Priest tells of Foley relationship

[contemplative]

Exclusive audio of Fr. Anthony Mercieca

Unbelieavable…

msnbc.msn.com/id/15329373/

Did anyone else listen to this audio and evaluate?

 

[catsrus]

The Priest did wrong.
Foley did wrong.
Personal responsibility.

 

[Tom317]

My son is in Catholic school, I’ve already had that talk with him just in case, it’s not something you ever think about having to do, but in this world what can you do.

It’s sad too because my son won’t be an altar boy either, out of the 10,000 cases of misconduct the majority seem to be against altar boys. It’s just too risky with the amount of homosexuals in the priesthood. Unfortunately my relationship with priests now is to provide me the Sacraments and nothing else, I just don’t trust them anymore at all. I mean listen to this guy in the news, it’s sickening, who are these people? How could they possibly be priests for 40 years with this skewed of a view of morality and right and wrong.

I feel you are being brutally unfair to the 96-97% of the Priests our there that are loyal, loving, obedient followers of Christ. Do not forget the major percentage of all abuses happened in the 70s and 80s and the during the 90s the percentage dropped quickly. I would say that our kids are more safe in Catholic schools and Churches, then anywhere else.

 

[Saint_Michael]

I feel you are being brutally unfair to the 96-97% of the Priests our there that are loyal, loving, obedient followers of Christ. Do not forget the major percentage of all abuses happened in the 70s and 80s and the during the 90s the percentage dropped quickly. I would say that our kids are more safe in Catholic schools and Churches, then anywhere else.

Well the majority of the cases from the70’s and 80’s weren’t reported, and/or the person didn’t report it until they were well into their adulthood, so honestly we can’t say for certain if there was a drop in the 90’s, in another decade we can see better if things are getting better.

The cases are so widespread I would be an irresponsible parent to ignore it. If that is unfair to the good priests, well then they should clean their own house then.

 

[Tom317]

Well the majority of the cases from the70’s and 80’s weren’t reported, and/or the person didn’t report it until they were well into their adulthood, so honestly we can’t say for certain if there was a drop in the 90’s, in another decade we can see better if things are getting better.

The cases are so widespread I would be an irresponsible parent to ignore it. If that is unfair to the good priests, well then they should clean their own house then.

It is unspeakably unfair to the Priests of this day, 99%+ of whom are NOT abusers. Kids are at far greater risk at home and in other places like public schools, then they are in Catholic environments of today. I will pray for you.

 

[Tom317]

It is unspeakably unfair to the Priests of this day, 99%+ of whom are NOT abusers. Kids are at far greater risk at home and in other places like public schools, then they are in Catholic environments of today. I will pray for you.

BTW, those numbers are sound, and the charges of abuse happening today are quite low, well under 1/2 of one percent. It is just to give the Church grief for letting this happen, it is NOT just to bash the Church and the Priests of this day for something other Priests did mainly 10-30 years ago. It is also against the faith to just treat it like a place to go for sacraments…that is NOT a Catholic faith.

 

[Tom317]

Well the majority of the cases from the70’s and 80’s weren’t reported, and/or the person didn’t report it until they were well into their adulthood, so honestly we can’t say for certain if there was a drop in the 90’s, in another decade we can see better if things are getting better.

The cases are so widespread I would be an irresponsible parent to ignore it. If that is unfair to the good priests, well then they should clean their own house then.

You seem to think married Priests are the answer, yet it is a fact that more kids get abuses in their home, then in any other place. Also, you might want to look at the following site, which details the amount abuse that takes place in Protestant Churches (in which the ministers are allowed to be married as you suggest):

reformation.com/

 

[DWPC]

There is no remorse or regret…

That is a common thread in virtually all these cases. The second common (though not absolute) thread is how admitted perverts are/were shielded from prosecution by their bishops out of a distorted sense of forgiveness and love. I don’t buy that. I think that they may give spiritual absolution but they may not act as if that negates the worldy aspects of an ugly crime. They may love the sinner but they must not ignore the threat he presents to innocents.

I was taught in a pre-VCII world by nuns and Christian Brothers that one can’t be forgiven without contrition, and in the case of injury, making an effort of restitution. Further, we learned that when violent or physical crime was involved, surrender to civil authorities could be (and was) made a condition of absolution in Confession. One was expected to surrender to just punishment. This was the accepted teaching. Today there is no expectation of contrition or restitution or the need to accept consequences. So when did it change? Who changed it?

There are the formal products of VCII that explicitly changed the Church, most notably the liturgy, and then there is the *spirit of VCII *that opened the doors to Modernist, relativistic concepts. So in short, no VCII; no spirit of VCII to be used as a vehicle to introduce confusion. Before VCII, unorthodoxy was quickly challenged and if it failed, subject to Church disciple. Today, no one bats an eye when something “novel” is introduced. The application and need for the sacrament of Confession is openly debated. Debated! Confession has been morphed into into “Reconciliation” which seems to improve on Confession by not only absolving one’s sins, but apparently erasing personal responsibility for the act and its effects. This, I believe, fostered a liberalized and invalid consideration of priestly grievous sin, e.g., raping children, and in their own eyes apparently lets the protecting bishops off the spiritual hook.

 

[Saint_Michael]

It is unspeakably unfair to the Priests of this day, 99%+ of whom are NOT abusers. Kids are at far greater risk at home and in other places like public schools, then they are in Catholic environments of today. I will pray for you.

You aren’t going to pray for me and you know it, can you stop patronizing me?

Look I have a responsibility to a five year old boy who will got to Catholic school, if you feel comfortable leaving a young boy in the presence of your Parish priests alone, God bless, I wouldn’t do it ever but that’s just me.

At it’s worse 4% of priests were getting accused that’s just the ones getting accused, the numbers could’ve been higher. Sorry but that’s way too high a percentage for me to play around with.

Like I said kids don’t report this stuff until way further down the line, in another decade we can see if things are getting better, or worse.

I’m not being unfair, call it erring on the side of caution.

 

[Saint_Michael]

You seem to think married Priests are the answer, yet it is a fact that more kids get abuses in their home, then in any other place. Also, you might want to look at the following site, which details the amount abuse that takes place in Protestant Churches (in which the ministers are allowed to be married as you suggest):

reformation.com/

I’ll say it again, I said CLEARLY in my post, that celibacy isn’t linked to abuse, BUT that the priesthood has many homosexuals that are the cause of the abuse issues, and a married priesthood will influx the priesthood with heterosexual men which it desperately needs. Don’t confuse the two points.

 

[BrownR]

you miss the point.

Celibacy has everything to do about respect for the human body and the love of Christ in each and every person.

Temptation toward sins of the flesh affect every human.
But when a human person has the proper perspective about his/her life in relation to God, they are better able to resist the temptations of the flesh -

not because sex is wrong, or because they promised not to, or because of rules, or because they are single…

Do you have any empirical data to support such an assumption? Because I sure don’t, and the RCC doesn’t either. Yes, it’s a beautiful way to look at celibacy within the priesthood. The romantic and spiritual notion that their sacrifice brings them closer to God. I think most of this believe this to some degree, but how are we to know whether this facilitates resistance to temptation or magnifies the temptation itself? The point that I’m making is that we don’t have any data to go on, and Rome won’t allow anyone access to the data which is certainly their prerogative, but it doesn’t do anything to quell the suspicions, especially with such a proliferation of molestation charges within the RCC as of late. Drastic times demand drastic measures.

If a priest is married and has sex with his wife solely because he lusts for her or has sexual tensions built up inside him that doesn’t make the sex he has with her through marriage the sacred act it is meant to be. Allowing priests to marry in order to curb their tendencies toward boys, just shifts the object of release from the boy to a woman - and because there is a marriage involved would be having the church sanction the use of women in that manner - and it’s degrading, plain and simple.

I’m not quite following your logic. Where did this come from? Who said anything about “wifely prostitutes” for the priests to satiate their “demons of lust”? I think we could all admit to ourselves that conjugal sexual relations between a married couple satisfies certain physical needs along with the emotional and spiritual ones. There’s nothing wrong with this. This simply provides a healthy outlet for any sexual desires. I’m certainly not implying that priests should enter marriage for the sole advantage of sexual release with their spouse. I think that’s taking things to an interpretive extreme.

 

[BrownR]

My son is in Catholic school, I’ve already had that talk with him just in case, it’s not something you ever think about having to do, but in this world what can you do.

It’s sad too because my son won’t be an altar boy either, out of the 10,000 cases of misconduct the majority seem to be against altar boys. It’s just too risky with the amount of homosexuals in the priesthood. Unfortunately my relationship with priests now is to provide me the Sacraments and nothing else, I just don’t trust them anymore at all. I mean listen to this guy in the news, it’s sickening, who are these people? How could they possibly be priests for 40 years with this skewed of a view of morality and right and wrong.

“Once maybe I touched him or so, but didn’t, it wasn’t – because it’s not something you call, I mean, rape or penetration or anything like that you know. We were just fondling,”

*“He seemed to like it, you know? So it was sort of more like a spontaneous thing,” Mercieca told WPTV, a West Palm Beach, Florida, station.

Mercieca, however, rejected the idea that he sexually abused Foley, saying, “See abuse, it’s a bad word, you know, because abuse, you abuse someone against his will. But it involved just spontaneousness, you know?” *

cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/19/foley.priest/index.html

This priest essentially sees nothing wrong with what he did at all. In my opinion they should allow married priests not because celibacy has anything to do with child molestation, but because it will flood the priesthood with heterosexual men, which is really needed.

What’s sad is when I see Priest on a newspaper and find out he just imbezzled money or had an affair with a married woman I find myself saying “thank God”. How pathetic is that?

I agree. It may be only 3% of the priesthood (this number is unknown), but in my opinion, that’s 3% more homosexual clergy than should be tolerated.

 

[Tom317]

I’ll say it again, I said CLEARLY in my post, that celibacy isn’t linked to abuse, BUT that the priesthood has many homosexuals that are the cause of the abuse issues, and a married priesthood will influx the priesthood with heterosexual men which it desperately needs. Don’t confuse the two points.

Yes, I already understood your point. And, I will say all you are doing is switching one st of problems for another. Married people abuse at higher rates then found in the Church at its peak of abuse. So, your solution makes things worse for the kids (worse then at the Churches peak of abuse btw), and it complicates the Priest’s role incredibly.

 

[Saint_Michael]

Yes, I already understood your point. And, I will say all you are doing is switching one st of problems for another. Married people abuse at higher rates then found in the Church at its peak of abuse. So, your solution makes things worse for the kids (worse then at the Churches peak of abuse btw), and it complicates the Priest’s role incredibly.

That isn’t true, the Churches peak according to John Jay was over 4%. Married men do not have instances of pedophilia at anywhere near that rate. You need to recheck your numbers.

 

[rlg94086]

What they are doing now is psychologically screening potential priests and not accepting those with SSA. That will also help the situation tremendously - even more than having married priests.

I’ll say it again, I said CLEARLY in my post, that celibacy isn’t linked to abuse, BUT that the priesthood has many homosexuals that are the cause of the abuse issues, and a married priesthood will influx the priesthood with heterosexual men which it desperately needs. Don’t confuse the two points.

 

[rayne89]

This priest is in utter and complete denial. Massaging a teenage boy naked? Skinning dipping? An incident he conviently can’t remember but he remembers it happened? This might be inappropriate? Let bygones be bygones? You sexually abuse a teenage boy, damage him for life and you say let bygones be bygones! And the article mentions a second priest that tried to unzip the fly of Foley’s friend, that Foley continued to visit with.
Foley’s parents refused to believe that this happened when he tried to discuss it with them.

There will be others that come forward I have no doubt. I think the ugliness of the sex abuse scandal is far from over. Satan has been walking among us in the guise of Catholic priests, he’s ruined countless lives and and is using it to try and distroy the church. God help Mark Foley, his victims and the victims of this priest and others who stole the innocense of many.

We can bicker about what caused this but that solves nothing. Many holy priests will suffer because of these devils. Catholics with weaker faith may lose it all together and even those of us with strong faith are going to be tested severely. We need to brace ourselves, pray hard, and turn to God for encouragement and strength. The gates of hell will not prevail but they’re going to feel pretty darn close for a while.

I believe the overwhelming majority of abuse is over -thanks be to God. But the after math is far from over. And we as Catholics are going to have deal with. Not minimize it, pretend it didn’t happen or bury our heads in the sand.

St. Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil; May God rebuke him, we humbly pray and do thou, o Prince of heavenly host, by the power of God, cast into hell Satan and all evil spirits who wander through the world for the ruin of souls. Amen.

 

[YinYangMom]

Yes, it’s a beautiful way to look at celibacy within the priesthood.

Still missing the point. The call to celibacy is for all single Catholics, not just priests. If others can, and do, live this out, then a priest can, too.

This is not science with empirical data collected or needed. It is a way of life - God’s way of life as He designed it. As with all His commandments, when we live by them, not because they are commanded, but because we understand why we are asked to live by the commandments then the commandment is no longer a burden, in fact the commandment almost becomes unneccessary, for to love God would be, as scripture says, to keep His commandments…without thinking about it, just by loving Him.

This is not just a theological idea to ponder, it is the Truth and they Way to heaven.

I’m not quite following your logic. Where did this come from? Who said anything about “wifely prostitutes” for the priests to satiate their “demons of lust”? I think we could all admit to ourselves that conjugal sexual relations between a married couple satisfies certain physical needs along with the emotional and spiritual ones. There’s nothing wrong with this. This simply provides a healthy outlet for any sexual desires.

I object to the idea of marital sex being considered a ‘healthy outlet’ for sexual desires. It is not. It is the love of a man and woman sharing in God’s plan for their lives in the sacrament of marriage. A priest is already married, he cannot be beholden to two spouses. To allow them to marry so that they have a healthy release for sexual desires is not helping them understand their commitment to their bride, the Church.

And again, marriage does not solve the problem of pedophilia or homosexuality in the church.

I’m certainly not implying that priests should enter marriage for the sole advantage of sexual release with their spouse. I think that’s taking things to an interpretive extreme.

Good to know, but you certainly implied allowing priests to engage in ‘healthy’ sex would be beneficial for the church. I disagree, as does the Church, because it does not address the fact that the priest is already married and cannot have two wives.

I reject outright that sex is necessary for happiness on this earth. It is a gift granted to married couples for unity and procreation.

 

[YinYangMom]

Many holy priests will suffer because of these devils. Catholics with weaker faith may lose it all together and even those of us with strong faith are going to be tested severely. We need to brace ourselves, pray hard, and turn to God for encouragement and strength. The gates of hell will not prevail but they’re going to feel pretty darn close for a while.

I believe the overwhelming majority of abuse is over -thanks be to God. But the after math is far from over. And we as Catholics are going to have deal with. Not minimize it, pretend it didn’t happen or bury our heads in the sand.

St. Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil; May God rebuke him, we humbly pray and do thou, o Prince of heavenly host, by the power of God, cast into hell Satan and all evil spirits who wander through the world for the ruin of souls. Amen.

Amen

 

[BrownR]

because they are commanded, but because we understand why we are asked to live by the commandments then the commandment is no longer a burden, in fact the commandment almost becomes unneccessary, for to love God would be, as scripture says, to keep His commandments…without thinking about it, just by loving Him.

Did you realize that the RCC didn’t institute celibacy stipulations among the priesthood until the early middle ages? Did you know that Peter, the first Pope, was a married man, as were many of the early bishops, presbyters and deacons? Goodness sake, celibacy wasn’t even ruled on or stipulations layed down until the early middle ages. Please point me to the commandment that dictates mandatory celibacy for all priests.

This is not just a theological idea to ponder, it is the Truth and they Way to heaven.

I don’t follow. The ruling on celibacy within the priesthood has nothing to do with theological dogma on faith and morals and certainly not on salvation. It is a disciplinary tradition whose purpose is to bring the clergy closer to God, and certainly not “closer” to our children.

I object to the idea of marital sex being considered a ‘healthy outlet’ for sexual desires. It is not. It is the love of a man and woman sharing in God’s plan for their lives in the sacrament of marriage.

You’re denying the element of physicality within the marriage sexual union. Perhaps males are more in touch with this than females, but it’s there whether you like it or not. There’s nothing wrong with satisfying your physical needs within the sex act along with the emotional and spiritual.

And again, marriage does not solve the problem of pedophilia or homosexuality in the church.

Well it certainly makes good sense to me. How many happily married homosexual pedophiles do you know?

I reject outright that sex is necessary for happiness on this earth. It is a gift granted to married couples for unity and procreation.

Who said anything about sex being the panacea for happiness? I don’t need a happy priest, just one that keeps his hands off my kids. That’ll do nicely.

 

[rlg94086]

I think you misread YinYangMom’s post. She didn’t say that celibacy for priests is a commandment. She said that celibacy is required of any single (i.e. non-married) Catholic.

You are correct that priestly celibacy is not dogma…it’s a discipline in the Church. I don’t think YinYangMom would argue with you on that point. Y’all just disagree on whether that should continue.

Personally, I’m okay with it either way - married or unmarried. However, I don’t think it would necessarily solve the problem. You still wouldn’t require that priests be married, would you? Since most of the cases (80%, if I remember correctly) are actually hebephelia (sex with a teenager of the same sex), screening potential priests for SSA would seem the prudent thing to do.

Did you realize that the RCC didn’t institute celibacy stipulations among the priesthood until the early middle ages? Did you know that Peter, the first Pope, was a married man, as were many of the early bishops, presbyters and deacons? Goodness sake, celibacy wasn’t even ruled on or stipulations layed down until the early middle ages. Please point me to the commandment that dictates mandatory celibacy for all priests.

I don’t follow. The ruling on celibacy within the priesthood has nothing to do with theological dogma on faith and morals and certainly not on salvation. It is a disciplinary tradition whose purpose is to bring the clergy closer to God, and certainly not “closer” to our children.