Are Lay Ministries hurting priestly vocations

[Paul_Folbrecht]

There is a significantly higher incident rate of sex abuse in schools than in church. Does the media report this fact? Are all teachers potential child abusers? Why do the courts let pedophiles walk among us?

Media outlets like the Boston Globe blew priest accused sex abuse stories into a scandal. I’m sure they sold a lot of papers doing it. When we fail to think for ourselves, critically examine information and make prejudicial conclusions we commit our own sins. Study the ninth commandment

“Blew sex abuse stories into a scandal”??? Are you joking? There was NO scandal? Several percent of Catholic priests having sexual contact with young men (NOT boys, in most cases) is not scandalous? What number would it take? Having them moved around, again and again, over decades, as they continued to abuse in parish after parish, INSTEAD of turning them over to authorities or at least keeping them away from minors isn’t a scandal?? It surely would have been a horrific scandal during most periods of the Church.

Anybody who wants to understand the priestly sex scandal must read Goodbye, Good Men. This book gives the background that handily explains it very well, through over 100 interviews of seminarians and ex-seminarians.

The fact is that we are not talking about a crisis of pedophilia here. Pedophilia is defined and commonly understood as sexual behavior between an adult and a child - a child defined as a human in the pre-pubescent state. But as a matter of fact, 86% of the victims of sexual abuse by Catholic priests in the latter half of the 20th century were post-pubescent - and male. Lest anyone doubt this statistic, it is well-established to reasonable accuracy and easily verified.

There was a large subculture of actively homosexual priests in the American Catholic Church, a situation began at and perpetrated by the seminaries. These actively homosexual men, in addition to having sex with adult males, in certain instances also instigated sexual relations with boys - usually from 12-16 years old.

That is the pink elephant in the room that the mainstream media ignored and ignores. For them, acknowledging this fact would put the homosexual lifestyle itself in a negative light, and that is simply not something they are willing to do. In our culture, dominated by political correctness, facts often are treated as irrelevant - facts that do not fit nicely into the worldview of the modern secular humanist are tossed aside. It’s difficult to look at the fact that the mainstream media have failed to make this simple connection, and failed to note that the vast majority of these cases are not pedophilia, in any other light. If it’s not bias it’s simple incompetence. There is probably some of both, actually.

 

[atassina]

Aunty M, did you notice this post? I remember you challenging this report in another thread as you’ve been to NO Masses throughout the Carolinas and Florida and only see reverence.

If we drag the role of priest down to a consecrator of hosts, then their irrelevancy will bring about their extinction. The EMHCs are the clearest example. Holy Communion is a sacrament and only priests are authorized to dispense them. Lay people storming the sanctuary during the Angus Dei is a travesty and undermines belief in the Real Presence.

Young people would be attracted to the seminaries if the dignity of the priesthood was reestablished. Why do you think the SSPX and FSSP seminaries are full and the NO are closing?

OK, let’s use that razor to shave some more meaning for me. What is SSPX and FSSP? I once heard someone refer to priests as “sacrament studs”. Why? After the Eucharist and Confession, we could do the rest. Unfortunately, I was too uneducated to contradict this comment. Thanks for the good comments.

 

[atassina]

The question still remains why wern’t those offending priests weeded out earlier? Was this an effort by catholic liberals who wish to destroy the priesthood and establish a new era?

The way it was explained to me was this: Early on in the 1960’s and after, the bishops consulted the real professionals: the psychologists. The psychologists advised the bishops to move the priests from those parishes and put them in other ministries. (Nothing like bad advice.) So the bishops followed the bad advice of the professional psychologists. However, the bishops made the decisions and the burden of failure (or success) ultimately rests on them. Have you heard it explained differently?

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

The way it was explained to me was this: Early on in the 1960’s and after, the bishops consulted the real professionals: the psychologists. The psychologists advised the bishops to move the priests from those parishes and put them in other ministries. (Nothing like bad advice.) So the bishops followed the bad advice of the professional psychologists. However, the bishops made the decisions and the burden of failure (or success) ultimately rests on them. Have you heard it explained differently?

Yes. I’ve ‘heard it explained’ that some bishops were blackmailed. I’ve heard it explained that other bishops we’re real close with abusers and simply had no intention of turning them in - or cutting them off.

I have heard even worse things. Google “Chicago priest boys club” and see what you get.

Does listening to a psychologist who tells you to move a sex abuser from one place with access to minors to another place with access to minors - multiple times, after he’s been caught abusing every place he’s been - make any sense at all? Does it reduce culpability at all?

 

[Ockham]

That is the pink elephant in the room that the mainstream media ignored and ignores. For them, acknowledging this fact would put the homosexual lifestyle itself in a negative light, and that is simply not something they are willing to do. In our culture, dominated by political correctness, facts often are treated as irrelevant - facts that do not fit nicely into the worldview of the modern secular humanist are tossed aside. It’s difficult to look at the fact that the mainstream media have failed to make this simple connection, and failed to note that the vast majority of these cases are not pedophilia, in any other light. If it’s not bias it’s simple incompetence. There is probably some of both, actually.

That is why I don’t accept this ‘scandal’ for how it is portrayed. The real issue is the homosexual sub-culture that existed and hopefully extinguished. As in the Paul Shandley case, the image of a priest taking a child out of catechism class to be sodomized in the basement is fabricated. Shandley was however an active homosexual using his profession for sexual advantage. The actual rates of pedophila are no higher than any other group.

 

[Ockham]

Back on topic, it’s as if the Holy Father was reading this thread:

*The Pope also stressed the importance of priestly formation which must maintain “communion with unbroken ecclesial Tradition, without pausing or being tempted by discontinuity. In this context,” he continued, “it is important to encourage priests, especially the young generations, to a correct reading of the texts of Vatican Council II, interpreted in the light of all the Church’s doctrinal inheritance."

In conclusion, the Holy Father warned of the “dilution” of priestly ministry. He explained that the without priests, “there would be no Eucharist, no mission” or the Church. “It is necessary then, to ensure that ‘new structures’ or pastoral organizations are not planned for a time in which it will be possible to ‘do without’ ordained ministry, on the basis of an erroneous interpretation of the promotion of the laity, because this would lay the foundations for a further dilution in priestly ministry, and any supposed ‘solutions’ would, in fact, dramatically coincide with the real causes of the problems currently affecting the ministry."*
catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15380

Hopefully this is the beginning of the end for the EMHCs.

 

[Freshman88]

“It is necessary then, to ensure that ‘new structures’ or pastoral organizations are not planned for a time in which it will be possible to ‘do without’ ordained ministry, on the basis of an erroneous interpretation of the promotion of the laity, because this would lay the foundations for a further dilution in priestly ministry, and any supposed ‘solutions’ would, in fact, dramatically coincide with the real causes of the problems currently affecting the ministry."

catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15380

Hopefully this is the beginning of the end for the EMHCs.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

That is why I don’t accept this ‘scandal’ for how it is portrayed. The real issue is the homosexual sub-culture that existed and hopefully extinguished. As in the Paul Shandley case, the image of a priest taking a child out of catechism class to be sodomized in the basement is fabricated. Shandley was however an active homosexual using his profession for sexual advantage. The actual rates of pedophila are no higher than any other group.

Well if that’s what you meant, obviously I agree. Yes, the media did handle the case horribly, as I pointed out, completely missing the point and mischaracterizing the whole thing.

I used to be one of those Catholics, back in 2002, who wanted to believe there really was no epidemic of abuse, that there were just a very small number of bad priests, smaller than the general pop, and ‘everything was being blown out of proportion’ to hurt the Church. How naive I was then.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Back on topic, it’s as if the Holy Father was reading this thread:

*The Pope also stressed the importance of priestly formation which must maintain “communion with unbroken ecclesial Tradition, without pausing or being tempted by discontinuity. In this context,” he continued, “it is important to encourage priests, especially the young generations, to a correct reading of the texts of Vatican Council II, interpreted in the light of all the Church’s doctrinal inheritance."

In conclusion, the Holy Father warned of the “dilution” of priestly ministry. He explained that the without priests, “there would be no Eucharist, no mission” or the Church. “It is necessary then, to ensure that ‘new structures’ or pastoral organizations are not planned for a time in which it will be possible to ‘do without’ ordained ministry, on the basis of an erroneous interpretation of the promotion of the laity, because this would lay the foundations for a further dilution in priestly ministry, and any supposed ‘solutions’ would, in fact, dramatically coincide with the real causes of the problems currently affecting the ministry."*
catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15380

Hopefully this is the beginning of the end for the EMHCs.

Also

 

[CradleCath]

FYI, here’s a link to the Bishop Finn article:

NC Reporter Article

John

Thanks so much for finding that article & I hope that all who read it will remember that the NCR. has a liberal agenda. The people who lost their “jobs” needed to be gone.

 

[CradleCath]

Dear Cradle

The “article” showing proof is not quite proof enough. This is a blog written by a “Quintero” on May 12, 2006. Hardly sound proof.

Actually, The Vatican called for a reorganizing of the St. Joseph’s and Kansas City"s Dioceses. This was combining the two and in doing so had to move some priests to different locations. It was not the “cleaning house” you describe. This reorganizing took place in 1956 when Bishop LeBlond was the Bishop, followed by Bishop Cody. Bishop Finn followed after these. As every Bishop moves from one diocese to another, there are alway changes. Just as in any corporation, the new CEO makes his changes.

Please make sure you are spreading true and correct rumors. I’m sure you didn’t realize this was not.

Please make sure that you check things out, BEFORE you issue such a statement. Why would I be speaking of something that happened in the 50’s on a thread whose title is “Are Lay Ministries hurting priestly vocations”? I have seen you jump in on issues that you hadn’t investigated …several times now. BTW., if you live in this diocese, I can’t understand why you haven’t heard about this. It’s been the talk of two cities for ages, now.

Extreme makeover: the diocese
New bishop quickly discards programs, people

By DENNIS CODAY
natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2006b/051206/051206a.php

 

[Chiltepin]

we have gone as far (in my parish) to place windows in the confessional doors because no one can be alone with a priest.

Mine too, but it did not occur to me that was the reason. I thought it was pretty stupid to have windows in a confessional.

There is a significantly higher incident rate of sex abuse in schools than in church. Does the media report this fact? Are all teachers potential child abusers?

Yes, we are (to the teachers thing.) Teachers are also held in very high suspicion about sex abuse. I cannot even explain how scared I was when I found out that my door to my portable classroom locks automatically and that I would have to be constantly propping it open with a brick so as not to be alone in a locked room with a student. Even though I would never do anything, alone in a locked room with a student + a false accusation = lose your job, guilty or not.

It’s not just teachers and priests, anyone who works with children at all who is held in this high suspicion. I worked at a day care/day camp before I became a high school teacher. In our training we ran drills to squat down before a child could hug you so that short children don’t hug you in bad places. I wasn’t really allowed to touch them and yet somehow three year olds were supposed to have sunscreen applied. Supervisors said they needed to do it themselves or help each other apply sunscreen. Eventually parents were mad about their stripey- burned children and we were allowed to apply sunscreen, but only with the back of our hands because palms are molesty.

I am not a young man discerning a vocation to the priesthood, but I don’t think that the scandal discouraged that group. Teacher scandals didn’t discourage me from becoming a teacher. If a young man felt a calling I really don’t think that would stop him. More reasonable factors seem to be things already mentioned, cultural changes, lay involvement and changes to the mass ultimately changing the role of the priest.

 

[Ockham]

Without giving it too much credit, Hollywood’s portrayal of priests doesn’t help the seminary enrollment. Father Mulcahy on MASH may be the last priest character who wasn’t a child molester or other evil being. Teachers have a much higher incident rate but haven’t been branded as predators.

 

[missal]

Something more sinister than Lay Ministries has reared it’s head here in Connectiicut this week. THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OF THE CONNECTICUT STATE LEGISLATURE, INTRODUCED A BILL TO DISCONNECT PARISHES FROM THEIR PASTORS. THE ARCHBISHOP WOULD BE EFFECTIVELY “EXCLUDED”

Like ‘communist -run’ churches- a board of directors would run the churches -May God have mercy on our Churches …please pray for us…
This Wednesday, March 11th there will be a public hearing.View attachment 5315

Alleluia, I am sure everyone now knows, we here in Connecticut have won this particular bill from passing. The ones responsible for attempting to pass this bill were so embarrased by the great public outcry bombarded with e-mails, and telephone calls, they cancelled the meeting 24 hours before it was supposed to be. But, thousands showed up for a rally, poster sign carrying… etc. It was great! Rest assured, this won’t be the last of them.
But for now, they ran back under their rock, to plan their next attack.

 

[atassina]

If teaching is a ministry, then lay teaching ministries are not hurting vocations to the priesthood. Who taught the CCD children 75 years ago when the rectories were full of priests?

For the last 100 years did the laity do nothing except pay, pray and obey?

 

[CradleCath]

Back on topic, it’s as if the Holy Father was reading this thread:

*The Pope also stressed the importance of priestly formation which must maintain “communion with unbroken ecclesial Tradition, without pausing or being tempted by discontinuity. In this context,” he continued, “it is important to encourage priests, especially the young generations, to a correct reading of the texts of Vatican Council II, interpreted in the light of all the Church’s doctrinal inheritance."

In conclusion, the Holy Father warned of the “dilution” of priestly ministry. He explained that the without priests, “there would be no Eucharist, no mission” or the Church. “It is necessary then, to ensure that ‘new structures’ or pastoral organizations are not planned for a time in which it will be possible to ‘do without’ ordained ministry, on the basis of an erroneous interpretation of the promotion of the laity, because this would lay the foundations for a further dilution in priestly ministry, and any supposed ‘solutions’ would, in fact, dramatically coincide with the real causes of the problems currently affecting the ministry."*
catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=15380

Hopefully this is the beginning of the end for the EMHCs.

I’m hopeful about that, too. I especially like the quote about NOT using deacons, liturgists, lectors, readers, etc., etc. ad infitium… to “plan for a time in which it will be possible to ‘do without’ ordained priest”. I am a firm believer in the old adage…what we see, we will become.

 

[CradleCath]

If teaching is a ministry, then lay teaching ministries are not hurting vocations to the priesthood. Who taught the CCD children 75 years ago when the rectories were full of priests?

For the last 100 years did the laity do nothing except pay, pray and obey?

We did pray…a lot. We paid as best we could & we obeyed LEGITIMATE Church doctrine…we did that because we pretty much agreed with it. Those who didn’t found another Church in which they could obey. (One of the favorite churches of ex-Catholics at that time was the Unitarian “Church’”: Unitarians don’t have to believe in anything. They just try to “be nice”.) Just in case you’re interested, here’s a link:

uua.org/aboutus/index.shtml
[SIGN]Unitarian Universalism is a liberal religion with Jewish-Christian roots. It has no creed. It affirms the worth of human beings, advocates freedom of belief and the search for advancing truth, and tries to provide a warm, open, supportive community for people who believe that ethical living is the supreme witness of religion.[/SIGN]

As for the children re CCD classes, there were very few of them. We attended Catholic schools before Vatican II & were taught our faith by dedicated & knowledgeable nuns. Our parents reinforced that training at home.

What other things did we do? Oh yes, we considered it our mission, as members of the laity to:

1. first & foremost ALWAYS, to bring our children up in the Catholic tradition. This included sacrificing financially to give them a Catholic education. Several Fathers that I knew worked two jobs to make this happen. It also included making sure that prayers before meals, at the ringing of the Angelus, morning prayers & in most homes…a family rosary every night…were part of their life. Children were taken to Benediction, Novena’s, etc., etc. by parents.
2. The Catholic men of the era belonged to the Holy Name Society. It was an indulgenced confraternity in the Catholic Church. The primary object of the society was to promote love and reverence for the Holy Name of God and Jesus Christ. The secondary object was to suppress blasphemy, perjury, oaths of any character that are forbidden, profanity, unlawful swearing improper language, and, as far as the members can, to prevent those vices in others. During those years we were full of MANLY men who considered it their duty to lead their family, to show a good example of Catholic Fatherhood to their sons.
3. Many of them also belonged to the Knights of Columbus. It was to them that both the parish school & the Church turned for funds.
4. Women, before Vatican II & the mentality that says that women must DO what men DO, in order to achieve “equality”…sewed the altar cloths & the vestments, served food to the poor & homeless & made a Catholic home for their husbands & children. They had more that the “acceptable” 2 children because they really wanted them. I have 4 children myself, my Mother had 5 & my Mother-in-Law had 8. Women truly believed the Psalm “Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one’s youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them.” I remember my own Mother’s reaction when she overheard a neighbor say, “Poor Emma, all those babies.” She was more angry than I’d ever seen her before & more angry than I ever saw her afterwards. Her answer, “You may pity me for several reasons, but NEVER for my children.Your envy is making you say this. I’ll pray for you!”
5. Both men & women in my parish put on an ice cream social every spring that paid the heat & light bill for the Church for each year. Let me tell you, they started getting donations of merchandise, prizes, games for the next one…as soon as that year’s was over.

Things they DIDN’T do…distribute the Eucharist.
read at the pulpit or enter the Sanctuary during Mass
teach adult catechesis
And NEVER did they need a title. They didn’t call themselves part of the “lay apostolate”, nor “ministers”. They took what our priests gave them to the outside world. They had their duties. The priests had THEIR duties.

 

[Ockham]

Amen.

 

[barb_finnegan]

CradleCath-All I can respond to your post is AMEN AND AMEN!

:clapping: :clapping:

 

[diggerdomer]

Things they DIDN’T do…distribute the Eucharist.
read at the pulpit or enter the Sanctuary during Mass
teach adult catechesis
And NEVER did they need a title. They didn’t call themselves part of the “lay apostolate”, nor “ministers”. They took what our priests gave them to the outside world. They had their duties. The priests had THEIR duties.

Thanks for the history. Really powerful images.

But today, the Church has decided that it is appropriate and desirable to have laity serve as Lectors, EMHC, catechists, and so on. The Magisterium uses the term “lay apostolate” (it was not something dreamed up by the laity) and determines what titles are appropriate for people serving in ministries. The laity of course are still called to serve and witness in the “outside world” but now some are called by the Church to also serve the Church’s “internal” needs. These are not duties self-appropriated by the laity, these are ministry that the Church orders and regulates and encourages. You may not like the Church today but it’s still the Church.

Cheers