L
Leegal
Guest
Agree.
- Status
J
Jack_Bauer
Guest
This was a rectory, huge one. and there were guest bedrooms, with living, dining, formal living, formal dining. Attached right to the dhurch.
J
Jack_Bauer
Guest
Meeting in the living room is one thing, but meeting in his bedroom is entirely a whole different thing.
J
Jack_Bauer
Guest
Attire: bath robe, not cassock.
Place: Priest’s bed, not the teenager’s house or bed
Posture: putting an arm around anyone in that situation is just not normal, not even for a priest. However, you’re right, 1978 or 1979 was a very touchy feely time with all the Charismatic Renewal taking place.
First, I’m not asking if it were abuse. I’m asking for opinions about the scenraio. A litmus test of Catholic thinking on the subject. I have a notion to post this on the non-Catholic side to see their response in order to compare the difference in thinking.
At what age do you consider being “on your own”, 16, 17? Sure, young man, how about boy, child, underage, naive, inexperienced? One could assume that the priest was merely choosing to prayerful moment. However, it would seem more approapriate that he choose a more prudent and appropriate setting. In all reality, nothing really happened, except made the teenager uncomfortable because he knew it was weird, inappropriate.
Truthfully, I find many Catholics to be very unfair in many of their assessments of others. Trolling? Kind of out there. This is the kind of attitude that irks me. A little click would have easily reveal I’m far from a troll. Trolling for information, yes. A “Troll”? No. I don’t believe I was being unfair at all. At my age with by background, I know fair from unfair and do not waiver on the verge of changing my views over comments like that…
Well, in those days too, it was very inappropriate according to the norms of my area. But the 70’s seemed to have created a slothful atmosphere. Having an underage high school student go to a rectory with a priest by himself is and was very inappropriate in those days too. This should be obvious, but it reveals a mindset of why the scandals occurred in the first place. Yes, it does. And by the reactions of some responses that can’t seem to hold the judgmental tongue lashing … well that’s a pointless avenue to pursue. back to the litmus test.
Place: Priest’s bed, not the teenager’s house or bed
Posture: putting an arm around anyone in that situation is just not normal, not even for a priest. However, you’re right, 1978 or 1979 was a very touchy feely time with all the Charismatic Renewal taking place.
First, I’m not asking if it were abuse. I’m asking for opinions about the scenraio. A litmus test of Catholic thinking on the subject. I have a notion to post this on the non-Catholic side to see their response in order to compare the difference in thinking.
At what age do you consider being “on your own”, 16, 17? Sure, young man, how about boy, child, underage, naive, inexperienced? One could assume that the priest was merely choosing to prayerful moment. However, it would seem more approapriate that he choose a more prudent and appropriate setting. In all reality, nothing really happened, except made the teenager uncomfortable because he knew it was weird, inappropriate.
Truthfully, I find many Catholics to be very unfair in many of their assessments of others. Trolling? Kind of out there. This is the kind of attitude that irks me. A little click would have easily reveal I’m far from a troll. Trolling for information, yes. A “Troll”? No. I don’t believe I was being unfair at all. At my age with by background, I know fair from unfair and do not waiver on the verge of changing my views over comments like that…
Well, in those days too, it was very inappropriate according to the norms of my area. But the 70’s seemed to have created a slothful atmosphere. Having an underage high school student go to a rectory with a priest by himself is and was very inappropriate in those days too. This should be obvious, but it reveals a mindset of why the scandals occurred in the first place. Yes, it does. And by the reactions of some responses that can’t seem to hold the judgmental tongue lashing … well that’s a pointless avenue to pursue. back to the litmus test.
J
Jack_Bauer
Guest
Yes they do. he feels that it was inappropriate, but since the priest did not try anything else he chose to ignore it. I think he made the right choice, but considering that later on in his development while a seminarian a priest did something similar and then actually made a pass on him. That does beg some really important questions about what was happening back then. The Monsignor is still “working” in the Diocese, no incidents. I assume the better, but the story is really odd and I thought I’d bounce it off of people.
It’s always prudent to read what a poster says rather than make up your own story to respond to.
J
Jack_Bauer
Guest
No offense, but you didn’t read the post at all it seems. The monsignor told the boy to come into his bedroom at the rectory at night while the two were alone. He traveled out of town to an overnight interview type experience. He served in mass for the next day, talked and observed. Today it would be odd, but not so much back then. However, knowing how many priests stopped being priests back then, it still does seem odd. It’s sad that clergy have to watch themselves so carefully today. But, it’s also necessary in a world perverted by the worldly flesh. One of the reasons I’ve said that maybe married men becoming priest might be a good idea in light of the fact that priests have to live like Skunks or Porcupines. I believe in the Eastern Church, celebrates belong to a religious order. It gives them community to be close to without fear of being falsely accused or tempted by those women that tend to throw themselves emotionally at them…“collar poppers” is what my pastor said they called them. Beside the point though. Just jabbering now.
B
BobObob
Guest
I’m not Catholic, so you can get the opinion of at least one non-Catholic on this thread.
I agree with that assessment.
From the info you provided, it sounds suspicious. Having an office in a bedroom is a recipe for disaster. Plus, the fact that the boy who was being interviewed was dressed for bed during the interview, presumably as instructed, seems odd to me.
Regarding age, I’ve heard of a good deal of incidences of seminarians being sexually abused by clergy (the founder of the Legionaries of Christ abused many younger seminarians). Just because he is an older teen (17), even if he were beyond the legal age of consent, doesn’t mean he couldn’t have been abused. If someone in authority, such as a clergyman, uses his authority to make a sexual advance, that is abuse in my book. If that happens to someone, they may, in turn, be at risk for doing the same thing when they are older. Thankfully, that didn’t happen. Even though it may have been benign, it may have been a sort of grooming for an incoming seminarian.
L
Leegal
Guest
I think I read the scenario correctly as I thought you would have said “cassock” and not robe since I have never heard of the priest’s garb being described as a robe. Further, I read it to be in the rectory.
As I have said, the only opinin that mattered was the young man’s discomfort. If the teen thought it to be inappropriate, then it was. At the least, it was very bad judgment on the part of the priest to ask the boy to pray with him on a bed while he was so clothed.
I know of one priest who had an accusation made against him at least that many years ago. He was transferred with no further incidents or complaints. No taint on his record beyond the one accusation which I could not know if it was founded or unfounded.
He became pastor at a Church and served for many years, in another state. When the scandal broke, the Church looked back at that one old incident and forced him to retire and leave the priesthood. He left as a man, not as a priest, to go live with his sister. This only came out after he was forced to retire and the why of it – that one accusation that had taken place at least as many years ago as the 70s. It was not a Church I regularly attended, but attended frequently when visiting family so I was familiar with the priests who served in that parish.
I wondered at the priest’s punishment but, of course, I never was there nor knew of the incident that had been on his record when he served in a parish in another state so many years before. It may be that it was a founded accusation or it may have been done out of fear by the Diocese and so the Church decided to “clean house” and erred on the side of caution just in case. Whatever happened back then was never repeated as I understood it, but I was not in a position to know anything about what might have happened back then or in the intervening years. It just seemed like a sad ending.
B
Barbkw
Guest
The actions of this priest are “creepy” for our generation.
Situationally aware priests whould change their procedures (dress, time, contact, situation) to protect themselves from false allegations and children from abuse.
This priest wasn’t situationally aware, which as an after thought, makes the scenerio even more creepy.
Situationally aware priests whould change their procedures (dress, time, contact, situation) to protect themselves from false allegations and children from abuse.
This priest wasn’t situationally aware, which as an after thought, makes the scenerio even more creepy.
L
Leegal
Guest
I think his choice to ignore it was appropriate. The boy may not have wanted to make an accusation that he was unsure of having never been confronted with such a scenario before. Many times women are put in unconfortable secular situations similar to these and question whether or not they are reading more into something than is intended – it would be no less uncertain for a young man.
That a second incident that occurred later in a seminary with another priest is terrible and unfortunate.
I too would prefer to assume the better as to the first priest.
D
Della
Guest
You simply can’t wiggle out of the accusation you made in post #5 where you wrote to those who had answered without your fuller explanation which you gave in a later post: “Just answer the question and stop trying to join in with the cover ups that led to today’s scandal outbreak.” That was totally unfair and uncalled for.
I did not say you were trolling but wrote that your accusation “smacked of trolling”. I leave it to the others in the thread to decide your motivations for discussing a situation that took place long ago based on second hand knowledge. And no, that doesn’t make me a supporter of child abusers.
We Catholics don’t believe in accusing a man based on such flimsy information. We believe in the rule of law. The young man in question should see a lawyer if he wants to press charges against anyone involved. That is the answer to your query as to the “Catholic” answer to this situation.
J
Jack_Bauer
Guest
Well, you’re right. I did say something a bit over the top. But not enough to create this detraction from the topic. The true colors of people sitting anonymously behind their computers seems to draw out the worst in people, especially when we’re frustrated…You simply can’t wiggle out of the accusation you made in post #5 where you wrote to those who had answered without your fuller explanation which you gave in a later post: “Just answer the question and stop trying to join in with the cover ups that led to today’s scandal outbreak.” That was totally unfair and uncalled for.
I did not say you were trolling but wrote that your accusation “smacked of trolling”. I leave it to the others in the thread to decide your motivations for discussing a situation that took place long ago based on second hand knowledge. And no, that doesn’t make me a supporter of child abusers.
We Catholics don’t believe in accusing a man based on such flimsy information. We believe in the rule of law. The young man in question should see a lawyer if he wants to press charges against anyone involved. That is the answer to your query as to the “Catholic” answer to this situation.
As far as the flimsy “second hand” knowledge is concerned… If you don’t want to engage in the discourse, then leave the room or remain silent while the adults converse.
Kidding of course. Just thought I’d say something snarky to lighten up the mood.
D
Della
Guest
You kept it going in your follow up post. All you had to say is what you did here–that what you wrote was over the top. :tiphat: Frustration works both ways, you know. Truly, I don’t see any reason to dredge up an old incident about which nothing can be done when the Church has put into place measures to try to keep this sort of thing from happening. Of course, these sorts of things should never have happened, but we are talking about human failing/sin not really what should the Church do about it–especially not now when no one can work/volunteer with children or vulnerable adults without background checks and training. If a person digs deep enough he is going to find sins and faults in everyone. What is important is if this was a crime/morally wrong. And that cannot be established without the direct action of the victim.
J
Jack_Bauer
Guest
So go start a thread on it then to discuss whether or not “dredging up” old wounds is reasonable or not.
The second bold statement you made seems like your confessing to something.
As far as “direct action of the victim is concerned”, I have no idea what you’re saying and really don’t want to know at this point because you’re not taking the topic serious enough to engage in a real discussion. All you have to do is hit the ignore button or unsubscribe to this tread. There is no reason to be so confrontational…
D
Della
Guest
Well, I can see this is pointless. If I wanted to confess to anything I would come right out and say it, so your attempt at making me feel guilty by innuendo is wasted on me. I’ve already stated what the Church is doing and what the victim you described can do if he wants to. Really, there’s nothing more to be said.
J
Jack_Bauer
Guest
It’s interesting to see how people respond to situations. When it is related to something not so controversial they jump in head first. But if it’s controversial and even true suddenly those of the school of well, we’re only speculating, jump in and think its okay to help cover it up but failing to discuss it. People learn appropriate by talking, learning, about what steps to make in situations like this. I’ve given my son’s, as a result of my upbringing, to knock the tar out of anyone that tries to make a pass on them, clergy or not. Makes no business. Somehow we’ve extended “license” to certain people in our society, who’ve turned out not to be so trustworthy of the level of trust we’ve extended them. That doesn’t mean most of them aren’t trustworthy. It merely means people need to learn to be wise by being careful. Most anyone could easily be lured into a bad situation, even if the person, in this case, means no harm. People meet with other people and somehow the next thing they know they’ve crossed the line, engaging in extramarital relations. This situation is the same. \
WAs one woman said, women get into these situations probably far more than men. It’s sad, but we still have to deal with it in realistic terms, not wishful thinking. That’s basically what I’ve been thinking about through this thread. I would like to see this from a Protestant perspective. So if I do, feel free to post.
Thanks everyone. By the way, I am the seminarian this happened too. If you read my older threads, you’d have already known this. I just wanted to keep it on topic and prevent the bleeding hearts from trying to empathize with me as if I haven’t taken the necessary steps to deal with it. However, the diocese in which this happened still throws bureaucratic impediments for me to receive any help on their dime for allowing this to occur. The details would require me to show you the real world proof available online on my case. Not going to do it. However, if someone like me, mature now, can deal with unwanted sexual advances, leave the Church, and return, anyone can. Keep you hearts and minds open to helping them. Don’t be the cause for someone not returning because you can’t handle the conversation… When you’ve gone through as much therapy, counseling and education with a family, career and advanced involvment in the faith, I’d like to hear about it. By 34 years ago, right after my 17 birthday, this very awkward situation occurred. I do believe he was involved in a group effort to groom incoming seminarians because of the fellow seminarians from my diocese at the time that many if not most turned our to openly accept homosexual relationships. The seminary during my time told me they knew what was going on and were taking steps to prevent future growth of this homosexual phenomina during those days. Today, there are many seminarians, like me, prior service, that no longer promote or allow this atmosphere to continue. My brother, priest and vocation director, insures me along with the president that the discipline has been increased and infractions violating any of these are no longer tolerated. The seminarian, a senior, 29 years old at the time, was kicked out after he graduated. It was his last semester when I realized what was happening and I told him to his face, I’m not like that at all and I didn’t want to have any more to do with him. About 9 months later, he contacted me in my hometown and I agreed to meet with him after refusing several times. But I threw a curve at him by bringing my girlfriend along for the conversation to show him, I’m not gay and never was. I looked up to him like a brother, only. I didn’t realize that he was grooming me until later on when I saw two former seminarians that had been highly medicated and out of the minds, walking around the grounds, still in rooms and learned their stories. This guy, along with a couple of other seminarians apparently raped one of them and the other he got drunk and abused him. Thankfully I was never a lush, so getting me drunk was nearly impossible.
I avoided saying it was me so that no one would attack me. I’ve done this before and there are always the “Della” that crawl out of the cracks to attack the abused. This proves they attack just the conversation to me. Again, thanks for participating. It’s been a learning experience and shows signs of hope, that if this were to happen again, I’d know that I wouldn’t have to hide like I did early on in my life.
Pax
WAs one woman said, women get into these situations probably far more than men. It’s sad, but we still have to deal with it in realistic terms, not wishful thinking. That’s basically what I’ve been thinking about through this thread. I would like to see this from a Protestant perspective. So if I do, feel free to post.
Thanks everyone. By the way, I am the seminarian this happened too. If you read my older threads, you’d have already known this. I just wanted to keep it on topic and prevent the bleeding hearts from trying to empathize with me as if I haven’t taken the necessary steps to deal with it. However, the diocese in which this happened still throws bureaucratic impediments for me to receive any help on their dime for allowing this to occur. The details would require me to show you the real world proof available online on my case. Not going to do it. However, if someone like me, mature now, can deal with unwanted sexual advances, leave the Church, and return, anyone can. Keep you hearts and minds open to helping them. Don’t be the cause for someone not returning because you can’t handle the conversation… When you’ve gone through as much therapy, counseling and education with a family, career and advanced involvment in the faith, I’d like to hear about it. By 34 years ago, right after my 17 birthday, this very awkward situation occurred. I do believe he was involved in a group effort to groom incoming seminarians because of the fellow seminarians from my diocese at the time that many if not most turned our to openly accept homosexual relationships. The seminary during my time told me they knew what was going on and were taking steps to prevent future growth of this homosexual phenomina during those days. Today, there are many seminarians, like me, prior service, that no longer promote or allow this atmosphere to continue. My brother, priest and vocation director, insures me along with the president that the discipline has been increased and infractions violating any of these are no longer tolerated. The seminarian, a senior, 29 years old at the time, was kicked out after he graduated. It was his last semester when I realized what was happening and I told him to his face, I’m not like that at all and I didn’t want to have any more to do with him. About 9 months later, he contacted me in my hometown and I agreed to meet with him after refusing several times. But I threw a curve at him by bringing my girlfriend along for the conversation to show him, I’m not gay and never was. I looked up to him like a brother, only. I didn’t realize that he was grooming me until later on when I saw two former seminarians that had been highly medicated and out of the minds, walking around the grounds, still in rooms and learned their stories. This guy, along with a couple of other seminarians apparently raped one of them and the other he got drunk and abused him. Thankfully I was never a lush, so getting me drunk was nearly impossible.
I avoided saying it was me so that no one would attack me. I’ve done this before and there are always the “Della” that crawl out of the cracks to attack the abused. This proves they attack just the conversation to me. Again, thanks for participating. It’s been a learning experience and shows signs of hope, that if this were to happen again, I’d know that I wouldn’t have to hide like I did early on in my life.
Pax
- Status