S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Is the soccer coach teaching them that if they do not follow what he says they will be in hell for eternity?
- Status
J
JReducation
Guest
LOL, OK, Jam, you just lost me.
But don’t worry. I get lost easily. It’s age.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
D
DOShea
Guest
It seems like what is being lost in the translation is that people are viewing incidents of this nature on some sort of sliding scale, with the variable in it being the degree or level of trust placed in the person or the authority they have over the victim. That, really, is a separate issue than the question of is it/is it not a moral violation. I don’t think there is a question of the latter, but only a question whether or not culpability is increased when the authority/degree of trust increases.
By way of example, consider murder trials. The object of the trial is to prove or disprove the accused committed the crime(s) alleged. If it is determined the accused is guilty, THEN there is the question of how heinous the crime, or what is the culpability factor. Our legal system holds certain types of murders particularly heinous, such as killing minors or policemen.
As it applies to this situation, it seems we all agree the moral violation is one thing, but the “stink” factor of it is greater because the perpetrator was a priest. Not necessarily that his ordination is the hot button, but his position of trust. Just as we might think it more objectionable if the current head of the IRS didn’t pay his taxes as opposed to, say, the ordinary citizen. We expect them to conduct themselves to a higher standard as is commensurate with their position of authority.
So the difference is not that the sin itself is any more severe, but only that the circumstances surrounding the sin seem much more astounding to us. It is natural to expect our leaders (in anything) to go out of their way to not be an example of sin, but if we expect that as anything beyond a norm, we will always come away disappointed. Most of our lawmakers are honest people, yet a few of them get caught with their hand in the cookie jar and we feel violated in the area of trust that we placed in them with our votes. Likewise, thought not through votes, we expect more from our priests, but again the problem is really an expectation that they will all be flawless, when history and a knowledge of evil in the world teaches us they all won’t be.
By way of example, consider murder trials. The object of the trial is to prove or disprove the accused committed the crime(s) alleged. If it is determined the accused is guilty, THEN there is the question of how heinous the crime, or what is the culpability factor. Our legal system holds certain types of murders particularly heinous, such as killing minors or policemen.
As it applies to this situation, it seems we all agree the moral violation is one thing, but the “stink” factor of it is greater because the perpetrator was a priest. Not necessarily that his ordination is the hot button, but his position of trust. Just as we might think it more objectionable if the current head of the IRS didn’t pay his taxes as opposed to, say, the ordinary citizen. We expect them to conduct themselves to a higher standard as is commensurate with their position of authority.
So the difference is not that the sin itself is any more severe, but only that the circumstances surrounding the sin seem much more astounding to us. It is natural to expect our leaders (in anything) to go out of their way to not be an example of sin, but if we expect that as anything beyond a norm, we will always come away disappointed. Most of our lawmakers are honest people, yet a few of them get caught with their hand in the cookie jar and we feel violated in the area of trust that we placed in them with our votes. Likewise, thought not through votes, we expect more from our priests, but again the problem is really an expectation that they will all be flawless, when history and a knowledge of evil in the world teaches us they all won’t be.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
DOshea, I think you just framed the problem well here, but I dsiagree that the laity (with regard to clergy) or the public (with regard to civil leaders) expect perfection (while not stating so). I think they expect exceptional fidelity to the very particular areas that are extraordinarily an object of dedication. They at least expect great care and great effort. Thus, we’d forgive a Senator a personal failing more readily than if he had engaged in domestic election fraud, if he were particularly vocal about supporting democracy overseas. And we might forgive a priest more readily for a sin against honesty because he does not take specific vows in that area, nor does he represent in his very lifestyle a “state” (similar to celibacy or chastity) which is a witness to “honesty” specifically. Naturally we are all called to the fullness of Christian virtue, including priests.
A particular priest’s lack of virtue in other areas tends to come to light if the offenses are flagrant, constant, or publicized, which is a more rare situation. That wouldn’t apply in the case of the vast majority of priests, and probably not in the case of the subject priest here, either.
A particular priest’s lack of virtue in other areas tends to come to light if the offenses are flagrant, constant, or publicized, which is a more rare situation. That wouldn’t apply in the case of the vast majority of priests, and probably not in the case of the subject priest here, either.
O
OriginalJS
Guest
I did not say “pull this man” or anything near that. I said only that contact should be limited. I am surprised by what I perceive as the inference that priests are not to be held to a higher standard of moral conduct than the laity. If that were true, wouldn’t that weaken the moral authority of the priest? Many Catholics teach their children that priests stand on a higher moral plane than the laity. Is that wrong? Is, after all, the priest only a man? I wonder.Why is it so difficult for the laity to understand that a diocese or a religious order is bound by the same rules of law as the state? Everyone wants tis bishop to pull this man, because someone complains that he’s having sex with a their teenager, without any proof. It does not work that way. Church law does not allow this. It is immoral to violate human rights. The person is innocent until proven guilty. The Church cannot do anything different. Let’s just accept this. It is moral law and it cannot be changed.
You may some some good points about the parents. How can any parent who suspects that any adult and their teenager are having sex, allow the two to be together unsuperfised in their basement? Where is their common sense?
Finally, there is the fact that the bishop did pull the priest when the proof was presented. That is the moral law. He complied. Please, for God’s sake, let’s stop demanding that the Church violate the rights of her priests when when we would jump and vile civil suits against anyone who violated our human rights. Priests do not lose their human rights, because they are ordained.
Please don’t give me the “we hold them to a higher standard.” We seem to be holding to a higher standard some people. When that happens, it’s not a higher standard, it is discrimination. I also hod the President to a higher standard, but the most pro-abortion candidate was elected with Catholic votes, the same Catholics who want to hang a priest for having sex with a teenager looked the other way as our nation elected the most pro-murder candidate to ever hold the office of the Presidency.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
Maybe I’m not saying it right. It may not be your fault at all that our messages are not connecting. Let me try it this way.
Every human being has a call in life. There are moral and civil laws that apply to the person. These laws do factor in his call. However, these same laws don’t always factor things in the way that many of us would do it.
In this case, the law of the Church would look at those points that I mentioned before: the promise of celibacy, the universal call to chastity, the age of the other party and the consent of the other party. It sounds like a cold way of doing it, but it’s the fairest way, because it takes the emotions out of the judgment making it more objective.
The man in the pew, on the other hand, can allow himself to have an emotional response to a situation like this, because he does not have to make a judgment call. A bishop or an ecclesial tribunal has to avoid the emotions in order to act according to the law and not according to the feelings of the person making the judgment.
It is certainly true that a sin of this kind has different moral complications for different people. If this had been a single male the issue of celibacy would not enter the equation. It would still be a sin against chastity. However, if this had been a married male, then you have not only the issue of chastity, but also the issue of adultery.
I’m not a canon lawyer, but my guess is that if this were an adulterous relationship, the moral gravity would be even greater than that incurred by a celibate cleric. The marriage vows are solemn, whereas celibacy is a simple promise, not a solemn vow, unless you belong to a religious order. A canonist would be able to see something that I may have missed. In any case, as you can see, the Church does hold people accountable according to their state in life. She looks at the sin and at the person’s state in life.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
S
sidbrown
Guest
The priest is teaching that it is a mortal sin to have sex outside of marriage and that this sin must be confessed either to him or to another priest, or else you will go to hell.Maybe I’m not saying it right. It may not be your fault at all that our messages are not connecting. Let me try it this way.
Every human being has a call in life. There are moral and civil laws that apply to the person. These laws do factor in his call. However, these same laws don’t always factor things in the way that many of us would do it.
In this case, the law of the Church would look at those points that I mentioned before: the promise of celibacy, the universal call to chastity, the age of the other party and the consent of the other party. It sounds like a cold way of doing it, but it’s the fairest way, because it takes the emotions out of the judgment making it more objective.
The man in the pew, on the other hand, can allow himself to have an emotional response to a situation like this, because he does not have to make a judgment call. A bishop or an ecclesial tribunal has to avoid the emotions in order to act according to the law and not according to the feelings of the person making the judgment.
It is certainly true that a sin of this kind has different moral complications for different people. If this had been a single male the issue of celibacy would not enter the equation. It would still be a sin against chastity. However, if this had been a married male, then you have not only the issue of chastity, but also the issue of adultery.
I’m not a canon lawyer, but my guess is that if this were an adulterous relationship, the moral gravity would be even greater than that incurred by a celibate cleric. The marriage vows are solemn, whereas celibacy is a simple promise, not a solemn vow, unless you belong to a religious order. A canonist would be able to see something that I may have missed. In any case, as you can see, the Church does hold people accountable according to their state in life. She looks at the sin and at the person’s state in life.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
The lay person does not go around preaching to people what is right and what is wrong and therefore he would not be open to the charge that he has committed a mortal sin of hypocrisy and failure to practice what he preaches. Further the lay person is not another Christ, but the priest is another Christ.
A man who has sex with a child is guilty of (at least) statutory rape.
A father who has sex with his child is guilty of (at least) two crimes, statutory rape and incest.
So too, a Catholic priest who has sex with a child, since he is the spiritual father of a Catholic child, is guilty of more than just statutory rape. The Catholic priest is another Christ, the spiritual father of the child, and is called “Father”. Therefore it would be absurd if he were not held to a higher standard than the average Joe in the street.
J
JReducation
Guest
I have already explained to you, this is not the way that conon law is written. It’s not the way that the Church practices law. The Church looks at the action against a very specific set of criteria. The spiritual fatherhood of the priest is not one of those. Nor does the Church look at whether or not the priest preaches others to be chaste.
Deacons, priests and bishops preach honesty also. But when they are dishonest, they are not judged against their preaching. They are judged against the law.
We cannot change this. The law is the law. It factors in some things and does not factor in other things. It certainly does not factor in spiritual childhood and call it spiritual statutory rape. There is not such thing as spiritual childhood in canon law. Spiritual childhood or spiritual fatherhood applies in theology, not in canon law. If this were a minor it would be a straightfoward case of child sexual abuse. There are consequences for that. Since this was not a minor, that law does not apply here. Then we are left with a violation of chastity, the promise of celibacy, the breach of trust and the scandal. I think that’s enough. Don’t you?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
D
DOShea
Guest
I don’t understand the point you are trying to make in this statement. May I ask a question and have you explain it using what you meant in the above quote?
Case A: Joe Doe, laity, has sex with a 17 year old girl.
Case B: Fr. Doe, priest, has sex with a 17 year old girl.
Explain, please, what you mean by “higher standard?” How does that higher standard apply? Does that mean it takes more/less proof? The punishment should be less/the same/more for one than the other? In other words, what is the measuring stick that any person could look at and know this higher standard thing is or isn’t being applied?
Or are you saying this is more an issue of trust, such as in terms of percentage? For instance, if one assumed that out of every thousand Joe Does, 7 would have sex with a minor, but for a thousand Fr. Does, we should expect a number less than 7?
S
sidbrown
Guest
I don’t see any point in trying to minimise the devastation and emotional trauma felt by a devout Catholic mother and father when they have learned that one of their children has been molested by Reverend Father, to whom they had confessed their sins, and who they listen to on Sundays as Reverend Father gives his sermons on chastity, purity, and the importance of family life.
This is not a dry legal scholastic argument for lawyers in canon law and neither is it an argument in statistics. This concerns a deeply felt, emotional hurt and shock which affects the devout Catholic family for the rest of their lives on earth. My guess is that for many decent and devout Catholic families, a molestation by Reverend Father has additional implications and repercussions as compared to a molestation by someone else.
J
JReducation
Guest
You keep saying that there was a molested child. There was no molested child. The report says that this is a civil suit, not a felony charge for sexual abuse. It also says that when reporters visited the home of the suspended priest, they found the young lady and their child living in the home.
It is one thing to have a knee-jerk reaction to such a situation and say that this must not happen. It is also imperative not to add to the story. This was a case of inappropriate conduct by a priest, not sexual abuse or a reluctant young lady.
If the parents had to place a camera in their basement to film the events, it suggests that the young lady was welcoming the priest into her home. I highly doubt that the parents were allowing this under their watch. The suit does not say that she was raped or molested. Were that the case, the lawyers would have gone for an arrest warrant. There is no such warrant. The little information that this article offers suggests that this was a case of a priest who behaved in a manner that was in violation of his promise of celibacy and a young lady who defied her parents.
Please, let’s not call this molestation when the report does not say such a thing. As far as we can tell, the bishop did what the USCCB promised to do. As soon as there was evidence, he pulled the priest from active ministry. He offered him help, which the priest obviously did not use. Those are the facts that have been provided thus far.
Therefore, canon law and moral theology must deal with the facts as they are. These disciplines cannot yield to emotions or they lose their integrity and objectivity. What else would you like canon law and moral theology to do?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
S
sidbrown
Guest
Any sexual contact with a minor under the age of 18 is illegal in many states, even if the minor says it is consensual. It is called statutory rape.You keep saying that there was a molested child. There was no molested child. The report says that this is a civil suit, not a felony charge for sexual abuse. It also says that when reporters visited the home of the suspended priest, they found the young lady and their child living in the home.
It is one thing to have a knee-jerk reaction to such a situation and say that this must not happen. It is also imperative not to add to the story. This was a case of inappropriate conduct by a priest, not sexual abuse or a reluctant young lady.
If the parents had to place a camera in their basement to film the events, it suggests that the young lady was welcoming the priest into her home. I highly doubt that the parents were allowing this under their watch. The suit does not say that she was raped or molested. Were that the case, the lawyers would have gone for an arrest warrant. There is no such warrant. The little information that this article offers suggests that this was a case of a priest who behaved in a manner that was in violation of his promise of celibacy and a young lady who defied her parents.
Please, let’s not call this molestation when the report does not say such a thing. As far as we can tell, the bishop did what the USCCB promised to do. As soon as there was evidence, he pulled the priest from active ministry. He offered him help, which the priest obviously did not use. Those are the facts that have been provided thus far.
Therefore, canon law and moral theology must deal with the facts as they are. These disciplines cannot yield to emotions or they lose their integrity and objectivity. What else would you like canon law and moral theology to do?
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
S
sidbrown
Guest
“Catholics don’t think Jesus was against priests, he was against hypocritical priests. Jesus was condemning the hypocrisy of unholy men who were in office at the time, rather than their office. I believe that’s how God felt 2000 years ago and that is how he feels today.”
“Every Catholic priest is ordained in Christ to say, “In Christ Jesus I became your father through the Gospel” (1st Cor. 4:15). A priest is sent “to deal with us as a father deals with his children, encouraging, comforting, and urging us to live lives worthy of God” (1st Thess. 2:11-12).”
See:
davidmacd.com/catholic/priests_forgive_sins_call_no_man_father.htm
J
JReducation
Guest
The problem here is that spirituality and law are being blended. That’s not how the Church does it. Canon law looks at theology and then creates legislation that protects the deposit of faith and the disciplines of the Church. It does not try to protect spirituality. That is not its function.
Nor is it the function of canon law to accommodate to civil law. That’s why, even if this had been called statutory rape by the District Attorney, which it was not, the Church would ignore it. There is no such thing in canon law. The reason is simple. Statutory rape is not a universal law. Child sexual abuse is universal, not statutory rape. Statory rape simply says that there is sex between an adult and a minor. Not all countries identify this as illegal.
The laws of the Church are written so that they can be implemented in every place and culture where you find the Church. To include statutory rape, would ony muddle the law for those bishops and religious superiors in cultures where there is no such thing. What canon law does is to use the term, civil crimes. But it is very careful not to give plenipotentiary power to civil law. If we do that, then we have to say that because abortion is legal, the Church law must also hold it as legal. That’s why canon law always holds civil law beneath it, not above it or even as its equal. There are too many things in civil law around the world that are contrary to moral and natural law. for us to give such a place of honor to civil law. Canon law simply refers to compliance with civil law provided that the civil law being invoked is a just law.
In this case, if the article does not mention statutory rape. If the young lady is living with the priest and the priest has not been indicted, it seems that there is no such rape, at least not in that state.
Church law has to deal with what is allowed by canon law and not bring anything else to the discussion. Otherwise, an eclesial tribunal can rule a misstrial and throw the whole thing out. That just delays the action that has to be taken.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
D
Dale_M
Guest
I apologize if I am going off topic, but, yes, some states do set the age of consent at 18. However, the majority of states set it at age 16 and Pennsylvania (where this incident took place) is one of them.
I think Br. JR is correct in saying that a crime did not occur. This is why a civil lawsuit was filed by the parents.
H
HCC
Guest
He missed out. He should have founded his own religious order, collected billions and then gotten her pregnant.
Oh, wait…that was that other priest.
Doesn’t his name sound like…
View attachment 8755
Oh, wait…that was that other priest.
Doesn’t his name sound like…
View attachment 8755
S
sidbrown
Guest
Pennsylvania has a law called Unlawful contact with minor - 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6318, which has application in the case of any indecent contact ( see title 18 article B chapter 31 section 3101 ) with a minor under the age of 18.
J
jilly4ski
Guest
But no “unlawful contact with a minor” was alleged or proven in this case beyond this newws story. All contact that was admitted or “proven” was after the woman turned 18. Otherwise it would be as others have said, there would be a criminal case not civil case.
S
sidbrown
Guest
I don;t see where the newspaper article is clear about whether or not the affair started when she was 17 and in high school.
J
jilly4ski
Guest
That is the point. The article tries to make it seem like the affair started when the girl was underage, but there were no actual accusations of inappropriate contact with a minor. The article was trying to make this into a pedophile case when it cannot even be construed as a statutory rape case by the facts that we know (and the facts that we can assume, “innocent until proven guilty”).
I personally find it horrible that this priest would forsake is promises to the Church and his bishop. But, it wasn’t that long ago that I was in high school myself (6 years ago) and I had acquaintances who as soon as they turned 18 and were able to get into dance clubs declared that they had 25-35 year old boy friends, because they were so much more “mature” than high school boys. Can we really say that all these men used their age and authority to impose on these girls, maybe, maybe not. At some point we become responsible for ourselves.
It is sad that our girls feel like they need to validate themselves by hooking up with (much) older men, and that in order to feel “accepted” and “loved” they feel they need to have sex with their boyfriends regardless of age, and that our culture facilitates this behavior by making BC easy to obtain and some parents even encourage and help their children get BC.
- Status