Suit says priest impregnated teenager

[Elizabeth502]

Absolutely, sid. The reason that priests, teachers, parents, heads of organizations with democratic ideals, civic leaders, should be, and are, held by the public to a higher standard is that they are in those positions for a reason. They are expected to embody what they profess to embody. Thus, you would not expect a member of the legal profession, who asks witnesses and jurors to swear by oath to telling the truth, to engage in deceit. We might expect other things of judges and lawyers, since they are human like the rest of us. But the very mission they are sworn to uphold – truth in the service of justice – is a serious and accountable charge. When, for example, they are found to violate that charge, such as suborning perjury, such as conspiring with others to suppress evidence, the consequences can be severe and permanent. It’s considered a public disgrace to dishonor one’s profession in that manner. A lay witness will be equally prosecuted if discovered, but a lawyer causing such scandal will be ruined.

Similarly the public is disgusted if they learn that a professor who requires honesty in academic documents has himself engaged in plagiarism. Or that a high school teacher who has taught a class to teens on driving responsibilities and avoiding alcohol has himself been charged with a DWI and perhaps even caused an accident, or worse. We might expect the teacher and professor to occasionally be impatient or harsh with students, but not to violate the very ethical code they also promise to uphold. And we would be rightly disillusioned to discover that a candidate promoting democratic ideals – perhaps even in other countries – had engaged in domestic election fraud.

Yes, we can expect people who commit to particular states of life and professions, and even take vows or oaths to uphold those, to remain true to those oaths and vows, despite how ever else they may fall short, exhibit everyday imperfections in other areas.

 

[JReducation]

Absolutely, sid. The reason that priests, teachers, parents, heads of organizations with democratic ideals, civic leaders, should be, and are, held by the public to a higher standard is that they are in those positions for a reason. They are expected to embody what they profess to embody. Thus, you would not expect a member of the legal profession, who asks witnesses and jurors to swear by oath to telling the truth, to engage in deceit. We might expect other things of judges and lawyers, since they are human like the rest of us. But the very mission they are sworn to uphold – truth in the service of justice – is a serious and accountable charge. When, for example, they are found to violate that charge, such as suborning perjury, such as conspiring with others to suppress evidence, the consequences can be severe and permanent. It’s considered a public disgrace to dishonor one’s profession in that manner. A lay witness will be equally prosecuted if discovered, but a lawyer causing such scandal will be ruined.

Similarly the public is disgusted if they learn that a professor who requires honesty in academic documents has himself engaged in plagiarism. Or that a high school teacher who has taught a class to teens on driving responsibilities and avoiding alcohol has himself been charged with a DWI and perhaps even caused an accident, or worse. We might expect the teacher and professor to occasionally be impatient or harsh with students, but not to violate the very ethical code they also promise to uphold. And we would be rightly disillusioned to discover that a candidate promoting democratic ideals – perhaps even in other countries – had engaged in domestic election fraud.

Yes, we can expect people who commit to particular states of life and professions, and even take vows or oaths to uphold those, to remain true to those oaths and vows, despite how ever else they may fall short, exhibit everyday imperfections in other areas.

Your statement is much more objective than that of others. Because you’re hold people accountable according to their state in life and responsibility to others. This is fair and should be this way.

My point is that we are scandalized, because it’s a priest, when in fact, we should be scandalize or concerned, whichever word is better, regardless of the state in life, because what is immoral is always immoral.

It’s not a question about the sacramental power of the priest. It’s a question about the moral character and duty of the person. As you said, people are expected to uphold what they represent. That position is perfectly reasonable, because it does not minimize the same sin if it were committed by another person in a different state in life. Your position, if I’m understanding it, is holding each person accountable according to their state in life. It is proportionate.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Elizabeth502]

Indeed, Brother, thank you.

 

[Elizabeth502]

…but not to take away from my approval, JR, here’s what I as a lay person can understand in the reactions of other lay people:

(1) the priest as a person in a position of power. This is what is at the heart of sexual abuse cases – both in the secular realm and in the clerical realm: the abuse of a person’s power. All people – hopefully religious, too – are outraged to hear about persons in positions of secular power abusing that power because those in relationship with them look up to them and perceive themselves to be at least somewhat dependent on them. There’s even a little more “edge,” shall we say, to a priest’s role, as faithful Catholics have come to regard that role historically. It’s a little more than human leadership that the laity looks to, in a priest (as opposed to my examples of civic and educational leaders): laity are not confused that priests are supposed to evolve into God incarnate within their earthly ministries, but the poster who mentioned in persona Christi probably relates to the following: In that role the priest is more than just a human leader; he is a leader into the divine, thus the vulnerability and trust is more significant on the part of the lay person, than it is on the student, for example, relative to a teacher. This does not lead to a disproportionate standard; rather, it elucidates a greater power differential, even if that differential is only perceived and not “objective.”

The priest has tremendous power. To a believing Catholic, he has the power to absolve sins and consecrate bread and wine. No earthly leader can come close to this. So literally, the lay person is dependent on a priest in a way not similar to any other human relationship. That is why the priest must take special care to guard his own abuse of power, including sexually. That power is not just one of role, but includes how he is revered. Yes, the parents in this case may have been neglectful and/or naive, but who had the greater responsibility? The priest, that’s who. Whether the young woman was an orphan unattended at home, or a young person living in her own apartment, the priest should not have even ‘needed’ other people to keep him in line, primarily or secondarily. His instinct not to abuse his standing should be internalized by the time he is ordained and assigned. I.m.o. he had primary responsibility, the 17-year-old secondary responsibility, the parents tertiary.

(2) We are revolted to hear of a soccer coach molesting an under-age player, but OTOH, those players are not going to the soccer coach to confess their own sins, including sexual sins. This adds a dimension to priestly sexual involvement which heightens the outrage people tend to feel. You may not think that lay people are thinking about this, but in fact we do think about this, and often. It’s not as if, as a part of a consequence, such a violating priest would have to present himself to his congregation and publicly list, and repent of, his sins. We know he will never have to do that, while lay people have regularly confessed their sins to him, including any whose content is sexual involvement with a priest!

 

[Elizabeth502]

I.m.o. he had primary responsibility, the 17-year-old secondary responsibility, the parents tertiary.

Correction: I meant the parents had secondary, the 17-year-old tertiary.

 

[sidbrown]

…but not to take away from my approval, JR, here’s what I as a lay person can understand in the reactions of other lay people:

(1) the priest as a person in a position of power. This is what is at the heart of sexual abuse cases – both in the secular realm and in the clerical realm: the abuse of a person’s power. All people – hopefully religious, too – are outraged to hear about persons in positions of secular power abusing that power because those in relationship with them look up to them and perceive themselves to be at least somewhat dependent on them. There’s even a little more “edge,” shall we say, to a priest’s role, as faithful Catholics have come to regard that role historically. It’s a little more than human leadership that the laity looks to, in a priest (as opposed to my examples of civic and educational leaders): laity are not confused that priests are supposed to evolve into God incarnate within their earthly ministries, but the poster who mentioned in persona Christi probably relates to the following: In that role the priest is more than just a human leader; he is a leader into the divine, thus the vulnerability and trust is more significant on the part of the lay person, than it is on the student, for example, relative to a teacher. This does not lead to a disproportionate standard; rather, it elucidates a greater power differential, even if that differential is only perceived and not “objective.”

The priest has tremendous power. To a believing Catholic, he has the power to absolve sins and consecrate bread and wine. No earthly leader can come close to this. So literally, the lay person is dependent on a priest in a way not similar to any other human relationship. That is why the priest must take special care to guard his own abuse of power, including sexually. That power is not just one of role, but includes how he is revered. Yes, the parents in this case may have been neglectful and/or naive, but who had the greater responsibility? The priest, that’s who. Whether the young woman was an orphan unattended at home, or a young person living in her own apartment, the priest should not have even ‘needed’ other people to keep him in line, primarily or secondarily. His instinct not to abuse his standing should be internalized by the time he is ordained and assigned. I.m.o. he had primary responsibility, the 17-year-old secondary responsibility, the parents tertiary.

(2) We are revolted to hear of a soccer coach molesting an under-age player, but OTOH, those players are not going to the soccer coach to confess their own sins, including sexual sins. This adds a dimension to priestly sexual involvement which heightens the outrage people tend to feel. You may not think that lay people are thinking about this, but in fact we do think about this, and often. It’s not as if, as a part of a consequence, such a violating priest would have to present himself to his congregation and publicly list, and repent of, his sins. We know he will never have to do that, while lay people have regularly confessed their sins to him, including any whose content is sexual involvement with a priest!

Yes.

 

[StrawberryJam]

…but not to take away from my approval, JR, here’s what I as a lay person can understand in the reactions of other lay people:

(1) the priest as a person in a position of power. This is what is at the heart of sexual abuse cases – both in the secular realm and in the clerical realm: the abuse of a person’s power. All people – hopefully religious, too – are outraged to hear about persons in positions of secular power abusing that power because those in relationship with them look up to them and perceive themselves to be at least somewhat dependent on them. There’s even a little more “edge,” shall we say, to a priest’s role, as faithful Catholics have come to regard that role historically. It’s a little more than human leadership that the laity looks to, in a priest (as opposed to my examples of civic and educational leaders): laity are not confused that priests are supposed to evolve into God incarnate within their earthly ministries, but the poster who mentioned in persona Christi probably relates to the following: In that role the priest is more than just a human leader; he is a leader into the divine, thus the vulnerability and trust is more significant on the part of the lay person, than it is on the student, for example, relative to a teacher. This does not lead to a disproportionate standard; rather, it elucidates a greater power differential, even if that differential is only perceived and not “objective.”

The priest has tremendous power. To a believing Catholic, he has the power to absolve sins and consecrate bread and wine. No earthly leader can come close to this. So literally, the lay person is dependent on a priest in a way not similar to any other human relationship. That is why the priest must take special care to guard his own abuse of power, including sexually. That power is not just one of role, but includes how he is revered. Yes, the parents in this case may have been neglectful and/or naive, but who had the greater responsibility? The priest, that’s who. Whether the young woman was an orphan unattended at home, or a young person living in her own apartment, the priest should not have even ‘needed’ other people to keep him in line, primarily or secondarily. His instinct not to abuse his standing should be internalized by the time he is ordained and assigned. I.m.o. he had primary responsibility, the 17-year-old secondary responsibility, the parents tertiary.

(2) We are revolted to hear of a soccer coach molesting an under-age player, but OTOH, those players are not going to the soccer coach to confess their own sins, including sexual sins. This adds a dimension to priestly sexual involvement which heightens the outrage people tend to feel. You may not think that lay people are thinking about this, but in fact we do think about this, and often. It’s not as if, as a part of a consequence, such a violating priest would have to present himself to his congregation and publicly list, and repent of, his sins. We know he will never have to do that, while lay people have regularly confessed their sins to him, including any whose content is sexual involvement with a priest!/QUOTE]

Yes, it is so very different from the public confessions the lay had to make in the past.

And, no- I do not believe your conclusion is sound.

I know that priests also confess to another.

You should know that, or ought to.

 

[Elizabeth502]

[Yes, it is so very different from the public confessions the lay had to make in the past.

And, no- I do not believe your conclusion is sound.

I know that priests also confess to another.

You should know that, or ought to.

I’m not sure why you’re taking that tone with me. My post related to the fact that **priests don’t confess to lay people. ** I am well aware that priests confess to each other. The point was the priests are not being required to share their sins with the laity when they take advantage of the laity, including sexually; whereas the laity are required to share their own sins with priests, including those of a sexual nature.

(You should know that, or ought to.)

I will follow up now, addressing JR, since he showed a respectful tone to me, which I really do appreciate. I agree with you, Brother, as you saw, regarding the inappropriateness of different levels of guilt, between one vocation or role and another. So from an objective viewpoint, I agree with you. I think the problem, as inferred from my previous post, is that the lay Catholic tends to perceive his or her relationship with a priest as qualitatively different --even dramatically different-- from a relationship with a soccer coach or professor. Let’s face it: it’s a whole other realm we’re talking about. So subjectively, the lay person is so much more “shattered” and confused when this kind of news surfaces, than when a similar secular incident surfaces. Do I think a priest should be punished more than someone in a secular role committing the same abuse of power? No, I do not. I’m just expressing the feeling, the perception, that a previously trusting lay person can have, and often does have. The young soccer player may or may not play soccer again – probably will if he or she is capable and really likes the sport – but it may occur under much more watchful eyes the next time. By contrast, many Catholics have left the Church over the repeated news of clergy sexual infractions, because the trust element is so much more sensitive and profound. And those departures include hundreds who were not personally victimized but were nevertheless scandalized. Even those whose faith is very secure can be very affected by these occurrences, as can even other (innocent) priests themselves, as they have shared that with me.

Thanks for listening.

[/quote]

 

[StrawberryJam]

I’m not sure why you’re taking that tone with me. My post related to the fact that **priests don’t confess to lay people. ** I am well aware that priests confess to each other. The point was the priests are not being required to share their sins with the laity when they take advantage of the laity, including sexually; whereas the laity are required to share their own sins with priests, including those of a sexual nature.

(You should know that, or ought to.)

I will follow up now, addressing JR, since he showed a respectful tone to me, which I really do appreciate. I agree with you, Brother, as you saw, regarding the inappropriateness of different levels of guilt, between one vocation or role and another. So from an objective viewpoint, I agree with you. I think the problem, as inferred from my previous post, is that the lay Catholic tends to perceive his or her relationship with a priest as qualitatively different --even dramatically different-- from a relationship with a soccer coach or professor. Let’s face it: it’s a whole other realm we’re talking about. So subjectively, the lay person is so much more “shattered” and confused when this kind of news surfaces, than when a similar secular incident surfaces. Do I think a priest should be punished more than someone in a secular role committing the same abuse of power? No, I do not. I’m just expressing the feeling, the perception, that a previously trusting lay person can have, and often does have. The young soccer player may or may not play soccer again – probably will if he or she is capable and really likes the sport – but it may occur under much more watchful eyes the next time. By contrast, many Catholics have left the Church over the repeated news of clergy sexual infractions, because the trust element is so much more sensitive and profound. And those departures include hundreds who were not personally victimized but were nevertheless scandalized. Even those whose faith is very secure can be very affected by these occurrences, as can even other (innocent) priests themselves, as they have shared that with me.

Thanks for listening.

Thank you for your reply.

I did not imply or even think or dream up that there was a possibility for a priest to confess to a member of the laity.

I am sorry for the confusion I caused. I was not clear enough, and that could be why you totally missed my point.

 

[JReducation]

I believe that the problem is that we’re mixing apples and oranges here. The sacramental power of the priest is being blended with his behavior. Therefore, when his behavior is discordant with his sacramental power, there is an explosive reaction.

What we need to do here is to make some corrections in the line of thinking of the laity. It’s a given that the behavior of the priest was horribly wrong. I’m going to set that aside for the moment.

Let’s correct the thinking of the laity here. From a theological point of view, the sacramental power of the priest has no connection with his moral character. The one does not affect the other. Peter and Judas wee bishops and we know of their sins. Alexander was a pope and we know of his sins and Innocent III was not so innocent. These were very public infractions and moral flaws. We’re not revealing family secrets here.

To think that because a man is a priest he is above the rest is a horribly wrong way of looking at the priesthood. He is above the rest in as far as authority is concerned. His is above the rest in as far as sacramental power is concerned. He bears upon his soul the imprint of the priesthood, which cannot be taken away, regardless of his sin.

I believe this is why men like St. Francis, St. Bonaventure and Blessed William Joseph Chaminade had the correct vision of the priesthood. While they venerated the priest above angels, they also made it clear that they venerated them because they could do two things: consecrate the Eucharist and absolve from sin. However, they went on to disallow any kind of distinction between the ordained and the non-ordained in their religious orders. They clearly understood that the man should never be judged or privileged because he was ordained.

When they disciplined their subjects, they did not factor in ordination. They disciplined their sins, not their sacramental place in the Church. A sin was a sin, period.

I’m reminded of St. Bonaventure who was ordained a bishop and later elevated to be a cardinal. Before he accepted the ordination to be a bishop he posed a very simple statement to the pope, “If this is going to make me different from my brothers, then I respectfully decline.” It was when the pope assured him that he would still be a simple brother and would not be distinguished from the rest of his brothers, that Bonaventure accepted the ordination. He went as far as to refuse to live at the cathedral of the diocese, but lived with the rest of the brothers where he served as a professor of theology. He even refused to wear the garments of a bishop or the red hat of the cardinal.

His position was that although he was a brother, a priest and a bishop all rolled into one, his sinful nature was not subject to the Sacrament of Holy Orders. It was subject to his will and his moral determination to do good and avoid evil. The culpability for sin fell on him as Bonaventure, not on him a Brother Bonaventure, the friar, deacon, priest and bishop. He held his friars to the standards that they were bound to because they were Christian and those that they vowed to live, not those that were imposed on them by the rest of the world. He understood that the world often imposes standards on people that go over and beyond what a person is called to live or the world does the opposite, it demands less than what a person should do. Both are dangerous extremes.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[sidbrown]

I think the problem, as inferred from my previous post, is that the lay Catholic tends to perceive his or her relationship with a priest as qualitatively different --even dramatically different-- from a relationship with a soccer coach or professor. Let’s face it: it’s a whole other realm we’re talking about. So subjectively, the lay person is so much more “shattered” and confused when this kind of news surfaces, than when a similar secular incident surfaces. Do I think a priest should be punished more than someone in a secular role committing the same abuse of power? No, I do not.

Here’s where I agree, and where I disagree:
Agree: The relationship of a lay Catholic with a priest is qualitatively different from a relationship with a soccer caoch.
Disagree: You say that the priest should not be punished more.

It seems to me like the priest should be punished more because he has taken advantage of his power bestowed upon him by Our Divine Lord and His Church. He is another Christ and as such has greater reponsiblities and therefore it is expected that he be held to a higher standard than the soccer coach.

 

[JReducation]

Here’s where I agree, and where I disagree:
Agree: The relationship of a lay Catholic with a priest is qualitatively different from a relationship with a soccer caoch.
Disagree: You say that the priest should not be punished more.

It seems to me like the priest should be punished more because he has taken advantage of his power bestowed upon him by Our Divine Lord and His Church. He is another Christ and as such has greater reponsiblities and therefore it is expected that he be held to a higher standard than the soccer coach.

Everyone is called to chastity, even the soccer coach. In this case, since the priest also made a promise of celibacy, he is morally culpable of a sin against that promise. If he were a consecrated religious, he would have made a vow of chastity and the moral culpability would have been even greater.

Moral culpability factors in many elements. In this case . . .

1. The fact that **all **are called to live a life of chastity.
2. The fact that he made a promise of celibacy, assuming that he is a diocesan priest.
3. The abuse of trust, which is a serious sin against justice.

That’s the way that the Church breaks it down.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[sidbrown]

I believe that the problem is that we’re mixing apples and oranges here. The sacramental power of the priest is being blended with his behavior. Therefore, when his behavior is discordant with his sacramental power, there is an explosive reaction.

What we need to do here is to make some corrections in the line of thinking of the laity. It’s a given that the behavior of the priest was horribly wrong. I’m going to set that aside for the moment.

Let’s correct the thinking of the laity here. From a theological point of view, the sacramental power of the priest has no connection with his moral character. The one does not affect the other. Peter and Judas wee bishops and we know of their sins. Alexander was a pope and we know of his sins and Innocent III was not so innocent. These were very public infractions and moral flaws. We’re not revealing family secrets here.

To think that because a man is a priest he is above the rest is a horribly wrong way of looking at the priesthood. He is above the rest in as far as authority is concerned. His is above the rest in as far as sacramental power is concerned. He bears upon his soul the imprint of the priesthood, which cannot be taken away, regardless of his sin.

I believe this is why men like St. Francis, St. Bonaventure and Blessed William Joseph Chaminade had the correct vision of the priesthood. While they venerated the priest above angels, they also made it clear that they venerated them because they could do two things: consecrate the Eucharist and absolve from sin. However, they went on to disallow any kind of distinction between the ordained and the non-ordained in their religious orders. They clearly understood that the man should never be judged or privileged because he was ordained.

When they disciplined their subjects, they did not factor in ordination. They disciplined their sins, not their sacramental place in the Church. A sin was a sin, period.

I’m reminded of St. Bonaventure who was ordained a bishop and later elevated to be a cardinal. Before he accepted the ordination to be a bishop he posed a very simple statement to the pope, “If this is going to make me different from my brothers, then I respectfully decline.” It was when the pope assured him that he would still be a simple brother and would not be distinguished from the rest of his brothers, that Bonaventure accepted the ordination. He went as far as to refuse to live at the cathedral of the diocese, but lived with the rest of the brothers where he served as a professor of theology. He even refused to wear the garments of a bishop or the red hat of the cardinal.

His position was that although he was a brother, a priest and a bishop all rolled into one, his sinful nature was not subject to the Sacrament of Holy Orders. It was subject to his will and his moral determination to do good and avoid evil. The culpability for sin fell on him as Bonaventure, not on him a Brother Bonaventure, the friar, deacon, priest and bishop. He held his friars to the standards that they were bound to because they were Christian and those that they vowed to live, not those that were imposed on them by the rest of the world. He understood that the world often imposes standards on people that go over and beyond what a person is called to live or the world does the opposite, it demands less than what a person should do. Both are dangerous extremes.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Well let’s look at a specific example and see what we can see.
Let’s take the president of the USA. He holds a high office, but according to what I understand you to say, we should not hold him to a higher standard than the average Joe. But I think that It is only natural that there would be objections if a President of the USA were to have side businesses running liquor stores, porno shops, massage parlors, strip joints, and legal marijuana dispensing shops. These are legal businesses, but even though they are legal, we would hold the President of the USA to a standard higher than just obeying the law.

 

[sidbrown]

1. The abuse of trust, which is a serious sin against justice.

The abuse of trust?
Would you say that people should or should not be able to put some faith and trust in a Catholic priest who is on the pulpit preaching the word of God? And in the confessional, absolving the sins of the repentant sinner?
My impression is that Catholics want to be able to trust a man who is another Christ.

 

[JReducation]

The abuse of trust?
Would you say that people should or should not be able to put some faith and trust in a Catholic priest who is on the pulpit preaching the word of God? And in the confessional, absolving the sins of the repentant sinner?
My impression is that Catholics want to be able to trust a man who is another Christ.

This is why we speak of an abuse of trust.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Well let’s look at a specific example and see what we can see.
Let’s take the president of the USA. He holds a high office, but according to what I understand you to say, we should not hold him to a higher standard than the average Joe. But I think that It is only natural that there would be objections if a President of the USA were to have side businesses running liquor stores, porno shops, massage parlors, strip joints, and legal marijuana dispensing shops. These are legal businesses, but even though they are legal, we would hold the President of the USA to a standard higher than just obeying the law.

We must apply the law as it was meant to be applied. Moral law and canon law are very specific. If we apply both as they are meant to be applied, then we don’t have to go into the whole scenario of who is a priest, who is a deacon or who is a bishop.

There are laws that speak to each situation. In the case of the ordained, the law is the same for deacons, priests and bishops. In the case of the consecrated, the law is the same for male and female religious, monastic, active, mendicant, or clerk. In the case of the secular married Christian the law is the same for husband and wife.

In other words, the moral and canon laws of the Church are written for specific states in life. So if an ordained commits such a sin, the Church is not concerned about whether he is a deacon or a bishop. As far as the Church is concerned, he is an ordained man and his governed by the moral and canonical laws that apply to him. That’s the point that we’re trying to make here. The moral and canonical laws that govern chastity are no different for a deacon or a bishop, or in this case a priest who is in the second order. When people make a distinction between a deacon doing such a thing and a priest, it’s a distinction that moral theology and canon law do not make, because both are governed by the same laws regarding chastity.

Do you see what I’m trying to say?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Elizabeth502]

Brother, a soccer coach who happens to be a non-believer does not necessarily agree that he was “called to a life of chastity.” The Catholic Church may believe so; Christians in general may believe so; most Jews believe so; Muslims believe so. But those who have not been raised in a religion (through no fault of their own) would have no context for “chastity” as we understand it. Therefore, they are not morally bound by that in the way that a believer is. Neither the Church nor the civil authorities can enforce his violation of chastity with consenting adults. The civil authorities can obviously prosecute him for sexual activity – even if consensual – with underage individuals, which is why (as you know) this is called “statutory,” no matter how “consensual” on the part of both parties.

Again I agree with you that the legal (both secular and canon law) punishment should not be greater for the vowed religious or practicing priest violating his promised fidelity to a life of chastity (for example with an underage person) than for a soccer coach (believing or non-believing) with the same age of person. But I do believe that the subjective experience of the separate categories are perceived and experienced differently, especially among believers. That was my point. The offended party may even be able to forgive the priest, and even quickly, but trust takes much longer to recover, just as it often does when adultery is committed by a married partner. Forgiveness is one thing; the instinct to trust is another.

It has been said by those of us who have been in spiritual direction, that entrusting one’s innermost thoughts & journey toward God (not to mention sins) with another person is a greater form of intimacy than sexual intimacy itself. This is why the faithful sometimes experience these breaches of chastity by clergy with laity as a profound betrayal. (More so when the partner is quite young, of course, due to the relative innocence of the other. Less so in this case, but it remains a power differential nevertheless.)

 

[sidbrown]

We must apply the law as it was meant to be applied. Moral law and canon law are very specific. If we apply both as they are meant to be applied, then we don’t have to go into the whole scenario of who is a priest, who is a deacon or who is a bishop.

There are laws that speak to each situation. In the case of the ordained, the law is the same for deacons, priests and bishops. In the case of the consecrated, the law is the same for male and female religious, monastic, active, mendicant, or clerk. In the case of the secular married Christian the law is the same for husband and wife.

In other words, the moral and canon laws of the Church are written for specific states in life. So if an ordained commits such a sin, the Church is not concerned about whether he is a deacon or a bishop. As far as the Church is concerned, he is an ordained man and his governed by the moral and canonical laws that apply to him. That’s the point that we’re trying to make here. The moral and canonical laws that govern chastity are no different for a deacon or a bishop, or in this case a priest who is in the second order. When people make a distinction between a deacon doing such a thing and a priest, it’s a distinction that moral theology and canon law do not make, because both are governed by the same laws regarding chastity.

Do you see what I’m trying to say?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I think it is a mistake to place an emphasis on excessive legalism and forget about the fact that the Catholic faithful want to have a genuine respect and admiration for the priest and the power of the priesthood. This authentic regard for the priest and his vocation to the priesthood stems from the fact that the priest is another Christ, who brings Our Divine Lord to us and who has the power to forgive us our sins.

 

[Elizabeth502]

(Cross-posted within 2 minutes of sid.)

 

[JReducation]

Brother, a soccer coach who happens to be a non-believer does not necessarily agree that he was “called to a life of chastity.” The Catholic Church may believe so; Christians in general may believe so; most Jews believe so; Muslims believe so. But those who have not been raised in a religion (through no fault of their own) would have no context for “chastity” as we understand it. Therefore, they are not morally bound by that in the way that a believer is. Neither the Church nor the civil authorities can enforce his violation of chastity with consenting adults. The civil authorities can obviously prosecute him for sexual activity – even if consensual – with underage individuals, which is why (as you know) this is called “statutory,” no matter how “consensual” on the part of both parties.

Again I agree with you that the legal (both secular and canon law) punishment should not be greater for the vowed religious or practicing priest violating his promised fidelity to a life of chastity (for example with an underage person) than for a soccer coach (believing or non-believing) with the same age of person. But I do believe that the subjective experience of the separate categories are perceived and experienced differently, especially among believers. That was my point. The offended party may even be able to forgive the priest, and even quickly, but trust takes much longer to recover, just as it often does when adultery is committed by a married partner. Forgiveness is one thing; the instinct to trust is another.

It has been said by those of us who have been in spiritual direction, that entrusting one’s innermost thoughts & journey toward God (not to mention sins) with another person is a greater form of intimacy than sexual intimacy itself. This is why the faithful sometimes experience these breaches of chastity by clergy with laity as a profound betrayal. (More so when the partner is quite young, of course, due to the relative innocence of the other. Less so in this case, but it remains a power differential nevertheless.)

I was not thinking aboiut the non-believer. Your point is well made. I was thinking about the moral law itself.

I think it is a mistake to place an emphasis on excessive legalism and forget about the fact that the Catholic faithful want to have a genuine respect and admiration for the priest and the power of the priesthood. This authentic regard for the priest and his vocation to the priesthood stems from the fact that the priest is another Christ, who brings Our Divine Lord to us and who has the power to forgive us our sins.

I understand the emotional reaction of the faithful. But for the sake of discussion, we have to decide whether we’re going to make a judgment based on the emotional reaction of the faithful or based on what the law says.

If we speak to a canon lawyer or a moral theologian, both would agree that the emotional reaction of the faithful, however important it is, does not change the moral law. The Church does not factor in people’s feelings when making law

While all of these feelings a real and must be acknowledged, they don’t enter into the moral judgment. They do enter into the decisions made regarding what is good for the priest and the community.

There is one point that may be what you’re speaking about, which I did fail to mention. Going back to the issue of trust. The violation of trust, in this case, is a very grave sin. It falls under the label of scandal and injustice. So when the Church hierarchy sits down to make a judgment on the moral nature of the situation they’re going to look at the following:

1. The call to chasity.
2. The promise of celibacy.
3. The violation of trust.
4. The willingness to cause scandal (which really goes with justice and charity).

The point that I am trying to make is that the Church applies these rules to any ordained man. It’s not just for a priest. If this had been a deacon, the Church would still use the same measuring stick. We want to use a different measuring stick for a priest, than let’s say a deacon and the Church does not want to do that, because this particular sin is the same for both. If we were talking aboiut a priest who seduced a penitent in the confessional, then there is another law that is violated. Unless the sin was in the context of confession, the sacramental power of the priesthood or the sacraments themselves do not enter into the Church’s equation. The Church only factors in what has been violated. She asks us to do the same when judging the sinfulness of an action. The Alter Christus would enter into the picture if the violation took place in a confessional, for example. But this is not that case. The Church does not look at that here. Violations of trust are seen under the context of justice. It is an injustice to the faithful and to the whole body.

I’m not sure if I’m clarifying or making it more confusing. I hope not.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF