Former Michigan priest reinstated by Vatican working in Fla. hospital

[emad]

Former Michigan priest reinstated by Vatican working in Fla. hospital
June 2, 2005, 7:32 AM


MIAMI (AP) -- A U.S. Navy chaplain who was suspended by Detroit Catholic leaders on accusations of child sexual abuse but later won reinstatement to the active priesthood through an appeal to the Vatican has begun work at a Florida hospital.

The Rev. Brian Bjorklund began work Tuesday at the Miami Veteran Affairs Medical Center, hospital spokeswoman Susan Ward said.

Bjorklund was suspended by the Archdiocese of Detroit in 2003 over abuse that allegedly took place in the mid-1970s. Bjorklund was working as a Navy chaplain in California at the time of his suspension.

In February 2004, the Vatican overruled the zero-tolerance policy adopted by U.S. bishops and reinstated Bjorklund to the ministry. It said the accusation against him -- having sex with a 16-year-old boy in the 1970s -- did not violate church law at the time.

http://www.freep.com/news/statewire/sw116629_20050602.htm

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

1. Oh good..now he can molest the infirm

[pie]

3. I'll bet he is licking his chops, this is a molester's dream job!

Perhaps all that disingenuous prayer has finally paid off - in spades.

[VegasWolf]

6. Licking what? n/t

[happyslug]

2. Sorry, but the Catholic Church views the age of consent is 16.

The problems of pedophilia and homosexuality for the Catholic Church is as old as the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has had to address these problems for Centuries and has done so through Canon Law. Canon law, like all law, has to balance between the rights of both sides of any dispute. In the case of Pedophilia you have to protect against Priests abusing their positions AND false accusation of such abuse.

One way society has addressed this problem is by defining what is pedophilia. The problem is different people have different definitions of pedophilia, mostly with when is the age of consent. Under English Common law that age was twelve (12). This was viewed as to young so every state has a different Statutory age of consent. Some are 16, some are 18, a few states may even have 21 as the age of Consent. The Catholic church has adopted the age of turning 16 as the age of consent.

Thus in this priests case he had sex with an adult as far as Canon Law is concerned. Most states have also adopted age 16 as the age of Consent, thus it looks like this Priest was NOT guilty of Pedophilia under applicable state law. Thus by the Priest by having CONSENSUAL sex with a 16 year old did NOT violate Canon Law.

For Canon Law reference see:
Can. 1395:
§2. A cleric who ... committed an offense against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue... with a minor below the age of sixteen years, is to be punished with just penalties, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state if the case so warrants.

The Decalogue is the ten Commandments (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04153a.htm)

The Sixth Decalogue is a follows (This is the Catholic Counting of the Commandments, some Protestants use a different numbering system):
VI. You shall not commit adultery.
http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/YU/ay0988.asp

For a complete copy of Canon Law on line:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_INDEX.HTM

[Eloriel]

4. I'm so happy you came along to defend the cretin

and 'splain the facts of life to us. I'm sure everything is all right now.

I take it his vows of celibacy meant nothing -- at least not in a pedophilia case.

May I point out that "just because" there are technicalities that meant the CHURCH was able to go into denial and look the other way doesn't mean it was right OR that he should not have been permanently defrocked for violating SECULAR LAW at the time.

Oh, and does your explanation mean that the Church is okay with pre- and extra-marital sex now, not to mention homosexual acts? My goodness, how curious that this priest isn't guilty of a damn thing.

Thanks for telling us.

[dsc]

5. So when Bush decides some part of the Constitution is a technicality

that lets a terrorist get away he should just ignore it. That is directly where your line of reasoning leads. I don't like guilty people getting off either but if the alternative is to give people undiluted power to rule over us, I will take the occasional guilty person getting off.

[Eloriel]

16. I could buy your argument were it not for the FACT that

Canon Law doesn't mean diddly squat except to Catholics. It's NOT the same thing as our secular laws which EVERYone must obey, even Presidents (or so we say).

The church hierarchy can dream up whatever they want to help conceal sins and errors and buy forgiveness and dispensation for errant priests, and allow children to be the prey of pedophile priests without it being somehow wrong. There is a POWER imbalance between a spiritual leader like a priest and a parishioner of ANY age, but especially one who's a minor. AFAIC, and this really is just good common SENSE, really, that you don't prey on minors, no matter WHAT some arbitrary "age of consent" is.

Look, I grew up Catholic. One of the earliest of my "concerns" about my faith was that I could quite clearly differentiate -- at a very early age -- the difference between "God's laws" and man made laws -- and I wasn't buyin' that Pope-as-infallible business either. Going to church every Sunday was quite clearly a man-made law. So is anything in the Church Canon. They have every right to do what they want; I have every right to criticize it. I also have every right to consider their pedophile-protecting rules -- which again, have NOTHING to do with secular laws which EVERYone must follow -- simply bogus.

[dsc]

20. I will admit the analogy isn't perfect

but I am loathe to give any entity the right to change rules in the middle of the game. I also think there is a qualitative difference between having sex with a 16 year old and having sex with a 12 year old. I would want to know a lot more about this case before I favored jail for this man.

Did he know the age of the boy? Did the boy know the man was a priest? What was the age of concent for heterosexuals in MI when this happened? Is this the only case of him having sex with an underage person? If this was the case of this guy going to a gay club and picking this kid up that is way different from him using the fact he was a priest to pressure the kid to have sex. I think this man should be watched carefully any if there are any signs he is back to this type of behavior he should be removed. There is a reason for the saying hard cases make bad law.

[Eloriel]

21. Who said anything about jail?

The CANONS don't have the authority to send him to jail. I want him defrocked forever, and let the LAW take care of whether or not jail is appropriate.

And this is just silly, dsc:

I am loathe to give any entity the right to change rules in the middle of the game

The "RULES" in question are bogus -- they mean NOTHING and carry no authority whatsoever unless you're a Catholic and choose to allow them to mean something. They're not laws governing anyone but Catholics, they're not mutually agreed upon contracts, they're just arbitrary rules which most certainly CAN be changed at any time.

[dsc]

24. So would you let say workplaces change rules arbitrarily?

After all they only matter if you choose to work there. This is a slippery slope. You are asking for a person to lose his livelyhood based on changing the rules in the middle of the game. I am uncomfortable with that.

[VegasWolf]

7. Yes, and 12 is +- 4 of 16 years, well within the range of innocent error.n

[happyslug]

13. Reading into the article

When I was in law school we were constantly warned NOT to add additional facts to the case we were discussing for it often CHANGES THE WHOLE LEGAL ISSUE. We are stuck with the facts given in this article, which is consensual sex between two people over age 16. In most states that is NOT even illegal. I only pointed out that under Canon law it is NOT illegal in the 1970s for these two men to have Consensual sex together.

Now if you were to subtract a year from the younger sexual participate, that a whole different set of law kicks in. Consent is NO longer a defense either under Canon Law OR most state laws. The older of the two sexual participate will be going to jail (If reported within the applicate statute of Limitation which does NOT seems to be the case here) or held liable for any harm incurred by the younger participate.

The problem is THAT is NOT the case (as least as reported in this article) and thus we are discussing this incident not some hypothetical situation that is NOT in this case at the present time.

[Lindacooks]

8. Ah, but there's a difference: One person had power over the other.

That still makes it rape, the same as if a doctor had sex with a 16 year old patient.

[VegasWolf]

9. I like the way your mind works! n/t

[Lindacooks]

19. Thanks!

That's what happens when your dh was the ED of a women's shelter, as mine was. You learn a lot about the law in these matters.

[happyslug]

12. Coercion is NOT mentioned the Article in the Free press

All it says was Consensual Sex, no one said the 16 year old was coerced. Since Coercion was NOT part of the article I did NOT include it in my snippet of Canon Law 1395 (2). If Coercion did occur it also violates Canon Law 1395 (2) (But I deleted that part to make the age issue clearer).

What apparently happened is that when the Priest filed an appeal to the Vatican both sides admitted no Coercion, thus the only issue was the sex act itself and that is NOT GROUNDS FOR EXPULSION from the priesthood under 1395 (2). Coercion is grounds, as is having sex with someone below age 16 but NO ONE IS SAYING EITHER OCCURRED IN THIS CASE.

Now under Canon Law the local Bishops can made additional rules to their priests and those rules can be imposed by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The Conference has thus adopted additional rules in the last ten years to cover this abuses. The Rules can be found at various websites. (For the exact charter see: http://www.usccb.org/bishops/charter.htm

Additionally the Conference can add "Religious Norms" to Canon Law as Canon Law is applied in the United States and has done so. These "Norms" are now part of the Canon law as applies to American Catholics, but did NOT exist in the 1970s (and the reason the Vatican reversed the action of the Diocese of Detroit in this case). You have to be guilty of a crime punishable by de-flocking to be de-flocked, and merely having Consensual sex with an "adult" is NOT a deflocking offense under Canon law (Through after 2002 it is a deflocking offense given the adoption of the "Norms" within the Catholic Conference of Bishops).

For a copy of the "Norms" see:
http://www.usccb.org/bishops/norms.htm

Now the procedure to remove a priest for sexual abuse has to follow a set procedure within the church. A good explanation can be found in the Diocese of Detroit's own web site:
http://www.aodonline.org/AODOnline/Helping+You+2257/Protecting+God+s+Children+8705/Promise+Pledge+-+Tribunal+Court+Plays+Critical+Role+in+Canon+Law.htm

Furthermore the Detroit Diocese seems to be moving along on removing its abusive priests see the following recent news releases on priests:
http://www.aodonline.org/aodonline-sqlimages/PressReleaseStatements/AOD/050527hurley.pdf

My point anyway is to state NO ONE HAS MENTIONED COERCION is this case. It appears to have been consenting adults. Now the new "Norms" make it a violation of Canon law to even have sex once but that is only since it was adopted in 2002. The Act alleged was in the 1970s and did not come to the attention of the Detroit Diocese till around 2002 (It might have been reported earlier but THAT is NOT in the record we have now).

[Eloriel]

17. There are different types of coercion

There's physical force, and then there's the power of persuasion, which can be overwhelming when you're speaking for GOD HIMSELF. And some types of persuasion are pretty damned coercive, esp. when your very salvation is at stake.

[Lindacooks]

18. Nope, you're wrong.

When one person is in a position of authority over another, it is almost ALWAYS coercion. A priest or pastor and a teenager simply can't be considered equals.

[Eloriel]

22. Well said

And what I was trying to get to in my post.

A priest or pastor and a teenager simply can't be considered equals.

Nor are the equally capable of making informed, independent decisions.

[Lindacooks]

23. Thank you!

[RPM]

14. big fucking deal

Canon Law is bullshit - The law of Michigan applies here...

BTW - arent there some vows of chastity that should be keeping this creep from having sex with anyone.

To hell with the Catholic Church - same stupid shit, different century.

[happyslug]

15. We are discussing what the Catholic Church should do in this case.

As to Michigan law, given the suspension of priestly duty was only done in 2002 for an incident in the 1970s, I have to assume the sex occurred sometime prior to 1980. The 16 year old would have turned 18 no later than 1982. Most State's Statute of Limitation for Sex crimes is anywhere between 2-6 years, thus the crime to be punished by Michigan Law would have to be filed before 1988(Six years AFTER the victim turned 18).

As to personal liability, the statute of Limitation tends to be the four years (Through the courts tend to view the running of time for Civil Liability with more liberal application than the running of Criminal statute of liability). Even given a very liberal statute of Limitation interpretation I do not see ANY applicable Michigan law applicable to this case. I see the Michigan law being block by Michigan's Statutes of Limitation. Thus there is NO APPLICABLE MICHIGAN LAW given the probable report date of 2000.

Thus the only applicable rule are the internal rules of the Catholic Church and that is where Canon law becomes applicable. As a general rule they are NO Limitation as to time for Canon law (This reflects the fact that it could take years to get a decision from the Vatican in the days before Modern Transport and communications).

[goclark]

10. And the new pope let this happen? I'm shocked...NOT nt

[shrike]

11. Was the charge proven?

Was he cleared? Story doesn't say.

An Indiana priest currently stands accused of abuse. The Diocese of Gary did an investigation, turned over everything to the prosecutor's office, held a press conference, announced their actions at every church in the diocese and stripped the guy of all his duties. We won't know what HIS situation is until someone presents, or doesn't present, an indictment.