Appropriate or Not (1978 or 70's)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jack_Bauer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jack_Bauer

Guest
What is your opinion about a Monsignor with a high school teenager, 17 years old, that is being interviewed for the seminary? The following is the setting:

The Monsignor is dressed in a robe and the teenager is dressed for bed (gym shorts and t-shirt). The teenager is in the living room waiting for the Monsignor to return. The Monsignor tells the teenager to come sit next to him at the foot of his bed. The teenager hesitates and then walks over to do as instructed. Then the Monsignor puts his arm around the boy and says a prayer, followed by a hug. The boy gets up still anxious that it happened but struggles with questions as to the motive of the Monsignor. He doesn’t tell anyone to avoid embarrassment for himself and for scandalizing a priest.

What are you thoughts.
 
This happened sometime in the 1970’s? apx 40 years ago? why are you bringing it up now?

as for my thoughts, I can understand why a17 year old might have felt self-conscious but there’s hardly anything scandalous or criminal in that story.
 
I see nothing inappropriate there. It’s sad that we’re getting to a stage in society where everyone is so suspicious and paranoid that even harmless actions are over-dramatised. Some people may not like being touched, I know I am one of them, but I would not be scandalised or upset if someone hugged me.

A few years ago, I did work experience in a primary school with K1 students. A little girl fell and hit her head so the teacher told me to take her to the kitchen to put an ice pack on it. She was upset, as one would expect, so I held her hand. A lot of people would have thought that was inappropriate but I was simply trying to comfort an upset child. I also have a friend who works at a theme park and he said that until recently, if they found a lost child they were not allowed to hug them or pick them up or even hold their hand. It’s ridiculous, a lost child would just want a comforter, there’s nothing malicious at all.
 
Jack_Bauer said:
What is your opinion about a Monsignor with a high school teenager, 17 years old, that is being interviewed for the seminary? The following is the setting:

The Monsignor is dressed in a robe and the teenager is dressed for bed (gym shorts and t-shirt). The teenager is in the living room waiting for the Monsignor to return. The Monsignor tells the teenager to come sit next to him at the foot of his bed. The teenager hesitates and then walks over to do as instructed. Then the Monsignor puts his arm around the boy and says a prayer, followed by a hug. The boy gets up still anxious that it happened but struggles with questions as to the motive of the Monsignor. He doesn’t tell anyone to avoid embarrassment for himself and for scandalizing a priest.

What are you thoughts.
Click to expand...
It happened once? 40 years ago? Only once? Why only once? And the other times he met Monsignor, where was it? What was their relationship? They did not see each other ever since? What about the interview? Did he enter Seminary? what does he think about the subject? Mosignor put his arm around what in the boy? How was the hug? The interview took place? How did he feel about the interview? What was the opinion of the Mossignor?
 
I agree that some things are over the top. The reason I ask is no ones business either. But according to literature and professionals, this is exactly how “grooming” occurs. Just read the stories. I also am privy to particular information that led to many real scandals later on in this diocese.

Later, this same seminarian was invited to a priests home, not wanting to believe there was a hidden agenda. He went to bed, woke up with… we’ll stop there. But he got up and out of the room. The priest was making a real private area pass on him and he doesn’t know how far the man went. This is the reason I’m asking. But I don’t feel that I have to say. Just answer the question and stop trying to join in with the cover ups that led to today’s scandal outbreak. Not every accusation is true, but many of them are valid. That’s not the question though.
 
Counseling and interviews should not take place in bedrooms. I think that in the past in many Catholic institutions priests bedrooms were also their offices. Asking for trouble. People doing formal things for formal purposes should be appropriately dressed. This was not the case here. Embracing can be 1) entirely non-sexual 2) non-sexual in intent but producing sexual responses 3) mixed 4) sexual. We simply don’t know which number applied to the Monsignor. Catholics are required to put the best interpretation on such doubtful situations. I would be inclined to apply the ‘balance of probability’ test, which produces a different result. But overall I think that all that can be said with confidence is that the situation should not have been allowed to develop in that way and I hope it would not today.
 
Jack_Bauer said:
What is your opinion about a Monsignor with a high school teenager, 17 years old, that is being interviewed for the seminary? The following is the setting:

The Monsignor is dressed in a robe and the teenager is dressed for bed (gym shorts and t-shirt). The teenager is in the living room waiting for the Monsignor to return. The Monsignor tells the teenager to come sit next to him at the foot of his bed. The teenager hesitates and then walks over to do as instructed. Then the Monsignor puts his arm around the boy and says a prayer, followed by a hug. The boy gets up still anxious that it happened but struggles with questions as to the motive of the Monsignor. He doesn’t tell anyone to avoid embarrassment for himself and for scandalizing a priest.

What are you thoughts.
Click to expand...
Using today’s standards - due to the sexual abuse in the Church - the Monsignor’s actions would be seen as inappropriate - (being out of uniform, asking a teen to visit in a private livingroom after hours, centering the meeting on making close physical contact prior to bed).

By today’s standards - those actions can easily be seen as unchaste and homosexual in nature.

Aren’t there guidebooks now on priest activities - a standard operating procedure to safe guard children and to protect priests from allegations that would cause their removal from the priesthood?
 
Jack_Bauer said:
I agree that some things are over the top. The reason I ask is no ones business either. But according to literature and professionals, this is exactly how “grooming” occurs. Just read the stories. I also am privy to particular information that led to many real scandals later on in this diocese.

Later, this same seminarian was invited to a priests home, not wanting to believe there was a hidden agenda. He went to bed, woke up with… we’ll stop there. But he got up and out of the room. The priest was making a real private area pass on him and he doesn’t know how far the man went. This is the reason I’m asking. But I don’t feel that I have to say. Just answer the question and stop trying to join in with the cover ups that led to today’s scandal outbreak. Not every accusation is true, but many of them are valid. That’s not the question though.
Click to expand...
Well, this behavior was totally inappropriate and criminal, of course. I don’t think others who responded before you gave more information were in any way trying to “join in with the cover ups that led to today’s scandal”. That was unfair of you and smacks of trolling or a “gotcha” kind of thing, to my reading. I’m sure that the others would say that it was inappropriate behavior on the part of the monsignor if it led to an abusive situation. Otherwise, he may only have been comforting a lonely young man. Now days it would set off alarm bells that he chose to do so in his bedroom, and really he shouldn’t have chosen that spot even then if it made the young man feel uncomfortable. But, without more information, which you gave in this post, no one could say that it definitely was abuse based solely on your first post.
 
Jack_Bauer said:
But according to literature and professionals, this is exactly how “grooming” occurs.
Click to expand...
“grooming” is not a behavior one would expect to see in regards to a 17 year old. a 7 year old, yes, but not a 17 year old. this might be an example of grooming, again given a different age of minor, but with one incident and very little further details, it would be difficult to say. grooming is a process whereby the molester obtains the child’s trust and gains emotional access to the child. thru this process the molester is able to manipulate the child to get what he wants.

what happened to the seminarian at a totally different man’s house would not be relevant to whether this specific incident was inappropriate unless you are claiming that the first man and the second man were acting in concert.

there are a number of details given in the scenario which complicate matters, for instance, their is a power differential, it was 40 some years ago (how we expect ppl to act now is different than then), presumably the young man was staying the night for some legitimate reason, how did the young man get from the living area to the bedroom, did the teenager feel uncomfortable for some articulable reason?

given the age of the young man and making the assumption that there was bad intent, I would call this testing the waters for openness or interest, not grooming.

if you want to dialogue more about this, feel free to PM me.
 
There is no way to judge from the description given, nor I suspect from the fog of forty odd years past. I have in my life placed my hand on the shoulder of a friend as we prayed about something bothering them.

So many questions would have to be asked that would likely be considered an intrusion to have ANY hope of giving a semi-resonably educated guess that I would say it’s better to assume the best…

God bless
 
Hokomai said:
Counseling and interviews should not take place in bedrooms. I think that in the past in many Catholic institutions priests bedrooms were also their offices. Asking for trouble. People doing formal things for formal purposes should be appropriately dressed. This was not the case here. Embracing can be 1) entirely non-sexual 2) non-sexual in intent but producing sexual responses 3) mixed 4) sexual. We simply don’t know which number applied to the Monsignor. Catholics are required to put the best interpretation on such doubtful situations. I would be inclined to apply the ‘balance of probability’ test, which produces a different result. But overall I think that all that can be said with confidence is that the situation should not have been allowed to develop in that way and I hope it would not today.
Click to expand...
I agree. The bedroom was not an appropriate place for the interview. Even if as you say the bedroom had to serve as an office, the priest should not have been dressed in his robe (though I’m not sure what robe means here, so I am assuming he was not dressed as a priest but had begun to undress for the night and was in another kind of robe).

In another setting, and taken alone, the hug would not be inappropriate. But the last part is the most telling. It made the boy anxious and embarrassed. That is sufficient evidence to me that the incident was inappropriate. If it made the boy uncomfortable, then his instincts were telling him something. If it did not feel right, then it wasn’t.
 
It’s hard to tell, I don’t know. All according to what the Monsignor’s intent was.

I can understand your worry, though it would be no different if a teacher had done the same.
 
Leegal said:
I agree. The bedroom was not an appropriate place for the interview. Even if as you say the bedroom had to serve as an office, the priest should not have been dressed in his robe (though I’m not sure what robe means here, so I am assuming he was not dressed as a priest but had begun to undress for the night and was in another kind of robe).
Click to expand...
I would guess he was talking about a cassock, though it is not clear.
 
I interpreted the priest wearing a “robe” as being in a cassock or vestments, acceptable public attire for a priest. If the “robe” is actually a bathrobe or nightgown, then we are potentially venturing more into the territory of inappropriateness.

Anyway, the scene seems a bit “off” but I don’t see anything that is obviously per se “wrong”. It’s highly contextual. It’s something that hopefully, should have been watched over time to see if it ventured into the territory of clear wrongdoing or not. Mild counseling might have been in order too, such as telling the priest, “Hey Father, one of the teens said that he was uncomfortable with you hugging him. Could you try to be a little more sensitive to touch issues, especially with the older kids? Thanks.” He might have had no idea that he was doing something inappropriate, especially if he was from a country with different social practices.

I generally avoid hugging children basically out of the concern implied with this post - I don’t want to have to deal with defending myself against people who get their panties in a bunch whenever someone cuddles someone else’s child. It’s better in my mind to not do it at all and worry less.
 
x1980x said:
I interpreted the priest wearing a “robe” as being in a cassock or vestments, acceptable public attire for a priest. If the “robe” is actually a bathrobe or nightgown, then we are potentially venturing more into the territory of inappropriateness.

Anyway, the scene seems a bit “off” but I don’t see anything that is obviously per se “wrong”. It’s highly contextual. It’s something that hopefully, should have been watched over time to see if it ventured into the territory of clear wrongdoing or not. Mild counseling might have been in order too, such as telling the priest, “Hey Father, one of the teens said that he was uncomfortable with you hugging him. Could you try to be a little more sensitive to touch issues, especially with the older kids? Thanks.” He might have had no idea that he was doing something inappropriate, especially if he was from a country with different social practices.

I generally avoid hugging children basically out of the concern implied with this post - I don’t want to have to deal with defending myself against people who get their panties in a bunch whenever someone cuddles someone else’s child. It’s better in my mind to not do it at all and worry less.
Click to expand...
Okay, so if it’s a cassock I still question the propriety of the incident taking place in a bedroom, on a bed, since the young man was unfomfortable and felt embarrassed. Back then no one questioned a priest. Today, a young person might have an opportunity to ask not to be touched in a certain way, but back 40 years ago one just did not question a priest.
 
Just as another point, we are obviously looking at this from the standpoint of our society now which is, as I already said, largely dramatist about such things. I would assume that the Monsignor would be an older man, so this accustomed to a different cultural standpoint and not even think how such a thing could be seen as inappropriate. To give an example, my grandfather has a large horse chestnut tree in his garden. For decades children have asked in the fall if they can come in to pick the fallen conkers to play with, it’s a very popular game amongst children and there are several primary schools nearby. For many years my grandfather would offer the conkers to local children once my mother and uncle were grown up. Now he says he cannot do that because he fears people will misconstrue it - an almost 90 year-old man allowing children into his garden. It used to be that you assumed a person’s intentions were good, now we are trained to see monsters and evil in everyone.

Note: I say this not to devalue or dismiss those who are genuinely abused, but in disagreement with the things that are clearly not abuse that our society treats as grave.
 
Leegal said:
Okay, so if it’s a cassock I still question the propriety of the incident taking place in a bedroom, on a bed, since the young man was unfomfortable and felt embarrassed. Back then no one questioned a priest. Today, a young person might have an opportunity to ask not to be touched in a certain way, but back 40 years ago one just did not question a priest.
Click to expand...
Yes. But without more information, there isn’t much else to do except speculate. Jack Bauer, do you have any other information? Do you know what happened to the priest or the boy (or were you one of them?). Did something serious happen later and you are wondering if this incident should have been interpreted as a warning, and nobody did anything, such as reporting the matter or confronting the priest?

Remember that judging by hindsight is problematic. You don’t know how things will turn out and you have to make decisions based on what you know. Based on the information provided, I can’t see any reason that a person would be morally obligated to complain about this or escalate it, especially not in the 70’s.
 
Jack_Bauer said:
…
The Monsignor is dressed in a robe and the teenager is dressed for bed (gym shorts and t-shirt). The teenager is in the living room waiting for the Monsignor to return. The Monsignor tells the teenager to come sit next to him at the foot of his bed. The teenager hesitates and then walks over to do as instructed. Then the Monsignor puts his arm around the boy and says a prayer, followed by a hug. The boy gets up still anxious that it happened but struggles with questions as to the motive of the Monsignor. He doesn’t tell anyone to avoid embarrassment for himself and for scandalizing a priest…
Click to expand...
Reading this again, I’m wondering if it actually took place by the teen’s bed, and the “living room” was in the teen’s parents’ home, considering that the teen is dressed for bed but the priest presumably isn’t (assuming that “robe” means “cassock”). Perhaps the priest came by to visit in the evening and the teen was already dressed for bed?

Can you elaborate?
 
We are just making assumptions. I assumed it was in a rectory and the Monsignor was getting ready for bed in a bathrobe of some sort; others read that it might have taken place in the young man’s home. Some read cassock, not robe. Upon further reading, it may even be in a seminary. We all read something different.

I am not accusing anyone of anything. But I think the emphasis is on how the young man felt when the incident occured. 17 year olds and younger children have good instincts about touching.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top