Possible untapped way to defend the church against the abuse scandals?

[Harry123]

According to psychologists, a person knows they are a pedophile when they are a teenager:

Pedophilia emerges before or during puberty, and is stable over time. It is self-discovered, not chosen.
(Source: Pedophilia - Wikipedia )

This means that a person knows they are a pedophile before they become a priest, and are arguably becoming a priest simply as a means of getting close to children. If a man joins the priesthood simply in order to get close to children, and are lying on their ordination day when they are made a priest, then is the person really a priest at all? And any sacraments he subsequently gives invalid?

Should we be correcting people/the media when they use the term “pedophile priest” and instead make them use a term like “a pedophile who was pretending to be a priest”.

 

[Crocus]

We probably don’t have any influence over the adjectives people use, whether for teachers, coaches, scout leaders, fathers/mothers of families, counsellors, or priests.

A man ordained to the priesthood, is an actual priest, regardless of his personal sin, whatever kind of sin that may be. He is ordained to administer the sacraments in the person of Christ. The sacraments are valid, despite the unworthiness of the servant.

 

[TheLittleLady]

pedophile

To clarify terms, most of the scandal cases are ephebophilia.

And any sacraments he subsequently gives invalid?

This idea is a defined heresy, Donatism.

"By denying the intrinsic efficacy of the sacraments the Donatists claimed the sacraments could be celebrated validly only by those in the state of grace. "

Donatism | Catholic Answers Magazine

The thing is, priests fall into sin, even Christ’s own apostles had a Judas.

 

[Crocus]

that’s a difficult word to pronounce. Can’t see too many willingly picking it up in every day language.

 

[TechieGuy]

No True Scotsman

 

[Gorgias]

According to psychologists, a person knows they are a pedophile when they are a teenager:

Pedophilia emerges before or during puberty, and is stable over time. It is self-discovered, not chosen.

I would recommend that you read the John Jay Report (actually, its title is “The Nature and Scope of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the US, 1950-2002”). It does a much better job discussing the issue than Wiki does.

This means that a person knows they are a pedophile before they become a priest, and are arguably becoming a priest simply as a means of getting close to children.

That’s an awful broad brush you’re painting with there, Tex!

For some, that might be the case. For others, it’s a cross they’re attempting to carry faithfully. For yet others, their actions are not “stable over time”, but are the result of tensions, anxieties, and situations in which they find themselves. In short, the assessment that they’re “becoming a priest simply as a means of getting close to children” and “are lying on their ordination day” are patently false.

So, we can’t respond with a simple, dismissive comment that “they’re not really a valid priest.”

This idea is a defined heresy, Donatism.

No, @Harry123 is making a different sort of argument. He’s arguing that these men entered the priesthood deceptively, never intending to be priests, but only intending to gain access to children. That’s different than the claim that priests in mortal sin do not confect the sacraments validly.

 

[EricF]

Just no. There is no defense of this. We own it and we humbly need to fix it, however long it takes. Anything else is just making excuses.

 

[TheLittleLady]

No, @Harry123 is making a different sort of argument. He’s arguing that these men entered the priesthood deceptively, never intending to be priests, but only intending to gain access to children. That’s different than the claim that priests in mortal sin do not confect the sacraments validly.

Actually, I was responding to the line I quoted:

And any sacraments he subsequently gives invalid?

 

[Gorgias]

Actually, I was responding to the line I quoted:

Harry123:

And any sacraments he subsequently gives invalid?

I know you were.

The problem wasn’t this question, but rather, the premise that you presumed.

 

[Hodos]

No, because changing the verbiage of whether the person was or was not a priest doesn’t heal the damage already done to the victims, nor does it re-instill trust in the priesthood. Additionally, the sacraments are valid, even if the person administering the sacraments is not faithful. It isn’t the priest performing the action, but God performs the action and is efficacious to the one receiving the sacrament through faith. I think in the long run, your means of “defending the church against the scandals” would only make the Church’s response more scandalous. The best thing the Church could do is own up to the abuse, and repent. The question that needs to be asked is not how we cover up once the deed has been done, but what can be done to prevent it in the first place, what can be done to report abuse and get rid of abusive priests that are already in or will be in the clerical ranks in the future, and if it does happen to provide a ministry to support the victims of abuse.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

I do not think the secular world will care about an “invalidity” due to Church laws. It happened in a Catholic Church is all they will care about.

 

[1ke]

According to psychologists, a person knows they are a pedophile when they are a teenager:

Well, Harry, the priest abuse scandal isn’t about pedophelia by and large.

If a man joins the priesthood simply in order to get close to children, and are lying on their ordination day when they are made a priest, then is the person really a priest at all?

Yes.

And any sacraments he subsequently gives invalid?

No.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

Harry123:

According to psychologists, a person knows they are a pedophile when they are a teenager:

Well, Harry, the priest abuse scandal isn’t about pedophelia by and large.

If a man joins the priesthood simply in order to get close to children, and are lying on their ordination day when they are made a priest, then is the person really a priest at all?

Yes.

And any sacraments he subsequently gives invalid?

No.

I do wonder about the legalism of Point 2. Marriages are annulled for the same reason, vows given under a false pretense.

 

[PennyinCanada]

If it comes up in conversation, I like the word ‘Imposter’.
Christ spoke of wolves in sheeps’ clothing, coming in and scattering the sheep.

These are the guys around my city who pulled out the kneelers and told the faithful to stand. They said it was time to renovate, so they removed the crucifix, the statues, the stations of the cross, the tabernacle, and they did not come back. The stone altar was put outside to be used as the sign for the church, the name etched on it. Confessions became by appointment only. And so on. The faithful knew something was terribly wrong and complaints went unheard. What do you think? Does the word ‘imposter’ fits the situation?

 

[phil19034]

I do wonder about the legalism of Point 2. Marriages are annulled for the same reason, vows given under a false pretense.

While both Marriage and Holy Orders are both Sacraments of Service, they differ because of who is ministering the sacrament.

When a priest is ordained, the Bishop is the minister of the Sacrament. The new priest receives the mark on his soul, just like in Baptism and Confirmation. But it’s done by God though the bishop.

The reason marriage is different and can be invalid is because the (according to Latin theology) Bride and Groom are the ministers of the sacrament. The Deacon, Priest or Bishop only witnesses on behalf of the Church, plus the two required witnesses from community.

If the Bride or Groom doesn’t intend his/her vows or if the Bride or Groom are impeded for some reason, then the sacrament doesn’t take hold.

So the invalidity in your scenero isn’t because of the recipient, but due to the minister’s lack of intent.

I’m sure I might have have some theological holes in my explanation, but my point is that while both Marriage and Holy Orders are both Sacraments of Service, they are administered differently.

I hope this helps.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

Thank you for the clarification. That makes sense.

 

[Gorgias]

When a priest is ordained, the Bishop is the minister of the Sacrament. The new priest receives the mark on his soul, just like in Baptism and Confirmation. But it’s done by God though the bishop.

The reason marriage is different and can be invalid is because…

So the invalidity in your scenero isn’t because of the recipient, but due to the minister’s lack of intent.

Actually, a priestly ordination can be later found to be invalid, by virtue not of the bishop’s actions, but because of the man himself (and his intent). It is so extraordinarily uncommon that it almost doesn’t deserve mention, but there are a few reasons an ordination is invalid (most are impediments). One, IIRC, is that the man does not intend to be ordained (which, to tell the truth, is quite a stretch). Note that the OP’s suggestion – that the man intends to molest children – doesn’t rise to this standard; the man (putatively) really does wish to be ordained, but for the purpose of gaining access to children.

So, in the final analysis, the OP’s suggestion doesn’t really hold water.

 

[Zaccheus]

Should we be correcting people/the media when they use the term “pedophile priest” and instead make them use a term like “a pedophile who was pretending to be a priest”.

I think that argument would be shouted down with accusations of excuse-making.
Also I doubt such a deception would make the ordination invalid.
And thirdly, I suspect at least some such men seek ordination in hopes of resisting the urge, not in hopes of opportunities to indulge it.
(Not that I think anyone should take Holy Orders for that reason, but I think sometimes it does happen.)

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

When a priest is ordained, the Bishop is the minister of the Sacrament. The new priest receives the mark on his soul, just like in Baptism and Confirmation. But it’s done by God though the bishop.

The reason marriage is different and can be invalid is because…

So the invalidity in your scenero isn’t because of the recipient, but due to the minister’s lack of intent.

Actually, a priestly ordination can be later found to be invalid, by virtue not of the bishop’s actions, but because of the man himself (and his intent). It is so extraordinarily uncommon that it almost doesn’t deserve mention, but there are a few reasons an ordination is invalid (most are impediments). One, IIRC, is that the man does not intend to be ordained (which, to tell the truth, is quite a stretch). Note that the OP’s suggestion – that the man intends to molest children – doesn’t rise to this standard; the man (putatively) really does wish to be ordained, but for the purpose of gaining access to children.

So, in the final analysis, the OP’s suggestion doesn’t really hold water.

Thanks for filling in my holes

 

[FiveLinden]

I don’t know why people think there is some importance as to whether an abused child is pre- or post-pubescent but to clarify the claim made above by TheLittleLady, it is by no means established that ‘most of the scandal cases are ephebophilia’, that is, committed against children who are post pubescent. To take one example, the Australian Royal Commission (probably the most exhaustive and fair examination of institutional abuse), put the average age of victims it heard from involving Catholic institutions at 10.4 years old. Here (below) is what the Royal Commission said about Catholic institutions. No Church authority has criticised these figures as inaccurate to my knowledge and the report as a whole (not in every recommendation) has been accepted by the Australian Bishops.

“As of 31 May 2017, of the 4,029 survivors who told us during private sessions about child sexual abuse in religious institutions, 2,489 survivors (61.8 per cent) told us about abuse in Catholic institutions. The majority (73.9 per cent) were male and 25.9 per cent were female. A small number of survivors identified as gender-diverse or did not indicate their gender. The average age of victims at the time of first abuse was 10.4 years. Of the 1,489 survivors who told us about the age of the person who sexually abused them, 1,334 survivors (89.6 per cent) told us about abuse by an adult and 199 survivors (13.4 per cent) told us about abuse by a child. A small number of survivors told us about abuse by an adult and by a child. Of the 1,334 survivors who told us about sexual abuse by an adult, 96.2 per cent said they were abused by a male adult. Of the 2,413 survivors who told us about the position held by a perpetrator, 74.7 per cent told us about perpetrators who were people in religious ministry and 27.6 per cent told us about perpetrators who were teachers. Some survivors told us about more than one perpetrator”.

Here is a link to the original. This is not an anti-Catholic website. It is the findings of a formal independent inquiry noted for its exhaustive research and transparent methods and fairness to the accused.

https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/religious-institutions