South Boston priest charged with possession of child porn

[rfournier103]

…why defrock him? Once he gets out of prison, there are plenty of monasteries and convents that need chaplains . . . .

In my opinion… we (the faithful) don’t need him that badly. If found guilty, he will get the punnishment he deserves, and hopefully the treatment he needs.

Because of incidents like this, many people have moved on to other churches, or just stopped going altogether. Especially in the Boston area. I know first hand, because I stopped going to mass for six years because I was so disgusted by the scandal. Attendance went down, collections went down, and membership took a huge hit. The archdiocese was almost bankrupt, and MANY parishes had to shut their doors and sell their property as a result of the declining attendance and settlements paid out to victims.

“The scandal of 2002” was a result of moving priests (who had no business being priests) around to different places. Are we all sinners? Yes. Are we all criminals? No. I completely understand there are sinners in the priesthood. I accept that 100%. What I refuse to accept are criminals in the priesthood. It’s too important a vocation, and I think we’ve had enough of that.

It’s a hot-button issue for me because the Archdiocese of Boston is my home diocese, and I am sick and tired of it being dragged through the mud.

 

[seekerz]

those who want to demonize the Church.

Priest-offenders are doing that job quite well all by themselves, don’t you think?

 

[seekerz]

In my opinion… we (the faithful) don’t need him that badly.

That’s the point I was trying to make, but you did it so much better than me. Sin is one thing - abominable crimes are quite another.

 

[gus]

The latest update on the story;

When is this stuff going to end?

Jim

It will never end It can only be contained.
We have humans in the clergy subject to the same temptations. Child porn is a huge proplem in society. Effecting every walk of life. We can only act when we find thisout. My question is why the police never seem to catch the people who make the porn

 

[Seeker1961]

It will never end It can only be contained.
We have humans in the clergy subject to the same temptations. Child porn is a huge proplem in society. Effecting every walk of life. We can only act when we find thisout. My question is why the police never seem to catch the people who make the porn

For everyone one producer they catch, 10 more are there to take his place. Porn is a multi million dollar industry and the illegal stuff is worth even more.

 

[ringil]

At Christ’s second coming. Until then, weak men and women will give in to sin and temptation (and I am in that group as we all are). Until then we need to pray. And to work to get better. And to avoid temptation. And to carry on when we let God down.

Sorry if that sounds weak, but it is the only way I can wrap my head around this.

Only problem is that pedophilia is more than a sin. It is an illness, and priests with this illness have business in the ministry.

 

[seekerz]

For everyone one producer they catch, 10 more are there to take his place. Porn is a multi million dollar industry and the illegal stuff is worth even more.

Demand drives supply as in any other money-making venture. As long as people are attracted to child porn, there will be those willing to make it.

I do think that we have to stress the "child’ part here - this is not about adults choosing to watch pics of unclothed adults; this is about the degradation of innocence.

 

[Seeker1961]

Demand drives supply as in any other money-making venture. As long as people are attracted to child porn, there will be those willing to make it.

I do think that we have to stress the "child’ part here - this is not about adults choosing to watch pics of unclothed adults; this is about the degradation of innocence.

Yes, and the fact that child porn is illegal means that those who produce it make even more money.

 

[ringil]

HA! Just noticed that there are 2 different “seekers”

 

[seekerz]

Only problem is that pedophilia is more than a sin. It is an illness, and priests with this illness have business in the ministry.

You are correct. Immature minors aside, this is not usually a one-off “mistake” as story after sordid story has taught us. It has more of the qualities of an addiction/obsession and although theoretically no one is beyond redemption, I am not aware of any convincing data that offenders can be effectively rehabilitated.

 

[seekerz]

HA! Just noticed that there are 2 different “seekers”

Oh there are many more seeking than just us, we two just wear our names on our sleeves.

 

[ringil]

You are correct. Immature minors aside, this is not usually a one-off “mistake” as story after sordid story has taught us. It has more of the qualities of an addiction/obsession and although theoretically no one is beyond redemption, I am not aware of any convincing data that offenders can be effectively rehabilitated.

I said “have business” I meant “no business”. Thanks for reading my post correctly.

There are in-patient and out-patient therapeutic efforts in dealing with pedophiles that can “sometimes” reduce or eliminate these criminal acts HOWEVER success is far from universal and even the possibility of these folks re-offending renders them unfit for ministry, and a whole host of other jobs/roles in life.

 

[TheDoctor]

Only problem is that pedophilia is more than a sin. It is an illness, and priests with this illness have business in the ministry.

Not disagreeing with you, but so is alcoholism and drugs and adult porn and certain forms of theft and serial adultery. I am not looking to minimize or excuse what the Priest may or may not have done. What I am stressing is that no one is beyond the redemptive power of God but we have always had sinful people in and around the Church and we will always have sinful people in and around the Church.

That being said, as to whether this Priest continues in ministry is not up to us nor the Boston Archdiocese so all we can and should do is pray for everyone involved, especially the children, and show by our actions that this Priest is not representative of Christ’s Church.

 

[JoeBowen7]

Not disagreeing with you, but so is alcoholism and drugs …

With alcoholism and drugs you are ruining your own life. With child pornography you are going along with destroying the life and innocence of children. Chirst Himself spoke about capital punishment for such crimes:
Luke 17:2
Matthew 18:6
Mark 9:42
Should we follow the teaching that Christ has given us, or should we listen to the sob stories and lame excuses of these criminals and their defenders?

 

[TheDoctor]

With alcoholism and drugs you are ruining your own life. With child pornography you are going along with destroying the life and innocence of children. Chirst Himself spoke about capital punishment for such crimes:
Luke 17:2
Matthew 18:6
Mark 9:42
Should we follow the teaching that Christ has given us, or should we listen to the sob stories and lame excuses of these criminals and their defenders?

Where did I say we should listen to sob stories and lame excuses please? Go ahead, look. I’ll wait. While you are looking, let’s take a look at the Scripture you quoted:

Luke 17:2: “…it would be better for him if a millstone were put around his neck and he be thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin…” I agree, let’s follow the teaching of Christ so let’s continue with Luke 17:3-4 (those are Christ’s words just after the line you quoted):…“Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him And if he wrongs you seven times in one day and returns to you seven times saying, ‘I am sorry,’ you should forgive him.
Matthew and Mark are similar to each other, so I’ll quote from Mark: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe [in me] to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were put around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.” They both then go on to talk about fighting sin and temptation (metaphorically of course):“If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed than with two hands to go into Gehenna,* into the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life crippled than with two feet to be thrown into Gehenna. And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. Better for you to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into Gehenna, where ‘their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.”
In none of the Scripture you quoted does Jesus talk about accepting sin but He also does not talk about these sins against the “little ones” as being unforgivable. As I said in my post above: I am not looking to minimize or excuse what the Priest may or may not have done. What I am stressing is that no one is beyond the redemptive power of God but we have always had sinful people in and around the Church and we will always have sinful people in and around the Church.

Christ knew this by the way. If He did not, why would He leave us the verses you quoted?

 

[JoeBowen7]

Where did I say we should listen to sob stories and lame excuses please?

Although I used your quote for context, I was referring to other posters who use lame excuses to advocate leniency when dealing with this type of criminal.

 

[TheDoctor]

Although I used your quote for context, I was referring to other posters who use lame excuses to advocate leniency when dealing with this type of criminal.

If there is a legal and legitimate cause for leniency we should be willing to look at it (e.g. a battered spouse who strikes back at their attacker) but you are right Joe, we seem to look for loopholes rather than stand up for personal responsibility.

I know this is a hot button topic and I am sorry if I jumped at you.

 

[Godfollower]

Although I used your quote for context, I was referring to other posters who use lame excuses to advocate leniency when dealing with this type of criminal.

I don’t think anyone’s advocating leniency. They should do the appropriate time for whatever crime(s) they’ve committed. BUT . . . .

1. 
   *]Until guilt is proven, only prophylactic actions should be taken – suspension from active ministry, investigation, cooperation with civil authorities, etc.
   
   *]Once guilt is proven, obviously the Church should wait for the civil authorities to have their say (we’ve used up whatever right we might’ve had to hope for deference from them). They get to arrest, prosecute, convict, sentence, etc., apart from whatever the Church might do.
   
   *]Whatever happens, we should be willing to help with therapy and treatment for any victims, even if guilt of the priest isn’t proven (if he walks on “reasonable doubt,” the victim should still get care; if we really don’t believe the victim, s/he still needs care, though perhaps of a different sort).
   
   *]Once the civil authorities have had their say, the question remains about what to do with the priest while he’s in prison and afterward. He’s still a priest, and even laicizing him doesn’t change that. If we laicize him, we lose all control over him, just as if he were a layman. If, on the other hand, we transfer him to a place where he can’t hurt children (e.g., a monastery or convent, but not necessarily limited to those places), then (A) he can finish his life as a priest doing useful work; (B) he remains in the control of the Church, meaning we can make sure he doesn’t hurt anyone else; and (C) he frees up whoever would have been doing that work to take a position elsewhere. In effect, he works at the monastery as penance for the sins he’s committed; and the Church watches over him as penance for the sins we’ve committed.
   
   Do you see what I’m trying to say?

 

[JoeBowen7]

I don’t think anyone’s advocating leniency. They should do the appropriate time for whatever crime(s) they’ve committed. BUT . . . .

1. 
   *]Until guilt is proven, only prophylactic actions should be taken – suspension from active ministry, investigation, cooperation with civil authorities, etc.
   
   *]Once guilt is proven, obviously the Church should wait for the civil authorities to have their say (we’ve used up whatever right we might’ve had to hope for deference from them). They get to arrest, prosecute, convict, sentence, etc., apart from whatever the Church might do.
   
   *]Whatever happens, we should be willing to help with therapy and treatment for any victims, even if guilt of the priest isn’t proven (if he walks on “reasonable doubt,” the victim should still get care; if we really don’t believe the victim, s/he still needs care, though perhaps of a different sort).
   
   *]Once the civil authorities have had their say, the question remains about what to do with the priest while he’s in prison and afterward. He’s still a priest, and even laicizing him doesn’t change that. If we laicize him, we lose all control over him, just as if he were a layman. If, on the other hand, we transfer him to a place where he can’t hurt children (e.g., a monastery or convent, but not necessarily limited to those places), then (A) he can finish his life as a priest doing useful work; (B) he remains in the control of the Church, meaning we can make sure he doesn’t hurt anyone else; and (C) he frees up whoever would have been doing that work to take a position elsewhere. In effect, he works at the monastery as penance for the sins he’s committed; and the Church watches over him as penance for the sins we’ve committed.
   
   Do you see what I’m trying to say?

1. 
   Not really. If Our Divine Lord advocated putting a millstone around their necks and throwing them into the sea, then why not follow His prescription?

 

[Godfollower]

Not really. If Our Divine Lord advocated putting a millstone around their necks and throwing them into the sea, then why not follow His prescription?

Because He didn’t.

But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.

Matthew 18:6.

Jesus knew how to say “Kill him” or “Stone him.” All He said was that it would be better to be thrown in the sea with a millstone around your neck than to scandalize a child. And that’s (obviously) a perfectly true statement.

But He didn’t say to drown them.