Can an ex-sex offender become religious or Priest?

[GodHeals]

Great discussion! Thank you all for the comments!!! This turned out longer than I thought.

I just realized I was asking more of a blanket question. Maybe it is more case by case, depending on the offense. It would make sense though about putting some sex offenders in a position of authority. I do think other (lesser offending) repentant sex offenders living for Christ, with accountability and spiritual direction, should be allowed in a position of authority. The religious orders, brothers or monks, might be better for others, since there is limited or no authority.

I more curious about the registered sexual offenders, but as for myself, as somewhat mentioned above by another poster, I had a similar experience. I was one of those people who was 21 or so who had a sexual situation with a young lady who said she was 17 or 18 (i forget), and I think she was 15. This was even after my friend told me her age… and after getting drunk, i either forgot, or never really paid attention to what he was saying in the first place, or just plain out didn’t care what he said. I cannot remember what took place, but I committed sexual sin with this young girl. Afterwards, my friend reminded my of her age. It sickens my soul now to think that i had committed such sexual sins. I know God has forgiven me, and for that reason I am able to share here and with others. I am free of sexual sin as I know it, but was am surely still a sinner who tries to live a life of repentance. Those who were caught doing sexual things with a minor and labeled as a sex offender aren’t less then myself, as I could have been caught myself.

I definitely understand the desire to protect children from potential harm, but there has to be a balance in surrender and trust in God verses trying to control every aspect of environment we place our children. It isn’t healthy for us or our kids to go to one extreme or the other.

It probably would be similar to not desire our kids to be with someone who attempted to murder someone and or who attempted to murder themselves (suicide), since these people also seem to have a low value of the dignity of human life. The latter, interestingly enough now that i think of it, doesn’t require prison time for the perpetration against themselves (maybe some psych ward time).

I think marginalizing all sexual offenders is not good for our or the offenders souls, especially if the offender has received Jesus Christ in their hearts and the fruits are evident in their Christian lives. Conversely, the offender needs to accept the responsibility for their actions, which may require them to be registered.

[SIGN]Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. - 1 Corinthians 6:9-11[/SIGN]

I suppose I could go around feeling shame for having chosen bankruptcy, and also having been on the list for 10 years of my life. Or shame for the numerous other sins that i have committed. I need to remember that Jesus Christ has, is, and eventually, will redeem me.

“SOME OF YOU WERE”. Any sin label brings a stigma with it and the continue shaming of perpetrators makes it very difficult for them to really live, to learn to love and receive love. Forgiveness and prudence (as someone mentioned) needs to also be lived out. This is where the perpetrator really needs to grow in faith in Jesus Christ and be transformed by His love, so that he/she can do their best to learn to love unconditionally more perfectly, regardless if others choose to marginalize or shame them or if they are on “the list” for the rest of their lives. This would be part of the cross they personally chose to bear, and which God has allowed for their sanctification whether or not the perpetrator chooses to see it that way.

 

[JReducation]

The answer is very simple. I think that you’re all very courageous to attempt to answer this question, but you must think like Canon Lawyers, not like Catholics in a pew. Then you will find the answer.

Canon Law says that any priest who commits a sex offense is to be immediately put on suspension, the lawful authorities must be notified and if proven guilty, there must be a dismissal from the clerical state, no ecclesiastical trial is necessary.

If we read Canon Law with the spirit of Canon Law, the reverse can be said to be true. If one must dismiss a priest guilty of sexual abuse of a minor, how is it possible to admit such a candidate to Holy Orders? You’d only have to dismiss him after you ordain him.

Let’s take a look at religious life.

The religious life has sisters, nuns, brothers, deacons, priests and bishops. However the Canon above does not speak about religious, even those who are priests. Currently, there is no canon that says that a religious must be dismissed, even if he’s a priest.

Why is that?

At a practical level, if a man or woman who a consecrated religious, his behavior is not the responsibility of the local bishop, but of his religious superior. Religious communities have Proper Law. The community would follow its own laws regarding matters of dismissal and admission. Religious communities also have the means for proper vigilance, which a diocese does not have, because diocesan priests are not consecrated religious.

Since they are not consecrated religious, they do not have a superior in the house to whom they answer on a daily basis and from whom they get permission to leave the house, have guests, have money, have friends outside of the house and so forth. Secular priests have the same freedoms that every secular man has. A religious has only as much freedom as the constitutions of his community grant him. Even then, the superior is the one who interprets those statutes and he can interpret them very rigidly or very loosely.

So . . . there is no universal law, AT THE MOMENT, that says that a man or woman cannot enter a religious order with such a history.

HOWEVER there is universal common sense and caution.

I don’t know of a single religious community that admits a convicted sexual offender. What superior in his right mind would want to assume the risk?

How happy would such a person be with the restrictions that would have to be placed on him or her? The religious life is supposed to fill your life with love and happiness, not frustration and misery.

How fair is it to the other religious in the house not to be able to bring their nieces and nephews for a visit? Remember, a sex offender must be kept at a distance from minors.

What does it do to the name of a community when a person shopping for a new home on the internet finds that there is a registered sex offender living in the religious house next door?

You can’t assign a religious to work for a diocese unless he passes the screening. If you have no other place for him, do you have him sit in his room all day?

The complications are so many, that one need not have a universal law for this. Good old common sense tells you that this is not going to work.

It is much easier to admit a convicted murderer, drug dealer, thief or corrupt business person who has undergone a conversion. There is no hard evidence that such people have predatory personalities. A sex offender has a predatory personality.

The religious life requires a great deal of stability, if one is to reach any kind of inner peace and silence.

I’m not sure that this helps. I pray that anyone out there who suffers from this condition is not offended by my words. They are not meant to offend. They are realities that are hard to face, but realities that we must all deal with.

I can’t admit to my community someone who has terminal cancer. It’s not fair. The person won’t be able to engage in the fullness of community life and he brings with him a great need for care that we can’t provide. It’s quite different if we develop an illness after we’re in. We have to provide for each other. A known sexual offender is like a known stage IV cancer patient. You know the prognosis is poor. Why make him suffer? That’s not love.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Gorgias]

The answer is very simple. I think that you’re all very courageous to attempt to answer this question, but you must think like Canon Lawyers, not like Catholics in a pew. Then you will find the answer.

Canon Law says that any priest who commits a sex offense is to be immediately put on suspension, the lawful authorities must be notified and if proven guilty, there must be a dismissal from the clerical state, no ecclesiastical trial is necessary.

If we read Canon Law with the spirit of Canon Law, the reverse can be said to be true. If one must dismiss a priest guilty of sexual abuse of a minor, how is it possible to admit such a candidate to Holy Orders? You’d only have to dismiss him after you ordain him.

No, that’s not true. Canons that speak of rights are to be interpreted liberally, whereas those that speak of sanctions are to be interpreted strictly. You cannot extrapolate in the way that you’ve done here. Canons 1040-1049 are what you should be looking at, and your case isn’t covered there.

So, you wouldn’t, per se, have to “dismiss him after you ordain him.”

 

[JReducation]

No, that’s not true. Canons that speak of rights are to be interpreted liberally, whereas those that speak of sanctions are to be interpreted strictly. **You cannot extrapolate in the way that you’ve done here. ** Canons 1040-1049 are what you should be looking at, and your case isn’t covered there.

So, you wouldn’t, per se, have to “dismiss him after you ordain him.”

So, you just managed to derail a thread to prove a point that does not answer the question.

By the way, it is not I who has extrapolated, it is the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy. Let’s not forget that they have jurisdiction here as well as does Canon Law. Canon Law is to be interpreted by the proper offices in the Curia and by the proper laws of the religious institutes. They decide how much is strict interpretation and how much is liberal interpretation.

While we’re at it, never in your life again, ever come at a clergyman or religious with such a statement as the one that I have bolded in red. No one has treated you so rudely.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[Gorgias]

So, you just managed to derail a thread to prove a point that does not answer the question.

You made an erroneous statement of fact. I corrected your assertion. You complained. I’m derailing the thread?

By the way, it is not I who has extrapolated, it is the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy. Let’s not forget that they have jurisdiction here as well as does Canon Law.

Perhaps there’s a statement of law in this matter that I don’t know about? Please provide us with a citation, so that I might be corrected.

They decide how much is strict interpretation and how much is liberal interpretation.

:doh2: This isn’t a matter of interpretation of a given case, but rather, a matter of understanding how canon law is to be approached. To refresh your memory, then:

Can. 18 Laws which establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception from the law are subject to strict interpretation.

This isn’t a matter of curial authority; it’s a simple matter of understanding canon law.

While we’re at it, never in your life again, ever come at a clergyman or religious with such a statement as the one that I have bolded in red. No one has treated you so rudely.

Are you serious? I “came at you”? “Rudely”? I said “no, that’s not true”. In fact, it’s not! I said “you cannot extrapolate in the way you’ve done here”. That offends you? OK, then: “one cannot extrapolate in the way you’ve done here.”

 

[epan]

Canon Law says that any priest who commits a sex offense is to be immediately put on suspension, the lawful authorities must be notified and if proven guilty, there must be a dismissal from the clerical state, no ecclesiastical trial is necessary.

Wow! And I have avoided bringing this up until now. But if this is true, then why were so many child molesters protected in the Catholic Church, and why did the Church claim diplomatic immunity, refusing to cooperate with Irish civil authorities the last time this stuff hit the headlines? This is really more of a rhetorical question than anything. But I find this rather a shocking revelation that the highest members of the church hierarchy would thumb their noses at Canon Law. We are talking bishops, archbishops and cardinals, and more than one of them, and not just in one country.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

You made an erroneous statement of fact. I corrected your assertion. You complained. I’m derailing the thread?

Perhaps there’s a statement of law in this matter that I don’t know about? Please provide us with a citation, so that I might be corrected.

:doh2: This isn’t a matter of interpretation of a given case, but rather, a matter of understanding how canon law is to be approached. To refresh your memory, then:

This isn’t a matter of curial authority; it’s a simple matter of understanding canon law.

Are you serious? I “came at you”? “Rudely”? I said “no, that’s not true”. In fact, it’s not! I said “you cannot extrapolate in the way you’ve done here”. That offends you? OK, then: “one cannot extrapolate in the way you’ve done here.”

Your disrespectful and childish behavior is not called for nor welcomed.

 

[thistle]

You made an erroneous statement of fact. I corrected your assertion. You complained. I’m derailing the thread?

Perhaps there’s a statement of law in this matter that I don’t know about? Please provide us with a citation, so that I might be corrected.

:doh2: This isn’t a matter of interpretation of a given case, but rather, a matter of understanding how canon law is to be approached. To refresh your memory, then:

This isn’t a matter of curial authority; it’s a simple matter of understanding canon law.

Are you serious? I “came at you”? “Rudely”? I said “no, that’s not true”. In fact, it’s not! I said “you cannot extrapolate in the way you’ve done here”. That offends you? OK, then: “one cannot extrapolate in the way you’ve done here.”

You are being very disrespectful with your comments.
Also, you clearly don’t know who JReducation is!!

 

[Gorgias]

Your disrespectful and childish behavior is not called for nor welcomed.

sigh.

OK… I’ve stepped away from the PC for a bit, to try and think through the recent posts. Taking a deep breath, let me try again…

Perhaps Br JR was a bit offended that an average joe off the street came here and presumed to lecture him on canon law. Perhaps I wasn’t clear on what I was trying to say, and so it came off brusque and ill-considered. Definitely, I can say that, having read Br JR’s post, it made me feel like he was saying “how dare you deign to speak to me, a religious, in that way!”, and that perception didn’t sit well with me. Certainly, in my follow-up post, I let that emotion get the better of me, and I regret that. Perhaps Br JR’s follow-up post to me was coming from emotion, too.

In any case, here’s what I was trying to say:

Br JR makes the case that a layman who sins against the 6th commandment and later in life becomes a cleric, necessarily would have to be suspended immediately. I’m not a canon lawyer, but based on my studies and reading, that does not seem to be a reasonable interpretation of canon law. (If I’m wrong, please point out what I’m missing.) It is my understanding that this is not the case: canon 18 points out that laws that establish penalties must be interpreted strictly. The canon Br JR is referring to, I believe, is canon 1395 §2, which states:

A cleric who in another way has committed an offense against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, if the delict was committed by force or threats or publicly or with a minor below the age of sixteen years, is to be punished with just penalties, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state if the case so warrants.

This canon speaks to clerics who commit offenses. In the case he raises, Br JR talks about a layman who committed an offense. Therefore, a strict interpretation of the law would seem to be that it cannot be applied in this case: here, there’s no cleric who committed an offense. (In other words, this canon does not apply to a member of the faithful who commits such an offense, and this is precisely the case outlined here.) If the person, following ordination, committed another offense, then 1395 §2 would clearly apply to him.

Now, don’t get me wrong – I’m not arguing for the ordination of men who have a history of sexual offenses against minors. I’m just saying that the reasoning that Br JR gives here seems like it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

 

[Gorgias]

You are being very disrespectful with your comments.
Also, you clearly don’t know who JReducation is!!

Perhaps. And also, maybe I’m misreading his claims or misunderstanding canon law. If so, could someone point me in the right direction and help me see what I’m missing?

 

[TrueLight]

Perhaps. And also, maybe I’m misreading his claims or misunderstanding canon law. If so, could someone point me in the right direction and help me see what I’m missing?

Hi Gorgias,

That’s a better way to respond. I feel bad since I asked Br. Jr. if he would come and respond being that he is a Superior General.

There’s nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone, so I don’t think it is a matter of the laity disagreeing with a religious (and trust me, I don’t believe that laity cannot disagree with religious or a priest). However, by virtue of the state of life, it is always better to respond in a respectful way – more solicitous.

For example, “I’m not sure that I agree with you. I believe that Canon refers to the laity”.

I’m not sure where on the East Coast you’re from, but I know that New Yorkers and New Jerseyans tend to be more blunt.

I’m not here to coach you. I’m just sayin’.

 

[Gorgias]

OK – I went back and did some more research.

Is this a reference to the Dallas Charter? I found the following text in the Charter:

ARTICLE 5. We affirm the words of His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, in his Address to the Cardinals of the United States and Conference Officers: “There is no place in the priesthood or religious life for those who would harm the young.”
Sexual abuse of a minor by a cleric is a crime in the universal law of the Church (CIC, c. 1395 §2; CCEO, c. 1453 §1). Because of the seriousness of this matter, jurisdiction has been reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Motu proprio Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela, AAS 93, 2001). Sexual abuse of a minor is also a crime in all civil jurisdictions in the United States.
Diocesan/eparchial policy is to provide that for even a single act of sexual abuse of a minor—whenever it occurred—which is admitted or established after an appropriate process in accord with canon law, the offending priest or deacon is to be permanently removed from ministry and, if warranted, dismissed from the clerical state.* In keeping with the stated purpose of this Charter, an offending priest or deacon is to be offered therapeutic professional assistance both for the purpose of prevention and also for his own healing and well-being.

(emphasis mine)

OK – so is the Church asserting, with the phrase “whenever it occurred”, that they’ll reach back into a man’s past, prior to his ordination, and dismiss him from the clerical state?

In the June 21, 2004 Issue of America, Cardinal Dulles wrote:

As a general rule, neither civil nor canon law is retroactive. The Code of Canon Law declares that “laws regard the future, not the past, unless they expressly provide for the past” (Canon 9). It seems unjust to apply particular laws created in 2002 to offenses committed long ago, as is now happening. Often priests had in good faith entered into agreements with their bishops that they would be restored to ministry if they underwent therapy and were pronounced cured. In some cases, after many years of unexceptionable service, they were suddenly ejected from ministry in spite of such previous agreements.

At the very least, if we’re talking about acts committed as a layman prior to 2002, then this line of reasoning would seem to hold.

Further, Dulles wrote:

The norms state that the penalties apply to “acts of sexual abuse by a priest or deacon” (Norm 8). But in some cases bishops have treated the norms as if they targeted offenses committed by priests before they entered the seminary or before they were ordained. This is to go beyond the charter, strictly interpreted. It is a well-known principle of canonical jurisprudence that laws establishing penalties or restricting rights are to be interpreted as narrowly as the ordinary meaning of the words permits (Canon 18).

Grisez wrote on this in First Things (March 2005), but deferred to address Dulles’ “criticisms concern[ing] only past offenses.” The Ten-Year Progress Report put out by the National Review Board this past summer repeats the phrase “whenever it occurred”, but doesn’t provide any greater clarity on whether that reaches prior to ordination.

Has anyone else addressed Cardinal Dulles’ concern about “offenses committed by priests before they entered the seminary or before they were ordained”?

G.

 

[JM3]

I’m not a canon lawyer, but based on my studies and reading, that does not seem to be a reasonable interpretation of canon law.

canonlaw.info/a_gordon.htm

if one aspect of the difference between canon law and common law needs {128} to be clearly understood, it is this: Common law is a system of judicial supremacy; canon law is a system of legislative supremacy.

But I also believe that today’s bishops, successors to the Apostles (CCC 77), have enough to do without having to defend their decisions from shoddy attacks that purport to be based on their own laws, and that canon law, like common law, is no place for amateurs.

 

[Gorgias]

But I also believe that today’s bishops, successors to the Apostles (CCC 77), have enough to do without having to defend their decisions from shoddy attacks that purport to be based on their own laws, and that canon law, like common law, is no place for amateurs.

I presume that’s directed at my comments, not at the identical concerns of Cardinal Dulles?

 

[JM3]

Code of Canon Law

Can. 16 §1. The legislator authentically interprets laws as does the one to whom the same legislator has entrusted the power of authentically interpreting.

§2. An authentic interpretation put forth in the form of law has the same force as the law itself and must be promulgated. If it only declares the words of the law which are certain in themselves, it is retroactive; if it restricts or extends the law, or if it explains a doubtful law, it is not retroactive.

§3. An interpretation in the form of a judicial sentence or of an administrative act in a particular matter, however, does not have the force of law and only binds the persons for whom and affects the matters for which it was given.

Can. 17 Ecclesiastical laws must be understood in accord with the proper meaning of the words considered in their text and context. If the meaning remains doubtful and obscure, recourse must be made to parallel places, if there are such, to the purpose and circumstances of the law, and to the mind of the legislator.

 

[iloveangels]

This is the worst idea EV.ER.

 

[LightBound]

This is the worst idea EV.ER.

Now the train is back on track. I agree with you!

 

[JReducation]

OK – I went back and did some more research.

Is this a reference to the Dallas Charter? I found the following text in the Charter:

(emphasis mine)

OK – so is the Church asserting, with the phrase “whenever it occurred”, that they’ll reach back into a man’s past, prior to his ordination, and dismiss him from the clerical state?

In the June 21, 2004 Issue of America, Cardinal Dulles wrote:
At the very least, if we’re talking about acts committed as a layman prior to 2002, then this line of reasoning would seem to hold.

Further, Dulles wrote:

Grisez wrote on this in First Things (March 2005), but deferred to address Dulles’ “criticisms concern[ing] only past offenses.” The Ten-Year Progress Report put out by the National Review Board this past summer repeats the phrase “whenever it occurred”, but doesn’t provide any greater clarity on whether that reaches prior to ordination.

Has anyone else addressed Cardinal Dulles’ concern about “offenses committed by priests before they entered the seminary or before they were ordained”?

G.

I have never seen a statement for the universal Church or even for the Latin Church. The questions have been asked, by bishops and superiors and the responses have been helpful, but they have been situation specific. Maybe, because I have never had to deal with such a case (Praise God), there is some document out that that I have not needed to read. As I said, from the cases that I know, Cardinal Dulles is correct. Bishops and superiors have acted retroactively based on the little information they have on hand.

As I said to a good friend, via PM, I can also understand the hesitation to put something too grand into Canon Law, because of the different civil laws around the world. For example, in some countries such a person is executed. The objective of the Church is to save souls and protect the innocent, not to have people executed. In other countries, the government feels a sense of entitlement over the Church, which is unacceptable as well. No civil government has jurisdiction over the Church. It has jurisdiction over individuals within its borders.

The Church’s laws are meant to guide the Church in her ministry, not to serve as the right hand of civil government. When hierarchy of the Church declines to cooperate with a civil authority, one must also ask how was the approach on the part of the civil authority. If those in civil authority approach a bishop of the Church or a major religious superior as if they had the right to command and demand, they may find themselves being put in their place. If they approach asking for assistance, with the proper respect and courtesy that is due to any human being, especially one who holds a position of authority in the faith (Catholic or other), then it would be reasonable to expect that the subject cooperate as much as he can.

Because this is such an emotionally charged subject, it is very easy to see the one side and forget the other.

This is the worst idea EV.ER.

Which one? You just lost me in downtown Brooklyn.

Oh wait a minute. Is there such a place as downtown Brooklyn?

Addendum: I also want to apologize if my earlier response came across as too sharp. I should have tempered my response.

Just to help some people understand where I am coming from. When I was first asked to work with CAF (I was not superior then), there were many deacons, priests, brothers sisters and seminarians on CAF. Gradually, PMs started to fly around between us. These men and women felt that they did not have the time or the interest. They have other apostolic endeavors, studies, community life and personal lives.

CAF was stealing much of their emotional energy, because online posters seem to feel that every cleric or religious is fair game and that there is immunity in speaking ill of the Church, clergy or religious, as if God did not read posts. There is a sense of sameness that is often confused with equality. While we are all equal in dignity and equally sons and daughters of God, we are not the same. When these conversations take place face to face, the laity is usually much more poised in its questions and assertions. If the layman becomes rude, attacks or calls the integrity, credibility, knowledge or orthodoxy of a cleric or religious into question, he is shown the door and that’s the end of it. There is no room for further conversation. Online, people keep coming back at you, even when you ask them to tone it down or step back.

As a result, there are some clerics, brothers and sisters on CAF who have gone underground. It’s the cyber method of going without a habit . But many more very good men and women have just thrown in the towel and have told the moderators that they will not cooperate with the forum and some superiors have pulled the plug on all online Catholic forums and only allow blogs.

I find this so unfortunate, because the Internet offers such a wonderful opportunity for an exchange of ideas. I also find it interesting, because it happens more with Catholics than with other faiths. Jewish people would not attack a Rabbi on a forum, even the more secular Jews. Our mothers taught us that this is not done. I can’t speak about Protestants. I’ve only had two Protestant friends and know two others, but casually.

Sorry for the PBS announcement and sorry for my sharp tongue (fingers).

Back to our regularly scheduled program.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, FFV

 

[YoungCatholic21]

Certainly they can convert and be good examples within the community of God’s forgiveness and the effect of God’s grace in people’s lives.

The question, though, isn’t whether they’re good people; it’s whether they should be in positions of authority. One might make the argument that, given past history, there are other ways to live one’s life laudably, and that it would be inappropriate to put them in a position in which (1) there might be scandal on the part of the community or worse (2) he might be in a position in which he’s tempted greatly to return to his former sins…

We fear sinners and their influence, for they may corrupt others who are just and good.
It is a question of virtue and purity. Yet, if great sinners can be powerfully converted to be saints, then we cannot discourage them from holy thoughts. Yet, we must see whether they prove themselves worthy by their good conduct.

God Bless!

 

[YoungCatholic21]

God can do anything, including convert a great sinner. But ask yourself this: Would you want a former child rapist around your young child? Whether they’ve been healed or not (and only God knows their heart and intentions). But more important to everyone’s safety, I want to know why someone who committed such a heinous crime is out of prison and in a capacity to join a religious order or become a priest in the first place.

If God only knows their intentions, why do you condemn? I understand why you would not that these sinners be around the children, who are so innocent and trusting. Yet, have compassion, brother! We must simple as doves and shrewd as serpents in deciding these things. Since we are only laymen, we must put ourselves before God’s priests, who are wise in these ways, and pray for the conversion of sinners.

God Bless You and Yours!