How do future child molesters get through seminary?

[GiftofMercy]

Here is an interesting fact about Australian Seminaries in the 70’s and 80’s. People in attendance stopped praying the Rosary, they stopped different devotions like Way of the Cross. In one Seminary in Brisbane, its people, its future priests, were actually forbidden praying the Rosary. It was against Seminary rules. Australia experienced a lot of child sex abuse over the generations of the 20th Century.

Guess who cleaned up this rule of no Rosary and lack of devotions in Seminary -Cardinal Pell.

 

[otjm]

Do you think these adults woke up one day and decided to begin harming children?

do you have evidence that they were abusing anyone while a teenager? It isn’t in the john Jay report as best I know. and I am not speculating - which was what was being done.

Why do you assume I am presuming this? I didn’t say anything about this, so I’m not sure where that came from.

Your prior statement started “Chances are”. Other than your guessing, what is your evidence; or are you just speculating? and you are saying "o why were their parents not able to deal with it (which is apparently your speculation they were abusing someone as a teenager) and stop them from entering the seminary? Was it a time before the crisis?

You have speculated ("chances are’ ) and then you roll it out that somehow the parents are going to know their son is abusing others, and then with all this knowledge, you ask why the parents didn’t prevent the child from entering the seminary.

Please provide some evidence that the priest abusers were a) abusing as teenagers (given that they have SSA, they would have been abusing boys) with no evidence than it has been shown that any of the boys abused anyone else.

I know of no cases of reported abuse which identified an abusing priest of having abused anyone while that priest was a teenager, so I am asking why you are speculating they were abusing as a teenager.

Further, many of the reported allegations of abuse are from victims who were abused years to decades ago. some of the victims reported while they were children, but the reports were that the abuse was by an adult priest.

Do you have evidence of any studies which have shown that the abusing priests were abusers as teenagers? And do you have any reports that the parents knew of this? The cases would have been in juvenile court, with the possible exception of egregious cases where an abuser of 16 to 18 may have been tried as an adult. Source please?

I would suggest that there is neither evidence that any of the abusing priest abused other children when they were teenagers, and further, there was no knowledge on the part of any parents to cause the parents to try to stop the individual from entering the seminary.

There were parents who went to the bishops because their children were abused by a priest; but that is not what you alleged. My comment was that many of the priests who abused were ordained decades ago, a time where sexual abuse was little acknowledged. And the stories from victims years later have often been one that they shared with no one, including their parents.

 

[otjm]

Correlation is not causation. Someone with SSA has a terrible burden to carry, and those who act out are not going to be dissuaded by saying a rosary. while the rule (assuming it is not apocryphal) is beyond ridiculous, it has nothing to do with an individual who has SSA with the subset of being overly sexually attracted to post pubescent boys.

The issue of banning saying the rosary may reveal other issues, but there were plenty of men ordained in the 1940’s, 50’s and 60’s in seminaries which did not ban saying the rosary, who later abused children.

 

[otjm]

As I have noted in a pot above, I leave it to others to identify programs/tests/other forms of identifying someone who has SSA; that rule came down from Pope Benedict and I would presume he would not make a rule unless he felt there were adequate means of identifying people with SSA. what those means are I am not familiar, but it is my understanding that seminaries are making some attempt to comply.

And it is my understanding that SSA was removed in 1973, by the Psychiatric association from the manual of mental illnesses. That might make for a different thread, but it is my understanding that neither SSA or its subset of strong sexual attraction to post pubescent males is considered a mental illness. True pedophilia may be; it is outside my knowledge.

I may not have a dog in the fight, but several years ago my parish suffered the issue with a young priest; for whatever method the seminary has for screening, he managed to slip through.

He had a perverted interest in children; he also was very reverent in saying Mass. Go figure; as I noted, certainly not all who have a problem are obvious. He wasn’t obvious at all.

 

[GiftofMercy]

Correlation is not causation. Someone with SSA has a terrible burden to carry, and those who act out are not going to be dissuaded by saying a rosary. while the rule (assuming it is not apocryphal) is beyond ridiculous, it has nothing to do with an individual who has SSA with the subset of being overly sexually attracted to post pubescent boys.

How does this relate to my post in any way? A thorough read of my post will reveal I have not mentioned homosexuality at all, same sex attraction or the like.

The issue of banning saying the rosary may reveal other issues, but there were plenty of men ordained in the 1940’s, 50’s and 60’s in seminaries which did not ban saying the rosary, who later abused children.

You have missed my point entirely. The post was directed to the OP, and not to your discussion with others.

 

[Maximus1]

I don’t think I wrote that, but if I did, I didn’t mean it.
The abuse we are talking about happened with priests. Certainly older.
I don’t know either way about the priests youth.

 

[goout]

1. why do you presume that a molested child will tell the parents? And assuming a child did, why do you think the parents would understand what they are being told?

Exactly. And this is the core of this hideous evil. A Catholic priest is a spiritual father and authority figure. In the past that authority could be greatly exaggerated. A rotten clerical culture allowed this to happen and perpetuated the protective silence on behalf of the abuser.
A victim in the face of such idolization has little chance at validation.

“Surely Father could never do such a thing.”
" My parents will never believe me." (I know someone who’s parents refused to believe their own child against a trusted priest. This is sick.)
“Maybe God really condones my victimhood, cause after all it’s Father, and everyone loves him. The whole Church is on his side”.

This comes out of a warped culture that needs the light of day shone on it, and needs to be changed where it can be changed. It’s not enough to simply conduct a better dysfunction. Dysfunction and warped culture are not acceptable. Jesus doesn’t ask for our second best, most comfortable effort.

 

[whatistrue]

If they’re a true alcoholic?

What does this even mean? Alcoholism doesn’t manifest the same way in everyone, and you can’t always tell who is an alcoholic, even an active alcoholic, from the outside.

 

[PetraG]

I may not have a dog in the fight, but several years ago my parish suffered the issue with a young priest; for whatever method the seminary has for screening, he managed to slip through.

He had a perverted interest in children; he also was very reverent in saying Mass. Go figure; as I noted, certainly not all who have a problem are obvious. He wasn’t obvious at all.

This does happen

And it is my understanding that SSA was removed in 1973, by the Psychiatric association from the manual of mental illnesses. That might make for a different thread, but it is my understanding that neither SSA or its subset of strong sexual attraction to post pubescent males is considered a mental illness. True pedophilia may be; it is outside my knowledge.

The science of psychology does not relegate all morally-disordered inclinations to the status of mental illnesses.
According to the DSM, a mental disorder is:

1. A behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual
2. Reflects an underlying psychobiological dysfunction
3. The consequences of which are clinically significant distress (e.g., a painful symptom) or disability (i.e., impairment in one or more important areas of functioning)
4. Must not be merely an expected response to common stressors and losses (ex. the loss of a loved one) or a culturally sanctioned response to a particular event (ex. trance states in religious rituals)
5. Primarily a result of social deviance or conflicts with society

In other words, in the US the American Psychiatric Association gets to decide what behaviors deviate from what they think the societal norm is and therefore which ones are going to cause conflicts with society. That puts them in a political position, whether they like it or not. If NAMBLA had its way, I doubt that pedophilia would be considered a mental disorder or that acting on the inclination would be automatically illegal but luckily we haven’t gone that far over the edge yet.

Having said that, there is no reason that every impulse that inclines one to disordered moral choices ought to be considered a mental disorder. A system of classifying human behaviors and inclinations that makes essentially everyone mentally disordered isn’t very useful.

For the purpose of our thread, it is not a mental disorder to be incapable of maintaining a lifetime of chastity without being allowed to marry. Not having that capacity would disqualify seminarian candidates who want to be ordained Catholic priests, however. Just because someone is not ordained does not mean he must be either mentally disordered or academically inept or that there is anything seriously “wrong” with him. Most men do not have a vocation to the priesthood, after all.

 

[otjm]

For the purpose of our thread, it is not a mental disorder to be incapable of maintaining a lifetime of chastity without being allowed to marry.

Agreed.

Not having that capacity would disqualify seminarian candidates who want to be ordained Catholic priests, however.

Agreed; but “not having the capacity” is a matter of lack of will; I have no idea how one screens for that. Whether a priest is heterosexual or homosexual, there likely will be temptations. And if homosexual, some have a strong attraction to post puberty boys. The difference between one tempted who does not fall and one who does - that I am not sure any psychologist or psychiatrist can define. One possible way of stopping the abuse is to follow strictly Benedict 16’s rule; and I don’t know how accurately those two disciplines can sort that issue out. It is way above my pay-grade.

Just because someone is not ordained does not mean he must be either mentally disordered or academically inept or that there is anything seriously “wrong” with him. Most men do not have a vocation to the priesthood, after all.

well, that is a relief, since I only spent 2 years in seminary college!

 

[otjm]

Mentioning that a seminary ruled no one was to say the rosary and within about the same breath mentioning the high number of sexual abuse cases either indicates you are implying that the rule had some impact on the sexual abuses by priests, or will easily lead others to that conclusion.

I consider any such rule to be idiotic; the rosary is the most loved and practiced private devotion in the Church. Putting the two together in a comment concerning sexual abuse implies or can be take to imply something which is simply not true.

As to being directed to the OP, the OP stated that the men who have abused “have no spiritual life”, a comment that is egregious, unwarranted, and with no evidence whatsoever. Some of them may have no spiritual life; others have a spiritual life - as do many other people who commit other mortal sins. The abusing priests who have a spiritual life are conflicted, just as is any other individual who has a spiritual life and commits sin.

 

[commenter]

In the 1970s there was a sustained effort to force the APA to declassify homosexuality as a mental disorder. There was vandalism, bomb threats, etc, against the APA itself, against individuals, against any hotels or vendors used by the APA. There was no research to support the change.

The APA decided they couldn’t sacrifice every operation to defend this issue, so they surrendered. Since then, researchers who find evidence it might be consistent with mental Illness have their offices trashed.

 

[GiftofMercy]

mentioning that a seminary ruled no one was to say the rosary and within about the same breath mentioning the high number of sexual abuse cases either indicates you are implying that the rule had some impact on the sexual abuses by priests, or will easily lead others to that conclusion.

I will repeat my post your revision.

Here is an interesting fact about Australian Seminaries in the 70’s and 80’s. People in attendance stopped praying the Rosary, they stopped different devotions like Way of the Cross. In one Seminary in Brisbane, its people, its future priests, were actually forbidden praying the Rosary. It was against Seminary rules. Australia experienced a lot of child sex abuse over the generations of the 20th Century.

Guess who cleaned up this rule of no Rosary and lack of devotions in Seminary -Cardinal Pell.

Now let me repeat the OP

They clearly have no spiritual life or maturity. Isn’t that exactly what priests must have?

You’d think their rottenness would manifest in seminary in ways their superiors would see.

I don’t know much about seminaries but I hope they are not ordaining priests based on theology scantron tests.

I can discuss spiritual life and maturity in this context and the topic the OP has for this thread.

‘how do future child molesters get through seminary’

And in fact, where else in this thread is the concept of spiritual life or maturity discussed .

 

[GiftofMercy]

Let me discuss the words of a Priest recently, ’ many of us stopped praying the Rosary and other devotions in the 70’s 80’s 90’s’

This Priest was ordained mid 60’s. He was in Rome with a group of Priests working on a project. They were invited to concelebrate mass with St Pope John Paul II . 60 priests. The Pope gave them all a gift each. A Rosary. This particular priest took it as a hint and started the Rosary again.

It seems people are going way off topic and down a rabbit hole with the SSA discussion.

 

[PetraG]

Agreed; but “not having the capacity” is a matter of lack of will; I have no idea how one screens for that.

Self-mastery is definitely a necessary qualification for the priesthood, but I don’t think being suited to a lifetime of celibacy really is a matter of lack of will. St. Paul said it is better to marry than to be on fire, and he was right. He did not tell people to just get a grip and master themselves, but said that one was given this gift and another a different gift. The Lord didn’t set up the universe so that every man who was destined to become a saint was also suitable for the priesthood.

well, that is a relief, since I only spent 2 years in seminary college!

Well, you could have decided that you had the capacity but not the vocation. I mean that being found to not have the capacity doesn’t mean that a candidate isn’t a very holy and gifted man. There are gifts needed to be a priest, and having different gifts in spite of having a desire to be a priest is no sin. After all, there are many very holy and gifted women with all of the academic acumen and many of the other capacities that a priest needs to have, and ordination is impossible for them, too. There are even men who might have initially seemed marginal in the “gifts” department who prove to be very good priests, for that matter. With God’s help, it is amazing what people can become. (Remember the process by which all of Jesse’s older sons were passed over by Samuel in favor of the absent David.)

 

[commenter]

Priests are scrutinized now.
You can go onto Google and see the volume of claims and lawsuits everywhere on the globe. They are rare. The sheer volume of cases reported tells you the church has a bunch

No, even 50 years ago parish priest were closely scrutinized, far more than other single professional.

I “see Father got a fancy car. Father’s going on vacation again, to X. Father is gaining weight. Father is close friends with Y. Where did Father go last week on his day off? I’ll ask around.”

Haven’t you ever lived in a gossipy parish? Would you want to live in a rectory, with parish offices downstairs, Snoopy neighbors, visitors at all hours?

This is, and always was, a poor place to “hide.”

 

[jack63]

No, even 50 years ago parish priest were closely scrutinized, far more than other single professional.

I “see Father got a fancy car. Father’s going on vacation again, to X. Father is gaining weight. Father is close friends with Y. Where did Father go last week on his day off? I’ll ask around.”

Haven’t you ever lived in a gossipy parish? Would you want to live in a rectory, with parish offices downstairs, Snoopy neighbors, visitors at all hours?

This is, and always was, a poor place to “hide.”

I hear what you are saying; however, why did all of the abuse occur then? It seems like priests were being scrutinized, but not when and where we needed it.

 

[John10]

Unfortunately that is not always the case. We are not God, we only have partial knowledge of people, just a murders still occur despite the many safeguards and safety measures we put in place.

Having said that the Church has strengthen a lot it processes to prevent child molesters from becoming priests or remaining in the seminary.

We must also pray so that the Church remains strong.

 

[otjm]

Spiritual life is not defined by whether or not one says the rosary or the Way of the Cross. It may or may not be part of a spiritual life but does not define one. And the OP’s statement is pure speculation on the OP’s part, with no evidence whatsoever. The OP goes backwards from facts (the abuses) to make a statement as fact - but it is not a fact… It is speculation, pure and simple.

You are most welcome to discuss what you think may be the problem, but unless you have some evidence to back your discussion, it is plainly and purely nothing but speculation.

 

[commenter]

commenter:

No, even 50 years ago parish priest were closely scrutinized, far more than other single professional.

I “see Father got a fancy car. Father’s going on vacation again, to X. Father is gaining weight. Father is close friends with Y. Where did Father go last week on his day off? I’ll ask around.”

Haven’t you ever lived in a gossipy parish? Would you want to live in a rectory, with parish offices downstairs, Snoopy neighbors, visitors at all hours?

This is, and always was, a poor place to “hide.”

I hear what you are saying; however, why did all of the abuse occur then? It seems like priests were being scrutinized, but not when and where we needed it.

True. But this is not unique to priests. Sex abuse allegations are far, far more common than people realize.

To put it another way, the RCC itself is being scrutinized 100 times more intensely than other systems. This in no way condoned the despicable, stupid way my own diocesan “leaders” handled the cases. But that’s the only system getting real scrutiny.