in contrast to dalea above, mutuality is not the issue if the two people involved in a authority/power relationship.
Lynn above rides the dead horse another time, trying to use the whole scandal to implement the supposedly “healthier” changes she would like. It is absurd to react to some priests violating their duties by relaxing on these duties. And even if one would favour ordaining married men too (and there is nothing more then Church CAN do - no priests marrying, certainly no female priests), this is exactly the wrong time to change anything. The issue is not whether a priest can have a family but what, all things considered, is the best way to go. Celibacy has its advantages.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 25, 2010, at 4:03 am
The difference between pedo- and ephebophilia is not the main point but when the media consistently fails to realise the distinction, it is certainly good and valid to point them to it.
It is in the nature of science that scientists disagree and keep on discussing things over and over. No wonder that some (the Jay document) disagrees with Cozzen and still others then disagree with the Jay document.
That’s all fair and dandy But what really leaves the realm of responsible discussion and plunges into intellectual depths is summing up the (controversial) research one disagrees with as “blaming the gays”. The blame always rests with the abuser, not with some demographic. But neither should the worry about the effect on some demographix stiffle scientific discussion.
BTW, age of consent does not come into play if there is a pupil, altar boy or the like involved.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 25, 2010, at 8:07 am
BTW,speaking about age of consent, just google on “age of consent+Vatican”:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=legal+age+of+consent+vatican&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGGL_en___BE233&ie=UTF-8&aq=2&oq=age+of+consent+vatican
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 25, 2010, at 8:18 am
Ages of consent vary throughout Europe. In Ireland, the age is currently 17 (and leads to a lot of confusion, because the age of consent in the United Kingdom is 16, so depending which side of the border you live on, you could be legal or not):
“The fact is that Ireland has one of the highest age of consents in Europe. In twenty EU countries the age of consent is lower than 16. In Malta and Spain it is 13, 15 in France and Poland and 14 in Germany, Portugal and Italy.”
Also, it would seem (according to Wikipedia) that the age of consent in Belgium is 16:
“The age of consent in Belgium is 16, as specified by Article 372, which reads:
“All indecent assaults on modesty committed without violence or threat, by a person or by aiding the person, of a child of either sex, aged less than sixteen, will be punished by imprisonment (of five years to ten years).
History
The Belgian Criminal Code previously specified an age of consent of 18 for homosexual sex. This provision - Article 372(2) - was repealed in 1985.”
I would be exceeding unhappy to think that a 16 year old was having sex with a man in his thirties or forties, but it does make a difference whether the youth in question was indeed 16 or 12. I’m not arguing that it’s acceptable or reduces the fault, but it does make a difference with regard to maturity and capacity to heal from the damage caused.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 25, 2010, at 8:30 am
TMatt, it’s important to talk about the “debate” but the press needs to understand the paramaters of the debate and the use of certain talking points. The Jay study is the most comprehensive study of the scandal, performed by people outside the church. It dissects some of the fequenf talking points, including the argument that gay men preying on teens is the primary cause of the scandal.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 25, 2010, at 8:41 am
The problem with the Britney Spears metaphor is that it misunderstands the nature of predation and whether the abuse scandal is about sex or also about power and predation. A prisoner who rapes another prisoner is primarilly focused on power and control, with sex as secondary. Priest abuse is more like prison rape than Britney fantasies.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 25, 2010, at 8:43 am
I see the distinction you are making, but I fail to see what difference it makes. Since we don’t know the victim’s age we are engaging is a guessing game which is just silly.
On teh downside, engaging in such a guessing game encourages those who would prefer to look the other way regarding sexual abuse by the clergy: “Well, he wasn’t really a ‘child’, you know, in the strictest sense of the term.”
Uh-huh. Mule fritters: if not a consenting adult, it’s child abuse. Period.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 25, 2010, at 9:49 am
Off-topic:
Abuse of a child is a CRIME.
Covering up abuse of a child is a CRIME.
IMHO “age of consent” is meaningless in relationships that are abusive, regardless of the age/gender of the “couple”
Back to journalism:
Translation is an art, not a science. Given the choice between several technically-correct translations (“minor” “young man” “boy”) the NYTs writer chose one and there could indeed be “ideological” reasons for it. But it is not incorrect, and as my mama always says, consider the source.
There are other examples of differing translations: e.g., “simple priest” and “entourage” For a quick comparison see HuffPo, which uses “minor” “just a priest” and “immediate environment”
whhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/23/roger-vangheluwe-belgian_n_549316.html
Anecdotally I find the word ephebophilia is being used a lot more than it was in 2002 (which the link to Cozzens is dated). It IS more correct than “pedophilia” and should be used in conjunction with it, as some cases were most certainly “pedophilia” even if most cases were “ephebophilia”. Journalists could try using a slash between them when reporting on this issue.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 25, 2010, at 11:46 am
“IMHO “age of consent” is meaningless in relationships that are abusive, regardless of the age/gender of the “couple””
You get total agreement on that from me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 25, 2010, at 11:58 am
Reflecting on the topic, we seem to be looking at a specific GR specialty: the MSM article that revolves around an issue of living as a Gay man that references no Gay source or person. This is what we seem to be looking at here. In Gay circles, someone interested in the very young is refereed to as a chickenhawk. Young men are called chicken or twink. The distinction is based on both age and body hair: chicken and twinks do not have chest hair. Among Gay men , there is intense pressure to conform to the age of consent. Those who fool around with underage persons are ostracized and usually turned in to the police. This has been my experience for 35+ years.
The sites that explain this are NSFW so I will not link to them. Looking at the article from a Gay male perspective what I see is Gay men who have not been socialized as Gay men and operate outside the Gay community who fool around with children. There are lots of totally legal twinks and chicken available. There exists no reason for a socialized gay man to have sex with underage men.
The situation at hand, RC priests, involves people in the closet. They have not come out. Who are subject to all the deformations that being closeted creates. This narrative explains what is going on without reference to all the pseudo-learned terms like ephebophile.
In any event, GR should look into the ongoing practice of the MSM to discuss men who have sex with men without any input from actual out Gay men.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 25, 2010, at 12:42 pm
The RCC has been claiming most cases are not pedophilia. They are dead wrong. In the US nearly 60% are pedophilia. Some are working to open sealed court documents to prove this fact. MOST are elementary school children.
I say, stay away from all kids no matter the age.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 25, 2010, at 2:17 pm
“Off-topic:
Abuse of a child is a CRIME.
Covering up abuse of a child is a CRIME.
IMHO “age of consent” is meaningless in relationships that are abusive, regardless of the age/gender of the “couple””
I think Life and reality is a lot more complicated than that and I think JOURNALISM has a responsibility to keep this in cateogries so we can see the problem and how to solve it.
I do think there is a difference between sex with a 10 year old boy or girl and sex with a 16 year old boy or girl. The whole dynamic is different. I am not advocating sex with teenagers but we seem to forget in our Great Grandparents age and in fact grandparents this was not all that uncommon and was accepted(at least as to women)
I agree that as to sex with teenagers we are sometines dealing with abuse of power and abuse of trust. However is that always?
We seem to be treating more and more 16 and 17 years olds as adults in the criminal Justice system holding them responsible for their actions
We sort of saw this in the Foley Congressional Page scandal with a whole much of confusing laws as to age of consetn. In effect we sexualize Children to a vast degree but through our laws tend to put off “adulthood” and responsibility of choices. I think that is a fascinating thing for journalist too look at in this.
So yes both are crimes but both are different
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 25, 2010, at 2:19 pm
“I say, stay away from all kids no matter the age.”
So in the Faith and Sports world there should no mentoring of children by adults? I think that is a overreaction
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 25, 2010, at 2:20 pm
“Uh-huh. Mule fritters: if not a consenting adult, it’s child abuse. Period.”
Then I suppose the age of consent matters and the actual age of the young man or boy matters a lot then to the story
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 25, 2010, at 3:47 pm
VARIOUS:
* My post says that we do not know the age of the victim. Obviously, I am saying that this simple face is relevant.
* Interesting. Criticizing the Jay report interpretation is a “talking point,” but supporting its interpretation is not. Good to know. I was arguing for accurate and balanced coverage OF THAT VERY DEBATE. That is not a left-right debate, btw.
* Has anyone seen a documented source that says more than 10 percent of the abuse cases — in USA — are pedophilia? I have not. Please give us a URL for that.
* Dalea: So you are saying that sexual orientation is even relevant in pedophila cases? Just checking. The people I have interviewed say otherwise, but that is in the whole spectrum of churches, not just the RCC.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 25, 2010, at 3:48 pm
Oh, has anyone seen an official translation from Belgium or Rome?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 25, 2010, at 4:09 pm
tmatt asks:
No, sexual orientation is not relevant in pedophilia. But I suspect it has something to do with ephebophilia. This is not to say that those involved are Gay, just that they are expressing sexual urges in an adolescent manner. It seems that many of the priests involved have a sexuality frozen in early adolescence. And they express it with adolescents. Which is the problem. For those who have a Gay orientation, the lack of socialization comes in. For those who are straight, it seems to be a sexual event of opportunity, like prison sex.
My point is that Gay men have a highly nuanced view of sexuality which is totally ignored by the MSM when covering men who have sex with men. Which seems rather an odd way to proceed. We are talking about chicken here without using the word. Among the Gay men I have known, there is an understanding that young men can be highly available and dangerous. And the younger the male, the less stable the sexual identity. This endless loop of crisis needs more than we have been given in terms of analysis.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 25, 2010, at 5:37 pm
Not arguing for ignoring anytging but isn’t “My point is that Gay men have a highly nuanced view of sexuality” a bit too generalising. Positive stereotypes are not better or truer than negatives ones.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 25, 2010, at 6:06 pm
Since Peter (#19) is (justifiably) enamored of the John Jay Report, it’s interesting that Peter (#20) makes a claim contradicted by the same report.
Forcible rape is, indeed, about power and control, but what perhaps 4% of Catholic priests did was not, by and large, forcible rape. You wouldn’t know that from the press reports which fail to differentiate inappropriate sexual talk or other grooming behavior from coerced sexual contact/penetration. About a third of incidents involved oral sex or some kind of penetration (hence, two-thirds did not) and less than 15% involved a threat made to the victim.
http://www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/incident4.pdf
Again, the secular law makes distinctions between various acts, which (in my state), may be Indecency with a Child by Contact, Indecency by Exposure, or Sexual Assault of a Minor (Aggravated or non). That’s the felonies. Convictions involve everything from forcible rape to “romeo” cases of sex between an 18 year old and a 14 year old (who said she was 16).
It’s always worth remembering as well that two/thirds of cases investigated by the police did not lead to charges being filed. If pete2 has links to support his claim, I’d like to see them. I’m still wondering about the Oakland case, where the press reports the priest “tied up and molested” little boys, but he was convicted of misdemeanor lewd conduct. We are not being told something and the Church has nothing to do with that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 25, 2010, at 6:07 pm
So far as the text of the statements of Mons V. and Mons Léonard go, the French I cited above is ‘official’. (It comes from http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/vis/vis_en.html which is the VIS of the two links in my post yesterday.)
The Bollettino for Friday 23rd of the Holy See’s Press Office notes only that the Holy Father has accepted Mons V.’s resignation from the pastoral governance of the diocese of Bruges in conformity with canon 401 par. 2 of the Code of Canon Law. [http://bit.ly/dp990j]
The Bollettino does not expand on the reasons for appointments and resignations beyond the information that the cited canons reveals; my understanding is that paragraph 1 is ‘resignations due to illness/the age limit’ while paragraph 2 is… ‘resignations for other reasons’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 25, 2010, at 6:26 pm
Ah… you are looking for an ‘official’ version in English; since none of the parties use English I doubt one will be forthcoming. However, the Press Office may well issue a ‘clarification’, as it is called… which would likely be in French and Italian.
Mons Vangheluwe committed what was presumably a series of grave sins and resigned: I doubt that anyone at Rome sees the need to provide more than that information publicly, particularly since the victim continues to desire to remain anonymous. (If one wants to specify the former ordinary’s “entourage proche” so closely as to only include e.g. two or three people then the identity of the victim is almost certainly going to be made public.) The Belgian press is more absorbed this weekend with wondering what Cardinal Danneels knew and when he knew it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 26, 2010, at 6:21 am
information about age of consent worldwide:
http://www.interpol.int/Public/Children/SexualAbuse/NationalLaws/Default.asp
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 26, 2010, at 6:33 am
Journalism, folks.
Take your arguments about the sexuality issues themselves elsewhere….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
April 26, 2010, at 1:01 pm
“In my close entourage,” would this imply another priest? I could be following the wrong rabbit but I think it points more towards the “young man” side vs. “boy” definition. Or is this an idiom?
Also, potentially off topic, but I think there’s a story in the words about appeasement. In the VIS stories (in English and in my meager understanding of the French) it almost sounds like he’s resigning before the victim goes to press.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
May 22, 2010, at 12:23 am
At least in the US in virtually every state the precise age of the victim matters. In Michigan sex between a 16-year-old and an adult of any age is legal as ong as the adult is not a teacher or direct authority figure over the minor in question.
In fact while the age of consent to marry is almost universally 18 (Maine has it at 19) the age of consent for sexual actions tends to be lower.
It can stil be abuse above that age, but you have to prove actual force and not just sexual encounter.
Another thing is that in some of these cases the priest is merely accused of being too friendly in hugging, of sexually inapropriate language and so on. While sexual inapropriate statements to a 13-year-old are clearly wrong, especially on the part of a priest, they are also a whole order of magnitude different than the hundreds of rapes.
Lastly, virtually every state in the US institutes more severe penalties the younger the victim is. While an 8 year old is clearly a victim of rape, in many cases a 17-year-old is a victim of statutory rape where he or she thinks he or she is fully consenting.
What few have ever faced up to is the possibility of a 17-year-old rping a preist.
In a few cases the priest relocated when his “victim” went away to college. Even more complexed would be the priests who left the ministry and married a 18-year-old who was five months pregnant and five days passed her 18th birthday. If she divorces him 12 years later, can she then sue the Catholic Church because she was “abused as a minor”?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0