PHILADELPHIA — Cardinal Justin Rigali ordered the suspension of 26 priests following a grand jury report that criticized the Archdiocese of Philadelphia for allowing priests with “credible” allegations of abuse to remain in active ministry.
Peter Kleponis and Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, mental-health experts with extensive clinical experience in the evaluation of priests “rightly” and “falsely” accused of sexual abuse, protested the mass suspension.
Kleponis holds a Ph.D. in psychology and has extensive experience with both victims and perpetrators of clergy sex abuse. He outlined his and Fitzgibbons’ concerns with Joan Frawley Desmond, senior editor of the Register.
The Archdiocese of Philadelphia has stated that it will not comment on the cases addressed in the grand jury report until an investigation has been completed. In an April 2011 bulletin, the archdiocese stated: “Cardinal Rigali has placed a number of priests on administrative leave over the last several weeks following the recommendations of Mrs. Gina Maisto Smith, a former child abuse prosecutor hired to assist the archdiocese in responding to the grand jury report. These administrative leaves are interim measures pending a fuller investigation of each case. They are neither judgments nor final determinations.”
A grand jury report released earlier this year charged that the Archdiocese of Philadelphia allowed “dangerous” priests who had been credibly accused of abuse allegations to remain in ministry. You and your colleague, Richard Fitzgibbons, have publicly criticized the unprecedented suspension of 26 priests, after several priests had been removed in the immediate wake of the grand jury report.
The recent events in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia have raised more questions than provided answers. The 21 priests who were placed on administrative leave were thoroughly investigated and cleared of all charges. What’s sad is that instead of standing up for these priests and defending them, Cardinal Rigali simply handed them over to the investigator.
Many of the men who were placed on administrative leave were accused of boundary violations, not sexual abuse. However, because they were lumped together with those who were accused of sexual abuse, the public automatically assumes that these men are also accused of sexual crimes.
Boundary violations are defined as “transgressing the physical, emotional, or sexual limits of a trusted relationship.” While this is the Church’s official definition, it can be misinterpreted as sexual abuse. Transgressing sexual limits could be simply hugging a child or kissing a child on the forehead. These are clearly not examples of sexual abuse. Thus, boundary violations need to be more clearly explained to the public.
These innocent men have had their reputations severely damaged. They have yet to be given the opportunity to speak out publicly to try to clear their names.
When the clergy abuse crisis exploded in 2002, Church officials acknowledged they had received bad advice from mental-health professional who once believed that pedophiles could be effectively treated. What do experts know that they didn’t know in the 1980s?
For true pedophiles, victims may be male or female, and all are under the age of 12. Back in the 1980s, it was believed that these people could be treated and reformed. Many Catholic psychiatric hospitals tried to do this. After an extended in-patient treatment program, they were thought to be “cured” and returned to ministry.
Unfortunately, many of these individuals continued to prey upon small children. Today, we know there is no known cure for pedophilia. True pedophile priests are immediately removed from ministry, convicted of their crimes and laicized.
As noted in the first John Jay Report [The John Jay College of Criminal Justice was commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to evaluate data based on surveys completed by the Roman Catholic dioceses in the United States] issued in 2004, some perpetrators were having homosexual relationships with adult men while preying on minors. Because this was not “politically correct,” a subsequent report was issued to take the spotlight off of the homosexual issue; however, one cannot argue with the data.
I don’t want the Church to go on a “witch hunt” for homosexuals among the clergy, but the Church needs to do a better job of identifying homosexual men before they enter the seminary. While having same-sex attractions should not disqualify a man from seeking holy orders, it should be determined whether the attractions are deep-seated or transitory. A man with deep-seated same-sex attractions identifies himself as a “gay man” and sees nothing wrong with homosexual activity. This type of man is more likely to present a risk.
On the other hand, a man with transitory same-sex attractions does not identify himself as a “gay man.” He identifies himself as a “man who struggles with same-sex attractions.” He does not want to be gay and wants to live a healthy, chaste, celibate life. We have worked with many men in this state, and they have gone on to be healthy priests.
You have criticized the bishops’ “zero tolerance” policy. Isn’t zero tolerance the only way to protect the vulnerable and the Church at the same time?
We believe the Church should have zero tolerance for anyone who commits a crime. However, many of the accusations against priests are false. When a “credible” accusation is made against a priest, in many dioceses, he is immediately removed from ministry and must work to prove his innocence. Thus, he is “guilty until proven innocent.”
When teachers, coaches, physicians, etc. are accused, they are not immediately removed from their professions — and in the case of Philadelphia, their homes.
What should the Church do now to reform some of its own reforms implemented in 2002?
The U.S. bishops should be commended for their efforts in creating the Dallas Charter. Their sincere goal was to protect minors from harm, bring swift justice to perpetrators of crimes, and provide healing to those who were harmed by sexual abuse.
However, they did not adequately address how to handle false accusations against priests and how to protect the civil and canonical rights of all priests accused.
While the charter gives bishops the right to immediately remove priests from ministry, it does not provide priests with an appeal process to clear their names and return to ministry.
They must appeal to Rome for this, a process that can take up to two years.
The Dallas Charter also did not acknowledge that the main perpetrators of crimes were homosexual priests. Because of this, too many priests are being misdiagnosed as pedophiles or ephebophiles [adult persons whose sexual preference is for mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19].
The charter also did not adequately distinguish between priests who were accused of sexual abuse and those who simply violated boundaries.
All of these issues need to be addressed in order for the Dallas Charter to effectively protect all who are involved in a sexual-abuse case.
Register senior editor Joan Frawley Desmond writes from Chevy Chase, Maryland.
Edward Pentin: Pope Pardons Gabriele, Appoints American as Promoter of Justice
Tim Drake: Register Radio: Abuse Statistics & The Hunger Games
Comments
Post a Comment
So then…..we can allow our children to be alone with people who have boundary issues wherein they transgress sexual limits but do not abuse…roflol? I don’t think this piece inspired anyone to place trust in therapists over prosecutors in this area.
EXCELLENT article. This is a much-needed retort to what has been happening in Philadelphia. This is also a perspective that the major media will NOT report.
Bravo, Ms. Desmond.
Dave Pierre
TheMediaReport.com
(Author of an article, “Unfair in Philadelphia? A Closer Look at the Grand Jury Report”: http://www.themediareport.com/mar2011/philadelphia-grand-jury-report.htm ... Peace.)
We have a grave responsibility to respect the faith objectives ,which involves definite knowledge of definite Principkes.
The members of the church need to be mindful of the blessedness if fearing God, as I quote exodus 20:20” And Moses said unto the people ,fear not; for God is come to prove you ,and that his fear may be before your faces ,that ye sin not ”
This scripture passage may be cross-reference with( Deuteronony 6:2,24, Psalm 25:12-14)
One may want to recall the laws of the bible in reference ton crime against religion : The Christisn Church warned against false prophets ( Matthew7:15) ” Beware of false prophets ,which come to you in sheep’s clothing , but inwardly they are ravening wolves”
This particular offense agains religion is considered to be ( Criminal offense , against the first commandment)
All priests should be treated equally when they violate this commandment !!!!!
It is an offense to God and it is not in accordance to guiding his flocks. It is unfortunate many priests use philosophical word games to lead the public / lay faithful astray. Be warn , God knows our interior dispositions !!!!!!!!
Fair analysis…
Get serious! A priest or monk, who is accused of “Boundary Violations,” could easily go over the “Boundary,” into the sins of sodomy, rape or molestation! I wouldn’t want any child or grandchild of mine to be alone with a priest or in the confessional if that man had suffered with previous “Boundary Violations.” Why should we sacrifice the safety of our children to their “possible” sexual urges? Let’s face it…... Past and current Pedophiles in the Roman Catholic Priesthood haven’t elicited a response of trust. Neither have their bishops, who have willing reassigned them from one parish to another. The Holy Spirit has given the Laity “The Gift of Discernment,” and it is evident from the past actions of our bishops, who have reassigned Pedophile Priests, that they don’t possess this gift, or simply ignore it if they do!
So just what is Cardinal Rigali supposed to do???? He’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. I’m sorry but “boundary issues” are not appropriate for any priest. Cardinal Rigali followed the direction of his advisers. He was already being chewed up and spit out by the District Attorney’s office and the press. I feel his pain.
“Back in the 1980s, it was believed that these people could be treated and reformed…Today, we know there is no known cure for pedophilia.”
Ah, but we knew that back then, didn’t we? If treatment is not, in fact, effective, then there were no cases that could be pointed to back then accurately establishing that we could put the wolves back in with the sheep.
It was just wishful thinking, which was one of the characteristics of Vatican II and a defining characteristic of the Church (not so) militant since.
I believe Bill Bannon misinterpreted the article. Boundary violations are serious and need to be addressed. However, they are not crimes and most priests who violate boundaries don’t need to be removed from ministry. For example, one priest who kissed a girl on the forehead was accused of a boundary violation, misdiagnosed as a pedophile, and removed from ministry for two years. This is an example of a severe injustice committed toward a priest over a boundary violation. Boundary violations cannot be treated the same as crimes.
“Many of the men who were placed on administrative leave were accused of boundary violations [transgressing the physical, emotional or sexual limits of a trusted relationship], not sexual abuse. However, because they were lumped together with those who were accused of sexual abuse, the public automatically assumes that these men are also accused of sexual crimes.”
The enemies of the Church have been popping the corks from their champagne bottles for over a decade now; with virtually uninterrupted news coverage about Catholics priests abusing children and young people, with news coverage about lawsuits bankrupting diocese after diocese, with payouts to victims amounting to billions of dollars . . .
. . . and in this context, there continue to be men in the clergy who find themselves unable to refrain from “transgressing boundaries” with other people?
Are these men in the clergy, who are unable to refrain from so transgressing, from *the planet Jupiter*? Or under what rock have they been living for the last decade? Or what combination of crack cocaine, LSD and insecticide have they been smoking day and night, to render them insensible to the fact that in many quarters, there is now nothing but a smoking crater in the place where the reputation of the Roman Catholic Church once stood, and the fact that, if they have their way, the enemies of the Church will work day and night to ensure that the remaining tatters of the Church’s reputation are similarly obliterated?
The situation for the Church in the U.S. and throughout much of the world is now *radioactive,* with many persons privately believing that the average Catholic priest is a sexual predator upon little children. That, friends, is a public relations disaster of *radioactive* proportions. Like Chernobyl. Like the Japanese power plants in the wake of the tsunami.
At the time of the disaster, should the Russians have said of the melting down plant in Chernobyl. . . “well, we have the cement sacrcophagus in place around the out-of-control burning fuel rods; let’s not go overboard by quarantining *too much* of the surrounding neighborhood. Let’s say, within two miles, instead of fifty miles, will be deemed safe for people to return to. Yes, only two miles. And after the people return, even if ground water samples are making the Geiger counter chirp steadily, and birds are dropping dead out of the sky, we’ll simply say that this is possible evidence of a possible problem that is being investigated, but which has been determined not to be a cause for alarm.”
Great! Just great!
This is called *lunacy*!
It seems to me that priests who have transgressed ANY personal boundaries AT ALL should have had *long ago* something called “the fear of God” put into them by their bishops. “The fear of God” alone can go a long way toward instilling boundaries where previously there were none, and toward setting up internal roadblocks against the expression of behaviors that might otherwise occur.
These new strict rules represent a welcome and much-needed answer to this unfolding disaster for the Church. Let these men get on-board or get out, and quit adding to the Church’s woes.
That you would print such an article as this is a disgrace. Any type of inappropriate behavior with a minor, be it sexual, verbal, physical, shared in written form, print form, etc, should always be cause for the officiating organization to remove the offending party, be they priest, teacher, doctor, parent, etc To defend this type of behavior, to try to qualify it by saying it was just a little over the line is disgraceful. Whether it was a little or a lot, you are guilty of a terrible crime and cannot be considered “innocent,” as the doctors contend. Ask yourself, “Would you leave your child in their care?” I think not.
I do not understand why so much of expertise is needed on the issue of sexual sins. A normal man whether he is heterosexual or homosexual who wants to be loyal to the teachings of the Church will try his best to live accordingly Of course there may be fall into sin in few cases. The recognition that homosexual inclination needs any concession is wrong. If a priest lives a life of double standard, such ones should be immediately removed. They live with a hidden agenda knowingly .... like the priests who were found dancing naked in a club an year ago. No need for any psychology. The need is creating more awareness of sin and the need for a chaste life
Very informative. Thank you.
Bill
I don’t think the article says those who “transgress sexual limits but do not abuse” should be excused. Boundaries and sexual limits, while related, are not the same. A boundary issue can be simpy a child, or a child’s parent, didn’t like the fact that the priest HUGGED the child (I know, most don’t see this as a problem - but this IS a boundary issue), while sexual limits are much more explicit - touching INAPPROPRIATELY, and then, of course, beyond.
I don’t put full stock into any psyscho-analyst types autormatically, but these two make great sense—and we need some common sense and clarity when dealing with these kind of issues. In our (your) anger and obsession of these kinds of crimes, and they are crimes, we too often blur the lines and over-react to and over-generalize all interaction that involves contact as a ‘sexual boundary.’ Please, lets get some sanity back.
Bill, a boundary issue could mean anything as simple as hugging the wrong person or placing a caring hand on someone’s shoulder… things that should be taken as they are an example that someone cares for another when they’re in distress or maybe that they’re happy that someone’s doing better or whatever other reason you may have for hugging a person or clapping them on the shoulder…
My first thought is that these therapists are creating artificial categories. Who decides whether homosexual tendencies are “transitory” or “deep-seated”? In my experience, these things fall along a continuum, and there is no sudden dividing line. “Boundary problems” and “abuse” are two points along a continuum. Who is to decide the point at which it requires concern or investigation?
The Diocese of Austin, as well as most others, has a wonderful training program on boundary issues. And one of the things they are honest about is that children AND adults need to be able to express appropriate affection and support—hugs, pats on the back, etc. There is, of course, INAPPROPRIATE forms of expressing affection, and that is what we need to be watchful for.
And Elisabeth, yes, we MUST decide which is appropriate and which is not, as well as even WHEN appropriate gestures of affection are in order and when they are not. Like and hate are also on a spectrum of our attitude toward one another—and we must decide, and do, which is appropriate and which is not, and when they are appropriate and when they are not. Love and indifference are the opposites on another similar spectrum. We cannot simply say that because they are all on a spectrum together all should be banished and punished.
Man, are we getting paranoid or what. I feel for Cardinal Rigaldi; as someone already pointed out he’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t. My prayer is that we can get past this extremism we’re obsessed with and bring some pastoral and godly rationale back into the mix. YES, we need to handle these cases swiftly, honestly, openly, but too many lives and ministries (and even secualr professions) get destroyed now simply upon the “allegation,” credible or not.
Another reflection on this subject is lacking the moral courage to obey scripture: faith objectives to obey scripture ,the definite principles to this objective , as I quote the book of Joshua 3:9” And Joshua said unto the children of Israel ,come hither ,and hear the words of the Lord your God. ( Cross reference with Isaiah 33:13)
The principle for the Law to be rembered( Jude 1:17), as I quote ” But, beloved , remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ ( cross reference Hebrew 2:1)
The principle of meditation on the law , as I quote Deuteronomy 6:6, as I quote” And these words which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart” ( cross reference with Joshua 1:8)
The principle of the law to be obeyed, as I Quote James 1:22” But be ye doers of the word , and not heares only ,deceiving your own lives. Cross reference( psalm105:45)
The principle neglect and opposition of the law , as I quote psalm 119:150” They draw nigh that follow after mischief : they are far from thy law. Cross reference( Hosea 8:12)
The principle of penalties of the law , as I quote Jeremiah 33:33-34) As I quote” And when this people ,or the prophet or a priest ,shall ask thee, saying ,What is the burden of the Lord? Thou shalt then say unto them, What burden? I will even forsake you, saith the Lord, And as for the prophet ,and the priest ,and the people ,that shall say, The burden of the Lord,I will even punish that man and his house.” Cross reference( Jeremiah 36:29-30)
These principles are very clear, priests should remember they are set aside for Holiness and any violation of the precepts of private and public morals is a crime ( criminal offense) there is no need to make distinction of homosexuals, pedophiles ect…..., these actions are sinful in themselves, no need for word games. There is a law of purity ( Christ’s law of purity : Matthew 5:27-28) any violation of this law , then appropriate actions need to be taken.
The Bishop acted accordingly to the laws of the bible.
Let me remind all scripture is not to be altered- faith objective; the definite principle ,as I quote Deuteronomy 4:2” Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aight from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you” Cross reference ( Proverb 30:6)
Peace to all
Great article! “Boundry violations”? What a bunch of psycho-babel. I could care less if a Priest or Nun dispapyed wholesome affection to my children by giving them a hug or kiss on the forehead. The real SIN is to turn that act into something sexual. How many pre-resurection paitings are there of Jesus holding kids on His lap or kissing their heads. It takes a sick or pre-disposed mind to assume these acts are some fictitious “boundary violation”. What a bunch of “Less Nessman’s”!
When I hear “boundary violations” what I understand by that is that someone does not respect the boundaries (physical, emotional, etc) set by another person, which is a characteristic of abuse. Maybe not everyone means the same thing by “boundary violation”, and so we should try to learn what the therapists meant to say.
I think Fitzgibbons has hit the nail on the head: Why are our bishops so spineless? They seem to neither understand the Canon Law provision stating: “A bishop must defend his priests,” nor the provision that a person is entitled to his good name. Are bishops above following Canon Law? Yes, investigate, and move the priest temporarily out of the situation into another situation; but don’t throw the accused to the wolves. If the bishops had any guts and were truly interested in our priests;as well as good stewardship of our hard-earned money, which we give to the Church, they would have done something along the lines of:
Tell the victims the Church will do everything possible to help them:
The priest is out if he admits to, plea bargains to a charge, or is convicted of abuse.
HOWEVER, if the accusation is found to be false, negligent, and/or malicious, the Church will go after the alleged victim because the priest’s life is also at stake, we wouldn’t have seen over a billion dollars go out the window AND we would have treated innocent priests with respect and dignity, as well as the People of God who paid for the bishop’s cowardice.
If there are boundary issues, fine, get the priest into therapy. There are long-established procedures for dealing with therapeutic needs of clergy.
[In the interests of honest and full-disclosure, I was accused of pedophilia and, first obtained a Declaration of Factual Innocence (can’t be challenged) from the D.A’s office. My archbishop at that time refused to accept the Declaration. Eleven years, two months, six days, 23 hours, and 48 minutes after the accusation was made known to me the Archbishop finally capitulated to the Will of Rome and accepted that I had won in the Recourse I submitted to the Congregation for the Clergy. However, it did not stop the archbishop from trying to harm me for the next 14 years until his retirement at midnight on 02/27/2011.]
Thank you! I just had a discussion about this topic over Easter with my extended family. I’m going to send them this link. I like how the issue is discussed and it is more grey and solutions are protrayed as difficult rather than easy to fix and black and white. I approve! :)
These no adult other than a child’s parent should be kissing or touching a minor in any way. Among family members, friends, a kiss to say hello goodbye is fine, but leave the “signs of encouragement” to parents and stick to “words of encouragement. My wife is an elementary school principal (Catholic parish) and the rules in the last five years are very clear and correct on this issue for everyone.
Please review saint Thomas Aquinas Treatise on the Essence of Law : 4 articles.
I want to focus on the first article in reference to the essence of the law: “Whether Law is something pertaining to reason ”
The reply to this question ” Law is a rule and measure of acts, whereby man is induced to act or is restraining from acting : for law is derived from ligare ( binding) because it binds one to act. Now the rule and measure of human acts is the reason ,which is the first principle of human acts, as is evident from what has been stated; since it belongs to the reason to direct to the end, which is the first principle in all matters of action, according to the philosopher ( Phys.ii) now that which is the principle in any genus ,is the rule and measure of that genus : for instance ,unity in the genus of numbers ,and the first movement in the genus of movements. Consequently it follows that law is something pertaining to reason.
We are speculating that these priests did not violate the church terminology of transgressing” .Saint Thonas Aquinas theology explained beautifully. Sin is sin !!!!!!!!!
The fact that there are those who do not understand the difference between a loving act and a disordered sexual inclination, is the problem to begin with.
I agree, Nancy! If we stop loving because we are afraid of what people will think or take the wrong way, that is depriving and doing exactly as satin wants (loving less). I don’t like how an innocent hug is in the same category as a sexual abuse. Sad!
“However, many of the accusations against priests are false.”
Well, there’s a false premise. In fact, the number of accusations which have been deemed to be false is a very small percentage indeed!
“Boundary violations.” I have news for our friend with the PhD. That’s called “grooming” and that’s where it starts. Concerns over one of the Christian Brothers’ worst predators was dismissed for decades with “Oh, Brother John is just very affectionate and demonstrative!” In fact, his pushing of personal boundaries was seen as a GOOD thing by some who thought that maybe young men were a bit too “uptight” about their masculine identity and need to be taken down a peg or two. Which I guess was just fine, until it was revealed that some of Brother John’s young spiritual direction clients had been persuaded that it was okay to share his bed and to be sodomized by him.
Sometimes he waited until they were of legal age; that is irrelevant as he had a trust relationship with these young men, which he abused. When he worked at a high school retreat house, he went after 16-year-olds. When he was moved to College Campus Ministry, well 18-22 was fine.
Which brings us to the “pedophile” versus “homosexual” twist. Plenty of victims are over 12, and post-pubescent. And plenty were teenage girls at the time of their victimization by charming keepers of their souls.
No priest has a “right” not to be placed on administrative leave. It’s clear that there was some question about the quality of the prior investigations.
Isn’t it supposed to be about the Next World, not the careers of some priests in this world?
So what’s the objection to taking a pause to get it right?
While it is unfortunate that some may need to endure the assumptions of a few that allegations equal guilt, I would assume that caring priests would shoulder this burden and step down to allow a fair, measured process to ensue and to allow the work of the parish to continue as much as possible while the process is followed. This should apply to the church’s process of investigation as well as a legal one. This is a very real burden the church and its representatives must bear, in part to atone for past sins, and in part simply in responsibility to its members. By the way, there is much presented as psychological fact here that is questionable. Should a man who identifies as a “straight man” and sees nothing wrong with opposite sex activity qualify as a priest? Many such men are also pedophiles. How about a man who identifies as a straight man and who sees nothing wrong with occasional experimental sexual activity between married partners? How much investigation into ALL priests sexual experience and predilections does the church plan to make? After all, priests will minister to both gay and straight parishioners- and, in fact, to pedophiles as well as those who might only once or twice abuse a child sexually. The lurking suspicion that gay men will more readily abuse children seems implicit here and has never been supported with facts. The assumption that all pedophiles are alike- and are readily identifiable by professionals- are also unwarranted.
A sentimental insistence on the liberty of adult males to embrace minors not related to them is not at all in the spirit of Church discipline from previous centuries, when priests were counselled never to be alone with a woman, nor to converse with one outside the confessional, nor to maintain eye contact with one. Certainly *never* to touch her or to embrace her. In fact, the reason the confessional box was invented was so as to avoid having women conversing privately in seclusion with the priest in the sacristy. Because, sadly untoward activity sometimes happened even in the sacristy, and the confessional box was designed to help keep priests and female penitents out of harm’s way (reputation-wise and temptation-wise.)
If the Church was so strict about relations between priests and women in the 16th and 17th, is it really so surprising that the Church would wisely and prudently circumscribe the ways in which priests might interact with minors?
@ Peter Kleponis, Ph.D who writes:
“For example, one priest who kissed a girl on the forehead was accused of a boundary violation, misdiagnosed as a pedophile, and removed from ministry for two years. This is an example of a severe injustice committed toward a priest over a boundary violation.”
That’s the problem with you Ph.D people. You don’t get it. Such action is out of bounds and a personal space violation. I don’t want any priest putting his hands nor his face on my daughter. When you have priests teaching priests in seminaries, this is what you get. What planet do you live on?
Someone who respects the inherent dignity of the human person and is living a healthy, chaste and celebate life, would not be struggling with same sex attractions to begin with.
Marion, I think you got it right. Interesting discussion.
At times I think, priests and the hierarchy who are making decisions forget a principle that is unchangeable: Of the perfection of God’s knowledge. The intellectual act is not specified by what is understood in another, but by the principal object understood in which other things are understood. For the intellectual act issoecified by it’s object, inasmuch as the intelligible form is the principle of the intellectual operation; as heating by heat. Hence the intellectual operation is specified by that intelligible form which makes the intellect in act. And this is the image of the principal thing understood,which in God is nothing but His own essence in which all images of things are comprehended. Hence it does not follow that the divine intellectual act, or rather God Himself ,is specified by anything else than the divine essence itself.(summa theology)
Meditation on Hebrew 4:13 ” All things are naked and open to His eyes”
Members of the church you cannot outsmart God , so do not try !!!!!!!
I do not agree with the notion that the public have a misunderstanding of the definition of boundary”
I believe mature adults understand this unchangeable principle: ( truth)
The truth of our intellect is caused by the ting ,yet it is not necessary that truth should be there primarily ,any more than that health should be primarily in medicine ,rather than in animal : for the virtue of medicine ,and not it’s health,is the cause of health ,for here the agent is not univocal. In the same way the being of the thing, not it’s truth, is the cause of truth in the intellect .Hence philosopher says that a THOUGHT OR WORD IS TRUE FROM THE FACT THAT A THING IS, NOT BECAUSE A THING IS TRUE.( Summa theology)
Peace!!!!!!!!
These 26 men rightly or wrongly have been accused.The reaction by the diocese is to suspend them all and to forget that they are human beings.This is a knee jerk reation to all the secrecy and coverup of the past. Specifically the priest who married my wife and I was convicted of molestation and sentenced. He is now working in the laundry in a Florida prison. These men as well as their victims need our prayers. All of these priests are baptized and have the same chance of forgiveness and reconciliation as any of the rest of us. All we have to take with us to the next life is our good name. Jer 17:10 - God sees what is in our hearts and knows all we do. All of us including these 26 men will have to answer.
At one time I taught third grade CCD. It was very difficult to refrain from giving the children a hug lest I be considered a pervert. How sad that it has come to this that we need to refrain from any sign of innocent physical affection because of the actions of those that turned affection into something vile and dirty.
@ Bob Buford: you wrote-“All of these priests are baptized and have the same chance of forgiveness and reconciliation as any of the rest of us.”
You are correct. However, in this life there are consequences to sin. A CFO or Bank Teller can be forgiven for stealing. Forgiveness, however, does not mean having once paid for their crime they are now placed back into the same job. Forgiveness yes, but you have forfeited your entitlement to be reinstated back into the same position of trust. If your parish priest was caught taking money from the Sunday collection, would you want him still assigned to your parish or even to another parish? Why is it that the same rules for the rest of us do not apply to clergy? That’s the problem with our Bishops, they give “their own” a pass. It’s time some of our Bishops need to be removed as well. But don’t hold your breath.
At one time, the Church believed that only men of the highest caliber, men exclusively of the finest and noblest character were worthy to be admitted to the priesthood. The Church’s view was that if a man were bedevilled by base inclinations and abnormal proclivities, he could be saved, certainly, but that he was not fit to undertake this highest of all callings, the holy priesthood of God.
Priests were to be men of elite virtue, examplars of all that a Christian man should be.
Tortured souls, troubled individuals, and mental cases, devout though they might be, were not candidates. And if a man were ordained and it was eventually revealed that he was, in fact, one of these, and could not be trusted to refrain from preying on the Church’s lambs, then he was retired to a monastery in a remote region where he was assigned manual labor, to pray for the Church and do penance, and to be kept away from the novices, from women, and from the young.
And the Church has always considered it *highly abnormal* in a man to customarily wish to address his intimate attentions to boys or to young men, or worse, to be willing to *force* his attentions on other persons. Although such thoughts may occur in passing to anyone, normal and virtuous men instantly reject them. To have accustomed oneself to entertaining these sorts of desires is *highly abnormal*, and to have gone so far as to have willfully and with pleasure imagined oneself acting on them or to have acted on them, is to have crossed a line that no candidate should ever even approach. For most of the Church’s history, if the authorities found out about these tendencies in a candidate, that intelligence would have precluded him from continuing his priestly studies and from being ordained.
Yes, such a man could be saved, of course. But not ordained.
And in 2002 it was spelled it out for us in black and white exactly why the Church once did discriminate in this way, by not ordaining men with abnormal tendencies. It’s called “Reality coming up and smacking you in the face.”
What is being missed in this discussion is cultural mores. Some ethnic groups are very physical in their affections. For example, those of Italian descent or ethnicity versus those of English descent/ethnicity. Overall, America is still quite puritanical in its cultural mores. I find among those of Irish descent two different types those who are very affectionate and those who abhor hugs, etc.
Priests are thrust into to the midst of this melting pot. Even when a priest takes every effort to not show affection to anyone, both grown ups and children will often spontaneously reach into the priest’s personal space to show affection. If a priest is around a bunch of Italian Americans who are constantly showing affection and gets caught up in the moment and kisses a child of English descent on the forehead, then he is in trouble. How do we solve this problem.
In some of the comments above it is so obviously that many people have been so sceeved out by the pedophilia of a few that they think priests in general have leprosy. The problem is many people do not feel this way and love their priests. Sometimes too interactively. This ends up being confusing to priests. Also, sometimes puritanical types send mixed signals.
In general, our culture is very broken. Many people are wounded and their is a great deal of transference going on. Many people have been sexually abused in their families by parents, uncles, siblings, cousins, etc. A person who has already been abused is often supersensitive and often sends mixed signals about personal boundaries. This too can be confusing to priests, who on a spiritual and psychological level represent fatherhood to people. If people have father-issues, then they tend to project them onto priests.
As for priests, they come from this sick culture too. I have worked with a lot of seminarians. In my estimation, I thought about 50 percent of them were too broken to be ordained. They needed many more years of healing to be in the ball park. A substantial number probably would never be ready. Most seminary staffs seem very poor at discerning. They have put these wounded units on a high-speed train toward ordination. God help us.
To clarify things, Three of the boundary violations were:
(a) priest threw a group of 25 year old hooligans off the parish property for drinking,, hanging out, etc. The following Sunday, they drunkenly drove by after Mass and called him a “fa@@ot” which was reported as a “credible” accusation, and then reenforced by the district attorney;
(b) priest, along with 7 other adults, on a day trip with a youth group, to a large city shares his cell phone number with the teenagers in case they get lost. This was reported as “sharing his cell phone number with a teenage boy.” He, and the other adults, all shared their numbers with the entire group of teens so they could get help if they got lost. Note further, that in the couple of years since this terrible sharing of cell phones numbers, no one has even suggested that the priest ever made an improper call to anyone (of any age).
(c) after a youth group and its properly stipulated number of adult chaperones, departs the parish, the priest finds a sick teen has stayed behind (NOTE: the priest is already in violation of the Stalinist charter for the Proetection of Youth, even though the priest has done nothing wrong) after the meeting. Because the young man is quite sick and there is a freezing rain outside, the priest drive him home. This, too, is a boundary violation (the priest is alone with a teenager). Perhaps instead of asking “what would Jesus do” the priest should have asked “what would the Pharisees do” and he would have stayed out of trouble.
I understand that the remaining “accusations” against the priests are as ridiculous as the above 3 (which are in fact the accusations against 3 of the priests). That is why they were originally reinstated in ministry. There is also a basic concept of “res judicata” which means that once something has been investigated and exonerated, the case is closed, records may be discarded, and the accused may rely on his earlier vindication. Now a finding of “not proven” (no one ever says not guilty any more) has no real meaning, and no priest can rest, irregardless of innocent he may be.
My only question is, given all this aggravation, why would any priest want to be reinstated? He would probably be happier (and certainly would make more money) selling insurance. God help us all.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.