Priest tells of Foley relationship

[Tom317]

Surveys for 90% of the priests and deacons reported to have had allegations of child sexual abuse included the year of ordination. If the yearly ordination totals for diocesan priests accused are compared to the overall number of diocesan priests ordained in that year, the percentages of accused priests range from a maximum of almost 10% in 1970, decreasing to 8% in 1980 and to fewer than 4% in 1990. These prevalence estimates alone do not describe the extent of the problem of sexual abuse.
Another way to understand the extent of the problem is to ask how many incidents of sexual abuse were alleged to occur each year of the study period or, alternatively, to ask how many
priests were accused in each year. This distribution of alleged abuse events over time shows the pattern of the reported sexual abuse. When the incidents recorded in the surveys are tallied for
each year of occurrence (of each incident), the resulting figure shows that 75% of the events were alleged to occur between 1960 and 1984.

 

[zootjeff]

Has anyone thought that maybe having people talk oaths of celibacy causes human nature to lash out and go about satisfying natural desires any way possible? The human body does strange things when you starve it of food, attention, water, etc.

 

[Tom317]

Abuse in general:

According to Dr. Garth A. Rattray, about the same incidence of abuse occurs among all the socio-economic classes. For example, he reports that “about 85 percent of the offenders [of child sexual abuse] are family members, babysitters, neighbors, family friends or relatives. About one in six child molesters are other children.” Unlike the first study cited, Rattray reports that most of the offenders are male.[iii]

**It is obvious that children are much more likely to be sexually abused by family members and friends than by anyone else. **This suggests that if preventative measures are to work, they must begin in the home, and not someplace else.

PRIESTS

**According to a survey by the Washington Post, over the last four decades, less than 1.5 percent of the estimated 60,000 or more men who have served in the Catholic clergy have been accused of child sexual abuse.[iv] **According to a survey by the New York Times, 1.8 percent of all priests ordained from 1950 to 2001 have been accused of child sexual abuse.[v] Thomas Kane, author of Priests are People Too, estimates that between 1 and 1.5 percent of priests have had charges made against them.[vi] Of contemporary priests, the Associated Press found that approximately two-thirds of 1 percent of priests have charges pending against them.[vii]

catholicleague.org/research/abuse_in_social_context.htm

 

[Tom317]

Has anyone thought that maybe having people talk oaths of celibacy causes human nature to lash out and go about satisfying natural desires any way possible? The human body does strange things when you starve it of food, attention, water, etc.

Humans have the ability to control their urges, we are not beasts of the field.

 

[DWPC]

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.

There are two grave problems. The first are the actual abuses and perversions that may have diminished since the 80s. Second is the mindset in Chanceries that shuffled known pedophiles from one parish to another or packed them off to comfortable retirement while paying hush money to the victims. In all but a very few diocese, the enablers remain in charge. And we’re supposed to trust them? Here in the LA archdiocese, our Cardinal continues to fight abuse investigations tooth and nail.

I believe those who think the “problem” is solved are either in denial or blinded by misguided devotion. If, God forbid, another wave of priestly perversions comes to light, radical Islamists will be more welcome in American communities than Catholics.

 

[Tom317]

There are two grave problems. The first are the actual abuses and perversions that may have diminished since the 80s. Second is the mindset in Chanceries that shuffled known pedophiles from one parish to another or packed them off to comfortable retirement while paying hush money to the victims. In all but a very few diocese, the enablers remain in charge. And we’re supposed to trust them? Here in the LA archdiocese, our Cardinal continues to fight abuse investigations tooth and nail.

I believe those who think the “problem” is solved are either in denial or blinded by misguided devotion. If, God forbid, another wave of priestly perversions comes to light, radical Islamists will be more welcome in American communities than Catholics.

No-one that I know of thinks the problem is solved, including me. The problem has improved and we do need to keep our eyes on the Church and the Church’s feet to the fire so that these abuses go very low. However, anyone who thinks abuse will be ellimated from the Church is not thinking clearly…human beings are fallen creatures and they will continue to sin until the end of time, including Priests. The point is to make sure we keep the clergy honest so that the abuse is extremely low.

I think it is also true that there has been a huge anti-Church response to this horrible mess and much of that comes from Catholics, so we are eating ourselves up from the inside out. Jesus promised the gates shall not prevail, yet that very promise implies the gates of hell sure will try and these abuse events are proof of the gates of hell trying to crush the Church. As Catholics, imo, we should not be helping satan, we should help Christ, by supporting His Holy Priests and by insisting that the abuse be haulted to absolute best it can be. Running from Priests, or discouraging vocations, is not the answer, it will only serve to make things worse.

Beyond all that, I want to see some outrage about all of the abuse that happens in other areas, including the home where a child is far more likely to suffer.

 

[Saint_Michael]

saint michael,

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

God Bless.

I accept your apology, but typically when in a conversation debate what the poster writes, don’t attack them personally. I’ve said nothing personally insulting to you although I disagree with nearly everything you write. You’ve called me angry several times, a Catholic hater, and condescendingly did the “I’ll pray for you routine”, which frankly shouldn’t be in a heated debate like this one, of course it’ll be taken the wrong way. I don’t understand how you’re so shocked at me taking offense at personal attacks?

But anyway, I’m willing to ignore you, if you can do the same? Or we can actually debate the topic and leave personal insults and judgments out of the discussion?

 

[plh]

Celibacy is not the problem.
Human weakness is.
Even married priests can end up having extra-marital affairs.
Sins of the flesh are personal and they affect everyone.
Single adults are expected to live celibate lives.
The Church is not asking the impossible from Her priests.
Bottom line, they are married to the Church and thus are not free to marry another.

Agreed. Extra-marital affairs are also had by married men (non- clergy) with children, to include young women, men, little girls and little boys. Happens more often than we want to know.

 

[mrs_abbott]

Agreed. Extra-marital affairs are also had by married men (non- clergy) with children, to include young women, men, little girls and little boys. Happens more often than we want to know.

It’s sick, it really is. I saw that headline about a priest and Foley having an intimate relationship last night and about gagged. What is happening in the world???

 

[Tom317]

I accept your apology, but typically when in a conversation debate what the poster writes, don’t attack them personally. I’ve said nothing personally insulting to you although I disagree with nearly everything you write. You’ve called me angry several times, a Catholic hater, and condescendingly did the “I’ll pray for you routine”, which frankly shouldn’t be in a heated debate like this one, of course it’ll be taken the wrong way. I don’t understand how you’re so shocked at me taking offense at personal attacks?

But anyway, I’m willing to ignore you, if you can do the same? Or we can actually debate the topic and leave personal insults and judgments out of the discussion?

Thank you for the olive branch. We both are disgusted with the abuse of minors, that is our common ground. I feel that the Church should be held accountable, yet the vast majority (99%+) of the Priests today do not, and have not, abused anyone. I suppose in my view we need to develop a culture of a true Holy Priesthood, and we should not be having a lack of trust, rather we should teach our children what to look out for and we should keep our eyes open as well. If we do not do that, then Catholic parents will cease encouraging their kids to become Priests, and you know where that leads.

If we, as faithful Catholics, walk away and cease trusting, then the faith is doomed in the United States. IMO.

 

[rayne89]

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???

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Catherine_S]

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

August 27, 2006

Understanding a Cesspool of Corruption
by Thomas A. Droleskey
The descent of the clergy into the abyss of moral perversion is, sadly, not a new phenomenon in the history of the Catholic Church. Our Lord has promised us that the jaws of Hell would never prevail against the Church. This does not mean, however, that the devil is not going to win a few battles in our own lives and in the lives of bishops and priests. Indeed, the devil attacks bishops and priests with particular fury, **hoping that he can cause many to fall into his snares, thus scandalizing the faithful and causing some of those who are weak in their Faith to leave the true means of salvation, the Catholic Church. **

rcf.org/docs/droleskeyriteofsodomy.htm

Saint Basil of Cesarea, the 4th century Patriarch of Eastern monks and one of the four great Doctors of the East held that:
“The cleric or monk who molests youths or boys or is caught kissing or committing some turpitude, let him be whipped in public, deprived of his crown (tonsure) and, after having his head shaved, let his face be covered with spittle; and [let him be] bound in chains, condemned to six months in prison…after which let him live in a separate cell under the custody of a wise elder with great spiritual experience…let him be subject to prayers, vigils, and manual work always under the guard of two spiritual brothers, without being allowed to have any relationship … with young people.”
.
Pope Gregory’s teaching on sodomy did not break new ground, but rather reflected the summing up of the teachings of the earlier Fathers of the East and West at the beginning of the Middle Ages on the nature of the crime. Using the Old Testament text from Genesis 19:1-25 describing the terrible fate of Sodom and Gomorrah, the pope declared:
“Brimstone calls to mind the foul orders 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 the flesh, should perish at the same time by fire and brimstone, so that through the just chastisement they must realize the evil perpetrated under the impulse of a perverse desire.”
The reader will note that Pope Gregory not only condemned the act of sodomy as a “crime,” but also denounce the desires of the sodomites as “perverse.” Thus, lustful homosexual thoughts and desires, willfully entertained, are not only sinful (even where the act is not carried out), **but they are unnatural and perverse as well. **(pp. 46-47
.
St. Peter Damian:
According to Damian, the vice of sodomy “surpasses the enormity of all others,” because:
"Without fail, it brings death to the body and destruction to the soul. It pollutes the flesh, extinguishes the light of the mind, expels the Holy Spirit from the temple of the human heart, and gives entrance to the devil, the stimulator of lust. It leads to error, totally removes truth from the deluded mind … It opens up hell and closes the gates of paradise … It is this vice that violates temperance, slays modesty, strangles chastity, and slaughters virginity … It defiles all things, sullies all things, pollutes all things … this unfortunate man (he) is deprived of all moral sense, his memory fails, and the mind’s vision is darkened. Unmindful of God, he also forgets his own identity. This disease erodes the foundation of faith, saps the vitality of hope, dissolves the bond of love. It makes way with justice, demolishes fortitude, removes temperance, and blunts the edge of prudence.
.
In one of the most beautiful elocutions on the grandeur of priestly celibacy and chastity ever written, Damian reminds the wayward cleric or monk of the special place reserved in Heaven for those faithful priests and monks who have willingly forsaken all and made themselves eunuchs for Christ’s sake. Their names shall be remembered forever because they have given up all for the love of God.

---

We need to pray each and every day that God bestow many blessings on our loving, faithful and holy priests.
.

 

[ltravis]

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.

Perhaps, hopefully, you can take this as reassurance and not a criticism, but in my experience this “modernist” connection is not reality. I grew up and went to Catholic schools in the 70’s (yes our school masses even had tambourines) and now in my adult life I myself have been a catechist for the last several years. All this experience has been in a diocese has been hit hard by its own scandals, even costing us a bishop. However, in light of all that, I have never been taught, or been taught to teach, that we all aren’t completely accountable for sin, and bound by a contrite reception of the sacrament of confession including true penance. I have always understood the reality of Hell and the true distinction between right and wrong, true and untrue. Everything you were taught then I was taught in the 70’s and teach now. Anyway, I hope you are comforted to know that in my experience, our own very real crisis at least can’t be traced to that.

LT

 

[Captain_Mike]

Instead of fighting amoungst ourselves in here we need to send a clear message to The Vatican that we the laity in The USA have ahd enough of the the derelict of duty cardinals and Bishops we want their resignation Now!!! We better stop talking about the scandals and complaining to one another. We need to demand for the removal of certain Bishops and Cardinals. If we don’t we are to blame as well.

 

[maklavan]

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

Here we have a grown man who groomed a boy of 12 and seduced him in classic fashion and you are suggesting the CHILD was blameworhy? Hair-splitting on whether it was paedophilia or not is totally irrelevant. This was a predator stalking his victim. Who knows how much of Foley’s future proclivity came from this? Your hatred of the man seems to have blinded you to the issue.

 

[DWPC]

Everything you were taught then I was taught in the 70’s and teach now.
LT

Does that include this part of what I said:
“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?”
The enabling behavior of so many of today’s clergy with respect to the perverts among them conflicts with your statement. It appears to me that somewhere after VCII, the part about just punishment has been lost and replaced by a notion that Confession not only absolves the soul, but erases any obligation to society.

 

[ltravis]

Does that include this part of what I said:
“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?”
The enabling behavior of so many of today’s clergy with respect to the perverts among them conflicts with your statement. It appears to me that somewhere after VCII, the part about just punishment has been lost and replaced by a notion that Confession not only absolves the soul, but erases any obligation to society.

Actually, yes, this is what we learned. I am not a priest, but in our catechism classes our pastor, when questioned about the confessional seal for really serious sins, said that indeed the seal holds, and that he would grant absolution, but part of the penance would be that the sinner turn himself in. Such doctrines - at least from everything I have experienced - has not changed. Honest.

LT

 

[DWPC]

Actually, yes, this is what we learned. I am not a priest, but in our catechism classes our pastor, when questioned about the confessional seal for really serious sins, said that indeed the seal holds, and that he would grant absolution, but part of the penance would be that the sinner turn himself in. Such doctrines - at least from everything I have experienced - has not changed. Honest.

LT

From what I’ve read about their handling of the abuse reports, it seems to me that the perverts and many of their bishops believe they’re above such things.

 

[elg26]

It seems to me, after reading all these hotly contested opinions, that the missing point that everyone seems to feel is that when a priest commits a sexually abusive act on a child it rocks ones sensibilities…after all, if one cannot trust a priest, a supposed man of God, who can one trust?

And that goes for Catholics as well as non-Catholics.

I am not Catholic, but, as I grew up in the 60’s and 70’s, I always thought that a priest was someone who could be trusted without any reservations…I mean, I may not like his teachings, opinions or personality…but as a priest you felt that he was above reproach.

But, not anymore. Too many exposures have come out.

It just feels awful when it’s a man of God doing these terrible things.

Are priests MORE likely (Homosexual or not) to commit sexual abuse? I don’t think the facts support that…

…but what I DO think is that sexual crimes from a priest is such an abhorrent thought and horrible deed, that it justly creates the sensation that follows.

If a laborer, stock clerk, or a business executive sexually abuses a child, it is horrible…but feels less horrible than a priest or minister sexually abusing a child. You just can’t comprehend a man of God doing this thing.

The church hierarchy has helped create the sensation that follows by being closed mouthed about it…and *creates the appearance *of supporting sexual abuse.

I raised two daughters by myself…a single father long before it became “fashionable”. I was VERY cautious about WHO my daughters were allowed to be alone with, or in contact with…I can’t fault the poster who says that he will not allow his child alone with a priest.

As a parent…your responsibility is to PROTECT your child first…and if the church (or school or whatever…) cannot guarantee the safety of a child, the parent MUST take a stand to not allow potenially dangerous private contact.

You know…I’d rather debate issues of doctrine, dogma and personal belief far more than this.

This is a mess, and it reaches everyone everywhere.

 

[YinYangMom]

Priests are not saints.
The dismay of learning of a corrupt priest, to me, is no different than finding out police officers rape, steal or brutalize those they are to protect.
That our politicians are corrupt is something we don’t expect.
That therapists and doctors sometimes are perverts with their patients.
That middle and high school teachers enter into sexual relationships with their students.

Bottom line is there are professions which are touted as being noble, and so one assumes those in the profession live by a higher standard, a higher ethical code that the rest of us, but in the end they are all human, and prone to temptation, error and sin.

This is the sadness of this generation. I suspect all these things are not new to humanity but our parents were able to shield us from it, and I suppose the media used to not report it for some reason or another, but all that is gone. Not only does the media focus on these things day in day out, but our schools require we expose our children to it at earlier and earlier ages.

We reap what we sow, and for way too long we have looked the other way. Perhaps this is a sign of the pendulum swinging in the other direction, but even that takes time.