www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall I've had enough

Axios,

You must do what you truely feel is right. I on the other hand will do what I feel is right and right for the Church. While justice must always be sought, that seeking must also be balanced with an appropriate appreciation for the fraternity we know as the Priesthood. The Bishops and and their Priests must place the integrity of their Priestly fraternity in and above my personal needs. I feel I as a layman am and should be on a need-to-know basis with the Priesthood. I don't suggest the Priesthood conduct it's self as some secret society, yet at the same time I don't suggest *visitors* be allowed to freely rummage around in your house.

Many institutions in this world including ones in the US don't report supposed "criminal acts to civil authorities". It's this *bond* which keeps the integrity of the institution intact.

I myself have a criminal record for sex with a child. That is sex with a 17 year old one month from her 18th birthday (I believe?) when I was 20 and home on leave from the Corps, Wisconsin law calls all sex with a person under 18 sex with a child. So a 18 year old that has sex with his 17 year old girl friend would be considered to be an adult molesting a child. At any rate the prosecutor would like to have seen the Corps take my balls off, but as it was the Corps takes care of it's own, and being that I was considered a "good" Marine, no record of the incodent can be found in my military records. All punishment I recieved from the Corps I recieved from *in house* and it never reached the *old man* nor his pen. Of course I served jail time and probation from the civilian law. But it is because of the honor and loyalty that I recieved from the Corps as to why my loyalty first remains with the Corps as opposed to the United States of America. I would follow a Marine Corps General into battle against the United States of America before I would follow a President of the United States of America into battle against the Corps.

Many crimes are commited daily and people throughout America "walk". I'm fortunate to have often been able to observe 30 something year old men in "decked-out" cars bought and dressed by their drugs sale trade, courting 16 - 18 year old girls coming out of school. A number of my friends have committed a number of crimes some of which have been felonies been to court and "walked".

And as I've said before (generaly speaking) these same people that want to prosecute these Priests because they claim these 14 year olds are so entirely innocent, are the same ones who want to try 14 year olds as adults and throw the key away on them because they claim 14 year olds no longer are innocent.

Personaly I prefer loyalty to the hypocrites of law.

Maximus discussion of the "bond" that keeps the "integrity of the institution intact" touches that which has in times past, and obviously continuing today, permitted, nay, encouraged, the victimization of those least able to protect themselves, children and the elderly. It is the "bond" that is the sina quo non of the criminal enterprise (though in reality there is no honor among thieves et al only fear and selfishness). To have the "institution" deal with allegations of sexual abuse, at any level, simply screws up the legitimate case allowing the perpetrator to "walk". Interviews of alleged victims by "institutional authorities or agents" is counter productive and allows the kind of mess being talked about in the RCC to proliferate rather than be curtailed and children protected. As a criminal defense attorney with twenty years experience, dealing with many cases involving sexual abuse of minors, I can say that nothing clouds the actual facts more than victim interviews by the wrong people. Recently (last 5-10 years) many urban areas have places that specialize in interviewing alleged victims of sexual abuse, usually under 16, Before any cop, social worker or "institutional official/agent" interviews them. This procedure protects the innocent person accused of sexual abuse by providing objective evidence the prosecutor can use in deciding whether to bring charges against an accused person, it can filter out issues of coaching, malice etc., and at the same time protect the legitimate victim of sexual abuse and provide solid evidence which will result in the perpetrator not re-offending again due to successful treatment or for an extended period of time (due to incarceration to protect society) if not able to be treated, or in denial or the perpetrator is stuck on the "whiner" defense, i.e., she/he enticed me, she/he really wanted to do it (though under 16 and really incapable of understanding the long term harmful effects of the conduct)or I thought she/he was older (totally inapplicable in incest or violation of trust cases). Paying off alleged victims without having them go through this screening process merely incites false accusations while doing nothing to prevent victimization of others. As to Maximus statement "personally I prefer loyalty to the hypocrites of law" I offer the second antiphon of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in the Russian Orthodox tradition, taken from Psalm 145, it is regretable that it is not included in every Divine Liturgy/Mass celebrated EVERY TIME as it helps keep our head screwed on right and our faith intact amidst the widespread (actually numbers wise not likely anymore than a century ago) evil conduct "Put not your trust in princes, in sons of men in whom there is no salvation. When his breath departs he returns to his earth; on that very day his plans perish. The Lord will reign forever: Thy God, O Zion, to all generations. Now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen." Moshe Zorea Deacon OCA

MosheZorea,

Good post. Though in the end I don't agree with you. It's not that I don't think you have grown to know and understand things of the phenomina of sexual abuse of minors with twenty years experience as a criminal defense lawyer. But as I've greyed I've learned too, where to place my trust and where not. And if the Catholic Bishops and the fraternity of their brother Priests are theives, I would rather be lead under the rule of a few thousand theives then the few million you would let in by opening the doors to the laity and secular arm of law.

I've also grown to know how to protect an institution. And sideing against your Priest and throwing him to the dogs just to protect your image, will not gain you the trust of your Priests if you need one to say... travel to Afganistan for some reason. They will already know their life means little to you. Your image comes first.

Am I saying that a Priest should not suffer and repent for his crimes against a child - one that has yet to go through puberty - no. What I suggest is that *once* (only *one* time) a Priest is proven to have engaged in sex with a child he should be placed in a monastary for the rest of his life or close to it. This is far from letting a Priest just "walk". Pluse it is thereputic. This is also appropriate level of fidelity from the Bishop to the fallen Priest. And if the Priest refuse going into the monastary then the Bishop only has to tell him: ok then you face the secular arm of the law on your own.

But you know, I think your comment: "though under 16 and really incapable of understanding the long term harmful effects of the conduct." is most telling. And believe it or not is partially the grounds for some of my logic on how to deal with 14 year olds on up that have sex with Priests. First let me back up and ask you why it is you want to prosecute these 16 year olds as adults when they murder someone, when as you state they don't understand the long term effects of their conduct? Of course in all fairness to you, I'm drawing an assumption because I know you never stated that you do support trying 16 year olds as adults in court. But now let me get back to my point. While it is regretful that we can and will do things we regret in our youth, since when did not understanding the long term effects of our conduct relieve us of our responsiblities of our actions? How many married 20 year olds treated their young wives in fashions that they relized emotional scared her as they aged into their 50's and end up regreting that part of their youthful ignorant conduct? Excuse me consoler but I'm old enough to recognize the greater crime, tragedy, and long term scaring, that more often occurs from some man continualy ridiculing his wife then from some 16 year old jumping up in down in the lap of a 42 year old man.

Am I the only one that recognizes that high schoolers are well aware of what condoms are. Or is this the 1950's?

What everyone is misunderstanding in this whole issue - is that the Bishops set the standard. They have failed to set a high enough standard. Setting standards does not just mean laying down rules, for us men it also requires breaking arms (metephoricaly).

***

MosheZorea,

What are you a Mason too? Men in America, more then a few, have a hard time keeping their hands off of their wives or so a number of social workers probably would say so. Your not a Roman Priest and I'm not a married man. You support the intrusion of the little nomadic tribes that want to rip open the doors of the Church and have a good look - damn to the effect it will have on the best of our Priests. And I support social workers and the mass media intruding into the instituion of marriage of every married American citizen and throwing open the doors of that marriage so we can all have a good look - damn the effects it'll have on the best and devote of our married people.

Wouldn't it just be a hoot if by some sort of grace from God I some how ended up a Priest and Bishop one day. So you know what you could expect from me huh Moshe? You, the Priest who rape children, the Priest in Africa who rape Nuns, the American media, all of you, could just stand the frek by. Oh well, it's your day to shine now, perhaps God will send us a strong Bishop one day.

Maximus,

I'm just wondering what you have against monasteries....


Sharon

Sharon Mech SFO
Cantor & sinner
sharon@cmhc.com

Thank you Sharon!

I wanted to make this point myself. Monasteries are fragile places, and in our country anyway, are struggling to even exist.

Perhaps once upon a time, in large monasteries in Europe, that were themselves "monastic villages" with hundreds of monks with varied duties and responsibilities, there might have been a place where these could be supervised. Without sufficient supervision, they cannot provide adequate protection against the possibility of "re-offending", as would be envisioned by the suggestion.

There is no equivalent in America (as far as I know) of the monastic prison. Certainly, our monasteries are not prisons, and cannot substitute for them. I think it would be clear that such men do not have monastic vocations, and our struggling monasteries cannot offer them what they need.

Elias

[ 04-22-2002: Message edited by: Hieromonk Elias ]

Dear Friends,

I think we all need to calm down a bit.

Whenever a situation like this occurs, and it has in the past, and probably will in the future, it is wrong, a crime and should be addressed accordingly.

Period.

The errors of judgement and even crimes of hierarchs are not those of the Church.

St Robert Cardinal Bellarmine once wrote that a Catholic is obliged to oppose even a Pope if he was trying to destroy the Church or was a heretic etc.

In fact, once a Pope is convicted of heresy, by canon law, he ceased immediately to be Pope, as occurred in the case of Pope Honorius way back when.

That there are various agendas promoted here by means of this issue - of that there can be no doubt.

The Right uses this as a way to condemn homosexual priests rather than pedophiles, the Left as a way to attack the conservative hierarchy etc.

Let's put our blazing guns down and look at this matter with sensitivity while assisting the local church to ensure that such cases as this don't happen again in the future.

We ourselves sin and come to Church expecting forgiveness for whatever we do almost automatically, and without much further reflection.

Let's see if we can give the Church a similar benefit at this time too.

Alex

I have nothing against monastaries per se.

I've voiced my opinion. It is the right way to go.

Just hope I never come into a position to make change, because change is exactly what I will bring. And the little homosexual clicks of some of the well fed fat bodies in the monastaries will be broken up along with your holier than thou Nun rapers. I remember a Marine under me that had trouble *changing*, adapting, into the Marine we NCO's wanted him to be. I visited him one night on post and helped motivate him to begin change. It's obvious that some clergy could use a little motivation in change in adapting into the sort of clergy the Holy Father and Peter would them to be.

Dear Maximus,

Then you consider yourself to be a Renaissance Man?

God bless,

Alex

Mike C wrote:

1) All of the accused are white. No Oriental, Latino or Blacks were accused of sexual deviation. No lay volunteers.
2) Most of the accusers were women: not the accusers themselves. Where are the fathers?

Who said this, Mr. Pat Robertson?

This is not true:
In New Mexico, a priest who's name is Diego Archuleta (nothing to do with our national hero, Diego Archuleta who led the revolt against the infamous conquerer of NM, Bent)was accussed of child molestation, and the diocese transfered him to a different parish. There he was accussed again and according to the Diocese, he was removed from his charge as an active priest and sent to an administrative charge... but oh surprise... he was found in a parish in Mexico City celebrating a mass without trouble.

In most of these cases, the fathers are too affected and are not ale to say anything or prefer to stay isolated.
Obviously it's possible that some of these cases (or most of them) are false and these people just want money. I can't deny that.

Not sure? One Priest considers me to be rebelious.

But then I suppose it's possible I'm just off my rocker.

Dear Maximus,

Well, if it's any consolation, I, for one, reject the idea totally that you are rebellious .

God bless y'a, Big Guy!

Alex

Dear Axios:

For an Orthodox publicly displaying such concern for the Catholic half (more specifically the Roman Catholic portion) of the divide is to me a heartwarming gesture on your part.

Hopefully, the 2-day "summit" between the US Cardinals (and the 3 top officials of the USCCB) and the Vatican now in progress in Rome will eventually produce a national guideline for dealing with the scandals (and other ills) plaguing the American church today.

Such guideline is viewed by some, most notably by our own Archbishop of Chicago, Cardinal Francis George, as a "would-be" model for the universal Church.

Radio news coming out of Rome from Chicago-based journalists seems to point to a move being undertaken by certain participants to request the Pope to ask the resignation of Cardinal Law as Archbishop of Boston.

Let me assure you, however, that we, the Roman Catholic laity, and our clergy are not as less concerned than you are as you seem to protray in this thread.

Alex,

Interesting though... can you tell me if a number of the new monks to the Desert Fathers came from out of criminal backgrounds? As I recall numbers of them were reformed crooks - reformed that is in the desert.

I also recall St. Moses the Black who is one of the Desert Fathers is reputed to have been a leader of a gang of robbers and even a murderer. Tall, well built, imposing figure who changed slowly overtime in the monastery.

Medieval Europe monastics were a sancutary for the repentent to transform their lives as I recall?

Seems to me part of the mission of monastics should be to create better human beings. Predjudice to the sins of the new repentent should be non-applicable regarding his/her entrance. Unless the new prospect posses real danger to the community or will by nature of being a trouble maker disrupte the community.

Dear Amado,

I'm just wondering if there is an "axios" to grind here . . .

I know a Catholic who is Gay and he tells me Gay Catholics are very much in favour of Cardinal Law's resignation as part of an overall approach to distance the attack on pedophiliac priests from the issue of Gay priests, since the Right seems to be saying the two are one and the same.

Alex