How do you think religious organizations should handle clergy abuse and sexual misconduct? Should clergy ever be given a second chance? Should their confessions to fellow clergy be protected? What rights should victims have? Where do you feel the churches currently involved in abuse scandals went wrong? Or do you feel their critics have gone too far?

I think clergy should be treated as laymen and therefore held accountable for their crimes, which are especially cruel. Those holding back info within the church, if it is revealed that this indeed has happened, should be charged with conspiracy. The second best way to handle these scandals, if they are not going to come forward, is to get them in the wallet. Having been exploited in a non-clergy therapeutic relationship, I cannot describe the depth of pain that these kinds of betrayals cause, the fear of trusting again, the disbelief. The emotional, physical, psychological and financial losses take a very long time to recover.

I believe that clegy need to be cut from a better cloth than the typical person. They shouldn't be abusive by nature and sexual misconduct is out.
But the reality is that, as of the last generations anyway, there were abusive clerics and little or nothing was done about them, either in their lifetimes, or as of now if they're living.
Rabbis Lanner and Carlebach come to mind. And both were confronted.
Some times a person can do so much good that they become very powerful and then the possibility for the abuse of power also becomes very large.
In the Jewish tradition, it was said that King David had a very big mission in life and he had a very strong "yetzer hara" or "evil inclination". And while I'm not a great fan of the Bible, I can see where a very great person can have a strong negative side to him.
So powerful in fact, that it's impossible to neutralize the person often for years. Shlomo was known to be a problem and when I was a D'var Yerushalayim, students there told me that the rabbis wanted to revoke his ordination, etc.
I didn't even know about Shlomo's problems until I went to Israel in '78. I knew he touched women, but the abusive stuff I didn't hear about until later. And all of this became a problem for me (guilt by association I guess).
Organizations have to mobilize against this from now on. Women especially have to become more empowered to fight back.

Empowering women to fight against clergy abuse is difficult when it's been imbued in the collective psyche that women are inferior in so many ways, and that suffering is good and part of God's plan. This, together with sociopathic, charismatic church leaders manipulating their victims in an especially cruel way - spiritually - makes it essential that these cases be handled outside the religious organization, not only for justice, but because the victims will never get appropriate help needed for recovery.

Having been through my own ordeal, not with the church, I can say it was by luck I found the information I needed to heal. The spiritual wounds and profound sense of betrayal are not readily addressed in standard therapy for post traumatic stress or rape. I doubt victims or their parents would know to look for help on this web site, for instance.

It took me weeks to realize I had been exploited and violated. The confusion the perpetrator causes makes it hard for victims to believe that a crime was committed. Abuse by clergy just magnifies all the issues all victims have. This is why people come forward much later.

These are special victims. Their entire being has been violated.

In the article, "The shadow side of Shlomo Carlebach" it was pointed out that some of the women couldn't believe what actually happened. And one woman, when she was little, told her mother who said, it couldn't have happened.
But these days, people are mobilizing. Fighting back may be difficult but there are organizations that can help and there are hotlines to handle all of this to report it.

No I think that abusing the "cloth" is the most sneakiest thing there is. NO second chances. Kick them out. Period. Done.

Clergy abuse is as bad as incest. Done by the person a victim trusts. No second chances. Mavin

Quote
Hope
I think clergy should be treated as laymen and therefore held accountable for their crimes,

Absolutely, yes. The most obvious answer is to treat cases of clergy sexual abuse in the same way that you'd treat any other case of sexual abuse. Regardless of whether the church those sexually-abusive clergy came from is the Jehovah's Witnesses or the long-enduring Roman Catholic Church, don't give that church any kind of special treatment by allowing them to "take care of their own". Investigate the crime just as though it had been committed by a non-church-related person, with the same kinds of subpoenas and standards of justice.

I agree totally that offenders of the cloth should be at least equally responsible for their actions. Our society and their own organizations give them superior responsibility and privilege, and in reality I consider them more culpable, as I do the perpetrators of incest.

But I'm surprised no one has referred to the highly unnatural celibacy that must be a contributing factor. I realize not all of these horrendous acts are committed by those under vows of celibacy, but certainly the celibate population has been at the top of the list for recent revelations.

Quote
rrmoderator
How do you think religious organizations should handle clergy abuse and sexual misconduct?

After a timely internal investigation, they should dismiss the individual if found guilty. If it's a case that has attracted outside attention, they should be honest and forthright about the situation and state the steps taken to punish the wrongdoer and resolve the situation.

Quote
rrmoderator
Should clergy ever be given a second chance?

Yes, but only if there is some reasonable doubt as to the validity of the accusations. I imagine it has occasionally happened that someone was accused unjustly.

Quote
rrmoderator
Should their confessions to fellow clergy be protected?

In Catholicism, it's my understanding that anything you say during confession is between you, the clergyman hearing the confession, and God. It would be a moral betrayal by the priest hearing the confession if anything was repeated outside the confessional. However, I assume it's also that priest's responsibility to make it clear to the person confessing that what they have done is wrong and to assign the appropriate penance.

Quote
rrmoderator
What rights should victims have?

The same rights as ordinary citizens, I imagine. Although I do agree with the person who said that clergy should be held more accountable to higher moral standards.

Quote
rrmoderator
Where do you feel the churches currently involved in abuse scandals went wrong? Or do you feel their critics have gone too far?

I think many churches make the mistake of trying to cover up the incident or defending the wrongdoer. It makes everyone in the organization look guilty by association. Why not just admit that the person did wrong, that they are being held accountable, and that the actions of said individual do not reflect the policy of the church but that nevertheless the church apologizes? Is that so hard to do?

Number one clergy should have others(more than one person) they are accountable to. If said abuse is found to be true clergy should be given chance to repent before the whole body of church and step down from ministry and be a layman. If no repentence he should be excommunicated from the church entirely. Forgiveness after repentence should be given but accountability held. Second chance to be a leader again probably not for many years of sitting in pew and being watched carefully. And then only a maybe.
I've seen this happen from pastoral infedility and it works. I've seen both repentence that worked and excommunication.