NYTimes: Fahr and Benedict.

[lemonbeam]

Of course they’re not. No institution is. but some institutions, because of their rigid hierarchical structure, lack of safeguards, and lack of transparency are much more prone to corruption than others.

I understand that the Catholic church has instituted many safeguards in recent years. But the problem with crimes, sins and errors is that not only are they very destructive, the distrust and hatred they engender lasts a long time. THIS will last a long time. The Catholic church will ‘never’ live it down–not in the lifetime of anyone writing about it. It’s sort of like the Inquisition, which happened centuries ago, but people are still talking about it. We have all done stupid things in school, and realized much later that our reputations are still haunting us, long after we’ve corrected the behavior.

What is happening now is sort of like this, but much, much worse.

I can’t get the YouTube clip from testimony before the Ryan Commission out of my mind:

wikio.co.uk/video/qanda-may-25th—response-report-1179231

Your failing to addressing the fact that Protestant Churches have a higher abuse rate, and we know that because of the data released by insurance agencies that underwrite them.

Catholic Priests are no more likely to abuse than any other Priest from any Christian denomination! That’s a statistical fact, hierarchical stricture or not.

The Protestant Church has had it’s own share of cover ups.

 

[OriginalJS]

JReducation. I think I understand that a religious is a member of a religious order such as Franciscans, Dominicans, etc. However, I do not understand how a diocesan priest is a “secular man.” Perhaps I don’t understand the word “secular” as I associate it with “lay” or “laity.” Can you elucidate?

 

[IHeartBenedict]

I am so troubled as a Catholic right now…

Then you need to read my OP: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=441462

 

[JReducation]

JReducation. I think I understand that a religious is a member of a religious order such as Franciscans, Dominicans, etc. However, I do not understand how a diocesan priest is a “secular man.” Perhaps I don’t understand the word “secular” as I associate it with “lay” or “laity.” Can you elucidate?

In a nutshell there are four classifications and every Catholic falls under two:

lay and cleric: lay is not ordained, cleric is ordained
secular and religious: secular do not make public vows or belong to religious order, reglious make vows and belong to an order

Diocesan priests fall under the category of cleric and secular. The average Catholic in the pew falls under lay and secular. Brothers fall under lay and religious. Regular priests fall under cleric and religious.

Since diocesan priests are secular, they have the same freedomes as any other secular person has, unlike religious who have to follow a rule of life, answer to a superior and live and work among their brothers under their watchful eye. The secular priest works in a ministry, usually a parish. When office hours are over, he can call it quits for the day. Most don’t, just like any other person who is in charge of an institution. But the associates usually do. They also receive a pay check for their work.

In most dioceses diocesan priests are not diocesan employees. They are self-employed. They peay all of their FICA, Social Security and taxes. The diocese provides medical insurance and retirement. Some diocese also reimburse for mileage and supplies. Do you see the secularity of the system now?

Religious do not get paid. Therefore we don’t pay taxes, FICS or SS. We don’t have retirement plans and our medical insurance is paid for by the community with donations. When we work for a diocese we don’t actually work for the bishop. The bishop gives the community a fixed stipend every month, regardless of the number of men. For example, a bishop may say that he will give the religious order the equivalent of two priestly salaries. The religiuos order may assign five men to the house to keep the community life going, but they have to live offf tht income. See the difference.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[spn82756]

In a nutshell there are four classifications and every Catholic falls under two:

lay and cleric: lay is not ordained, cleric is ordained
secular and religious: secular do not make public vows or belong to religious order, reglious make vows and belong to an order

Diocesan priests fall under the category of cleric and secular. The average Catholic in the pew falls under lay and secular. Brothers fall under lay and religious. Regular priests fall under cleric and religious.

Since diocesan priests are secular, they have the same freedomes as any other secular person has, unlike religious who have to follow a rule of life, answer to a superior and live and work among their brothers under their watchful eye. The secular priest works in a ministry, usually a parish. When office hours are over, he can call it quits for the day. Most don’t, just like any other person who is in charge of an institution. But the associates usually do. They also receive a pay check for their work.

In most dioceses diocesan priests are not diocesan employees. They are self-employed. They peay all of their FICA, Social Security and taxes. The diocese provides medical insurance and retirement. Some diocese also reimburse for mileage and supplies. Do you see the secularity of the system now?

Religious do not get paid. Therefore we don’t pay taxes, FICS or SS. We don’t have retirement plans and our medical insurance is paid for by the community with donations. When we work for a diocese we don’t actually work for the bishop. The bishop gives the community a fixed stipend every month, regardless of the number of men. For example, a bishop may say that he will give the religious order the equivalent of two priestly salaries. The religiuos order may assign five men to the house to keep the community life going, but they have to live offf tht income. See the difference.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Thanks so much for that explanation. Sometimes it can get confusing for us lay secular Catholics. Info like you’ve provided helps to enlighten us as to the difference!

 

[JReducation]

Thanks so much for that explanation. Sometimes it can get confusing for us lay secular Catholics. Info like you’ve provided helps to enlighten us as to the difference!

Thank you for asking the question. I believe that this information is important in trying to understand the relationship between a bishop and the priests in his diocese. The bishop is not an abbot and his priests are not friars or monks. The bishop does not have the kind of authority that an Abbot or a Religiuos Superior would have over the individual’s life outside of the actual work.

As a religious, I have to ask for permission to use the car. I have to ask for permission to leave the house. I cannot receive guests inside the enclosure. I don’t have money to spend. I have to ask for it and I have to explain what it’s for. So it’s a little harder to go out and do something bad. If someone is very sick and sneaky, they can always find a way. But the system is designed so that you’re life flows from one thing to another and if you’re missing, someone is going to ask. The kind of person who engages in ilicit activities tries to fly under the radar. The radar in monastic and mendicant orders is stronger. Yet, to our sadness and shock, things still happen. I may be wrong, but I believe that the number of incidents among religious is lower than among secular priests. Someone correct me if I am wrong. I have not actually looked a the statistics. I am basing my statement on the number of complaints.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JKirkLVNV]

The Pontiff is guilty of moral laxity if not outright cowardice. And he is my Pope.

I feel I am at the brink of a personal, spiritual crisis.

I won’t say “don’t be troubled,” as that’s easier said than done. To NOT be troubled would be a sign of callousness, anyway.

But ask yourself this: “Why am I a Catholic?” I’ve had to ask myself that more than once. Let me say it this way, “Why are WE Catholic?” Is it because we loved John Paul II? John XXIII? The Liturgy? The charism of a particular community or a particular vowed religious? Or are we Catholics because we believe it is the Truth? I remain a Catholic beause I don’t see another alternative. Either our Blessed Lord is to be trusted when He said such things as “Whatsoever you shall bind shall be bound in Heaven” and “I will send you the Holy Spirit, Who will lead you into all truth” and “Receive the Holy Spirit; whosoever sins you shall forgive shall be forgiven them” or He isn’t to be trusted. If He is to be trusted, then from the conflicts of the Council of Jerusalem to the conflicts of the Second Vatican Council, from Peter the Rock’s denial of Christ to possibly Pope John Paul II’s/Pope Benedict’s failure to act to protect children (I pray it isn’t so), He is still to be trusted. We’ve had saintly popes, we’ve had good popes, we’ve had rotten popes, we’ve had popes who were wicked sinners, but good administrators, and we’ve had popes who were holy saints of God who couldn’t practially administer their way out of a wet paper bag. The Church, however, has endured, and, by His promise, will continue to endure until He comes in His Glory. That’s what we have to trust.

 

[JReducation]

I won’t say “don’t be troubled,” as that’s easier said than done. To NOT be troubled would be a sign of callousness, anyway.

But ask yourself this: “Why am I a Catholic?” I’ve had to ask myself that more than once. Let me say it this way, “Why are WE Catholic?” Is it because we loved John Paul II? John XXIII? The Liturgy? The charism of a particular community or a particular vowed religious? Or are we Catholics because we believe it is the Truth? I remain a Catholic beause I don’t see another alternative. Either our Blessed Lord is to be trusted when He said such things as “Whatsoever you shall bind shall be bound in Heaven” and “I will send you the Holy Spirit, Who will lead you into all truth” and “Receive the Holy Spirit; whosoever sins you shall forgive shall be forgiven them” or He isn’t to be trusted. If He is to be trusted, then from the conflicts of the Council of Jerusalem to the conflicts of the Second Vatican Council, from Peter the Rock’s denial of Christ to possibly Pope John Paul II’s/Pope Benedict’s failure to act to protect children (I pray it isn’t so), He is still to be trusted. We’ve had saintly popes, we’ve had good popes, we’ve had rotten popes, we’ve had popes who were wicked sinners, but good administrators, and we’ve had popes who were holy saints of God who couldn’t practially administer their way out of a wet paper bag. The Church, however, has endured, and, by His promise, will continue to endure until He comes in His Glory. That’s what we have to trust.

This is well stated.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF