Sigh.
I really don’t like searching for Catholic news and getting nothing but bad news. However, when you get a bunch of reports like this AP one talking about child abuse claims “sweeping” the Church in Europe, it’s kind of hard to be overly positive.
For those who are new to the blog and who haven’t gone back through our archives, let me start by clearly re-stating my position on such matters, just so there can be no misunderstanding: I think anyone who abuses a child – physically or sexually – is, a best, a very, very sick individual and, at worst, little more than a monster and the best example of the fact that evil exists in the world. Moral relativists usually all shut up when it comes to this topic (not surprisingly) and even they agree that there is no excuse for such abuse.
Period.
So, please don’t take any further discussion as being a lessening of the crimes committed by those clergy, laypeople and, quite frankly, all the other villians not even associated with the Church who commit such atrocities. Okay?
However, what really annoys me when these stories break is how half-heartedly the media seems to investigate the issue. Why is it, for example, that the focus remains only on the Catholic Church? If the Catholic Church was unlike any other large organisation of imperfect people and somehow managed to remain totally free from abhorrent behaviour, would there not be a problem? Studies that show a higher proportion of child abuse amongst teachers and nurses than clergy would seem to suggest otherwise, yet we don’t see anyone tackling that issue.
Let me be clear again – a single child abused is one too many, and no child should ever be subjected to this. But if we know this is a problem across our society, why don’t we care enough to dig past the first big, cohesive target we see – i.e. the Catholic Church – and get to whatever it is that is causing this behaviour to manifest itself in the first place?
Too hard? Obviously. Well then, please at least spare me the half-hearted attempts to blame this all on the rule of celibacy! I mean, come on! Is sexual and physical abuse of minors purely the pastime of the Catholic clergy? Of course not! Is it higher in the Catholic Church than in other Christian churches that don’t have celibate clergy? Nope. What about as a percentage against the rest of non-celibate society? No again.
This concept that celibacy is too damn hard, or too unnatural for people to choose – that’s right, choose! – to take a vow to that extent is so ridiculous as to almost be beyond words.
Tell you what: how about I speak from experience? I took a vow of celibacy. I vowed to be celibate until I was married. Impossible? Nope. Difficult? Sure. But absolutely achievable. Now that was a conscious decision I made.
Now, as a consequence of this totally unnatural decision (because we’re all just sex-crazed apes really, right?), did I feel the urge to molest anyone? Of course not! So where the heck is the data to back up such assertions?
This whole issue of child abuse is disgusting, abhorrent and something I wish didn’t even exist for us to be able to discuss. But, if we are going to discuss it, can I just implore us all to discuss it with a view to getting to the actual cause of the problem so it can be solved, rather than a modern-day witch hunt pointed purely at those with a collar (if they’re wearing it!)?
That would be great. Thanks.
I think the media naturally hold the Church to a higher standard because the Church is supposed to hold to a higher standard.
One would have expected priests, availing themselves of all the graces of daily participation in the Eucharist, and the many other means to holiness available to them, would have had a better track record than nurses, teachers etc.
What has really got people upset is the way that leaders in the Church have covered up the abuse rather than report it to the police so that suspected offenders could be investigated and properly dealt with.
We’ve even seen such coverups in the diocese of Munich when the current Pope was bishop there.
Instead of reporting a priest known to have sexually abused an 11 year old boy, they not only did not inform the police but they relased him back into pastoral work where he carried on abusing more children.
And even today, according to yesterdays Vatican news release, the Vatican does not have a policy requiring bishops to report abuse cases to the police.
That isn’t good enough.
There needs to be accountability in leadership for the coverups which allowed abuse to continue.
It will be very interesting to see what comes of the Legion of Christ investigation – the Vatican were told of his sex abuse for years before doing anything about it. And the man responsible for investigating those claims and seeing justice done was none other that the head of the SCDF, the man now Pope.
http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/secretive-catholic-order-founded-by-accused-pedophile-under-fire/19398262
God Bless
I think the media naturally hold the Church to a higher standard because the Church is supposed to hold to a higher standard.
One would have expected priests, availing themselves of all the graces of daily participation in the Eucharist, and the many other means to holiness available to them, would have had a better track record than nurses, teachers etc.
You might think that, Chris, but as someone who has worked in the industry, it’s far too generous. Words like “grace” and “holiness” are answers to crossword clues for most journalists.
Most of them — like the general population — see the Church as outdated and stuck in the past. Ironically, the number of working journalists is shrinking while the Church is growing.
Regarding what you call the “cover-up” of abuse, the ’70s and ’80s were a time when some poor information was being given to bishops about how to deal with priests suffering in this area. Many bishops were advised by trained health professionals to transfer priests to get them away from the object of their attraction.
We now know that the attraction was often not specific to a particular person. Therefore, the solution to these priests has changed, too, with Pope Benedict not afraid to laicise priests who have offended — something that happen rarely, it at all, in the past.
Chris, you’ve made three claims in your comment that were addressed on the previous thread. I assume you have not read the responses, since you’ve gone ahead and made the same claims again.
Point one: the Pope, when he was Archbishop of Munich. On what evidence do you reject the statements from the man who was his Vicar General that the ARchbishop was not aware that a criminal offence had taken place and that he was not aware that the offender was being assigned to parish work? Surely you are not calling the Vicar General a liar without evidence?
Point two: I can’t find support for the claim that the Vatican doesn’t have a policy. Someone on Deacon’s Bench made this claim, with a link to the interview I’ve been quoting from. But there is nothing in that interview to support this claim. Can you please provide a reference?
Point three: Maciel Delgardo was investigated. Once the Pope became Pope, Delgardo was put into forced retirement. The current Promoter of Justice for SCDF Monsignor Charles J. Scicluna says:
Note that the SCDF was responsible for these investigations only from 2001.
We need, as you have pointed out, to address these issues openly and honestly. A good start would be for us not to repeat gossip as fact.
The Vatican Press Office are now revealing that the priest in the Munich case involving the then Ab Ratzinger had “a history of sexual abuse” and that it was “with boys”. It looks like the priest was guilty of multiple sexual offenses:-
Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Vatican press office, also speaks of “abuses” comitted by this priest.
How many sex abuses did a priest have to comit in the diocese of Munich under Abp Ratzinger before anyone thought to pick up the phone and call the police ?
God Bless
JP,
I’ve addressed your first 2 points on the other thread.
Fr Scicluna says that the SCDF also had jurisdiction between 1975 and 1985:
Here’s a history of the evidence forwarded to the Vatican on Fr Maciel’s sex abuses from 1945.
http://regainnetwork.org/article.php?a=47245776
Note that evidence was forwarded in 1976 and 1983 (or soon thereafter) which seems to contradict Fr Scicluna’s evidence that they received no evidence in that era.
Can anyone honestly believe that the SCDF was completely ignorant of any sex abuse claims in the Church for a whole ten years from 1975 – 85 ?
Note that the Vatican issued a receipt for the 1976 allegations.
God Bless
Chris,
Really?! Still?!
You claim evidence of Cardinal Ratzinger’s knowledge in this priest’s assignment in an article headed “Pontiff Cleared of Reassigning Pedophile Priest”.
I think we need to be balanced here. As Bishop the Holy Father should have known and dealt with abusive priests. It’s important enough to be dealt with directly by the Bishop in any diocese and as Bishop it is his final responsibility. On the other hand, prevailing wisdom was to send abusive priests on courses and to try to “fix” them. We have an entirely different attitude towards sexual abuse now and I think we should acknowledge the historical failings.
I think it’s also important to realise that the Catholic Church dealt with abuse in similar ways to other denominations and educational institutions, we know now how harmful this was now, but at the time I believe people were trying to do their best.
No, Chris, you haven’t addressed my first two points.
Re the third, you are confusing two issues. Degollado was reported to SCDF for abuse, yes, and investigated. But not for paedophilia.
You are also confusing the process. Degollado was reported to CSDF twice: once in 1958, and again in 1998.
It is shocking that whoever received the letter sent to “the Vatican” by diplomatic courier in 1978 did not act on it. But any judicial office can only investigate the cases presented to it.
Think back to 1980 guys.
If you knew in 1980 that an adult had forced an 11 year old to perform a sex act on him would you in 1980 have considered it necessary to call the police ?
I think all of us would have.
While it is true that in 1980 not everyone realised the probability of reoffense it is not true that in 1980 people thought this wasn’t a matter serious enough to report to the police.
God Bless
Chris,
Are you hoping that by being an ordained permanent deacon you would be in more of a positionto get under way with the “clean Up in the Catholic church ” that you mentioned needed doing on an earlier thread ? Have you mentioned your concerns which you seemingly hold so strongly, to Bishop Pat and offered your services to help with this task?
Shalom
JP,
The Vatican issued a receipt acknowledging that they received the official sex abuse allegations against Fr Maciel forwarded by diplomatic courier in 1978.
They can’t claim they never got it.
Why do you think those submitting the evidence in 1998 found it necessary to hand deliver it to the undersecretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the time, Gianfranco Girotti ?
Presumably so the SCDF could not continue to avoid making the investigations by claiming they never got them.
God Bless
hello
good questions bamac
chris, can you reply to these questions of bamac?
peace all
Chris,
where did you see a copy of the receipt that youmention?
PAX
chris,
i agree that there are some questions about the fr marciel stuff
but we don’t know what happened in detail, so we can’t leap to judgments about these issues
we don’t know, neither do you, and can i suggest that we have the humility to not jump to conclusions, when we don’t have the info, otherwise, we’re acting like a red-neck lynch-mob; condemning people without enough evidence
peace brother
Back to James’ question: I’d guess the causes of paedophilia are legion. When human beings get a kink in their think – whether because of upbringing, trauma, drug abuse or whatever – it often seems to involve sex. Perhaps because brain chemistry is so intrinsic to sex, so anything that affects the brain is likely to affect sexual attraction and expression.
Why are priests involved? Rephrase that and it becomes obvious: why are people who are attracted to little boys found in the professions that give them access to little boys? Duh!
To me the real question – and the one we need to keep asking until those responsible have owned up and done something about it – is why have certain individuals put the ‘reputation’ of the Church ahead of the safety and wellbeing of little children.
I agree with James – one child is one too many.
I accept that many of the Bishops and diocesan advisors were acting on ‘expert’ advice. I accept that thirty years on we have a tendency to look at their decisions through the lens of our modern knowledge, and that this is unfair. I even accept that our culture of forgiveness and redemption may have had some part to play – and I wouldn’t want to lose that.
Nonetheless, the overwhelming impression is that many of the victims feel that they’ve been treated unfairly because they have been treated unfairly by some bishops and some religious orders.
Do the new standards in place in our country and in other parts of the world give us sufficient safeguards to be sure that such a coverup will never happen again? I hope so.
What can we do to make it happen? We can change ourselves. The Church should be a Church of saints. We need, we require, we have a right to demand holiness from our priests and bishops but ONLY if we are ourselves holy.
More on who knew what when in Vatican about Fr Maciel’s sex abuse :-
God Bless
Evidence of Vatican stonewalling on investigating Fr Maciel for sex abuse, as presented to the United Nations in 2002.
Those accusing Fr Maciel had to go to the United Nations before the Vatican finally acted on their claims two years later in 2004.
One gets the impression that it was the rising public outcry that finally forced a reluctant Vatican to act.
God Bless
chris,
which seems to confirm that some inside the Vatican, with-held things from the right people, or derailed certain things, or moved according to their own agenda
we don’t know, without any shadow of a doubt, who they were though
peace all
Chris, let’s imagine that I sent a letter to Parliament making an accusation against someone – anyone. The letter will be processed and a receipt sent to me letting me know it has arrived. Can I later have a go at the Crown Prosecutor’s office for never acting on my accusation?
“The Vatican” should have done something with such information – I have already agreed with you on that. But “The Vatican” is a big place. You have presented no evidence that the complaint went to the CSDF, but you still accuse them of not acting on the complaint, and further imply that they supressed the information!
They deny this, and other sites I’ve found corroborate their statement that only two complaints were made. (One in the 1950s and one in the 1990s.)
Furthermore, the site you quote makes it clear that this is also the understanding of ReGAIN itself! http://regainnetwork.org/article.php?a=47245824
Dave,
That’s why we need a full investigation.
Who knew what when about the priest in Munich.
Who knew what when about Fr Maciel.
Why nothing was done.
The Holy Father is right in his address to the Irish bishops : it is necessary that the truth be determined.
And the buck needs to stop with those responsible.
God Bless
Can we please discuss James’ actual post?
Chris,
Thank you for having answered the questions about whether or not you are studying to be ordained a permanent deacon for by letting your silence on the matter answer very firmly for you in the affirmative .
Indeed, God Bless you heaps … Where did you see a copy of the receipt you mentioned by the way? thank you again.
Shalom
Yes, I agree, Chris. Only the truth will serve. Not unsubstantiated gossip and rumours, but the truth.
chris,
yes, but not done by a lynch-mob with very few facts
not you. but there will be investigations i suppose
not you
we may never know
yes
the buck stops with those who were truly responsible for grave negligence
remember chris, this is about justice AND mercy
be careful of turning this into witch-hunt because of your own anger
peace brother
Where are these studies that show higher rates of sexual violations from professionals in other occupations?
So statistically, if I leave my child alone with a teacher or a nurse for a few hours every week, they’re more likely to get violated than if I left the child alone with a priest? Seems hard to believe on the face of it. Need stats!
(also, at least the teacher would be fired straight away and sent to jail/rehab instead of moved to another school)
I think the key word here, that Chris is getting at with his first post, is hypocrisy. We humans actually have finely tuned systems to detect and respond emotionally to hypocrisy. That’s why it’s all over the news. (and also cos it’s really, really bad)
Oh and JP, your #15 post is great.
fishe,
Try this report
The footnotes and citations are all there for you to check.
On teachers etc:
Here’s an interesting snippet (emphasis mine):
Here’s a positive suggestion which has a lot of merit : increase the role of women in making the decisions.
It is very noticeable that all the decisions about how to respond to abuse cases were made by men. If women were involved, it is reasonable to expect they might have a greater concern for the defence of our children and a somewhat lessor interest in closing ranks, circling the wagons and covering everything up in the code of masculine silence.
From the front page of the Holy See’s daily L’Osservatore Romano:-
The whole article is well worth reading.
God Bless
German Catholics are upset at the Pope’s silence on the crisis engulfing the in Church in Germany and are calling on the Pope to speak out on the issue.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0315/abuse2.html
Questions have been raised about how much Georg Ratzinger actually knew about sex abuse of the boys in the choir he headed for 30 years:-
God Bless
The diocese of Munich has just suspended priest “H”, the priest who raped an 11 year old boy but was allowed to resume pastoral duties in the then Bp Josef Ratzinger’s diocese in 1980.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-03-15/german-church-suspends-priest-embroiling-pope-in-abuse-scandal.html
It is amazing that it took the Church 30 years to get around to finally suspending this priest yesterday.
It is very significant that this only took place after the investigation and reporting of the secular news media.
If we had been left to ourselves, he would probably never have been suspended but just allowed to quietly carry on.
While there are some in the media with axes to grind against the Church (Hitchens is completely over the top today) I think we owe the secular news media, the secular legal system and the secular police and enormous debt of gratitude for taking the action against abusers that the Church herself should have taken.
God Bless
Christopher dont let the fact get in the way of a good poke at the Church
where do you get this idea that rape was involved. where is your charity?
the mistake by the Church was in thinking that this molestor was treated, if so blame the people responsible for the diagnosis not those who trusted the professionals!
Oh oh…Hitchens finally weighs in on the latest scandals: http://www.slate.com/id/2247861/
I love how the exorcist etc. bring in the “the devil is at work” argument. Sophistry at its finest right there.
Dei,
Well known Catholic reporter John Allen reports that the priest in question (Fr “H”) :
Forced sex is rape.
We took 30 years to suspend a priest who had raped a child.
That is not good enough and it indicates a systemic and institutionalised problem in not effectively dealing with sex abuse by priests.
The problem here is the abuse of power and clericalism in the Church.
One of the Australian Catholic bishops in their excellent Lenten lectio divina series http://www.thereflection.vividas.com pointed out that repentance involves 3 stages :-
1. Being honest and truthful in recognising your sinfulness.
2. Stopping the sinful behaviour.
3. Turning around and walking back to union with God.
Those apply as much to institutions as they do to individual (JPII talked on institutionalised sin).
Lent is as much for institutions as it is for individuals.
God Bless
The Crimen Sollicitationis instruction Hitchens raises is interesting. According to this secret Vatican document, everyone who “is given knowledge of the matter because of their office, is obliged to keep inviolate the strictest secrecy (what is commonly called “the secrecy of the Holy Office”) in all things and with all persons, under pain of automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication”.
Under that threat, it is easy to see how this document was interpreted as imposing a vow of silence, which would have included not reporting abuses to the police.
The Irish bishops are saying that they did interpret Crimen Sollicitationis as mandating secrecy.
God Bless
the story says
after he was accused of forcing the boy to perform sex acts.
this could be any number of inappropriate acts but saying ‘rape’ is emotive and I think you insult victims of serious crimes i doing this.
regards;
1. Being honest and truthful in recognising your sinfulness.
2. Stopping the sinful behaviour.
3. Turning around and walking back to union with God
this is true for us all and dare I say it, sulivanists as well?
Says it all really.
Yes, the future pope pulled the pedophile priest from his post
He did ?
I thought he was pulled by the bishop of another diocese and then transferred to Bp Ratzinger’s diocese of Munich for therapy ?
God Bless
From Phil Lawler…
Ox,
Well, that ain’t what Jimmy Akin is saying over at the National Catholic Register.
He’s saying the priest was in a different diocese.
Turns out that Phil Lawler later corrected himself.
God Bless
Chris, I’m a little confused about what you think the Church should now do. The priest in question served time in prison, and has not been accused of any crime for 24 years. Yet you are rejoicing that he has now been suspended – saying ‘about time’!
Your stance in this case seems inconsistent with some of your previous remarks on these threads:
And later:
So do you believe in forgiveness and reconciliation? Or not?
JP,
Are you saying that the diocese of Munich was wrong to suspend Fr H yesterday ?
It wasn’t me who spoke of excommunicating anyone. It was the Vatican in Crimen Sollicitationis which threatened to excommunicate anyone who divulged these dirty secrets.
I think that attitude has an awful lot to answer for in how these abuses were not only covered up but abusing priests were quietly reassigned to other parishes where no one knew of their past and where they continued to abuse more children.
As happened on Bp Ratzinger’s watch in Munich.
They could have at least warned someone in the priest’s new parish of his history so they could keep an eye on him.
God Bless
They could have at least warned someone in the priest’s new parish of his history so they could keep an eye on him.
Yes, and they could have warned Bshp Ratzinger too. For Lawler’s and Akin’s reports make it clear that it is extremely unlikely Ratzinger knew much, if anything, about this priests real reason for being there. Even Ruth Gledhill admits: “The killer fact that could bring down the Pope or Church probably does not even exist”.
You seem to suffer from target-FAIL Mr Sullivan. I would suggest you go looking for the real perpetrators who covered up this guy – 10:1 they are progressives. If you are training to be a deacon (and best wishes to you for that, if true), you need to learn the value of PRUDENCE.
Christopher,
it seems you are unable to answer a straight question (posed several times), with even a prevarication or a downright no comment.
Are you being rude on purpose, or have you simply not seen the question (posed several times) as to whether or not you are studying for the diaconate?
Could you please answer in some form or other, by means of a post, the following question:
Are you curently studying for the diaconate?
Wikipedia has a good article on Crimen sollicitationis.
Three quotes:
FXD
Chris Sullivan is under no obligation to answer questions on his personal or family life.
In fact you are downright rude
JP,
What Crimen Sollicitationis actually says (according to the wikipedia translation) is:-
That “or is given knowledge of the matter because of their office” would apply to any Bishop or diocesan staff member informed of a case.
While Crimen Sollicitationis primarily addressed sexual solicitation in the confessional, it explicitly extended its provisions to homosexual and paedophile behaviour by clerics, as wikipedia notes :-
God Bless
Helens Bay,
it’s a simple question – and if he is studying for the diaconate, then it is no longer a personal or family issue, as you put it.
A deacon belongs to the presbyterate of the Church, and as such, he belongs in a very real way to the lay people whom he is called to serve.
Therefore, we, as laypeople, surely have a right to know who are presenting themselves as candidates for ordination to the permanent diaconate.
Would you have us kept in the dark regarding the men in the seminary? Do you not want to pray for them, Helens Bay?
And, please, let’s not have you placing yourself in the awkward position of talking about the rudeness of other people.
HB #44;
FXD, I agree the question was inappropriate
It should be; is Christopher going to start study for the deaconate anytime in the near future? If so at what point does one take on responsibility for the teaching role of the Church and leave the controversial needling to others.
Here’s a link to the actual Crimen Sollicitationis document for those interested in checking it out.
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/churchdocs/CrimenEnglish.pdf
See section 11, where the translation “each and everyone pertaining to the tribunal in any way” would presumably include the victims or others making the complaint – a very serious imposition of secrecy indeed.
Latin-o-philes can read the original latin text at
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/churchdocs/CrimenLatin.pdf
God Bless
Noted canon lawyer Pete Vere is now apologising because he should have spoken out earlier and he did nothing.
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2010/03_04/2010_03_14_Vere_APersonal.htm
That was the culture which allowed the abuse to be covered up.
Too many knew things and didn’t speak up when they should have done.
God Bless
I went looking for an official translation of Crimen Sollicitationis – as Chris has pointed out on this blog before, translating something directly from Latin can give misleading results.
I didn’t find such a translation, though I did find several references that said there isn’t one. The english translation appears to have popped up on athiest and other blogs after the BBC’s documentary that named this document as evidence in their media trial of the Pope.
I did find a number of statements saying that the interpretation given by the BBC and by others, including our friend Chris is flawed – including this one from Skeptimedia. The writer is an athiest and has no particular reason to support the Church. He says that those who wish to be critical can find reason enough without resorting to falsehoods.
But he expects the misinformation to continue:
D.V. #47
How can we ask if Chris is just thinking of starting out on training to become a permanent deacon when he is already in his third year?
H.B. It was my asking Chris some time back now if some statement he had made was his own idea or something he had learnt in his training to become a permanent deacon . In Chris’s and my parish of St Marks many seemed to know about Chris’s study and were praying for him, I didn’t know that it would be something that Chris would not want known on B.F. Over the years I have known boys who have entered sminaries in various places I have lived … these boys werwe all grateful to God for their calling to serve God in working thus in His Church… they had all shared their hopes and plans with many as an act of thanks giving to God for this gift from God and to secure prayers as they started out on this venture ,….I thought it would be the same with Chris.
The fact that Chris will be helping in St Marks when he is ordained means that he will be part of my parish family so is of more than a little interest to me so in that way I feel it is a family matter.
Chris, I am sorry if I have upset you in some way by mentiong it in the first place but , to be honest, I can not understand your silence on the privilege God is giving you. My prayers go with you whatever.
Shalom
JP,
OK.
John Allen and Fr Thomas Doyle seem to be of the view that Crimen Sollicitationis did not prevent bishops and others from notifying the police before a canonical trial :
http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/update/bn080703.htm
Although that does not seem to be what the English translations of Crimen Sollicitationis actually say. And it does not seem to be how the Irish bishops interpreted it.
So, if Crimen Sollicitationis didn’t preclude anyone calling the police, then why didn’t we call the police in Munich and the many other times this abuse has surfaced ?
God Bless
bamac;
we do not offer to be a deacon any more than we offer to be a priest. The intention is there of course but there must be a large measure of discernment and prayer (with a good measure of wisdom to boot) from the Church to ensure that the calling is truly from God.
The question I ask is a good one because study for the deaconate does not mean that we will be accepted into it or we even have a calling to it.
I know several outstanding men who have progressed through seminary and been refused ordination due to their percieved unsuitability or lack of vocation. We may not always understand this refusal but trust that those making the decisions have the Church at heart and the will of God in mind.
So, study for the deaconate is good, but does not a deacon make?
My concern for the permanent diaconate in Auckland (which I support) is whether there is sufficient discernment in place and who is being entrusted with this role. Even the standard of study (as outside good shepherd and the seminary education standards) is a worry given a deacon is expected to preach to the same standard as a priest.
There was a glimmer of change in recent times that gave me hope (that the study was showing fruit) which has diminished in recent posts?
Pray for the Church!
bamac.
I an surprised that you mention that a certain controversial commenter on this blog is in his third year of studying for the Diaconate.
It was only at the beginning of 2009 that Bp. Pat Dunn announced that, after seeing the success of the Diaconate in the Hamilton diocese, that he had decided to introduce the Diaconate into the Auckland diocese. On that basis, one wouls assume that anyone from the Auckland diocese could only be in his second year – unless Bp. Dunn had been allowing formation to the Diaconate to proceed pending approval in Auckland. This could well be the case, as I understand that Auckland diocese ordained their first deacon late last year.
If Chris is indeed in formation for the Diaconate, he needs to recall the purpose of the diaconate and the role he may be taking on. That certainly does not include searching out and salivating over the sins of the Church and braodcasting them so enthusiastically, let alone using so much of his employers time in that persuit.
bamac,
No, of course I am not upset and I do appreciate and feel the many prayers offered for me by you and many others (which are very efficacious). Please do keep praying for me as I do need your prayers (all of you).
The Catholic Diocese of Auckland has a policy of not publicly naming candidates to the Permanent Diaconate.
It is true that not everyone thinks this policy is such a great idea, and it certainly doesn’t preclude letting individuals know.
But, nonetheless, the diocese has such a policy, and this blog, of course, is a public forum.
The policy of not necessarily telling everyone at early stages has a long and noble history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_secret
God Bless
howdy cobbers and cobberettes,
chris, thanks for posting that apology from peter vere. a very good letter. saddening. i know rc people who have left; they feel betrayed, and dismayed.
not good how this was handled by the LC/RC people
not good
not good what’s being uncovered throughout Europe
certainly, it’s a terrible thing
but let’s not become one of the mob who blindly throw stones at the church, yelling, screaming, insulting
let us pray for the church, our family, our mother, that these things will be dealt with well, and healing will occur, through justice, and mercy; and let us pray for those who are persecuting her at the moment, and using this as a moment to attack her, hurl rocks against her, spit at her, whip her, and finally nail her to the cross
let us not become the pharisees and romans of our times
let us resist the temptation to join in with the other bigrands out there, who have no love for Christ’s church; who don’t care that she is tortured, but only want the truth into the media at all cost, no matter which innocent and guilty persons are destroyed and kicked to death in the process
may justice and mercy prevail, not according to a trial by media, or a trial by blog(s), but in the Heart of Jesus, where those who have suffered from abuse can find rest, and peace, and love; and those who have sinned and abused can find mercy and forgiveness, and hope
i remember a beautiful book that i read called the “the song of nagasaki”
it was about the atomic bombing of nagasaki and a holy japanese man who survived the bombing. he had an apparition from st. max kolbe interestingly. this holy japanese man, helped the inhabitants of nagasaki to forgive the americans, and to see God’s providence in the horrific events and suffering. each year when the annual remembrance service is held there, the spirit and attitude is gentle, peaceful, restful, merciful, and full of Catholic faith, due to this saintly man, and the influence he had in helping them get through it
whereas in hiroshima, the attitidue is completely different. for years, at the annual remembrance service, there is anger, still to this day, against the americans, there are protests, and bitter speeches, and a lot of agression
it was an amazing witness to how Mercy can allow for healing, and peace, and growth
peace all
D.V.,#53
I understand and agree 100% with all that you said . There is need for much prayer for so many things that happen in our Auckland diocese and elsewhere in our church. Thank you for your response.
God Bless
shalom
OOPs , I meant 54 and Don the KIWI… SORRY.
Chris…. thank you and God Bless,
Shalom
howdy
dv, where do the permanent deacons do their study in auckland?
peace
BTW.
The Diaconate is just that – not the permanent Diaconate.
The office of Deacon has its beginnings at the same time as the presbyterate.
Transitional Deacons are those who are ordained Deacons on their journey to Priestly ordination.
So there is – the Order of Deacons. and
– the Order of Priests.
don
do you know where they study in auckland?
thanks ;P
peace
dave.
No I don’t know.
I am in the Hamilton diocese ( from Tauranga).
It would be logical though, to have the courses at the seminary – all the facilities and brains trusts are there.
They have a specially adapted course at the ummmmm……..CIT
CMIIW
I remember thinking when Pope Benedict XVI announced the ‘Year for Priests’ that this would be a year of attacks against the priesthood. I have been very conscious of an increase of vitriol against the Church and her priests over the last months.
We probably don’t fully appreciate the severity of anti-clericalism in Europe – and there are none more vicious than those who used to be Catholic. Most of these attacks I suspect are from people who live lives that are in the eyes of the Church sinful, therefore, to justify themselves, they attack the Church. With what glee the smug newspaper reporters and editors must rub their hands as they hear of even the hint of an abuse case. The reporting is a disgrace and is designed solely to give the most negative impression of the Church.
We shouldn’t forget the great efforts that are being put into soiling the Holy Father’s name and reputation. He is a humble, scholarly and holy man – he is everything the modern pagans detest. I can’t help think of Pope Benedict when I hear this passage from the Book of Wisdom:
Wisdom 2: 12, 17-19
————————————————-
[12] “Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training.
[17] Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; [18] for if the righteous man is God’s son, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries.
[19] Let us test him with insult and torture, that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. [20] Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected.”
Let us pray for the Church:
St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in the day of battle; be our safeguard against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray and do thou, O’ Prince of the Heavenly Host, by the Power of God, cast into hell satan and all the other evil spirits, who prowl throughout the world, seeking the ruin of souls, Amen.
Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, Have mercy on us.
Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, Have mercy on us.
Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, Have mercy on us.
CIT gives training for candidate deacons?!?!?!
Please tell me that this is not true
Back on topic, some good ideas here from ABp Burke and Abp Zollitsch
Some good news from Germany. The Church is going to investigate the abuse cases and the role of the Ratzinger brothers.
Juesten’s comment is very interesting as he’s not saying the Pope knew nothing.
God Bless
Christopher
Good grief! you are precious!
you might as well have said;
“Juesten’s comment is very interesting as he’s not saying Chris Sullivan knew nothing.” (except you could have!)
Lev
dont be uncharitable
they taught Christopher everything he knows! (or doesn’t)
Dei,
The Church in Europe is in a major crisis.
In Ireland they are saying that the Church will never recover (that’s an exaggeration) but levels of anti-clerical feeling among the faithful have now descended to levels unseen since the reformation.
Mainland Europe is heading the same way fast.
The ship is drifting rudderless as it did last year during the SSPX Holocaust denial fiasco.
The man at the helm needs to show some firm leadership fast else the damage will only escalate.
God Bless
A German bishop makes the link with compulsory celibacy:
God calls some men to the priesthood but he does not call all of them to celibacy (eg St Peter, who was married). A man knowing God is calling him to the priesthood who also discerns that God is not calling him to celibacy and wants to marry is put in a very difficult position : either follow his calling to the priesthood or follow his calling to marriage. (The right thing to do would be to tell the Church that he’s called to both and allow the Church to accept his witness to the validity of the calling to married priesthood while dispensing him from ordination using the keys granted Peter). However, in some cases, the result is that some are ordained who will find it extremely difficult to live celibacy. This results in concubinage and worse.
—-
It turns out that Fr Peter H, the priest returned to ministry on Bp Josef Ratzinger’s watch, was suspended Monday for violating the ban on any furthur work with children.
If we can’t actually make sure that past abusers don’t have further access to children then it follows that we need to suspend these priests.
—-
More on the Legion of Christ apostolic visitation.
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2010/03_04/2010_03_16_Winfield_VaticanCompletes.htm
God Bless
A good summary of the German situation reporting increasing calls for papal action.
In one case, an upset parishioner is reported as storming a pulpit.
I’d watch Germany. The Reformation started in Germany.
God Bless
Chris,
One German bishop said celibacy is a problem and leads to abuse. Good for him. There’s just been a conference in Rome that has called that link a nonsense. Heck, they didn’t need a conference to find that out. James the Least exposed the silliness of the argument above — and has before, if memory serves me correctly.
It’s interesting how quickly you hold up one bishop as a bastion of light and truth if he agrees with you, but 100 bishops with an opposing view can be dismissed as a small faction of fundamentalists.
One of the consequences of compulsory celibacy in the Latin Rite is a culture of clericalism, a boys only club which tends to look after its members at the expense of children. This is exactly what we’ve seen in the sex abuse scandal. Bishops looking after their priests (which they tend to regard as their children) before protecting our children.
Married spouses who raise children, and women in general, tend to place the interests of children much higher than a boys only club would.
Those who have had and raised children themselves are much more likely not to tolerate sex abuse than a group of celibates who have never raised children and never formed that parental bond with children which expresses itself in a strong revulsion against child abuse and a natural desire to protect children from abuse.
God Bless
Christopher; #74
even by your standards this is a load of poppycock!
and an insult to the great may fine (men) and holy priests
it does not explain sexual abuse amongst the rest of the population and professions including married men!
but comments perhaps driven by your own agenda for non-continent deacons?
Pray for us sinners!
Bishop Versaldi says the Pope is a Leader Ridding Church of “Filth”. He has a point.
Cdl Ratzinger in 20 years at the helm of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was in the best position of anyone in the Vatican to know of the abuse cases. The Elephant in the Room is that Cdl Ratzinger doesn’t seem to have done much until about the year 2000. Perhaps his hands were tied ?. We do know that JPII, despite his many good points, didn’t seem to want to know about sex abuse. And JPII was a very enthusiastic supporter of the Legion of Christ and its founder Fr Maciel.
Zenit reports clerical pederasty in Brazil.
http://www.zenit.org/article-28660?l=english
More on calls for Cardinal Sean Brady in Ireland to resign over secrecy he allegedly imposed on abuse victims.
http://www.zenit.org/article-28658?l=english
More on the Legion of Christ
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1342498?eng=y
God Bless
Chris, your attitude against the brothers Ratzinger is uncalled for. You have swallowed the spiteful slant of the secular media and seem to have lost any objectivity. Pope Benedict XVI has done a great amount to deal with issues of priestly impropriety. Maybe when you’re Pope you’ll do a better job…!
Dei Verbum is right – Chris, your #74 comments are poppycock!!! In the first place, bishops are responsible for seeing that due process is observed – even if this has in the past been woefully bungled. An accused priest has just as much right to justice as you or me. What has happened these last few years it seems is that a priest is dropped like a hot coal as soon as the slightest suggestion of abuse is made. Think about how easy it would be to accuse a priest of something he’d never done. This has happened in various instances and even when cleared, the priest has to live with a cloud over him. The bishop does have a responsibility towards his priests – even the guilty ones. (…and it goes without saying that he has a duty to guard his flock against bad shepherds).
“Those who have had and raised children themselves are much more likely not to tolerate sex abuse than a group of celibates who have never raised children and never formed that parental bond with children which expresses itself in a strong revulsion against child abuse and a natural desire to protect children from abuse.”
…yet a great deal of abuse takes place within the home! http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/3457760/Sex-offender-dad-jailed-19-years
In any case, reporters keep trying to make this an issue of poedophilia. No doubt they do this because it is much more likely to get a reaction of revulsion and stir up anti-Catholic sentiment. The media cannot bring themselves to admit that this whole problem is more to do with homosexuality. The cases that are reported usually involve teenage boys – not young children. But to condemn homosexuality amongst some clergy is to condemn a lifestyle that perhaps is a little too close to home for some of the most vocal amongst the media.
Les,
Thanks for two very clear and well-written comments on this thread. Would be nice to see more of your clarity and wisdom on BF.
Les,
Do you think that Bishops (eg those in Munich/Essen 1980) who are aware that a priest has sexually abused a child ought to tell the police ?
Or do you think they ought to keep it a secret (which is what they did do) ?
God Bless
Chris,
If you feel so anti the ” boys only club ” you mentioned in 74 why are you studying to become part of the club as being a deacon would automatically make you ? Do you feel that because you are married it would make the big difference ? Do you believe that married men, supposedly happily married men, do not molest children they do not know as well as their own? … from personal childhood experience I can assure you that they doso more often than the newspapers or courts ever hear about.
Shalom
Chris,
Of course they should deal with the appropriate authorities. But they must also ensure that priests – who may be innocent – are not simply left abandoned.
Nothing is to be gained by hiding criminal acts from the police.
Scribe – thanks for your kind words.
Les,
So if the Bishops of Essen and Munich did not inform the police, when they ought to have informed the police, then how does the Church respond to that gross negligence ?
God Bless
bamac,
I am so sorry that you have had personal childhood experience of this.
Will keep you in our prayers.
I think you are right that most of this goes unreported (ie we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg).
God Bless
Out of interest…
How much child rape would it take for you guys to leave the Church for good?
200 more children?
Your own child?
Les,
This is about homosexuality? What does homosexuality have to do with rape and sexual abuse again? I missed that link.
It’s likely a good chunk of those involved were probably gay, but this goes far beyond that. This is about abuse of power, abuse of trust, rape, and yes, paedophilia in many cases.
fishe,
No amount of child rape would drive me from the church for I am not in the church for the sake of those who teach in it but for love of God , for love of Our Eucharistic Lord. If there are those in the church who commit such things then it would give more food for prayer for them .
Shalom
Pax
Thank you Chris for the prayers… we all need them don’t we . There is much talk nowdays of the bad after affects of such experiences have on the victim
PAXbut this is not something I have experienced …
fishe,
We’re in the Church for love of Jesus and for his love of us.
It wouldn’t make any difference how many were abused or inquisitioned or crusaded etc.
Of course, he expects us to do what we can to clean up the Church.
And we are doing that right now.
You make an excellent point that homosexuality does not equate to sex abuse.
God Bless
But that does not mean that homosexuals never abuse surely ?
Chris: #82
I cannot say on behalf of the Church how she is to deal with past negligence. Bear in mind, however, that often enough bishops were acting in good faith by taking the advice of ‘experts’ in these matters. If we should be getting into the murky business of attaching blame to anyone, then these experts must surely take a good deal of it. Some of these ‘experts’ are also to blame for the implosion of religious life – particularly in the US.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I don’t think we should stand too proudly condemning the past. Who knows how future generations will judge us?
fishe #85
low blow I think?
I might as well ask “Out of interest…
How much child rape would it take for you guys to leave atheism for good?
200 more children?
Your own child?”
See what you have done Christopher; now even the atheists cant distinguish between molesting and rape
How would I leave atheism Dei? Hehe makes no sense…
Wonderful news Peter Murname and his two compatriots have been found not guilty by a jury.
the Lord is Good
fishe: #85
I think it was perfectly clear in what I wrote.
The statistics show that most cases of clerical abuse have involved adolescent males. Paedophilia in most medical dictionaries is defined as sexual attraction to prepubescent children – although some now extend this up to the age of 18. (Rather suspicious, but convenient – but I digress…)
The correct term for male adult sexual attraction to and activity with an adolescent male is ephebophilia.
The statistics from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice study titled “The Nature and Scope of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States 1950-2002″ showed that:
– 81 percent of the victims were males, and 19 percent were females.
– 50.9 percent of the victims were 11-14 years old and 27.3 percent were 15-17 years old.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/abuse/abuse12.htm
A useful page looking at 10 myths surrounding this whole issue may be found here:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0011.html
You are right, fishe, to say that: “This is about abuse of power, abuse of trust, rape.” These were men who abused their power and the trust of young men in order to indulge their homosexual lusts.
I repeat: the media are not willing to identify this as a homosexual problem – hence the reason for continuing to call it a paedophilia scandal. Yes there have been cases of paedophilia; but the majority of cases of clerical abuse have been of a homosexual nature involving adolescents.
Chris, another thought re. #82:
Perhaps some of the abused and their families did not want the matter taken to the police and have to face the justice system?
We live in a very American-influenced society today that seeks compensation for anything and everything. The concept of justice today is greatly different to that of 30, 40 and 50 years ago.
Les,
If a man rapes a woman, we don’t call that ‘heterosexual rape’. If a man sexually abuses a woman, we don’t apply a heterosexual qualifier.
The issue here is not the sexual preference of the priests, it’s their disgusting abuses of power and trust, and the following secrecy, bribing and hiding. To say that the problem is one of homosexuality is grossly misleading in the least.
This seems to me to be just another attempt to rationally dilute the gravity of the situation, to reduce cognitive dissonance. It’s not a good look.
HURRAH! Adrian Leason, Fr Peter Murnane and Sam Land were cleared of all charges!!! Thank you St Patrick!
And besides, the media love a gay scandal, like they’re jumping all over the current Church gay scandal now aren’t they?
Like the HuffPo’s Is the Church the biggest gay sex club in the world? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/05/vatican-hit-by-gay-sex-sc_n_486218.html
Fishe
I couldn`t agree more with your succint posting.
My 8 yr old grandson would know more about right and wrong than these guilty Bishops.
Yet here on this blog site we have presumeably intelligent adults defending their actions.
These Bishops & Cardinals, doctors of the Church could not distinguish between right and wrong.
Les and other deniers I only wish that you could meet with the thousands of innocent children and their families who suffered abuse and explain to them that they didn`t understand that the Bishops were naive.
Les can you explain to me how even today cardinal bernard law is living in safety in the Vatican and would not divulge to the authorities in Boston the names of various priests who were abusers and he was responsible for relocating them to other Parishes and even today have never been brought to justice
fishe,
The data shows a clear link between clerical abuse and a homosexual element in the clergy.
I agree – these qualifiers are not usually used in the case of rape, and rightly so; although, you don’t seem to mind the Huffington Post using ‘gay’ as a qualifier in their story.
Not all abuse cases involve rape. The majority of them do involve a homosexual element. If the Church is concerned at purging this sort of abuse then she needs to address the issue of a homosexual subculture that was around in seminaries – perhaps from the 1960’s onwards? I suspect the church has already done a great in this regard.
Les
you are right and it isnt rape generally despite the spin that Christopher puts on it. The effect is never the less devastating for the young male victims.
The touble is that the few perpetrators are generally serial offenders and cause great harm.
Well balanced heterosexual celibate males do not abuse others. The ones that case the problem are the struggling sexually immature men who have been allowed to seek a safe haven in the Church and cant deal with their personal issues properly there.
We still have these men in our church and some have positions of some power even now
HB
the Bishops didnt do the offending direct your vitriole where it is deserved; at those dispicible men who should have millstones….
Cardinal Law made a mistake,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,72923,00.html
he allowed a priest to continue working after been told that it was ok
He didnt abuse young men but was taken in by a minipulative rogue like everyone else was.
HB where is your charity?
If your 8 yr old grandson had been the Bishop he would have done the same then how would you feel about him then?
Would you be baying for blood then?
Dv
I am not baying for blood but justice,something which you do not seem to understand.
It is amazing that last week this blog site yourself included was baying for the blood of Peter Murnane and this week you jump to the defence of perpatrators of evil and those who knowingly tried to cover their tracks.
Justice must be seen to be done within the Church.
Thank God and St Patrick for justice to Peter Murnane and his collegues where is your charity and apology to those brave Catholics.
Head was in the sand and didn`t hear the Good News?
Les,
The data do not show a clear link between homosexuality and clerical abuse. You’re implying a causal relationship here, and that is far, far from clear. There isn’t anywhere near the amount of data available to show this.
E.g. what was the gender split of the total population of possible victims? I’m assuming many more males than females, especially decades ago. How many of the perpetrators have identified themselves as gay? Just because abuse is directed at young males, this doesn’t necessarily make them raving gays – especially considering my population question above.
But most importantly, their sexual preference is not an important factor in all of the cases. There’s no reason to suggest that a homosexual priest is less able to resist raping and abusing young boys than a heterosexual priest is able to resist raping and abusing young girls.
I can’t help but think you’re trying to use the classic ‘homosexuality is disordered and vulgar’ argument to offset the sheer brutality evident here – brutality that has nothing to do with the perpetrator’s sexual orientation. I’ll say it again, it’s not a good look for you or the Church.
Helens Bay, well said, thanks.
Hb
did C Law abuse young men?
What did he do that justifies your evil tag?
Yes Murnane convinced a Jury to let him off but you are the one saying ‘commit the crime then do the time’?
so I say ‘mercy for one deserves mercy for all’?
HB
oh
OK so now you want the inquisition brought back? 
I am with you on that one!
I am glad the adulterous wman didnt have you in the crowd when the stones were being handed out!
actually I thought the Church’s role was repentance and reconcilliation but then you are a different generation from me.
Pray for us sinners!
DV
Cardinal Law did not personally abuse young men,his evil was conspiring to hide the criminals,move them to other centres and enable them to continue with their evil ways.He was in any language an accomplice to evil.
Justice within the Church does not call for an Inquisition but certainly requires an independent inquiry from within maybe from Religious Sisters or maybe that would upset the Power of the men at the top
HB,
You’ve complained about the fact Cardinal Law is in the Vatican. Where would you like him to be? In prison? In a monastery somewhere? Should he have been excommunicated? Should he be able to receive Communion? What about paedophile/ephebophile priests? Same questions.
My 8 yr old grandson would know more about right and wrong than these guilty Bishops.
Yet here on this blog site we have presumeably intelligent adults defending their actions.
These Bishops & Cardinals, doctors of the Church could not distinguish between right and wrong.
Can you point to people on this blog defending the actions of bishops? Some of us recognise that the bishops made poor decisions, often as the result of poor advice from so-called professionals, but we’re not about to throw them under the bus like you and Chris seem to want to do.
HB
An ‘independent inquiry’ made by religious (sisters, or brothers) would not be independent. They are members of the Church after all – and let’s not forget the abuse by Irish sisters in Ireland, perhaps close to Belfast in Helens Bay even?
The type of independent inquiry you are calling for would not be independent.
FXD,
You miss Helens Bay’s point. HB is saying the inquiry should be done by anyone but celibate males.
The abuse by the religious sisters and the cover-up by their superiors doesn’t count, y’hear. That was the fault of celibate males as well.
Oh, and so is global warming. Sorry, climate change.
Helen’s Bay,
Thank you for your words of sanity and compassion.
You make an excellent point about the value of female input in decision making and investigation. We need to apply the much touted Theology of the Body and the concept of sexual complementarity and JPII’s notion of the “feminine genius” to decision making, as the recent front page article in the Vatican’s newspaper urged.
It is wonderful news that Fr Peter Murnane et al have been acquitted.
It is a shame that the generally very politically right wing crowd on Being Frank (who are NOT representative of Catholic views in New Zealand) couldn’t find it in themselves to support Fr Peter but instead denounced and attacked him.
God Bless
Christopher
In 102 or 106? did I miss something said?
Care to share.
Congratulations to Peter Murnane et al
one wonders what a million dollars could otherwise have done for the poor and needy but destroying a balloon was worth it I suppose.
Chris.
I guess you view the posters here as “generally very politically right wing crowd on Being Frank…….” from your very Left wing politcal position.
After all, it was you who said you would vote Green party at the last election; the Greens are rabidly socialsit – really communists in drag when you look at the past of some of their candidates, and they promote eugenics, population control with abortion, and would have us back living in caves, and using horse and carts.
I consider the posters on BF are very representative of NZ Catholics. As I recall, many here sympathised with Fr. Peter Murnane’s views and intentions, but disagreed with his actions.
I certainly did, and I consider he is fortunate indeed to have avoided conviction, because it was a criminal act he performed – the destruction of other peoples property.
One should not perform evil to achieve good.
John Allen has an excellent article with in depth analysis on the current abuse crisis rocking Europe and its effects on the Papacy. Read the whole thing.
http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/will-ratzingers-past-trump-benedicts-present
In Boulder, Colorado, the faithful are not buying Abp Chaput’s heartless decision to ban children of lesbian parents from the local Catholic School. They know that this is not what Jesus would do because it isn’t what he did do.
http://ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/boulder-pastor-says-jesus-turned-some-away
God Bless
Putting together some statistics.
The US Bishops found credible accusations against 4,351 priests (who are almost all celibate), but only 41 permanent deacons.(who are almost all married).
The proportion of priests credibly accused as 4%. The number of permanent deacons in the period considered (1950-2002) would be about 20,000.
While 4% of priests were accused, only 0.2% of the permanent deacons were accused.
The priests are almost all celibate whereas the permanent deacons are almost all married.
This indicates that the rate of abuse was twenty times higher (an order of magnitude) among the celibate clergy than the married clergy.
This suggests that compulsory celibacy is indeed part of the problem.
God Bless
One of these statements is not like the other. One of these statements, isn’t the same.
From the report: Allegations were made against 4 percent of the 109,694 priests serving during the period.
From Chris’s comment: The proportion of priests credibly accused as 4%.
Yet again, Chris, you’ve shown your inability to comprehend plain English OR your willingness to just twist the facts to push your agenda.
Your unique interpretations of Scripture and Church documents make more sense the more I read your comments on the blog.
Kieran Conry, the bishop of Arundel and Brighton points out the scale of the crisis and points to priestly loneliness (a consequence of celibacy) as a contributing factor :-
God Bless
Congratulations to that bishop, Chris. He’ll find many friends among the readers of America Magazine.
Here’s the Holy Father. You remember him — the Vicar of Christ, the Successor of Peter:
Dublin Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, one of the bishops who is courageously fighting to clean up the Church in the face of strong ecclesiastic opposition, concludes that broadening the government’s current investigation — into abuse cover-ups in the southwest diocese of Cloyne — to include all dioceses may be the only way to clean up the Irish Church.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hG7UpOwvc_tTJz3KkFUHO9AUBnBAD9EG0HV81
Pray for him; he’s one of the few bishops determined to clean up the mess in Ireland.
He’s on the ball in concluding that if we can’t clean ourselves up, the state will need to step in and do it for us.
God Bless
Chris,
That’s a reasonable call from Archbishop Martin. The best and most thorough inquiry possible is a good thing. But let’s not forget that in Catholic Ireland, the police and the government aren’t exactly blameless in this saga. Some officials knew of the allegations but were blinded by them. The same happened in some places in the US.
This is the Church’s crisis, but others were complicit.
Chris Sullivan says…
The article he quotes ACTUALLY says:
God Bless
“Kieran Conry, the bishop of Arundel and Brighton points out the scale of the crisis and points to priestly loneliness (a consequence of celibacy) as a contributing factor”
A couple of problems here as I see it…
a) there are more married and sexually active sexual abusers than there are celibate ones, so that kills the myth that celibacy is the cause of this crisis
b) There are plenty of lonely people who never sexually abuse anyone, which of course means that the real issue here is not loneliness, but the fact that people with sexual dysfunctions were able to be ordained to the priesthood.
The best and most thorough inquiry possible is a good thing.
Scribe,
Are you now calling for the same thorough inquiry in Munich ?
I wonder if we will see this call in the NZ Catholic press ?
Whatever can be done to help and encourage the Holy Father take decisive leadership NOW will be crucial in handling this crisis and limiting the escalating damage. Prayers. Messages. Anything.
It’s time for “God’s Rottweiler” to start barking.
God Bless
“Here is what one respected conservative German paper reported on Saturday [in other words, I don't actually have any proof for what I am about so say, so I'll just rely on THIRD HAND comments from a newspaper] about the case of Father Peter Hullermann in the Munich archdiocese: “According to information provided to the Welt am Sonntag, it is hard to imagine that the [Munich archdiocese’s] number one, Archbishop Ratzinger, was not informed of this sensitive decision. On personnel matters Ratzinger always made sure to receive detailed reports. Gruber [the vicar general] and he shared a particularly close relationship. Gruber is internally described as ‘completely subservient’ to Ratzinger. He could now be a pawn sacrifice, which is to protect the pope.” I think we need to brace ourselves for more coming out about Ratzinger’s tenure in Munich.”
The fact that you have posted this statement here is absolutely laughable Chris, and it makes you look foolish, and it certainly makes you look like you have an anti-Benedict XVI agenda.
I mean why else would you post a COMMENT from a fellow Internet hack, which was posted in the COMMENTS SECTION of another website. and which quotes third-hand, totally unsubstantiated information?!
“Whatever can be done to help and encourage the Holy Father take decisive leadership NOW will be crucial in handling this crisis and limiting the escalating damage. Prayers. Messages. Anything.
It’s time for “God’s Rottweiler” to start barking.”
Chris,
Do you even know anything about the situation you pretend to be some sort of expert on?!
For your information, the NZ media have been reporting on the latest crop of sexual abuse crises, and JUST THIS MORNING the NZ media is reporting that Pope Benedict has written a pastoral letter on the sexual abuse crisis in Ireland, and he will be releasing it within the week.
Stop quoting dubious sources, stop slagging off the Pope and get back to work, you’re stealing your bosses time.
Scribe
Re #107
“Can you point to people on this blog defending the actions of bishops? Some of us recognise that the bishops made poor decisions, often as the result of poor advice from so-called professionals, but we’re not about to throw them under the bus like you and Chris seem to want to do.”
Bishops made poor decisions,>no in fact they made evil decisions and you are complicit in their wrongdoing by aiding and abetting.<
I wonder if the so called professionals had asked them to stick their hands in a furnace would they have agreed.
I dont want anyone thrown under a bus but as many Bishops and priests have said the Church must be accountable and so far its all about denial and secrecy.
Bishops made poor decisions, no in fact they made evil decisions and you are complicit in their wrongdoing by aiding and abetting.
Wow, that’s a new one. I’ve been accused of a lot of things in my time, but being complicit in the sexual abuse scandal is uncharted territory.
I wonder if the so called professionals had asked them to stick their hands in a furnace would they have agreed.
What an absurd comment that is.
It seems it’s hard for people to discuss this without resorting to name calling and seeking someone – anyone – to blame. I understand that. The whole idea is so abhorent, that it is easier to pass by on the other side.
I also understand a defensiveness reaction. There is no doubt that some people – many people – have picked up on child abuse as a stick to beat the Church with, and they’re crowing about each new revelation. It’s hard not to respond to attacks by going too far in the other direction.
I think the discussion on BF has been exemplary compared to many others I’ve looked at.
But it hasn’t been very useful, in my opinion, in part because two views became entrenched early on – subsequent posts just kept going over the same ground, and any attempt to introduce new ideas got ignored or squashed.
So here goes again…
I’ve read both the Irish reports and several US reports, including the one commissioned by the USCBC.
There seems to be a fairly clear division, between isolated offences – where one person is responsible for abuses against a single victim – and multiple offences committed by a single perpetrator, with a group of serial offenders responsible for a high percentage of the offences.
It also seems clear that at least some of the serial offenders didn’t particularly care about the age or gender of their victims; the issue was availability.
On the other hand, the single victim offences often involved seduction, a ‘relationship’ over a period of time, and the illusion on the part of the perpetrator that affection was mutual.
It seems to me that there are two different pathologies here – sexual predators and sexual inadequates.
I realise that both are horrible from the perspective of the victim, but recognising the difference is surely essential in building systems that protect children in the future?
Chris,
You seem to take nearly all your ideas from the National Catholic Reporter…… you claim that most of the contributers on BF are , as you call us, “very politically right wing crowd ” ( our feelings are those of a majority of Catholics not minority by the way) yet you take your opinions from said paper which is known for its biased reporting .
You keep saying that there needs to be a clean up in the church … maybe you hope that you will be in a better position to be involved in this clean up you seemingly perceive needs to be undertaken, if you are an ordained permanent deacon. I would hope that a deacon would be involved more in helping parishioners to grow in their love for God and for their neighbour in a personal and collective way rather than worrying that bishops in other areas of the world are not doing what Chris Sullivan thinks they should.
Shalom
Christopher 114
damn statistics
but how many deacons were married and how many were single?
you blame celibacy but even married deacons should be celibate so perhaps this is something else at work?
If there is a lesson in the low figures for married deacons it is that they have shown themselves to be fully men and sexually mature unlike those few dysfunctional priests who are usually the same age sexually as the pubescent young men they usually target and relate to.
bamac,
Not everything in National Catholic Reporter should be dismissed as biased. Their columnists are heavily stacked with people who openly dissent from Catholic teaching, but John Allen is an outstanding journalist.
He’s written a great piece here on Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict, which Chris linked to above and some will have skipped over because of the source (Chris and/or NCR).
Here are the first few paragraphs:
And further down:
Have a read — it’s pretty long, though.
The reports I’ve talked about above seem – to me at least – make it clear that there is no causal link between homosexuality and sexual predation.
However, if you remove the sexual predator group and look instead at the single-victim group – the link between homosexuality and man/boy relationships seems much stronger.
Note that the Man/Boy love group in the United States claims stridently that ‘love’ between men and boys is not only natural but desirable. Here’s a selection of topic headlines from their youth magazine:
Love & Loyalty
The Best Thing That Ever Happened to Me Greg, age 16
I Love Him, and I Know That He Loves Me Darrel, age 16
It Shouldn’t Be a Crime to Make Love Bryan, age 12 1/2
Boys Help Men, Too “College Boy”, age 19
I’m Not Going To Be Kept Away from Him (An Interview) Thijs, age 11
Friendship & Fun
He Listens to Me, Unlike Most People Robert, age 16
Sex Is Really Beautiful with My Friend Dennis, age 13
The Beach Luis Miguelito de Argentina, age 13
De la Boca Chiquito Luis Miguelito de Argentina, age 13
Such a Relationship Is Very Beneficial Dan, age 19
“Air Guitar” Anton, age 14
Man, What a Feeling! Eric, age 14
Because I Enjoy It (An Interview) Theo, age 13
Respect & Support
If It Wasn’t for Mark I’d Probably Be Dead Today Carl, age 14
Loneliness Mark, age 13
He Makes Me Glad I’m Gay Ed, age 14
The Politics of Ageism Michael Alhonte, age 18
I’ve Learned So Much from Barend (An Interview) Gerrit, age 16
Consent
Thank God for Boy-LoversvVictor, age 14
For The First Time in My Life I Felt Wanted Gabriel, age 16
The number of permanent deacons in the period considered (1950-2002) would be about 20,000.
Chris,
How did you come up with your 20,000 figure? You are aware, surely, that permanent deacons were not in ministry until after the Second Vatican Council, so I trust that was factored into your calculations.
Dei,
Almost all permanent deacons are married.
They are not celibate but continue normal sexual relations with their wives.
Their very low rate of sex abuse illustrates the problems with compulsory celibacy in the Latin Rite.
In Genesis we read:
Says it all really.
God Bless
Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good beat-up, Christopher.
How many permanent deacons are we talking prior to 1970?
I think you’ll find the answer is none.
NZC Editor,
I took the latest statistics from the USCCB on the current number of permanent deacons in the USA, which is 16935 and added a bit for the number who have died since the start of the period quoted (1950).
The USA adopted permanent deacons rather early and very enthusiastically – very soon after that great Council known as Vatican II.
I think 20,000 permanent deacons is a reasonable, although rough, estimate of the number of permanent deacons in the USA over the period covered by the Jay study.
The numbers that 0.2% of permanent deacons (almost all married) were accused of sex abuse compared to 4% of celibate priests speaks volumes.
God Bless
Oh well done Christopher,
and, according to Dan Brown, Jesus married Mary Magdalene.
Dei,
The Jay study covered the years 1950-2002 (see my post 114 above).
That period ended well after 1970.
God Bless
Helens Bay #98
I do not understand why you label me a ‘denier’. Would you please explain to me what you think I am denying?
I have questioned the reasons behind the way much of the media reporting of clerical abuse has been done. I have suggested that the overuse of the term ‘paedophilia’ is emotive and designed to produce a maximum of outrage against the church – when in fact the majority of the abuse has not strictly speaking been paedophilia. I have stated that the bishops have bungled their response in the past.
My gripe is with the sloppy reporting and the hardly veiled vitriolic attacks against the Church – and in particular Pope Benedict XVI. There is a whole industry of people – lawyers etc. – who are in fact simply using the victims, exploiting them for their own financial gain. The secular media are a supporting band who create sensational headlines and misleading articles. It is sad that supposedly educated people cannot see the all-too-obvious campaign that is being waged here.
It is also most ungracious of you, HB, to infer a coldness on my part towards innocent children and their families. I have known victims and their families. I am as disgusted as anyone else about the crimes that have been committed. I too am frustrated at the seeming lack of competence shown in the past; but I am also conscious of the reality of changes of attitude and ways of dealing with things in society.
I do not know enough about the Cardinal Law case to comment specifically. I suppose he is not guilty of anything criminal himself, even if he may have acted on bad advice. I suspect too that we need to distinguish between a situation where a priest is simply accused of something and the situation where there is clear evidence of a crime being committed. Let’s not forget that not every accusation is truthful. Surely a bishop is Father to his whole flock – including his priests. While he must make sure that those who have committed crimes are brought to justice, he must also ensure that those who are falsely accused are not dragged through a trial by media, ruining their good name forever.
Sister Joan Chittister, an outstanding and very holy nun, puts her finger on the deeper problems in the Church at work in the sex abuse cases.
http://ncronline.org/blogs/where-i-stand/divided-loyalties-incredible-situation
Well worth reading.
And, no, she is not trashing obedience but that rigid and narrow distortion of obedience which merely follows rules but not God in blind obedience to those in power.
God Bless
fishe: #103
The data does clearly show that most of the abuse has been homosexual in nature. It therefore follows that most of the abuse has not involved females.
Regarding the total population of possible victims: in a single sex school situation it is obvious that possible victims would be of the one sex. In a normal parish setting, however, there would usually be a fairly even split of male and female parishioners. In this latter situation, it has still been the case that the majority of the victims have been adolescent males.
I am not attempting to “offset the sheer brutality” of the abuse that has occurred. I am simply putting forward the opinion that the secular media are pushing a line that is deliberately designed to provoke the maximum amount of horror, i.e. that small children have been victims of clerical abuse. The truth of the matter is that statistics show that it has been adolescent males that have for the most part been the victims. It is equally as “brutal”, equally as heinous a breech of trust and responsibility; but there is a difference at the level of our emotions as to how we receive that news depending on how it is portrayed.
From what you are saying it seems to me that you are suffering from the same myopic tendency as the media: once you have accepted as normal the homosexual agenda, then it is near impossible to say a word that might offend that sub-culture.
Any sexual deviation is “disordered and vulgar.” In this situation the statistics point to a predominantly homosexual deviation. According to Catholic anthropology this is doubly problematic because it is against the natural law.
By the way – the scandal you referred to (post #97) involved two people who happened to have minor jobs at the Vatican. Yet again the press have tried to blow something up way out of proportion. The Vatican employs lots of people. NEWSFLASH: Two laymen have done sinful things and have caused scandal!!! That could have been in the papers in the first century! Just because a pyromaniac is discovered amongst a fire fighting crew, doesn’t mean the fire station is going to shut down.
It was reported in 1991 that 17.7 percent of males who graduated from high school, and 82.2 percent of females, reported sexual harassment by faculty or staff during their years in school. Fully 13.5 percent said they had sexual intercourse with their teacher.
Chris,
Were these teachers celibate or not? How do we reconcile these statistics with your assertion that celibacy is the problem?
Les,
I think the media speak of paedophilia because that word describes the reality of what we are talking about – the sexual abuse of children (and by children I include teenagers).
I don’t think we can just blame it all on news media hatred of the Church, as this bishop points out:
In fact, the secular news media is doing the Church a great favour by helping to clean up and purify the Church.
It’s a pity some of our Catholic news media are not more like them in challenging the Church to live up to gospel values.
God Bless
Scribe,
Comparing secular school teachers to clerics is like comparing apples to oranges.
If we want to look at celibacy then compare married clerics (which includes permanent deacons) with celibate clerics (most Latin rite priests).
For starters, most secular school teachers don’t available themselves of the Eucharist.
Clerics do.
I would have thought that would have made a huge difference ?
God Bless
Christopher,
dare we compare the higher rates of abuse among protestant ‘clerics’ (almost all of whom are married), to their Catholic counterparts?
Doesn’t make good reading for you my friend.
As for your point about Clerics availing themselves of the Eucharist, that might explain the difference between 4% and 13.5% maybe?
As for your point about Clerics availing themselves of the Eucharist, that might explain the difference between 4% and 13.5% maybe?
Yes, I think so.
Faith and the Body and Blood of Jesus do make a real difference in people’s lives when lived and received authentically (which would certainly be all clerics, even those struggling with these sorts of problems).
Another positive suggestion of the kind James asked for: Archbishop Ludwig Schick of Bamberg has called for an increase in the canonical statute of limitations for clerical sex abuse (currently set at 10 years although dispensable).
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2010/03_04/2010_03_17_CatholicCulture_GermanBishop.htm
Top notch Catholic reporter John Allen describes the scandal as the church’s worst crisis in at least a century. A correct assessment in my view. He paints this possible scenario (a realistic possibility IMHO) :-
John Allen is a VERY level headed and sane guy. If he says that the Church is in the worst crisis in 100 years then I think he is most probably right.
http://www.bishop-accountability.org maintains links to the latest news for those interested.
God Bless
dare we compare the higher rates of abuse among protestant ‘clerics’ (almost all of whom are married), to their Catholic counterparts?
Good point.
I expect that other religions (and also atheists) have an even higher abuse rate than Catholic clergy.
[The data from protestant pastors who have privately admitted adultery is horrific].
I think that the many and very powerful spiritual assistance given by the Catholic Church to her faithful (especially, but not only, the sacraments) goes a long way towards explaining this.
God Bless
Sister Joan Chittister, an outstanding and very holy nun…
Ha, ha, hee, hee, ho, ho.
LifeSiteNews interview with Sister Joan Chittister exposes confusion and error on abortion/contraception:
http://familylifenz.wordpress.com/2010/02/19/lifesitenews-interview-sister-joan-chittister-exposes-confussion-and-error-on-abortioncontraception/
“I expect that other religions (and also atheists) have an even higher abuse rate than Catholic clergy.”
That’s right – and all of the Protestant clergy are MARRIED NON-CELIBATES.
Whoossh – there goes your theory about celibacy up in smoke.
Scary white,
To look at the effects of celibacy in the Catholic clergy one looks at Catholic clergy, not protestant clergy (who lack the Eucharist etc).
Celibate Catholic clergy have an abuse rate TWENTY TIMES higher than married Catholic clergy (according to the data published in the Jay report commissioned by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops).
Please compare apples with apples, not apples with oranges.
God Bless
“Please compare apples with apples, not apples with oranges.”
Well, I can tell you right now that you’re a banana, because you aren’t actually comparing apples with apples at all
Firstly, access to the Eucharist has nothing to do with it at all!
Secondly, Protestant clergy live in a culture of marital relations, and Catholic clergy live in a culture of celibacy, but the Protestant clerics who live a non-celibate lifestyle have a higher rate of offending per capita!
This shows that you are wrong, and that celibacy cannot be the problem – unless of course you are going to try and make the absurd claim that Catholic men are completely different from Protestant men.
Christopher #145
I appreciatethat you have a vested interest in not applying celebacy to deacons but please elucidate.
Where does it say that can 277 that requires all clerics to observe perfect and perpetual continence doe not apply to permanent deacons?.
We all accept that it does to single men and widows?
Can 288 allows a deacon to be excused some clerical obligations but 277 is not among them.
can 277 (3) allows the Bishop to pass jugement in particulr cases nd this is what allows for particular married priests.
But how can a Bishop make a blanket ruling and where is this stated in this diocese? Have you been given this assurance?
Chris,
I’d suggest this abuse scandal is the biggest crisis to hit the Church in way more than 100 years; maybe as far back as the Reformation. There are many different ways to respond, though.
John Allen is a great journalist, but his assertion is not a good demonstration of that. Any two-bit journalist could come to that conclusion.
I found a report that gives the numbers of deacons in the United States since the deaconate was reestablished:
7 in 1971, 1230 in 1975, 4744 in 1980, 9,727 in 1990 – I’ll stop there, because 75% of the incidents occured between 1960 and 1986 – and only 10% after 1986.
Also note that the average age at time of ordination was 28, and the average age at time of first abuse was 39. This gives us a figure of 1230 deacons who had been ordained 10 years in 1985.
And as to the marriage issue, the report Chris quotes is quite clear – 51 of the 4000 accused were married at the time of the accusation. Presumably this includes at least some if not all of the 42 permanent deacons and 19 transitional deacons accused of abuse (total of 67).
67 as a percentage of 1230 is (roughly) 3%. So worse than religious priests (2.7%) and better than diocesan priests (4.2%).
This supports the view that loneliness is an issue, but not the view that celibacy is an issue.
Only 1400 of the abusers were ordained between 1971 and 1990.
Dei,
We’ve been over all this before, but, briefly, Canon Law does not require sexual abstinence from married clergy. Celibate means unmarried and married clergy are by definition not celibate.
The relevant Canon is
Which refers to celibate clerics. Married clerics, by definition, are not celibate.
When Vatican II re-introduced the ancient order of permanent deacons the Church quite explicitly allowed married permanent deacons to continue normal sexual relations with their wives as these are a healthy and normal part of marriage.
The directors of the permanent diaconate formation in both the dioceses of Hamilton and Auckland have personally assured me that continence is not required of married permanent deacons.
God Bless
JP,
I think there are some flaws in your calculations.
Firstly, if you are going to limit your analysis to those ordained before 1985 who have been ordained for 10 years or more, then the proportion of accused celibate priests is going to be rather higher than 4%. It will be (4,392 – 51) / (rather less than the 109,694 priests serving up to 2002).
Secondly, transitional deacons are not permanent deacons. They are en route to ordination as priests. They are almost all unmarried. Therefore their numbers ought not be added to the married.
Thirdly, the fact that 19 transitional deacons were accused illustrates that abuse don’t magically begin only after your 10 years of ordination but can occur even before priestly ordination.
Fourthly, I’m not sure where you get your figure of 67 from. If you want the married then surely it is 51 ? I’m also not sure where the figure of 51 comes from.
Lastly, the figure of 51 seems to apply to the whole period up to 2002. Not just up to 1985 where you base your calculations. If you want to calculate to 1985 then you are going to have to use figure rather less than 51.
God Bless
Scribe,
I am pleased that you recognise the seriousness of the current crisis.
Now all you have to do is figure out what role you are going to play in its resolution.
I would strongly suggest that sitting on our hands and denying the scale of the crisis by bashing the secular media is not the response God is calling us to.
Rather, the need is the same as it was in the Reformation – to purify the Church. Fortunately, the state of the Church today is very much better than it was then.
Peter needs to start showing some leadership. The German faithful are very disappointed by his ongoing silence when they at least need some sign of pastoral empathy and concern and firm and visible signs that he is going to act to clean up the mess and come clean over his own role in it.
Repentance is very much part of the gospel. Those bishops who made bad decisions, even if they are now Pope, need to be honest and open enough to publicly admit it and apologise and put in place the necessary measures to see that it never happens again.
The Holy Father has the power and the background to do that. He needs to use it. Now.
God Bless
I would strongly suggest that sitting on our hands and denying the scale of the crisis by bashing the secular media is not the response God is calling us to.
God wants the truth, and the secular media is largely peddling in untruths and sometimes downright lies on this issue.
And I’d hardly say you’re in a position to dish out advice on how others should be acting based on some of your comments earlier in this thread and in other similar discussions.
Here’s a brilliant example of the kind of thinking about how crises give us the opportunity to take a good look at where we are and respond with appropriate regulations and rekindle the concept of service. It could well be applied to the Church. I hope and pray that the man who wrote it will.
God Bless
Chris, yours of 157.
Your first point is fair – I just used the reports percentages, but of course they were for the full period. I was in a hurry and didn’t bother to research the figures for priest for the period up to 1985. My understanding is that the number of priests hasn’t changed greatly in the ensuing decades, and the number of offences has dropped. A better statistician than I might be able to predict whether the percentage of offenders would have changed greatly had I redone the calculations.
Thank you for your second point – a useful clarification. Instead, I should have used the figure of 61, given in the report, for those who were married. I would then have needed a figure for how many priests and deacons were married in the period – since the total number of deacons accused credibly of abuse was 51, the figure of 61 must have included some married priests. A couple of sites I found claim a figure of 100 married priests, but I’m not sure how credible this is.
As to your third point, ‘average’ doesn’t mean always – these 19 may well have been statistical outliers. This in no way invalidates my central point (which is not mine, but is made by the authors of the report) that, on average, abuse begins a decade or so after ordination.
To your fourth point, the source for my figures is the report The Nature and Scope of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States 1950-2002.
My main point stands, however; your calculations were based on incorrect information, and – while company is a (not infallible) protection against temptation – this can be the company of brethren rather than marriage per se.
JP,
Thanks for your response.
I’m still unsure where your 67 figure comes from.
And I stand by my calculations as a rough but valid indicator.
The problem seems to be worse in the past than today. Back then many were ordained who didn’t seem to have an actual calling. Today we are rather more meticulous in careful discernment and screening.
I take your point on company which argues for priests living in community (as is often the case in religious orders) rather then alone.
A certain disillusionment often sets in after 5-10 years. This often happens in marriage. Support is needed as priests/spouses go thru that natural stage. Overworking priests to the detriment of time and energy for personal spiritual life is a constant danger. Ditto in stressed couples with young children re time for each other.
A very good summary here of Catholic responses to the abuse crisis and some good suggestions as to how the Church ought to respond.
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/changing-the-vaticans-response-to-abuse/
God Bless
A certain disillusionment often sets in after 5-10 years. This often happens in marriage. Support is needed as priests/spouses go thru that natural stage. Overworking priests to the detriment of time and energy for personal spiritual life is a constant danger. Ditto in stressed couples with young children re time for each other
You’re still not understanding the facts of this situation Chris.
There are plenty of married couples who experience exactly the same thing you describe here, but they generally don’t tend to respond by raping and molesting adolescent boys!
These are the actions of sexually dysfunctional persons.
This current crisis has been caused by the fact that in the last 100 years the seminary system didn’t have the proper controls and safeguards in place to weed out damaged individuals, who would later go on to become sexual offenders.
Secondly, there are much higher rates of sexual offending amongst married clergy and school teachers – which means that celibacy is NOT at issue here.
Now all you have to do is figure out what role you are going to play in its resolution.
Perhaps we should all follow your lead Chris?
If we did that we’d be spending all our time sitting around posting comments on blogs that are factually incorrect and that attack the Pope and the Church.
Back to work Sullivan – time stealing is still stealing.
Chris,
Where did you get the quote on #160 … have had a try at finding it on line without success.
shalom
bamac,
Vatican Information Service email.
To subscribe:
http://212.77.1.245/news_services/press/vis/englinde.php#start
God Bless
Chris, I agree that better screening is helping. What I don’t think we’re doing better is addressing the issue of loneliness. I know one parish priest who has two flatmates – but most rattle around in a great big presbytery all on their own. This isn’t healthy for anyone – but when I’ve raised the issue with priests I’ve been told that most of them are too individualistic to want to share living quarters!
One solution might be to do what they’ve done in one parish I know of, which is basically a set of one bedroom apartments with an added common lounge. Lay people and visiting clergy can live alongside the resident pastor, so that he has his privacy but still has people around.
JP
priests i talk to say that the biggest problem is getting away from work and other people and have time to themselves.
Sharing has dangers as well
I seem to recall NZ’s seriel abuser (from silverstream wellington (name escapes me) was a Marist living in community and his brothers didnt know what he was doing?
John Allen calls for full revelations on who knew what when in Munich and warns of a papacy continually bogged down unless we come clean.
http://ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/memo-munich-get-it-out-now
In Ireland, a bookmaker is giving odds 1:3 than Benedict XVI will resign. Not a good idea IMHO.
God Bless
That’s good, Chris. We need to know the facts, and not just media speculation. Is there any substance to the rumours, or is it just the best someone could come up with in response to the bribe offered by two of the German newspapers to anyone who could dig dirt on the Pope?
By the way, I think you meant to type 1:13, which is the odds I read.
JP,
3:1 I read
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/3/13/worldupdates/2010-03-13T045833Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_-468845-1&sec=WorldupdGod Blessates
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2010/03/14/2003467940
God Bless
The Apostolic Penitentiary put their foot in it with this startling and very worrying revelation:
Other Vatican officials go into damage control mode:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1001141.htm
God Bless
Alot of statistics have been given as to the number of priests who have been charged with molestation , is this really how many have actually been found Guilty? One of the sad aspects , I feel, with any molestation charge made and found to be unfounded leaves mud sticking to the one found innocent of the charge.
shalom
CS,
Again showing your ignorance regarding the role of confession, it’s sacramental nature and the rules governing the seal of confession. I’d quote the Church but you don’t listen to it anyway.
Dr Sam,
The confessor has the power to require that the sinner report the matter to the authorities, even to make this a condition of absolution (part of the pennance).
The Apostolic Penitentary seem to be completely out of order here, as other Vatican officials have been quick to point out.
But if maintaining secrecy in sex abuse by not even urging the penitent to report the matter to the appropriate ecclesiastic or civil authorities cases is standard practice according to the Apostolic Pentitentary then that further illustrates the culture of coverups involved.
At the very least one might hope that the Apostolic Penitentiary wouldn’t make such incredibly damaging public statements.
God Bless
Hi Chris,
That’s hugely incorrect brother. The confessor cannot require the sinner to report the matter at all, as that would violate the seal of confession (which applies to the person as well as the priest).
The priest can suggest, recommend and urge the person to report the matter, but it cannot be a requirement for absolution to do so, and the priest cannot withhold absolution if the person is not prepared to report the matter.
Chris,
In 175 you state that other Vatican Officials have been quick to point out that the Apostolic Penitentary is out of order… Where can I read about who they were and what they had to say please?
Shalom
CS
You’re applying secular ideas to a sacrament. This is NOT like a face to face manager subordiate meeting where if there was communication of wrongdoing, the manager would be ethically obliged to act. This is a sacrament for the absolution of eternal punishment for mortal sins and this is the key purpose of the sacrament. The purpose is not a communication channel where priests and the hierachy can keep tabs on the wrongdoings of subordianates however severe the sin. There must be other methods to achive this but breaking the conditions of a sacrament is not a valid one. You seem bent on secularising liturgy and sacraments. This is not good.
One of the conditions of the penitent obtaining absolution and forgiveness of his/her sins is a firm resolve not to sin again – particularly, the sins having just been confessed.
If the confessor is not satisfied that the penitent has true resolve not to re-offend in that way, he may withold absolution……….” whose sins you shall retain…….”.
In such a serious sin as sexual abuse – especially of the young – the penitent would really need to demonstrate remorse for the sin and a very firm purpose of amendment. The confessor actually does have the authority – not power – to require that the penitent make reparation for the sin in some way.
This is a very “one off” type of situation.
Can 983 on the confessional seal only binds the confessor, not the penitent.
In the Rite of Pennace, it is stated:
This is what Bishop Girotti’s statement is missing.
In the case of sex abuse of children, I would have thought that “due restitution” would have involved reporting the matter to the civil authorities.
Yet again, we are getting coverups instead of reporting these serious matters to the police.
God Bless
Hi Chris,
The seal means that the priest cannot divulge what has been confessed.
If the priest requires the person to tell others, and withholds absolution for it, then the priest has forced the sins to be divulged. That would be braking the seal of confession.
Have another look at the quote you mentioned Chris. Ask yourself what does the word “led” mean and what does “make due restitution”. Neither mean what you are asserting they do.
Have another look at canon 983:
If the priest required the person to tell others of the sins he has confessed, then the priest would have broken the seal. Even wikipedia agrees.
I recently read about this but I can’t recall where that was. I’ll let you know if it comes back to me.
El,
I hear what you are saying about the inviolability of the seal and agree completely.
But I thought what Don also says : that the confessor can impose a penance which requires restitution. Think of stealing for example where the confessor could require restoring the stolen goods.
In cases of child sex abuse, surely restitution would require at least compensating the victims, treating the abuser and notifying at least the relevant ecclesiastic authorities if not also the police. Surely ALL of these would involve the penitent notifying others of the crime and that would be unavoidable in these sorts of cases.
The Canon law declining absolution for those making false accusations of solicitation in the confessional until the accusation has been withdrawn and restitution made, would appear to provide a very strong precedent for also requiring notifying the authorities in sex abuse cases.
Yet again we see cannon law bending over backwards to protect the clergy while taking a very soft line on child rape in as much as protecting the good name of the clergy from false allegations of solicitation is seen as very much more serious than child sex abuse.
The automatic excommunication for abortion is another sore point. The view that abortion requires excommunication but child rape doesn’t is awfully convenient for the clergy but simply looks like sexual double standards to the public and the laity.
God Bless
In the case of a cleric who admits in confession of sexual abuse, I would think that the confessor could withold absolution until the penitent went to his bishop and admitted the sin. In the case of Joe Average, how could the confessor know that the penitent had in some way, made restitution?
I know little of the requirements of canon law. But it seems to me that if the penitent, after being refused absolution under the request by the confessor to make some sort of restitution – say putting himself in to the authorities – even though may be then in a suitable disposition for absolution – may have to call the priest to the jail to gain absolution.
It is a difficult situation for a confessor to be put in at a personal level, even though canon law and personal conviction may be quite clear. I would think that, being human, the confessor in the first instance would give the penitent the benefit of the doubt and give absolution. But if the same sin re-occurred, then lay down the law and withold absolution until satisfactory admissions had been made to relevant authorities – either civil or ecclasiastic.
As with this type of sin which may have become an obsession/addiction, nothing is achieved until the perpetrator admits his guilt. Thats why the confessor needs to be pretty staunch. Because even going to confession may not necessarily mean the person has recognised his/her condition – but may simply be seeking a conscience salving absolution without really getting to the root of the problem. I’m sure we all have kidded ourselves in the past, even in small venial matters.
Hey Chris,
I hear what you’re saying, but there is a distinction between a priest urging a penitent to go to the authorities for a serious crime, which is fine, and requiring the penitent to do so before giving absolution.
The latter does mean that the priest is breaking the seal of confession, which he cannot do under any circumstances.
A priest cannot require a penitent to divulge his sins to others. There are no exceptions.
Penance does come after absolution, and cannot involve a breaking of the seal.
Penance does not necessarily have to directly reverse the sin. Some sins cannot be reversed, such as murder. Penance is intended to offer a balance to the effect of the sin.
As far as an automatic excommunication goes, your comments are quite common among the faithful. But what needs to be remembered is that the Church does not use automatic excommunications to punish any and all heinous crimes. The Church is not a policing force, she is a moral guideline. Automatic excommunications are reserved for sinful acts that go directly against the Church AND are not already covered by civil law and the consensus of the people to show that such acts are wrong, even if the majority does not consider it to be.
We don’t have a society in the world today that views child rape as acceptable. We do have many societies that view abortion as acceptable, and it is legal is many (most) countries in one way or another.
That is why the Church does not impose an automatic excommunication for child rape, but she does for abortion (and crimes such as child rape can carry a penalty of excommunication, just not an automatic one). It is not a question on which is more serious or heinous.
Over the last few decades the Church has reduced the number of offences that carry an automatic excommunication (with one exception). I can see the benefits of having certain offences carrying an automatic excommunication but they are cumbersome things and rely on the knowledge of the offender. In the future we may see an abolishment of any automatic excommunications, who knows.
Also excommunications are not punitive measures, they are medicinal in their nature. The intention is to show the person that such an act is very, very wrong, and to help the person back to God. Any normal person in today’s society would know that child rape is very very wrong. Many people today do not realise that about abortion. That’s why the Church has taken the stand that she has. If we get to a society where child rape is considered normal and acceptable, the Church could quite possibly make that an offence carrying automatic excommunication.
Most Catholics aren’t aware of this distinction – as the tragic case of the Brazilian twins last year showed -so it’s important that we understand it so we can share it with others.
El,
I’m not suggesting the confessor require the penitent to inform the authorities before giving absolution. I’m suggesting he require it as part of the penance (ie after absolution). Or at the very least urge the penitent to so do.
I agree with those cannon lawyers who argue that Latin Rite Canon Law should ditch the latae sententiae excommunications as the Eastern Rite Canon Law already has. I think that would very neatly fix the problem.
the Church has reduced the number of offences that carry an automatic excommunication (with one exception)
That’s a very coy reference to Crimen Sollicitationis, which is yet another case of excommunication used to preserve secrecy for the benefit of preserving the good name and public image of clerics accused of horrific sins.
Why doesn’t Canon Law show the same zeal for dealing with child rapists ?
It seems to me that the string of Canons discussed here illustrate the clericalism in the Church which is a big part of the problem.
Protecting the Clergy is more deemed more important than protecting the children.
This needs to change and Canon Law needs to be updated accordingly. Even Abp Burke has proposed new regulations on how abuse cases are handled.
God Bless
It is great to see the Holy Father calling on bishops to cooperate with authorities, but this doesn’t seem to be backed up by any policies to procedures to make sure this actually happens:
The whole letter is online at
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20100319_church-ireland_en.html
Irish dioceses are going to get an Apostolic Visitation. About time.
Still no mention of Germany or Benedict XVI’s own role in Munich. Sigh.
God Bless
Hi James. Then why not sign up for ‘Kiwicath News & Notes’ – http://kiwicathnewsandnotes.blogspot.com or http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kiwicath/
This week, for instance, you can read about the long and useful life of Teresa O’Connor, and how Catholic parishes and schools in NZ celebrated St Patrick’s Day.
Cheers,
Mike Leon
In his letter to Ireland, the Holy Father calls on priests and religious who have abused children to openly acknowledge their guilt and submit themselves to the demands of justice :-
Surely that is the message which ought to be conveyed by the confessor to such penitents in the confessional ?
God Bless
The Holy Father gives the Irish Bishops a frank dressing down:
Others, the Holy Father included, need to take those last two sentences to heart and start acting on them.
God Bless
Again, not the point of confession. The demands of juctice will be met either way on earth, purgatory or otherwise. Notice how your quote above is general and not confined to the confessional. That’s because it’s a general message to offenders to submit themselves but not via the sacrament of reconciliation. That’s the difference.
It’s a stupid precedent to ask sinners to make their sins public as part of the confession process. For one, many people just wouldn’t come forward and take this gift from God which is the right of all Catholics.
Long story short, don’t mess with sacraments, liturgy or Texas