Dutch priest served on board of pedophile organization
CWN - May 23, 2011
From 2008 to 2010, a Dutch Salesian priest--identified in news reports as Father Van B.--served on the board of an organization that seeks to legalize pedophilia, according to a leading Dutch news agency. The priest has been convicted of two counts of exposure. “Membership in such organizations does not fit with the ethos of the Salesian order,” said Father Herman Spronck, the priest’s superior. Father Spronck said he had not sought the priest’s dismissal because “removing someone from the order is something you would only do in the case of grave moral transgression, such as rape.” Father Spronck is now under investigation from his own superior after he reportedly downplayed the sexual abuse of minors in comments to the media.
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach five million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
Progress toward our March expenses ($26,810 to go):
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: filioque -
May. 24, 2011 12:09 AM ET USA
These guys haven't even learned to keep their mouths shut in public. It doesn't take much to imagine what they are still doing in private.
Posted by: Steve214 -
May. 23, 2011 6:43 PM ET USA
We had a similar situation in the US: a priest affiliated with National Man-Boy Love Association: it didn't work out well. Duh.
Posted by: rpp -
May. 23, 2011 4:46 PM ET USA
I was under the impression that the charism of the Salesian order was to teach children. I do not see how a seemingly unrepentant pedophile priest can fit withing such an order.
Posted by: Obregon -
May. 23, 2011 4:40 PM ET USA
What in the heck is the man "exposing" at 73?"
Posted by: Cornelius -
May. 23, 2011 4:24 PM ET USA
This order should be suppressed. How can it NOT be a "grave moral transgression" to advocate the commission of grave moral transgressions by others, while presumably also legitimizing it for oneself?