Priest who admitted groping boy appointed to high-profile position in Newark Archdiocese

[js_cat3391]

I do not know what to say about this, but it seems to definitely raises questions and can potentially cause people to loose faith.

 

[Bonnie]

It’s a pity there are bishops who don’t seem to mind the sench, or have no sense of smell.

Drat - too late to edit my typo. I meant “stench,” not “sench.”

 

[Gorgias]

But putting such a person in charge of priestly formation?

“Priestly formation”???

dixieagle:

assisting in formation of priests.

Immacolata:

Why would he be moved into a position of forming priests?

Umm… guys? It’s “ongoing priestly formation”, not “pre-ordination formation”. In other words, he’s in charge of the department that provides continuing education for existing priests (not seminarians).

Your responses make me think that you thought he was in charge of the formation of seminarians…

 

[tbcrawford]

This is very worrying for the entire Catholic Church as a whole,the message this appointment gives to the world is not the message of Christ’s love and that the true Chirch He established.

I am concerned for the damage this will do and it will damage the reputation of the church. This has far reaching consequences indeed.

 

[tbcrawford]

I do not know what to say about this, but it seems to definitely raises questions and can potentially cause people to loose faith.

 

[Immacolata]

Umm… guys? It’s “ongoing priestly formation”, not “pre-ordination formation”. In other words, he’s in charge of the department that provides continuing education for existing priests (not seminarians).

Your responses make me think that you thought he was in charge of the formation of seminarians…

… my mistake, I had thought he was in charge of the formation of seminarians. My opinion still stands, however; I do not believe he should be in charge of the education of any priests, seeing as he is certainly not a role model.

 

[BroomWagon]

This is very worrying for the entire Catholic Church as a whole,the message this appointment gives to the world is not the message of Christ’s love and that the true Chirch He established.

I am concerned for the damage this will do and it will damage the reputation of the church. This has far reaching consequences indeed.

It’s very very depressing, I wish they had a policy say to have jobs like being a maintenance worker. Also, I think some good people might be turned down from the Priesthood.

 

[dixieagle]

Why does at least one other story from yesterday say his guilt is “alleged”?

The original story referenced by the OP gives the details of his confession, conviction, and then subsequent overturning of the verdict on a technicality: the judge allowed the jury to hear the priest’s statement that he was “bisexual or homosexual”.

In order to avoid a retrial, he agreed to Pretrial Intervention. There is nothing “alleged” about this.

 

[Seeker1961]

True, but priests are not desk jockeys. They are not mere employees. A bishop has certain responsibilities toward his priests that are quite different than any other boss-employee dynamic.

Is the solution permanent ostracization? In this case, there was one incident and he already went through the legal system and is on the other side. Even if the Church were to disavow him, what does he do? As you said, who would want to hire him? So is he destined for a life of homelessness and/or living on welfare because of that one incident?

I’m somewhat uncomfortable in that I seem to have placed myself in a position of defending a child abuser. That’s really not what I’m trying to do. I just wonder what the appropriate response is. It’s particularly easy to have strong feelings of loathing towards perpetrators of these crimes. But what does society do with them?

I’m sorry but once the Priest abuses a child all bets are off. I don’t care that it was only once incident. In my company, he’d be terminated immediately. No unemployement because he would be fired for cause. He’d have to find his own job and his own place to live. Sweep floors,clean toilets, take out the trash, pick crops…I don’t care. The money from the pockets of hardworking Catholics in the Newark archdiocese should not be paying for this man’s rent, food and clothing.

 

[dixieagle]

Umm… guys? It’s “ongoing priestly formation”, not “pre-ordination formation”. In other words, he’s in charge of the department that provides continuing education for existing priests (not seminarians).

Your responses make me think that you thought he was in charge of the formation of seminarians…

You are correct; I did believe it was seminarians (which priestly formation suggests…)

That said, I hardly think that anyone with his background should be in a position to influence the formation of ANYONE, whether seminarian or ordained priest.

To my way of thinking, he should be doing some job with no influence or authority whatsoever, even if the Archdiocese feels compelled to provide his room and board.

The archdiocesan spokesman, Mr. Goodness (!!!) sounds to me like someone who doesn’t “get it” yet, either. We don’t need to be referring to the “terrible ordeal” of such molesters… only of the victims.

 

[mgoforth]

Not to start a fight, but playing devil’s advocate for a moment, what should the Church do with priests like this?

I think this is where we have to defer to the judgment of his superiors. Would I have promoted him? Maybe not, but I don’t have all the facts. This is the first I’ve ever heard of the man and I suspect many others who’ve responded are in the same boat.

Even if he did commit this terrible crime, twelve years may have been long enough for a profound change to occur in his life…he may not even be the same person today (spiritually) that he was then.

I’m sure I’ll get flamed hard for this, but those of us on this forum don’t have all the evidence and aren’t in the position of authority to make this call. Those who are in authority over this priest were put there by God, and as Catholics we’re called to respect legitimate authority figures.

 

[epan]

I do not understand this, nor do I understand why there appears to be such a disconnect between what the average Catholic, and average any other person, see as proper conduct in such matters.

What is going on here? (that is a rhetorical question. i realize that nobody outside of the offices that make the decisions actually know the answer)

 

[revert_jen]

(Shakespeare but don’t remember what play.)

None. It’s the end of Sonnet 94.

To the subject of the thread, I am troubled by the appointment as well. Even though the position is related to ordained priests, it is also a position where information about child abuse might, one would think, come up. So in addition to the extremely poor example of setting a self-admitted homosexual or bisexual pedophile or ephebophile* in a position of honor, there is the question about whether any information so received (outside the confessional, of course) would be handled properly. In addition, there may be discrepancies or difficulties with the content of training that he would approve.

But as to what should be done with him, the answer is to put him in a lowly position within the archdiocesan offices. I do not have a lot of experience in that sort of office (in fact I have none) but from seeing other offices, there are bound to be positions that are more supervised and less visible. Perhaps he has been filling those positions for a while, but for the sake of his victim, he should probably continue to do so.

–Jen

*Thanks, dixieagle for the word, which I actually had to look up but it may fit: basically a pedophile, but instead of young children, refers to adolescents below the age of consent. The only question about it is that the boy’s age, which was 14, appears to be on the edge of the divide between pedophilia and ephebophilia.

 

[The_Bucket]

Even if he did commit this terrible crime, twelve years may have been long enough for a profound change to occur in his life…he may not even be the same person today (spiritually) that he was then.

This is totally, totally irrelevant. I don’t care if he’s a changed man and the general public doesn’t either. The clergy need to understand that there’s a great enough crisis of faith among the rank-and-file that they must take extraordinary steps to ensure that the Church and Her members are protected. And the way to protect the Church is not by shuffling priests here or there, it’s by sending strong messages that while you are always redeemable no matter what sin you’ve committed, you are not to be trusted anymore if you commit sins of this nature. Period and end of discussion.

I don’t know that someone in this situation with a “relatively minor” offense should be instantly defrocked and kicked out, but he should basically be sent away and not allowed to be in active ministry. And yes, forever. Just because you are redeemable by the grace of God does not mean you should be ministering to his flock.

An alcoholic can get sober, but do you then make him the MC at a keg party? Neither then should you allow priests who commit sexual crimes to be in charge of the flock. Maybe a priest who engaged in sexual relations (same or opposite sex, it’s the same moral offense) with another adult could be given a parish after an intensive “rehabilitation.” But not with children. Never, ever, ever. Giving any priest a second chance after such an evil gravely undermines the faith of the rank and file.

 

[Bonnie]

That said, I hardly think that anyone with his background should be in a position to influence the formation of ANYONE, whether seminarian or ordained priest.

That’s just what I said in my letter to the Archbiship. Along with a few other choice bits.

 

[Bonnie]

None. It’s the end of Sonnet 94.
–Jen

Thank you for the information! I was going to add to my post “or sonnet” but then thought, nah, it doesn’t sound like something from a sonnet.

Maybe I should take Eng. Lit. again - it’s been a lot of years!

 

[epan]

That’s just what I said in my letter to the Archbiship. Along with a few other choice bits.

I have one last thing to say. In nearly any other job, an employee known to engage in such behavior would be terminated on morals and/or legal grounds immediately. If the behavior was with other employees, underage users of the company’s services, there is no question of termination.

If a physician does such a thing with a patient, the expectation is revocation of his or her medical license, in addition to any other legal proceedings.

Why is this not similar in the Catholic Church? I priest or minister is in a trusted position of confidence and authority. Every other profession which is similar in that sense has strict ethical guidelines. School teachers, police personnel, physicians, military officers, and many other professions will not tolerate such behavior, if their ethical guidelines are followed.

You will never hear on the news (I hope) that Colonel Smith (fictitious name), a known child molester, has been promoted and will be taking over a new prestigious command. More likely you will hear that the person in question has received a reduction in rank, disciplinary action, and a dishonorable discharge.

Fill in your profession. All of them which have the responsibility for the care of people’s welfare, and all of them which have great authority, have higher moral standards than the Catholic Church appears to have in this matter.

I just do not understand. This matter should have been disposed of years ago, and it just keeps on coming up, over and over again.

 

[mgoforth]

Giving any priest a second chance after such an evil gravely undermines the faith of the rank and file.

I don’t completely disagree with you…but perhaps it’s the faith of the rank and file that needs fixing. Catholics don’t tend to be the most forgiving bunch with these issues, which is sorta ironic don’t you think? Does anyone here think that they’re somehow less deserving of the fires of Hell than this priest? We all are. If he’s a monster, then so am I and so are we all. But I don’t believe he’s a monster, just a flawed human being who did something terrible. Brother, I have walked a mile in his shoes and I’d want to be forgiven. Even if he wasn’t trusted again with a great responsibility (which is up to his superiors to decide, not us), he should be forgiven completely and loved just like we love ourselves.

 

[Bonnie]

This is totally, totally irrelevant. I don’t care if he’s a changed man and the general public doesn’t either. The clergy need to understand that there’s a great enough crisis of faith among the rank-and-file that they must take extraordinary steps to ensure that the Church and Her members are protected. And the way to protect the Church is not by shuffling priests here or there, it’s by sending strong messages that while you are always redeemable no matter what sin you’ve committed, you are not to be trusted anymore if you commit sins of this nature. Period and end of discussion.

I don’t know that someone in this situation with a “relatively minor” offense should be instantly defrocked and kicked out, but he should basically be sent away and not allowed to be in active ministry. And yes, forever. Just because you are redeemable by the grace of God does not mean you should be ministering to his flock.

An alcoholic can get sober, but do you then make him the MC at a keg party? Neither then should you allow priests who commit sexual crimes to be in charge of the flock. Maybe a priest who engaged in sexual relations (same or opposite sex, it’s the same moral offense) with another adult could be given a parish after an intensive “rehabilitation.” But not with children. Never, ever, ever. Giving any priest a second chance after such an evil gravely undermines the faith of the rank and file.

Amen! Amen! I normally don’t quote entire posts, but you are SO right! I even read this to my husband who tends to defend bishops and priests. For once he had nothing to say.

 

[dixieagle]

I think this is where we have to defer to the judgment of his superiors. Would I have promoted him? Maybe not, but I don’t have all the facts. This is the first I’ve ever heard of the man and I suspect many others who’ve responded are in the same boat.

Even if he did commit this terrible crime, twelve years may have been long enough for a profound change to occur in his life…he may not even be the same person today (spiritually) that he was then.

I’m sure I’ll get flamed hard for this, but those of us on this forum don’t have all the evidence and aren’t in the position of authority to make this call. Those who are in authority over this priest were put there by God, and as Catholics we’re called to respect legitimate authority figures.

With all due respect, there has been terrible damage inflicted in this whole sordid mess (Church molestation scandals) by “legitimate authority figures.”