South Boston priest charged with possession of child porn

[ringil]

What he’s “selling” is forgiveness and redemption in Christ. What do you have against that?

Redemption and forgiveness are not necessarily related to a men’s suitability to serve as a priest.

Along with the supernatural realities of sin and salvation; the Church operates within Canon Law and the bounds of Church governance. Christ makes his will known through the decisions of Bishops and gives them the authority to laicize priests.

We are talking diocesan priests here, only diocesan priests who serve at the leisure of the Bishop.

 

[Godfollower]

Godfollower;9602153:

What he’s “selling” is forgiveness and redemption in Christ. What do you have against that?

What he’s selling is something far more sinister than that, and he knows it.

Then please enlighten me, because I don’t see it. His post made the point that the Church has the authority to decide whether to laicize guilty priests, and we should keep in mind that Jesus forgives all who truly repent.

The bottom line is that I can attend Mass where I wish and where I and my family feel safe.

Then stay away from parishes with married men in the congregation, because statistically they’re more likely to abuse kids than Catholic priests are. For that matter, stay away from married male relatives, because the single largest source of child abusers is married men related to the victims.

The bottom line is that I shouldn’t have to pay for this, and I won’t pay for this.

Why not? As a Church we failed those children. Would you mind kicking in a couple of bucks for the victims’ therapy?

The bottom line is that if the Church wants to be taken seriously, then it will deal with criminals in its midst, clean up its act and stop whining.

It has done so and is continuing to do so. Any priest accused of abuse – not convicted, mind you, and not even “credibly” accused – is immediately removed from all public ministry. All accusations provoke immediate investigations and reporting to authorities.

It is only when an accusation appears not credible that the priests are returned to ministry.

 

[ringil]

It has done so and is continuing to do so. Any priest accused of abuse – not convicted, mind you, and not even “credibly” accused – is immediately removed from all public ministry. All accusations provoke immediate investigations and reporting to authorities.

It is only when an accusation appears not credible that the priests are returned to ministry.

And there is a problem with this? I think it is an entirely appropriate response. The same holds true for teachers, social workers, nurses, etc. Why should it be any different for priests?

 

[iloveangels]

Then please enlighten me, because I don’t see it. His post made the point that the Church has the authority to decide whether to laicize guilty priests, and we should keep in mind that Jesus forgives all who truly repent.

Then they should repent and then get laicized and get into a more suitable line of work. They’re not suitable for the priesthood.

Then stay away from parishes with married men in the congregation, because statistically they’re more likely to abuse kids than Catholic priests are. For that matter, stay away from married male relatives, because the single largest source of child abusers is married men related to the victims.

This is ridiculous. A married layperson doesn’t hear my confession, nor do I have to trust him with anything religious or even personal. He’s just a guy in the general population. You’re throwing out straw men now.

Why not? As a Church we failed those children. Would you mind kicking in a couple of bucks for the victims’ therapy?

Far better that they not have to have therapy. Far better that they were never messed with by some pervert.

It has done so and is continuing to do so. Any priest accused of abuse – not convicted, mind you, and not even “credibly” accused – is immediately removed from all public ministry. All accusations provoke immediate investigations and reporting to authorities.

Actually, this isn’t universally true. And it would be even less true if people like me weren’t watching. There are many, many instances of corruption in the Church. It’s rife with it. And not only sexual corruption, but embezzlement and other things too. Just a very few miles from where I am typing, a parish was embezzled out of almost a half MILLION dollars just a few years ago by a priest. I’m not even worried that you might figure out where I am because it’s so, so, soooo common. The laypeople in the parish finally turned him and the state cops came to collect him.

It is only when an accusation appears not credible that the priests are returned to ministry.

Which is almost true in every case now, thanks to the vigilance of laypeople.

 

[iloveangels]

All right, let’s make a list.

Again, you’re trying to make all sins have the same level of severity, but they DON’T.

 

[ricks1948]

I pray for this priest.

 

[Godfollower]

Redemption and forgiveness are not necessarily related to a men’s suitability to serve as a priest.

Along with the supernatural realities of sin and salvation; the Church operates within Canon Law and the bounds of Church governance. Christ makes his will known through the decisions of Bishops and gives them the authority to laicize priests.

We are talking diocesan priests here, only diocesan priests who serve at the leisure of the Bishop.

Actually, no. You’re thinking of governmental positions (“I serve at the pleasure of the President” and so forth). A priest is a priest forever; he is incardinated into the diocese or order of his ordination; he cannot be excardinated unless he is also incardinated into another diocese or order; and the bishop (or major superior or what have you) has a mandatory father-son relationship with him for life.

A bishop has no right under canon law to say “Father Jones, I’ve decided to go in another direction. Pack your things and leave. Good luck and God speed!” If the bishop wants to laicize the priest, he can do so after a canonical trial, but then the priest still has the right to appeal. It’s a long process.

So, if he’s repentant and willing to abide by restrictions preventing him from recidivizing, why not do so? The fact that he hurt a child in the past doesn’t affect his ability to conduct the Sacraments, remember? Why not use him where needed so long as he can’t hurt anyone else?

 

[Godfollower]

And there is a problem with this? I think it is an entirely appropriate response. The same holds true for teachers, social workers, nurses, etc. Why should it be any different for priests?

It shouldn’t, and it isn’t. I wasn’t complaining about it; I was citing it as evidence that the Church has taken steps to protect children.

 

[iloveangels]

It shouldn’t, and it isn’t. I wasn’t complaining about it; I was citing it as evidence that the Church has taken steps to protect children.

All whining aside, yes, there is nothing wrong with this for any one who abuses children. We don’t need this sort in the priesthood, the classroom, the college football program or anywhere else.

Frankly, we, as Catholics, have enough problems and shouldn’t have to deal with child-abusing trash in our parishes. Put em in the slammer where they belong and let’s get on with life.

 

[Godfollower]

Then they should repent and then get laicized and get into a more suitable line of work. They’re not suitable for the priesthood.

No one is suitable for the priesthood. Our priests are only priests because they’re called by God despite their lack of suitability. Arguing that a particular priest isn’t “suitable” for the priesthood because he abused a child is like saying a particular person isn’t “suitable” to receive Communion because he committed murder: We’re all unsuitable.

The very first Pope denied Christ on the night of His betrayal. He did so under oath. Yet he went on to lead the Church.

This is ridiculous. A married layperson doesn’t hear my confession, nor do I have to trust him with anything religious or even personal. He’s just a guy in the general population. You’re throwing out straw men now.

No, I’m trying to figure out how you want to handle this: laicize every priest who abused anyone? Or just who abused kids? How about priests who committed the sin of fornication?

Your argument was that you wanted to go to a parish where your kids were safe from molestation. If that’s really your reasoning, then you need to avoid parishes that have married men in them. That’s a far greater risk.

Far better that they not have to have therapy. Far better that they were never messed with by some pervert.

Agreed. But, now that it has happened, and this priest – to whom the bishop owes duties of support under canon law – is convicted and sentenced and has (eventually) been released from prison, the question is, what to do about them? And, according to our theology, we’re all sinners.

Actually, this isn’t universally true. And it would be even less true if people like me weren’t watching. There are many, many instances of corruption in the Church. It’s rife with it. And not only sexual corruption, but embezzlement and other things too. Just a very few miles from where I am typing, a parish was embezzled out of almost a half MILLION dollars just a few years ago by a priest. I’m not even worried that you might figure out where I am because it’s so, so, soooo common. The laypeople in the parish finally turned him and the state cops came to collect him.

Yes, there’s corruption in the Church. Surprise, surprise, surprise. You would almost think it wasn’t explicitly documented in the Gospels and in the Acts of the Apostles. But it was, because it happened from the very beginning. It’s a holy but imperfect institution.

Those of us who sin – you and me included, yes? – will pay a heavy price in the afterlife. Priests will pay a heavier burden because of their position. That doesn’t mean that the Church is evil, and it doesn’t mean that people who have committed terrible sins cannot be saved.

Which is almost true in every case now, thanks to the vigilance of laypeople.

Actually, having watched it for the last decade, I’d have to say that it’s actually the hierarchy that’s been more vigilant. The laity were extremely important, particularly in the early years after 2002, but it’s the bishops’ willingness to abide by the Dallas Accords that has made the difference.

 

[iloveangels]

No one is suitable for the priesthood. Our priests are only priests because they’re called by God despite their lack of suitability. Arguing that a particular priest isn’t “suitable” for the priesthood because he abused a child is like saying a particular person isn’t “suitable” to receive Communion because he committed murder: We’re all unsuitable.

The very first Pope denied Christ on the night of His betrayal. He did so under oath. Yet he went on to lead the Church.

No, I’m trying to figure out how you want to handle this: laicize every priest who abused anyone? Or just who abused kids? How about priests who committed the sin of fornication?

Your argument was that you wanted to go to a parish where your kids were safe from molestation. If that’s really your reasoning, then you need to avoid parishes that have married men in them. That’s a far greater risk.

Agreed. But, now that it has happened, and this priest – to whom the bishop owes duties of support under canon law – is convicted and sentenced and has (eventually) been released from prison, the question is, what to do about them? And, according to our theology, we’re all sinners.

Yes, there’s corruption in the Church. Surprise, surprise, surprise. You would almost think it wasn’t explicitly documented in the Gospels and in the Acts of the Apostles. But it was, because it happened from the very beginning. It’s a holy but imperfect institution.

Those of us who sin – you and me included, yes? – will pay a heavy price in the afterlife. Priests will pay a heavier burden because of their position. That doesn’t mean that the Church is evil, and it doesn’t mean that people who have committed terrible sins cannot be saved.

Actually, having watched it for the last decade, I’d have to say that it’s actually the hierarchy that’s been more vigilant. The laity were extremely important, particularly in the early years after 2002, but it’s the bishops’ willingness to abide by the Dallas Accords that has made the difference.

Yeah, whatever. Put em up for trial and if they did it, put em in the slammer, laicize em and get them off the payroll… and let’s get on with life. Enough.

 

[Godfollower]

Godfollower;9602147:

All right, let’s make a list.

Again, you’re trying to make all sins have the same level of severity, but they DON’T.

Actually, no, quite the opposite: I asked you which sins require mandatory laicization for all priests committing them, and which don’t. That’s the exact opposite of claiming that they’re all the same level of severity.

I’m trying to understand the theological point you’re making. Are you arguing a form of Donatism? Are you arguing that all priests have to be perfect? Are you arguing that some sins require laicization and others don’t? If so, which ones?

 

[Godfollower]

All whining aside, yes, there is nothing wrong with this for any one who abuses children. We don’t need this sort in the priesthood, the classroom, the college football program or anywhere else.

Frankly, we, as Catholics, have enough problems and shouldn’t have to deal with child-abusing trash in our parishes. Put em in the slammer where they belong and let’s get on with life.

Yeah, whatever. Put em up for trial and if they did it, put em in the slammer, laicize em and get them off the payroll… and let’s get on with life. Enough.

Then what?

There are people out there alleging that the Church is liable for laicized priests who later abuse children, because we laicized them, kicked them out, and then did nothing to warn the communities they moved into.

. . . which, of course, was perfectly true: we didn’t warn those communities, because we have no way to know where a so-called “former” priest goes.

The simple fact of the matter is that most of these priests will not receive life sentences without parole. From the point of view of protecting children – which we all want, yes? – why not lock them up in a monastery once they’re out of prison?

 

[iloveangels]

Actually, no, quite the opposite: I asked you which sins require mandatory laicization for all priests committing them, and which don’t. That’s the exact opposite of claiming that they’re all the same level of severity.

I’m trying to understand the theological point you’re making. Are you arguing a form of Donatism? Are you arguing that all priests have to be perfect? Are you arguing that some sins require laicization and others don’t? If so, which ones?

What I’m saying is very simple. Corruption is corruption wherever you find it, even in the Church. And I’m not having any of it. I’m not paying for it either.

If you want to do so, that’s your business.

 

[Godfollower]

What I’m saying is very simple. Corruption is corruption wherever you find it, even in the Church. And I’m not having any of it. I’m not paying for it either.

If you want to do so, that’s your business.

Then back to the question I asked earlier: if a parish priest embezzles from the poor box to supplement his stipend – which is corruption and harms the poor – do we laicize him, too? Given that all priests are sinners, what requires laicization? Is it all sin of any sort? Is it just mortal sin? Is it all corruption? Or just sexual corruption? Or just pedophilic (sp?) corruption?

And so on . . . .

 

[iloveangels]

Then back to the question I asked earlier: if a parish priest embezzles from the poor box to supplement his stipend – which is corruption and harms the poor – do we laicize him, too? Given that all priests are sinners, what requires laicization? Is it all sin of any sort? Is it just mortal sin? Is it all corruption? Or just sexual corruption? Or just pedophilic (sp?) corruption?

And so on . . . .

So you think clergy ought to be able to steal too, do you?

 

[Godfollower]

So you think clergy ought to be able to steal too, do you?

Really? Is that all you’ve been able to gather from this discussion?

No priest should commit any sin; but every priest sins. If your logic is that failing to laicize a priest who sins constitutes condoning his commission of that sin in the future, then by your logic all priests should be laicized; and no more should be ordained.

You’re arguing an absolute, bright-line test: all priests who fit a certain category should be laicized immediately. That category of yours appears to include priests proven to be guilty of child molestation, and perhaps of possession of child pornography; but now I’m starting to think that you would also include any priest who embezzles, steals, or commits other sins.

Perhaps I’m just not following your argument correctly. Are you saying that the priesthood can only contain priests who never sin? If that’s not it, then what principle are you applying?

 

[JoeBowen7]

Really? Is that all you’ve been able to gather from this discussion?

No priest should commit any sin; but every priest sins. If your logic is that failing to laicize a priest who sins constitutes condoning his commission of that sin in the future, then by your logic all priests should be laicized; and no more should be ordained.

You’re arguing an absolute, bright-line test: all priests who fit a certain category should be laicized immediately. That category of yours appears to include priests proven to be guilty of child molestation, and perhaps of possession of child pornography; but now I’m starting to think that you would also include any priest who embezzles, steals, or commits other sins.

Perhaps I’m just not following your argument correctly. Are you saying that the priesthood can only contain priests who never sin? If that’s not it, then what principle are you applying?

Exploitation of children by perverts is an extremely grave sin worthy of serious punishment.

 

[iloveangels]

Really? Is that all you’ve been able to gather from this discussion?

No priest should commit any sin; but every priest sins. If your logic is that failing to laicize a priest who sins constitutes condoning his commission of that sin in the future, then by your logic all priests should be laicized; and no more should be ordained.

You’re arguing an absolute, bright-line test: all priests who fit a certain category should be laicized immediately. That category of yours appears to include priests proven to be guilty of child molestation, and perhaps of possession of child pornography; but now I’m starting to think that you would also include any priest who embezzles, steals, or commits other sins.

Perhaps I’m just not following your argument correctly. Are you saying that the priesthood can only contain priests who never sin? If that’s not it, then what principle are you applying?

Well, advocating sins for them before they’re committed is pretty bad, Godfollower.

At any rate, we were talking about child sexual abuse which is absolutely inexcusable. In every case. Even if it only happens once. It cannot be permitted for it’s sheer evil.

Not to mention the trail of ruined lives, the cover-ups, the persecution of parents of the abused (!), the fact that the Catholic Church has become the laughing-stock of the Western world and the Billions, yes Billions, of dollars in penalties we’ve paid because we can’t seem to manage the sexual perversion among the clergy of our churches.

The whole thing is disgusting and ridiculous. It’s one thing to discover an evil man, but how many times must we go through this before people get the point, stop the ludicrous levels of denial and learn to deal with it? It’s way past time to get control of this problem.

 

[seekerz]

Well, advocating sins for them before they’re committed is pretty bad, Godfollower.

At any rate, we were talking about child sexual abuse which is absolutely inexcusable. In every case. Even if it only happens once. It cannot be permitted for it’s sheer evil.

Not to mention the trail of ruined lives, the cover-ups, the persecution of parents of the abused (!), the fact that the Catholic Church has become the laughing-stock of the Western world and the Billions, yes Billions, of dollars in penalties we’ve paid because we can’t seem to manage the sexual perversion among the clergy of our churches.

The whole thing is disgusting and ridiculous. It’s one thing to discover an evil man, but how many times must we go through this before people get the point, stop the ludicrous levels of denial and learn to deal with it? It’s way past time to get control of this problem.

And to think we would go into convulsions if convicted fraudsters were released and re-hired to work in our financial institutions after serving their time…Pedophilia isn’t only an abominable sin - it’s an actual crime!