South Boston priest charged with possession of child porn

[JoeBowen7]

Because He didn’t.

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.

Well, then let’s throw these criminals into the sea with a millstone around their necks.

 

[iloveangels]

Because He didn’t.

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.

Do you even have any idea what a millstone is?

 

[Godfollower]

Well, then let’s throw these criminals into the sea with a millstone around their necks.

No, that’s not what Jesus advocated: He advocated not scandalizing the little ones in the first place. But we are called on to forgive our brothers.

Protect the kids, let the civil authorities impose their sentences; don’t advocate murder, even in jest.

 

[Godfollower]

Do you even have any idea what a millstone is?

Seriously? Here’s a picture for you.http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Yncvo7WmI...AA0c/zovW81ZsShg/s1600/granite_mill_stone.jpg

Smaller ones were probably a hundred or two hundred pounds; the larger ones, several hundred. Later in history they were thousands of pounds.

The image of Jesus’ words conveyed the concept of death by drowning, illustrating the gravity of committing scandal against children.

 

[iloveangels]

Seriously? Here’s a picture for you.http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Yncvo7WmI...AA0c/zovW81ZsShg/s1600/granite_mill_stone.jpg

Smaller ones were probably a hundred or two hundred pounds; the larger ones, several hundred. Later in history they were thousands of pounds.

The image of Jesus’ words conveyed the concept of death by drowning, illustrating the gravity of committing scandal against children.

Exactly. It’s pretty clear what having a millstone tied to a person’s neck underwater would do.

 

[iloveangels]

Matthew 18:6
Causing to Stumble ] “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. [NIV]

And for those of you who are purists:
6
“Whoever causes one of these little ones 5 who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” [NAB]

OR

6 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. [Douay-Rheims, 1899]

Take your pick. They’re all very similar and all very clear.

 

[ringil]

I believe that some folks may be mistakenly blending the issues of sin and suitability for the Priesthood.

Certainly, Christ will forgive any sin if sincerely confessed- including child molestation and rape.

However the fact the such individuals would receive forgiveness does not mean they are or remain suitable to remain active Catholic Priests. The Church would decide this and it is her role to do so.

It should be emphasized that only the Church decides a valid vocation in the first place. If the Church finds an individual unfit for ministry then they really have no vocation at all because we believe that Christ makes his will known through the visible Church. If the Church removes a men from the active priesthood then it is Christ’s will that he be removed from ministerial priesthood.

The Church is both human and divine and some actions remove the appropriateness of a man serving “in the world”.

And I say, let’s find them all and throw em’ all out of the Priesthood!

 

[Godfollower]

I believe that some folks may be mistakenly blending the issues of sin and suitability for the Priesthood.

Certainly, Christ will forgive any sin if sincerely confessed- including child molestation and rape.

However the fact the such individuals would receive forgiveness does not mean they are or remain suitable to remain active Catholic Priests. The Church would decide this and it is her role to do so.

It should be emphasized that only the Church decides a valid vocation in the first place. If the Church finds an individual unfit for ministry then they really have no vocation at all because we believe that Christ makes his will known through the visible Church. If the Church removes a men from the active priesthood then it is Christ’s will that he be removed from ministerial priesthood.

The Church is both human and divine and some actions remove the appropriateness of a man serving “in the world”.

And I say, let’s find them all and throw em’ all out of the Priesthood!

This is the issue I’m trying to address: we’re talking about people whom the Church has already said have a vocation as priest!

And you can’t throw someone out of the priesthood; sacerdos in aeternum, remember? All you can do is suspend their priestly faculties – but even then they’re still valid priests with the ability under canon law to act as priests.

So why not keep an eye on them and put them where they can’t do any harm?

 

[iloveangels]

This is the issue I’m trying to address: we’re talking about people whom the Church has already said have a vocation as priest!

And you can’t throw someone out of the priesthood; sacerdos in aeternum, remember? All you can do is suspend their priestly faculties – but even then they’re still valid priests with the ability under canon law to act as priests.

So why not keep an eye on them and put them where they can’t do any harm?

Because they are not our responsibility to babysit anymore once we defrock them.

We need to be far more careful who we ordain, IMHO.

 

[iloveangels]

I believe that some folks may be mistakenly blending the issues of sin and suitability for the Priesthood.

Certainly, Christ will forgive any sin if sincerely confessed- including child molestation and rape.

However the fact the such individuals would receive forgiveness does not mean they are or remain suitable to remain active Catholic Priests. The Church would decide this and it is her role to do so.

It should be emphasized that only the Church decides a valid vocation in the first place. If the Church finds an individual unfit for ministry then they really have no vocation at all because we believe that Christ makes his will known through the visible Church. If the Church removes a men from the active priesthood then it is Christ’s will that he be removed from ministerial priesthood.

The Church is both human and divine and some actions remove the appropriateness of a man serving “in the world”.

And I say, let’s find them all and throw em’ all out of the Priesthood!

This is a very good post. Yes, there are two issues here as you say.

1. Sins can be forgiven, BUT ALSO
2. Some people are ordained who really didn’t have a vocation after all and we only find out about it later.

Yes, they’re already ordained, but their faculties can be removed and they can be laicized, if it is found that they don’t have a vocation, after all. This does happen and it’s not rare.

 

[TheDoctor]

Matthew 18:6
Causing to Stumble ] “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. [NIV]

And for those of you who are purists:
6
“Whoever causes one of these little ones 5 who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” [NAB]

OR

6 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. [Douay-Rheims, 1899]

Take your pick. They’re all very similar and all very clear.

Please read my post #55. There is more to these verses than what you have picked.

 

[ringil]

This is the issue I’m trying to address: we’re talking about people whom the Church has already said have a vocation as priest!

And you can’t throw someone out of the priesthood; sacerdos in aeternum, remember? All you can do is suspend their priestly faculties – but even then they’re still valid priests with the ability under canon law to act as priests.

So why not keep an eye on them and put them where they can’t do any harm?

Secular Priests can indeed be “thrown out”.

Brother Jr. explains this really well but canon law is very different for diocesan priests vs. religious priests/brothers.

The diocese has no complete obligation to care for it’s priests if they are deemed inappropriate for service. Diocesan priests serve at the wish of the Bishop.

Monks/nuns cannot be “gotten rid of” in the same way, and there are cases where guilty religious are being maintained in monasteries or priories.

The diocese isn’t equipped to “keep an eye” on fallen priests. There is not mechanism for this.

In addition, I and, I would imagine many others, don’t want their $ going to support child rapists.

Let these guys pay their price to society and then make their way in the world.

The fact that they remain priests is, of course, true but has no bearing on the dioceses’ need to support them in perpetuity.

The ministerial Church is better without them. God is showing us this and will continue to show us until we get our act together- much of this will depend on Bishops.

 

[iloveangels]

Secular Priests can indeed “throw them out”.

Brother Jr. explains this really well but canon law is very different for diocesan priests vs. religious priests/brothers.

The diocese has no complete obligation to care for it’s priests if they are deemed inappropriate for service. Diocesan priests serve at the wish of the Bishop.

Monks/nuns cannot be “gotten rid of” in the same way, and there are cases where guilty religious are being maintained in monasteries or priories.

The diocese isn’t equipped to “keep an eye” on fallen priests. There is not mechanism for this.

In addition, I and I would imagine many others, don’t want their $ going to support child rapists.

Let these guys pay their price to society and then make their way in the world.

The fact that they remain priests is, of course, true but has no bearing on the dioceses’ need to support them in perpetuity.

The ministerial Church is better without them. God is showing us this and will continue to show us until we get our act together- much of this will depend on Bishops.

Yes, and it’s up to religious orders to deal with criminals within their communities. This is also not rare, unfortunately. It’s one of the reasons that laypeople need to be very careful when dealing with these scenarios.

And you speak about the cost. Yes, it is not our financial responsibility to keep these criminals out of trouble once we defrock them. We should not be paying them salaries, nor should we be offering them services. Those items should all be removed permanently for them when they are laicized.

 

[TheDoctor]

Because they are not our responsibility to babysit anymore once we defrock them.

You have got to stop using “our” and “we” as if you or I or any other member of the layaity have any say in the matter. We don’t. If the Priest is convicted and pays his debt to society he is still a Priest. If he wants to continue in the Priesthood then it is up to his order, not you or I or the Archdiocese to determine how he can do that or if he can.

Yes, it is a horrible thing but not the most horrible sin a man has ever done. There is always redemption in Christ.

We need to be far more careful who we ordain, IMHO.

That advice has been true since the first century AD. There will always be sinful men and women in the Church because there will always be sinful men and women in the world.

 

[iloveangels]

You have got to stop using “our” and “we” as if you or I or any other member of the layaity have any say in the matter. We don’t. If the Priest is convicted and pays his debt to society he is still a Priest. If he wants to continue in the Priesthood then it is up to his order, not you or I or the Archdiocese to determine how he can do that or if he can.

Yes, it is a horrible thing but not the most horrible sin a man has ever done. There is always redemption in Christ.

That advice has been true since the first century AD. There will always be sinful men and women in the Church because there will always be sinful men and women in the world.

I’m sorry but I believe I have a right to know if a priest has been convicted of a crime of this sort. And I believe that I can go to the parish of my choice. I have no use for this kind of corruption.

BTW, TheDoctor, you’re making all imperfections have the same degree of gravity. All things are NOT the same. Some are far more serious than others. And some simply can’t be allowed in public ministry.

 

[ringil]

You have got to stop using “our” and “we” as if you or I or any other member of the layaity have any say in the matter. We don’t. If the Priest is convicted and pays his debt to society he is still a Priest. If he wants to continue in the Priesthood then it is up to his order, not you or I or the Archdiocese to determine how he can do that or if he can.

Yes, it is a horrible thing but not the most horrible sin a man has ever done. There is always redemption in Christ.

That advice has been true since the first century AD. There will always be sinful men and women in the Church because there will always be sinful men and women in the world.

You are still confused. It’s not the severity of the sin that renders them inappropriate for ministry- it is the NATURE of the act- the disruption of the social order within the visible Church. It is also the high probability of re-offense.

You continue to blend issues of redemption and issues of Church governance.

And agin, the fact that ordination leaves an indelible mark upon the person does not relate to ecclesial responsibility for them. The issue of the permanence of the Priesthood is a theological concept- the same as the permanence of Baptism, or Matrimony, for instance.

The Church does not have to care for diocesan priest in perpetuity per Canon law. It’s that simple.

 

[iloveangels]

You have got to stop using “our” and “we” as if you or I or any other member of the layaity have any say in the matter. We don’t. If the Priest is convicted and pays his debt to society he is still a Priest. If he wants to continue in the Priesthood then it is up to his order, not you or I or the Archdiocese to determine how he can do that or if he can.

Yes, it is a horrible thing but not the most horrible sin a man has ever done. There is always redemption in Christ.

That advice has been true since the first century AD. There will always be sinful men and women in the Church because there will always be sinful men and women in the world.

It’s all about not using the words “my” and “our” until we start talking about whose kids these are, and whose livelihoods are getting plundered. Sorry, TheDoctor, but I’m not buying what you have to sell.

 

[Godfollower]

I’m sorry but I believe I have a right to know if a priest has been convicted of a crime of this sort. And I believe that I can go to the parish of my choice. I have no use for this kind of corruption.

BTW, TheDoctor, you’re making all imperfections have the same degree of gravity. All things are NOT the same. Some are far more serious than others. And some simply can’t be allowed in public ministry.

You are still confused. It’s not the severity of the sin that renders them inappropriate for ministry- it is the NATURE of the act- the disruption of the social order within the visible Church.

You continue to blend issues of redemption and issues of Church governance.

And agin, the fact that ordination leaves an indelible mark upon the person does not relate to ecclesial responsibility for them. The issue of the permanence of the Priesthood is a theological concept- the same as the permanence of Baptism, or Matrimony, for instance.

The Church does not have to care for diocesan priest in perpetuity per Canon law. It’s that simple.

All right, let’s make a list. What sins require a priest to be laicized because the nature of the sin makes him unable to carry out his office (and try to avoid the Donatist heresy while you’re answering)?

• Child sexual abuse?
• Child physical abuse?
• Child pornography (producing or trading)?
• Child pornography (viewing)?
• Consensual sexual relationship with an adult?
• Consensual sexual relationship with an adult in the priest’s parish?
• Many instances of fornication?
• One instance of fornication?
• A habit of looking at (adult) pornography?
• One instance of looking at (adult) pornography?
• Other sexual sins (bestiality, homosexual acts, self-abuse, etc.)?
• Non-sexual sins?
• Stealing from the church?
• Stealing from a parishioner?
• Stealing from a stranger?
• A habit of blaspheming (OMGs, etc.)?
• One instance of blaspheming?
• Any violation of the Ten Commandments?
• Any mortal sin?
• Any grave sin?
• Any venial sin?

What about sins of omission? What if a priest suspected a fellow priest of child abuse but did nothing? What if he did something but not enough? What about the bishops who moved guilty priests around the diocese? What about bishops who were reluctant to put guilty priests in parishes but had solid documentary evidence from psychiatriests claiming that the priests were “cured”? What about bishops who suspected fellow bishops were moving guilty priests around but had no proof and so did nothing?

If it’s “the disruption of the social order within the visible Church” that means they must be laicized, what about alcoholic priests who refuse treatment? Or priests with anger issues? What about racist or sexist priests? Or priests who say “If your husband divorced you then you can’t receive Communion”?

Where do you draw the line: “We believe in forgiveness, but not for you!”?

Please, stop thinking that failing to laicize a priest is somehow an honor. Yes, it is an honor to be called in the first place, but priests foremost are servants (hence the Pope’s title “Servant of the Servants of God”).

I’m not saying never laicize a priest who abused a child. I’m just saying that it’s more nuanced than that; if a priest who abused a child is willing to abide by restrictions that prevent him from ever hurting another child again, why not accept that?

 

[Godfollower]

It’s all about not using the words “my” and “our” until we start talking about whose kids these are, and whose livelihoods are getting plundered. Sorry, TheDoctor, but I’m not buying what you have to sell.

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

 

[iloveangels]

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.

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

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

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.