Priest tells of Foley relationship

[BrownR]

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.

Agreed.

 

[OriginalJS]

Sorry to vary this thread, but I recall that in the 1950’s swimming pools in YMCA’s required men to swim naked and that plenty of priests swam naked with young men and boys. I even recall some of the 17 to 19 year olds cracking jokes about some of the old men getting erections. If what went on with Foley and the priest “damaged” Foley there are a lot of men his age who are may be similarly damaged. I think this is just totally overblown. People are simply more resilient than that.

 

[YinYangMom]

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.

All the more reason to trust their decision in the end to call for celibacy. Coming from experience, apparently those who gathered to discuss the pros/cons of married priesthood concluded celibacy would best serve the Church. Jesus never married. Peter was married before he was called to serve. As for early deacons and such, it makes sense that the apostles who annointed them did not think anything of their married state, but apparently at some point in the development of the church it became an issue, and once discussed and debated, the result was to call for celibacy. Since those who made the ruling knew firsthand what the implications of being married to two vocations were I have no problem trusting their wisdom in coming up with the change in discipline.

I still submit changing it back will not eliminate pedophiles and homosexuals from tainting the church so it makes no sense to look to that discipline as a means to solving that particular problem.

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 could be wrong, but the way it has been explained to me by our priests is that it IS to help them focus on their obligation to their spouse - the Church - and their children - the congregation. Everything a married couple does is intended to bring the two closer to God. Why would it be different for priests? Of course, the better they live out their marriage to the Church and their children, the closer to God that priest will get. Thus, the reason to eliminate the demands of a physical spouse which, in the end, would compete for the attentions of the Church and his children with Her, as opposed to the attentions of his biological children.

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.

Satisfy your physical needs? What about your spouse’s at that particular moment?

Sex is about giving oneself to the other, dying to oneself for the other. It’s about mutual love and affection, and expression of God’s love. What if the woman isn’t in the mood or the timing isn’t right for her when the man’s ‘desires’ kick in?

That the desire is constantly there is no license to act upon it whenever it peaks. We are called to use it in proper order, if at all (as single adults are not free to do so).

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

I don’t know any, personally, but read the papers and you’ll read several stories of married men with children leading dual lives…both apparently happy ones…until he gets caught. Bottom line there, the marriage with the wife and kids serves as a smokescreen by which he is able to lead the other life. Because he has a wife and children, the rest of the world looks upon him as whole, complete, satisfied - and they don’t even think about him being anything but an upright citizen.

As you can tell with the church scandal, the same holds true for the priests. Their committment to the church and the assumed celibacy within that committment acted as the smokescreen they needed to live out their secret lives.

We are dealing with an issue that is specific to disordered behavior in specific individuals. These priests did not develop these disordered desires because of their vocation or the celibacy required…they brought the disorders into the priesthood and used their vocation as a shield. More effective screening of a person’s psychological profile when considering the priesthood is what is needed and that is what the Church has chosen to do to remedy the situation.

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.

That can and has been accomplished within the celibacy discipline. There are many more honorable priests out there than these emotionally disturbed ones. Please do not lump all priests together according to those who have fallen.

 

[Saint_Michael]

This priest is a complete sicko, let’s leave it at that, he is a pervert and seemingly has no conscience at all. But for Foley to just come out with it now is also opportunistic. Foley is gay, he fooled around with a gay man as ~ a ninth or tenth grader in High School, he wasn’t a 6 year old boy. Take out the homosexual twist and this is not something that would disturb a young man.

What I’m saying is since Foley was SGA anyway, chances are this wasn’t a very traumatic incident for him. I know if I were in 9th grade and an older woman seduced me, I would probably be bragging about it rather than pining over it 40 years later (I wasn’t very religious in youth and I will leave it at that)

All parties involved need serious help and prayers, and the priest involved should not be allowed to do any priestly duties, he seems completely unfit to me, based on his attitude.

I think I’m done with this case, I’ll have to go to daily Mass for a month to regain my faith after hearing that priest talk.

 

[Tom317]

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.

Did you go to the link I provided?

Try this as well:

Child Abuse & Child Sexual Abuse ~ Substantiated

**Composition of substantiated child abuse in 2000:
879,000 children were victims of child maltreatment.
Neglect ~ 63%
Physical ~ 19%
Sexual ~ 10%
Psychological ~ 8%
**

prevent-abuse-now.com/stats.htm#Disclosures

Abuse by the Catholic clergy is far below one percent now that the Church has been made to suffer for these horrible sins (that is a very good thing). No other institution on earth has had the same scrutiny, abuse is high in many places, including the home, other Churches, public schools, etc…

Do you think it proper for kids to never engage in public school activities out of fear of being abused? Should kids in Lutheran or Methods schools steer clear of men because of potential abuse? Do we live in fear, or do we live with our eyes and minds open?

If every Catholic held your attitude, the Priesthood would go away in one generation…no insult intended.

 

[Tom317]

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.

Too late, I have already prayed for you. I am not a liar and I was not being condescending when I said I would pray for you–you seem to be a very bitter and angry person and I do pray you can calmly look at this siituation.

Your attiude, imo, hurts the faith deeply because there is no forgiveness in your heart for the wrongs done. By this I am saying that the Church was just flat wrong to allow the abuses to happen and it is a sad reality that the Church had to be forced to clean its house, yet the reality is the Catholic Church is most likely the most safe place for your kids and for my kids and for every Catholics kids now that the abuse scandal has shaken the Church. Abuse cases in the Church today are incredibly rare, and if you did a thoruough review of the report you will see that abuses peaked many years ago. The Vatican has known of the problem for a long time, and has been quietly cleaning seminaries since the 90s. The Church still has a ways to go, no doubt. Yet it is safe–period.

As for you doubting the 4%, I would go the other way. I would doubt it is as high as 4% because a good portion of the alledged abuses were commited so long ago that no-one can rightly say they happened, and in many cases the accused Priests are dead. My guess is the actuall numbers of true abuse cases likely falls to 1-2% if each case was able to be properly researched. It is no accident that hundreds of millions of dollars are being taken from the Church, and in many instances the dollars are being awared for abuses that just flat not provable…it is a sickening attack on the Church, yet it is also an attack that the Church reaped through its horrible handling of this situation.

Yet, Catholics must not stop loving, trusting and moving forward, or else the faith will die and you will not even have access to the sacraments.

 

[Tom317]

Council of Elvira (300-306)
(Canon 33): It is decided that marriage be altogether prohibited to bishops, priests, and deacons, or to all clerics placed in the ministry, and that they keep away from their wives and not beget children; whoever does this, shall be deprived of the honor of the clerical office.

Council of Carthage (390)
(Canon 3): It is fitting that the holy bishops and priests of God as well as the Levites, i.e. those who are in the service of the divine sacraments, observe perfect continence, so that they may obtain in all simplicity what they are asking from God; what the Apostles taught and what antiquity itself observed, let us also endeavour to keep… It pleases us all that bishop, priest and deacon, guardians of purity, abstain from conjugal intercourse with their wives, so that those who serve at the altar may keep a perfect chastity.

 

[Saint_Michael]

Too late, I have already prayed for you. I am not a liar and I was not being condescending when I said I would pray for you–you seem to be a very bitter and angry person and I do pray you can calmly look at this siituation.

Your attiude, imo, hurts the faith deeply because there is no forgiveness in your heart for the wrongs done. By this I am saying that the Church was just flat wrong to allow the abuses to happen and it is a sad reality that the Church had to be forced to clean its house, yet the reality is the Catholic Church is most likely the most safe place for your kids and for my kids and for every Catholics kids now that the abuse scandal has shaken the Church. Abuse cases in the Church today are incredibly rare, and if you did a thoruough review of the report you will see that abuses peaked many years ago. The Vatican has known of the problem for a long time, and has been quietly cleaning seminaries since the 90s. The Church still has a ways to go, no doubt. Yet it is safe–period.

As for you doubting the 4%, I would go the other way. I would doubt it is as high as 4% because a good portion of the alledged abuses were commited so long ago that no-one can rightly say they happened, and in many cases the accused Priests are dead. My guess is the actuall numbers of true abuse cases likely falls to 1-2% if each case was able to be properly researched. It is no accident that hundreds of millions of dollars are being taken from the Church, and in many instances the dollars are being awared for abuses that just flat not provable…it is a sickening attack on the Church, yet it is also an attack that the Church reaped through its horrible handling of this situation.

Yet, Catholics must not stop loving, trusting and moving forward, or else the faith will die and you will not even have access to the sacraments.

Oh yes I’m angry at child petting priests sure, and you did not pray for me, stop with that nonsense. “Lord please pray for Saint “underscore” Michael from the forums” LOL… When people say “I’ll pray for you” in a heated debate they are essentially saying, “you’re a bad person and I’m a better Christian than you”, and yes it is very patronizing, so just cut it out.

As for the 4% I’ll take the John Jays study that the Catholic Church requested over your personal “feelings” about what the percentages are, thanks.

 

[Saint_Michael]

Did you go to the link I provided?

Try this as well:

Child Abuse & Child Sexual Abuse ~ Substantiated

**Composition of substantiated child abuse in 2000:
879,000 children were victims of child maltreatment.
Neglect ~ 63%
Physical ~ 19%
Sexual ~ 10%
Psychological ~ 8%
**

prevent-abuse-now.com/stats.htm#Disclosures

Abuse by the Catholic clergy is far below one percent now that the Church has been made to suffer for these horrible sins (that is a very good thing). No other institution on earth has had the same scrutiny, abuse is high in many places, including the home, other Churches, public schools, etc…

Do you think it proper for kids to never engage in public school activities out of fear of being abused? Should kids in Lutheran or Methods schools steer clear of men because of potential abuse? Do we live in fear, or do we live with our eyes and minds open?

If every Catholic held your attitude, the Priesthood would go away in one generation…no insult intended.

Those percentages are the breakdown of SUBSTANTIATED abuse cases, 899,000, you are leaving out ALL of the rest of the human population, they aren’t included this is just looking at substantiated cases. For example the breakdown of SUBSTANTIATED cases for the Pristhood could look like this 99% sexual, 1 % physical, 85% against boys older than 13, 4% against girls older than 13 etc… You are skewing these statistics horribly. Unless of course you believe 63% of married men neglect their children, and 10% molest them? READ that site again you are completely wrong on this, you need to learn how to use statistics accurately.

 

[gam197]

---

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

How true. Many catholics are called to celebacy.

Sorry to vary this thread, but I recall that in the 1950’s swimming pools in YMCA’s required men to swim naked and that plenty of priests swam naked with young men and boys.

The YMCA near us still have men and boys changing together without stalls. My sons hated to go there; they would cringed in the corner so no one looked at changing. They finally installed one family room; each one could then changed individually. How about boys in high school. They shower together.

As a girl I can remember asking why the 12 year boys go in the woods together and being told by others, they were touching each other.

The issue is that parents have to protect their children. This culture with a billion dollar pornography business won’t.

 

[Tom317]

Those percentages are the breakdown of SUBSTANTIATED abuse cases, 899,000, you are leaving out ALL of the rest of the human population, they aren’t included this is just looking at substantiated cases. For example the breakdown of SUBSTANTIATED cases for the Pristhood could look like this 99% sexual, 1 % physical, 85% against boys older than 13, 4% against girls older than 13 etc… You are skewing these statistics horribly. Unless of course you believe 63% of married men neglect their children, and 10% molest them? READ that site again you are completely wrong on this, you need to learn how to use statistics accurately.

Where is your anger coming from? Or, do you just flat hate the Catholic Church and Catholics in general? I do not say that to insult, so pleeez take no insult. It is just that you seem bent on bashing the Church at all costs and no matter what I post or say. The point is not for us to argue over how we want to interpret the numbers, the point is abuse of kids in the Church is truly horrible, and yet it is even more horrible when parents do it and abuse exists at horrible percentage across society–not just the Catholic Church.

Beyond that, the abuse of kids in the Church is way below 1% now, and that is the major point for you to think about.

I cannot speak with someone with your depth of anger. Thank you for the chat, and may God bless you and yours now and always. My prayers truly are with you.

(btw, I think a huge percentage of fathers neglect their kids, which is one of our cultures biggest problems, that is a fact, not fantasy).

 

[Saint_Michael]

Here’s a statistic you may like, although homosexual men make up at most 3% of the adult male population they are responsible for ~33% of sex crimes against children (boys are the vast majority who are assaulted). That means although heterosexual men outnumber homosexual men by a ration of nearly 20:1 or more, homosexuals commit 1 out of every 3 sex crimes against children (boys happen to be the vast majority, no surprise there since homosexuals are already sexual deviants, ephebophilia is just a small leap).

But no my idea of trying to get heterosexual men into the priesthood is abhorrent. You’re puting faith in something that is merely a discipline, and has no bearing on our salvation.

 

[Tom317]

Oh yes I’m angry at child petting priests sure, and you did not pray for me, stop with that nonsense. “Lord please pray for Saint “underscore” Michael from the forums” LOL… When people say “I’ll pray for you” in a heated debate they are essentially saying, “you’re a bad person and I’m a better Christian than you”, and yes it is very patronizing, so just cut it out.

As for the 4% I’ll take the John Jays study that the Catholic Church requested over your personal “feelings” about what the percentages are, thanks.

Brother, I did pray for you and yes I did identify those prayers to the Lord for the person known as **Saint Michael **on Catholic.com…that is the only identity I know you as and I believe the Lord receives the prayers despite me not knowing who you are.

I have more then feelings about this, but that is not important anymore.

God Bless

 

[Saint_Michael]

Where is your anger coming from? Or, do you just flat hate the Catholic Church and Catholics in general? .

Honestly in this thread it’s coming from you patronizing me, and accusing me, re-read your thread golden boy, you could learn a lesson in charity yourself. Remeber the speck and the beam buddy.

 

[Tom317]

saint michael,

I am truly sorry for any offense you have taken with my words.

God Bless.

 

[BrownR]

Stand back for a second and listen to yourself. We’ve had a proliferance of sexual abuse scandals within the Church and you’re finding fault with a father who has reservations about leaving his child alone with a priest? Who cares what the percentage is. What percentage value is “acceptable”?

As for you doubting the 4%, I would go the other way. I would doubt it is as high as 4% because a good portion of the alledged abuses were commited so long ago that no-one can rightly say they happened, and in many cases the accused Priests are dead. My guess is the actuall numbers of true abuse cases likely falls to 1-2% if each case was able to be properly researched. It is no accident that hundreds of millions of dollars are being taken from the Church, and in many instances the dollars are being awared for abuses that just flat not provable…it is a sickening attack on the Church, yet it is also an attack that the Church reaped through its horrible handling of this situation.

Recheck your stats here:

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36324-2005Feb18.html

**In 2004, 1,000 Alleged Abuse by Priests

By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 19, 2005; Page A02

More than 1,000 people reported to civil or church authorities in 2004 that they had been sexually abused as children by Roman Catholic priests, the second-largest number of allegations for any year on record, the U.S. bishops’ conference said yesterday.
**

I would disagree with the person who thinks this issue has gotten better since the 90s. It certainly doesn’t appear that way based on these figures.

 

[Saint_Michael]

Stand back for a second and listen to yourself. We’ve had a proliferance of sexual abuse scandals within the Church and you’re finding fault with a father who has reservations about leaving his child alone with a priest? Who cares what the percentage is. What percentage value is “acceptable”?

Recheck your stats here:

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36324-2005Feb18.html

I would disagree with the person who thinks this issue has gotten better since the 90s. It certainly doesn’t appear that way based on these figures.

This is the official report by John Jay College of criminal Justice requested by the USCCB

nccbuscc.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/

"John Jay Study Reveals Extent of Abuse Problem

Four percent of priests serving over last 50 years accused of abuse

By Agostino Bono
Catholic News Service

WASHINGTON (CNS) – About 4 percent of U.S. priests ministering from 1950 to 2002 were accused of sex abuse with a minor, according to the first comprehensive national study of the issue.
The study said that 4,392 clergymen—almost all priests—were accused of abusing 10,667 people, with 75 percent of the incidents taking place between 1960 and 1984.

During the same time frame there were 109,694 priests, it said.
Sex-abuse related costs totaled $573 million, with $219 million covered by insurance companies, said the study done by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York."

Just for anyone who cares, that’s an enormous percentage, and I agree it’s risky. I don’t trsut anyone with my children alone not just Priests. In the past I would’ve thought priests held to a higher standard, but they don’t, they abuse on par or even greater than non-clergy. I would be in insane to trust a priest with my son IMO.

 

[Tom317]

It is not debatable that there is less abuse now, then in the 70s and 80s.

 

[DWPC]

Sorry to vary this thread, but I recall that in the 1950’s swimming pools in YMCA’s required men to swim naked and that plenty of priests swam naked with young men and boys. I even recall some of the 17 to 19 year olds cracking jokes about some of the old men getting erections. If what went on with Foley and the priest “damaged” Foley there are a lot of men his age who are may be similarly damaged. I think this is just totally overblown. People are simply more resilient than that.

Are you saying its OK for 30 year old man to give a 13 year old boy a “massage”??? Or take him “skinny-dipping” in an isolated spot??? You equate that to group swims at the YMCA??? Is the measure of overt abuse to be whether the kid is permanently damaged??? Are you SERIOUS???

We must recognize that blind devotional loyalty to “the Church” in the face of blatant abuse by the clergy is what these cassocked perverts have relied upon for access to our children for generations. Sorry, but the priest is no longer the only guy in town who can read, nor are we still ignorant peasants incapable of understanding such things. Church needs its faithful to vigorously defend it from those who see it as a handy tool for their perversions.

When I was in Junior Year at St Joe’s, Br. Fabian taught us that the best way to deal with a homosexual was “a good left”…and that’s a quote. The Church in America is today in grave peril because Modernists have it purged it of the Br. Fabians.

 

[Saint_Michael]

It is not debatable that there is less abuse now, then in the 70s and 80s.

Of course it is, we didn’t find out about the abuse in 70’s and 80’s until the late 90’s and early 2000’s. Abuse against minor boys is drastically underreproted, it could take a few more decades before the Church sees what progress is being made. To ignore the fact that these allegations were kept quiet for 3 or 4 decades and just assume that isn’t the case anymore is naive IMO.