How Should the Church Deal with Allegations of Sexual Impropriety Against Clergy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fair_Lady
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
kage_ar said:
Your poll does not have the option I choose, to follow the procedures that are in place.

If you are in the US, you can read the US policy at www.usccb.org, your Diocese policy at your Diocese web site.
Click to expand...
I totally agree. The policy for these things have been in place now for a bit. There is a nice PDF format of pretty much the whole thing here.
Fair_Lady said:
What if the clergy was having a relationship with someone who is of age and by mutual consent? Would that not be against church law?
Click to expand...
If a priest has relationships with someone of age and mutual consent I agree that he should be reprimanded. But the gravity of the reprimand may not be as harsh as if it had been a minor. My reason for saying that is because the question of abuse is removed, especially if it was a consensual relationship with another adult. His actions would be against his state of life and they would obviously be a source of major scandal. In the case with another adult I think that the priest should definitely be removed from that parish.

Either way, the infidelity of a priest is a scandal - one is definitely worse than the other if a minor is involved - but both are bad. The priest may face similar repercussions as a priest who is guilty of abuse. In any case the priest guilty of either has not put himself in a good position.

So please, please, please pray for your priests daily; that we can always be the holy men we need to be.
 
Thank you, Father, for your comments. I am thrilled when I see religious participating on CAF! (And I look forward to reading your well-designed blog.)

May God bless you.

.
 
Langdell said:
I voted for the third one. But I don’t have a problem with the Church allowing a priest to remain ordained as long as he is removed from any position where he would have access to children, and as long as his past conduct is not hidden from those supervising him wherever he may be.

I would have voted for the first one if it were less vague. I wouldn’t report anyone to the police when it merely appears that the person possibly broke the law. But I think the Church should report to police when someone in a responsible position concludes that a priest probably did break the law. I think that actually is the rule now in U.S. dioceses.

.
Click to expand...
Most states have laws in place that the person must be reported, to not do so would be breaking the law. The only area that is a little fuzzy is confession, but there are procedures and laws put in place for that.
 
Langdell said:
Let’s take an example: you, the monsignor of your parish, see one of your priests coming out of the otherwise empty sacristy with his arm around the shoulders of a teenage boy. The boy looks sad and nervous. The priest gives him a hug, and they walk their separate ways.

Based on that event, it appears that the priest possibly has had criminal contact with the boy. So are you going to call the police?

I don’t know about your country, but in the U.S., if you call the police with a suspicion like that, you could easily be setting in motion a chain of events that could ruin the life of an innocent man, with no substantial evidence.

.
Click to expand...
Point well taken. To clarify, option number one would have to do with more than mere suspicion. There would need to be an allegation of wrongdoing from the victim or from a witness before proceeding with taking the matter to police.
 
Hiskid1973 said:
Something I always wondered is, why so much/many kept quiet for so long…Makes me wonder what still is covered up…The impropriety of leadership is just as damaging to the church as the acts/perpetrators themselves…Couldn’t these people have been put out of the church like they did in Corinth? None are without sin but leadership even more so is accountable…Give an example: Recently our assistant pastor was put out of the church…He was counseling a lady who was going through a divorce who worked in our daycare…Church rules state third party when opposite sex…He chose to “help” her on the side and was spotted by a member while they were out about town…Our bishop pastor met, he was called in and was confronted about it…He was offered rectify the situation, repentance/counciling and allowed back as a member but not in leadership…He chose to reject council and ran off with the woman…Within a weeks period he was gone…People were shocked and saddened as he was a very loving and caring man…We still keep him in prayer…Sin in crouching at our door no matter if we are leadership or layman…peace to you…
Click to expand...
it sounds like your church handled the matter as instructed in scripture. It is so sad when this happens within a church.
 
Langdell said:
I voted for the third one. But I don’t have a problem with the Church allowing a priest to remain ordained as long as he is removed from any position where he would have access to children, and as long as his past conduct is not hidden from those supervising him wherever he may be.

.
Click to expand...
About allowing a priest to remain ordained, Shouldn’t a church hold their clergy to a higher standard than that?

Not many people have voted but it’s nice to see that of the ones that did, it appears the majority take this very seriously.
 
The answer is right there in 1 Timothy 5, for anyone who wants to know how to handle it. It’s been there for 2000 years, but the bishops don’t seem to want to see it.
**
1 Timothy 5:19-21:**

19 Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses.
**
20** Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning.

21 I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, to keep these instructions without partiality, and to do nothing out of favoritism.
 
  1. every priest and bishop should be put on notice, as to what their responsibilities are to observe other priests and report any wrongdoing (sexual abuse or whatever). Failure to accept this responsibility should be equivalent to a resignation. Criminal matters of wrongdoing should be reported immediately to civil authorities.
  2. There should be 100% psychological testing of priests and bishops to determine if there are any with active mental disease, which would prevent them from carrying out their priestly duty. Failure to comply should be equivalent to a resignation.
  3. The suspension of a priest from active ministry should be automatic for any violation of church or civil law. Laicization from priestly ministry should be considered.
  4. Any priest or bishop should have the authority to suspend another priest or bishop from ministry, for sexual abuse, sexual wrongdoing (homosexual activity), or other infraction of church or civil authority. Homosexual activity is inconsistent with priestly ministry.
I guess these rules would be my starting point, but we can discuss this, of course.
 
I agree with what Fr. John Gow said. Automatic removal from position when it is without a doubt true they are guilty of abusing a child. No shuffling them to another district: They are no longer to be priests in the church, ever again. I understand that we must be forgiving, but we must also be smart about it.

As for a priest that is found to be having a consensual relationship with an adult female, while they definitely must be removed from their position at that parish, I am not sure that they necessarily are not to preform the role of a priest from that point on. Maybe suspend them for a while, but I don’t think they should be stripped of their priesthood.
 
Hiskid1973 said:
I just stumbled on this at a news website I go to. Man MSM will go rabid again if they get a scent of this:
hiddenfromhistory.org/RecentUpdatesampArticles/Mar212010InternationalMediaAdvisory/tabid/120/Default.aspx

Anyone hear anything about this?
Click to expand...
Just read it now. I think accusing the Pope is stretching a long way, for publicity sake for sure.

I don’t know how such a thing could happen. It certainly is not a policy of the Church or of any diocese or religious order. If anyone had known what was going on, it would have been stopped immediately.

I know so little about this story, it would seem to be matter of genocide, at some level.
 
How about:

'That horrible crime, on account of which corrupt and obscene cities were destroyed by fire through divine condemnation, causes us most bitter sorrow and shocks our mind, impelling us to repress such a crime with the greatest possible zeal.

Quite opportunely the Fifth Lateran Council [1512-1517] issued this decree: “Let any member of the clergy caught in that vice against nature, given that the wrath of God falls over the sons of perfidy, be removed from the clerical order or forced to do penance in a monastery” (chap. 4, X, V, 31).

So that the contagion of such a grave offense may not advance with greater audacity by taking advantage of impunity, which is the greatest incitement to sin, and so as to more severely punish the clerics who are guilty of this nefarious crime and who are not frightened by the death of their souls, we determine that they should be handed over to the severity of the secular authority, which enforces civil law.

Therefore, wishing to pursue with greater rigor than we have exerted since the beginning of our pontificate, we establish that any priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who commits such an execrable crime, by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge,*** let him be immediately delivered to the secular authority to be put to death***, *as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for **laymen *who have sunk into this abyss.’

Pope St. Pius V (Constitution Horrendum illud scelus)

‘All passions are dishonorable, for the soul is even more prejudiced and degraded by sin than is the body by disease; but the worst of all passions is lust between men. . . when God abandons a man, everything is turned upside down! Therefore, not only are their passions satanic, but their lives are diabolic. A murderer only separates the soul from the body, whereas these destroy the soul inside the body. . . There is nothing, absolutely nothing more mad or damaging than this perversity.’

St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop, Father and Doctor of the Church

‘Brimstone calls to mind the foul odors of the flesh, as Sacred Scripture itself confirms when it speaks of the rain of fire and brimstone poured by the Lord upon Sodom. He had decided to punish in it the crimes of the flesh, and the very type of punishment emphasized the shame of that crime, since brimstone exhales stench and fire burns. It was, therefore, just that the sodomites, burning with perverse desires that originated from the foul odor of flesh, should perish at the same time by fire and brimstone so that through this just chastisement they might realize the evil perpetrated under the impulse of a perverse desire.’

Pope St. Gregory the Great

A truly great pope and saint.

‘This vice disturbs the intellect, breaks an elevated and generous state of soul, drags great thoughts to petty ones, makes [men] pusillanimous and irascible, obstinate and hardened, servilely soft and incapable of anything . . . Someone who lived practicing the vice of sodomy will suffer more pains in Hell than anyone else, because this is the worst sin that there is.’

St. Bernardine of Siena
 
I believe that the priest should be stripped of his title since he’s not worthy of it and then put in jail if found guilty.However,I know I’m supposed to forgive them even if this cold,unforgiving heart of mine makes it hard for me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top