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

Dear Axios:

I beg to disagree with your personal observation that:

"...In fact, it sadly seems sex with minors is
a more common occurance with the Catholic
priests than on our community, even with its
libertine element."

The "surveys" which came, and are coming, out as the sex scandals continue rocking the US Roman Catholic Church show that illicit sex with minors (both varieties) are more prevalent in American secular society.

And to you MosheZorea:

From the Windy City to your Frozen(?) City of Anchorage, I believe the Dominicans were/are instrumental in the adoption of a standard screening policy for would-be seminarians in the Philippines.

After all, the Dominicans came to the Islands with the Spanish conquistadores in the mid-1500's and established in 1611 probably the oldest school of higher learning in Asia: the Universidad de Santo Tomas (or the University of St. Thomas) and, therefore, they must have had prescient knowledge of such a potential "scourge" on their clergy.

AmdG

Amado,

You would agree that the Philippines for quite sometime has been a playground for sex for Western military and professional men? And that often these girls (not to exclude boys but my understanding is that it's typicaly girls) are many times under-age girls even to the age of 13?

Why no scandals? Could this be labeled the "fraternity" of Western world silence for it's mens exploitation of third world minors?

Just a question from Justin who whole heartedly supports the band of brothers of Priests.

Perhaps I'm nuts, but I don't see how the preceding posts are relevant to the topic at hand.

What happened or happens in the Philipines, nor what the Dominicans did or do is not quite germane to the current situation in the US.

In fact, many dioceses and orders are using (and have used) both medical and psychological 'entrance exams' for candidates. (Boston included. A psychologist former-Jesuit friend of mine serves as a 'screener'.)

The problem may lie in the fact that at "that time", most candidates were late teens, sexually chaste and inexperienced, and so sexual interrogatories would not reveal very much. Later, at a greater age and psychological development, issues are going to surface.

The real question then rises: how does the priest respond to these "issues"? The overriding issue is, and must be: what does "love of neighbor" demand of me in this/these circumstances? The moral imperative must come to the fore; despite what I 'feel', I MUST discipline myself to follow the promises that I have made and what the Gospel of love demands.

Touch a kid? Never, under any circumstances.

Touch an adult? No, because I promised I would not.

Even a 'consenting adult'? No; same reason.

Can't hack it? Ask for dismissal.

Want to be both married and a priest? DON'T come East. You'll be very unhappy, and you'll work our last nerve.

Stay at home; become a deacon to serve God's people. And, Lord knows, deacons do as much as if not more than many priests. The opportunities for service are limitless.

Christ is Risen!!! Granting great mercy to the world.

I just have one word about the situation regarding Cardinal Law:

"Anaxios"

Maybe it's just a Greek Christian thing, but I felt kinda creepy-crawly when I read: "anaxios". While I realize that intellectually "anaxios" is the opposite of "axios", I am just not happy about the idea that a congregation could use this term to "dispose" of a bishop. For us (and perhaps it is the Constantinopolitan court influence on psyches), it would be better for advisors from within the community to come to the person and say: "Go elsewhere" without at the same time abnegating the person's humanity and past service in the public forum. That just appears to me to be 'unkind' and not appropriate for us Christians as a community.

Yeah, us Greek Catholics are just softies.

Christ is Risen!!!

Maximus:

I will not reply to your last post for clearly it is out place as Dr. John rightly observed. And don't stir up a hornet's nest because you might get stung really bad.

Dr. John:

In my posts on this thread, I aimed at
identifying the proximate (or, at least, the probable) cause of the current scandals and how other Church jurisdictions have dealt with them in real terms.

It jibes with the Axios' lament on the apparent inability of Cardinal Law to have a better grip of the situation in his Archdiocese, perhaps because of the Cardinal's complicity in the
"juggling" of "accused" priests in his area of responsibility.

"Psychological profiling" of would-be seminarians has been in place in local seminaries and in religious orders for as long as I can remember (I think since the 1960's when the Catholic Church initially faced this specific problem of priestly
"infractions").

However, it is only now that the Catholic hierarchy is thinking of adopting and implementing a national (or even a universal) standard screening process, with particular emphasis on the sexual orientation of candidates to the priesthood. The CCB of the Philippines was just an illustration.

I know this proferred solution is not a "cure-all" to this "disproportionate" number of homosexuals in the priesthood and in the
seminaries. In some studies related to this problem, candidates have been found to be able to "hide" or at least suppress their true colors.

This is not to say that homosexuals all together should be banned from the priesthood because there are so many of them who have been faithful to their vows and who have been fruitful in their ministry.

I also recognize the inadequacy of "psychological profiling" as a tool because there is no way it can predict the sexual tendencies or preferences of young adult males 10, 20, or 30 years down the road.

"Pedophilia" and "Ephebophilia" are psychological illnesses that occur mostly, if not entirely, well into one's adulthood.

AmdG

Amado,

I meant in no way to attack you, infact I thought in some way you might have agreed with me.

And I will quickly submit that my post might have been out of place, as I have said in the past I lack a higher education, and sometimes out of over zealousness I might go off the direction of the topic in my argument, but it is not meant out of malice of anyone or to be some how deceptive.

Infact that is why I did not make any rebuttal to Dr John because I figured there my be merit to what he said. But in my mind as I posted what I did it made perfect connection.

***

And I don't know what you are trying to imply about stirring up a hornets nest? But you seem to come across as the real J***a** not me. You could have made your point anyway you wanted to and if I was wrong I would have just accepted it. But I sense some underlying anomosity, heavens to be could it realy be in the heart of such an outstanding Christian as you? Your a very educated man, at least you come off as highly intelligent I'll grant you that, but why is it that I get the feeling that you seem to be overly arrogant and think that your God Almighty superior to a certain element of society.

And back to getting stung by the hornets nest. I recall when I was about a freshmen in high school, and a friend or two of mine ribbed a few girls all the way to the bus stop (I did not participate in ribbing the girls). The girls went and got their brothers and the gang their brothers were in. I saw the gang coming down the block one of my friends ran, but I kept walking forward - stubborn as I am - they confronted myself and the friend still standing by me. I never saw the punch coming from behind and in the night, supposedly it was two punches. I got knocked out for about 3 or 4 seconds, but I got back up - blurred though. Anyways I'm still stuborn and still get in the way, only thing is I haven't been knocked out again.

Chicago isn't to far from Milwaukee - about 1 1/2 drive actually on I-94. I'll be here in Milwaukee till May 10th when I go into recovery in Florida. Feel free to come visit me, you can take 94 to the 35th street exist in Milwaukee. From there we can get down, and when it comes time to the dance that leads to jail time we'll see who get's stung by the hornets nest.


Justin D. Morgan

Amado,

Christ is risen!

I think that psychological evaluations of seminary candidates is not enough. A psychologist can be help in identifying some psychological disorders. But their judgment is not always sound. It has been documented that some of the psychologists employed by seminaries or diocesan vocations offices do not hold views consistent with Christian moral values. In fact, what might be considered a moral disorder might not be considered such by a secular psychologist. Such is the case also with homosexuality. Psychologists in general hold that homosexuality is not in any way disordered but is a mere sexual difference, like being left handed, and they put homosexuality on a par with heterosexuality. They only see a problem when a person does not "embrace" their sexuality or are "stunted" and sexually "immature". The first criteria for determining a person's fitness for admission to the seminary should not be a psychologist's recommendation, but orthodoxy of belief, and orthopraxis (fidelity to moral precepts and active charity). In other words, a psychologist might think a person is healthy and a prime candidate even if a prospective candidate is not truly orthodox or virtuous. This does not exclude the usefulness of psychiactric evaluation, but can only be one element in the process, and secondary one at that.

The holy Apostle Paul, in his pastoral epistles, speaks of the virtues necessary for sacred ministers in the Church: They should be: "above reproach ... temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher, no drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsom, and no lover of money. ... serious, not double-tounged, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for gain, they must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience." 1 Tim. 3.

Most of these qualities apply to all Christians. But in addition to pastoral virtues, they need to conform to the virtues required of all Christians, and avoid vices as all Christians must.

The blessed Apostle Paul also said that excluded from participation in the life of the Kingdom are: "fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, boy prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, slanderers, robbers" (cf 1 Cor. 6:9-10). Again, excluded from living participation in the life of the Kingdom are those who live "according to the flesh", manifested in: "immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions, occasions of envy, drinking bouts, orgies, and the like." Instead we are called to live in the Spirit, manifested in the fruits of the Spirit: "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control." (cf. Galatians 5:19-23).

As I said, the above is true of all Christians, but in a special way the clergy have to be extra careful because of the greater harm their misconduct has on the body of Christ, the Church, and because it becomes a hinderance to the Church's authentic witness of the gospel to the world.

We have to return to God's standards rather than follow mere human sophistications, and rationalizations.

Glory to Christ, Holy Wisdom, who enlightens us by His precepts!

Brother Maximus,

I may seem out of my turf here but I can not help but make a comment after all that I have been reading. I agree with you on your trying to highlight the crisis in culture that we face in this society. However I think you are being a little too soft on the priests.

In the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church (EOTC) our priests are married. They are even required to be married or to be a monk. The higher ups such as Bishops and the Patriarch are required to be monks and never to have been married. I also believe that they are required to be virgins.

In our church adultery is considered the most disgusting of sins exceeding even that of murder. A married priest that commits this heinous crime is recommended to be de-ordained immediately. Yes the fraternity may need to be protected but so it must also remain honorable. Priest who have defiled and dishonored the priesthood should be ex-communicated, just as in your Marines, a Soldier that dishonors the corps is dishonorably discharged.

One quick question, I would appreciate if someone answered. I keep reading references to homosexuals getting screened in order to prevent what they may do as homosexuals. My question is, is there a similar test to screen heterosexual fornicators? I mean we have to protect adolescent girls against what people who can't help themselves to fornication right? It is of course next to impossible to do that, it is also next to impossible to do the former. These screen tests of homosexuality seem to be a capitulation to conservative secular public opinion more than they seem to be designed to reform anything. We should oppose homosexuality because it is a sin, not because we find it culturally repulsive. As such it is a sin just like fornication and adultery. We should work to bring homosexuals to the grace of God just as we do with the equally sinful yet culturally less repulsive fornicators. If the door can't be shut to a heterosexual sinner then how can it be shut to a heterosexual sinner? Allow me to reuse the example of Moses the Black that you pointed to previously. When he was a priest he was called to judge the sins of someone. He arrived with a trail of sand behind him because he journeyed to the designated place with an open bag of sand. When asked what it meant he replied that the grains of sand represent all the sins that he himself has committed. As such a sinner, he said, he was in no position to judge the sins of another… Oh, we can never use the words of Christ too much “let he who has never sinned throw the first stone.”

Egzi'ho marinet Kristos (Lord have mercy on us)

Aklie Semaet

[ 04-26-2002: Message edited by: Aklie Semaet ]

[ 04-26-2002: Message edited by: Aklie Semaet ]

A follow up to my last post. I've heard comments by seminary officials and bishops that nowadays we have better screening mechanisms, important among them being psychological examinations of seminary candidates. I think that bishops have to carefully screen those who will be screening candidates for the seminary. As I said before, many psychologists/psychiatrists do not share at all our Christian understanding of the human person and sexuality. For example: the American Psychological Association (APA) declassified homosexuality as a sexual disorder in 1973, and published an article (in July 1998 volume of the Psychological Bulletin, published bimonthly by the American Psychological Association) which concluded [in regards to child-adult sex] that "the negative effects [of sexual abuse] were neither pervasive nor typically intense." Because of heavy criticism, the APA more or less disassociated itself from the article's conclusions.

Some bishops relied on the judgments of psychologists in regards to the handling of sex-abusing clerics. If these pschologists agreed with the above cited APA article on child-adult sex, they would have advised the bishops that sexual activity (the article avoids the use of the term "abuse" because of its moral connotation) although unethical and illegal, was nevertheless not all that devastating to children.

Again, what criteria do our bishops and seminary staffs use in determining whether or not a psychologist is sound? Who's screening the screeners?

For an article on problems with the screening processes at some seminaries: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/4/192430.shtml

For articles on the APA and their un-Christian stances:

http://www.fatherhood.org/articles/wh042099.htm
http://www.narth.com/docs/whatapa.html
http://www.worthynews.com/commentary/born-gay.html

Aklie,

I am not being to soft on the Priests. If Judas was not beyond redemption then neither is a Priest of my Church who sexually assaults a child. I by the grace of God am fortunate not to have that problem, it would be easy for me to throw stones at them or even cheer their lynch. But in my IMHO it would be a result of me lacking the bravery to stand against undeniable odds to fit in with my surroundings of hatred and to be honest - self rightousness.

Our Father who art in heaven give us this day our daily bread. *And forgive us are tresspasses, as we forgive those that tresspass against us*. Lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil.

We ask of God to pardon us *only* as much as we pardon others. How many of want to TRUELY be kept to our words on that plea we ask our God so often.

I ask that if the Church can comprimise and reconcile the situation to such with the victim or that of the child victims family - that the Priest pursue the rest of his life behind monastic walls - then what is god so awful in that? Or is it that we personaly lust for public hanging because we feel *OUR OWN* right has been infringed on: the Priest has betrayed my trust in him and the pedistal I placed him on?

I give the case of Moses the Black because one *does not* have to be a Priest to be a monk. I don't view the purpose God gave the monastic vocation, it's task, with that of being soley for the purpose of "good" middle class kids (18 - 23) escaping into a life of prayer and solitude. This is good don't get me wrong, but I envision the monastics as having the capacity for even a greater or broader purpose then that.

But through the monastics - perhaps if one has proven himself - a Priestly vocation may come.

I actually think the Priesthood should have high standards, and I don't think the Priesthood should allow in pedophilers, alcoholics, drug addicts, gamblers, hustlers, women haters and I suppose a number of other things. But what I disagree with is throwing are Priest to the dogs once they fell to live up to our expectations.

As to your analogy thing, I suppose a number of Marines, past and present, would agree with you. However - and I don't say this to be argumenative, it is my true feelings that I have held for quite some time - *Loyalty Is Honor*.

**************************************************

Lazareno,

I might get attacked for this again. But these same clinical experts have used the words heinous to describe a 42 year old man having sex with a 17 year old girl (not in any forced or scared into sex. Mutual consent so to say). The thought is I guess that the 42 year old is taking away her innocenss. But I find this contradictory to the same efforts and programs of condom distribution these clinical support and want put in place in high school schools for these same 17 year old girls to have sex with 17 year old boys.

I'm from the "school" that believes a 19 year old is old enough to have sex. And in such, is old enough to have sex with a 19 year old or 42 year old. The age is not the distructive factor, infact it is void, if one is "old enough" to have sex.

Just my 2 cents. I'm sure some will disagree.

[ 04-26-2002: Message edited by: Aklie Semaet ]

Forgiveness of sins is one thing. Putting a proven danger in the way of children and teenagers is a different thing.

Myself, I think clerics who engage in this sort of behavior should given two choices.

(1) being sent to a special monastery - AFTER any required time in prison - where the cleric may do penance for the rest of his life, which allows the cleric to remain a cleric, but is no longer able to get to children/teenagers(monasteries of this sort existed in medieval times)
(2) forced laicization

In no event should the cleric be allowed to work as a diocesan priest again.

I'm from the "school" that believes a 19 year old is old enough to have sex. And in such, is old enough to have sex with a 19 year old or 42 year old. The age is not the distructive factor, infact it is void, if one is "old enough" to have sex.

According to the regulations of the Catholic Church, the minimum age requirment for marriage is 16 for men and 14 for women. Although a state recognized marriage at that age would be illegal in this country, it is possible to do so in the Church and have it be considered as completely valid.
So the Catholic Church obviously believes that teenagers, if old enough to marry, are old enought to take on all the responsibilities of marital union.

Robert K.

I am not, of course, in any way validating those who choose to interfere with legally recognized minors. All I am saying is that Maximus belief in the maturity of teenagers to handle such situations with a mature, level headed mind is vindicated by the Catholic Church which permits them to enter marital union.

I to am both disguisted at what these priest have done but alos at the media which just gets as much thrills as possible in hyping these events for the ruination of the Church. Personally, my faith in the Church is not morally shaken one bit since never have I placed my complete faith in the actions of sinful individuals, even if they should govern the Church, to be completely unable to fall from grace. In fact, anyone, even the Pope could fall and yet my faith in our religion would still remain because that faith is based on Jessus Christ and his Gosple and not the actions of fallible men.

Robert K.