Suit says priest impregnated teenager

[JReducation]

Sid . . .

If I may make a recommenation to you and anyone else who is experiencing such intense feelings about this, talk to your local brother, deacon or priest. What I’m seeing here is an attempt, at all costs, to find more ways to punish this man than what the law allows.

If this were an unfair law, I would agree that the law has to be put on trial. But as it stands, the Church’s law is fair. The bishop acted according to the law.

The civil law cannot dictate canon law or moral law. We all know this. Whenever citizens allowed civil law to dictate to the Church we there arose abussive monarchies, communism, totaletarianism, and other forms of oppressive governments that created many unnecessary martyrs.

While the Church recognizes the rights of states to create laws to protect its citizens, she also proclaims her right to scrutinize these laws for their compliance to moral law and eclesial disciplines. Happily, in this case, there is no conflict between the law of the state and the the law of the Church.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[DOShea]

I don’t see any point in trying to minimise the devastation and emotional trauma felt…

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

Sid,

Ease up, please. I was not suggesting anyone minimize anything or that trauma and hurt are somehow irrelevant. I was only confused on the point you were trying to make and asked those questions in an attempt to flesh out your points in a way that I could understand.

I was trying to think of another way to ask that would not come across to you as minimization or legal wrangling, but actually Br. Jay has already made the points.

I think we can both agree the situation is terrible, yes? From that point, we have two sort of parallel paths. One is the actions of the civil authorities, the other the actions of the Church, in this case the Ordinary.

Looking at the civil authorities’ actions, we see only that no criminal charges were filed. We don’t know why. It may be that there is not enough evidence to warrant indictment, or it may be that there is but it is not likely with that evidence that a conviction will result. Those are never pleasant pieces of news, but they are reality of how the legal system works. It could also be that there were no criminal statutes broken. We just don’t know which, if any, it was.

The action that was taken was the filing of a civil suit by the family. Civil action does not use the legal standard of “proof beyond any reasonable doubt” like criminal courts do; they use the standard of “preponderance of the evidence,” which is a much lower standard. Without seeing the suit, we don’t know what the family is alleging happened, and we don’t know what they seek as remedy. Those are the two crucial things to know that will tell you why the suit was filed, and it may shed light on why no criminal charges were filed.

As to the Church’s response, all we know is what the article reported. They are these:

1. The parents suspected something was amiss
2. They went to the school, the school took no action
3. They went to the diocese, they didn’t get satisfaction
4. They made a tape and went back to the diocese with proof in hand
5. Fr. was removed from duties and sent to treatment

We don’t know the conversations or what was said, but from this list we see a distinct line at the point where proof was given, and we see prompt action upon receipt of that proof.

So it looks to me like all avenues having an interest have had opportunity to weigh in on the matter. The criminal law did not charge Fr., a civil suit is ongoing, and the Bishop removed him from ministry and sent him to treatment.

I realize none of those actions are going to heal wounded feelings and they do not address any sort of betrayal or distrust (though it may be part of the lawsuit, who knows?). My question to you is, what is it you think needs to be done beyond what has already happened that is going to make any improvement in the situation? It seems like you are calling for something more, and I can’t figure out what that “something” is.

Can you please elaborate or explain?

 

[sidbrown]

Sid,

Ease up, please. I was not suggesting anyone minimize anything or that trauma and hurt are somehow irrelevant. I was only confused on the point you were trying to make and asked those questions in an attempt to flesh out your points in a way that I could understand.

I was trying to think of another way to ask that would not come across to you as minimization or legal wrangling, but actually Br. Jay has already made the points.

I think we can both agree the situation is terrible, yes? From that point, we have two sort of parallel paths. One is the actions of the civil authorities, the other the actions of the Church, in this case the Ordinary.

Looking at the civil authorities’ actions, we see only that no criminal charges were filed. We don’t know why. It may be that there is not enough evidence to warrant indictment, or it may be that there is but it is not likely with that evidence that a conviction will result. Those are never pleasant pieces of news, but they are reality of how the legal system works. It could also be that there were no criminal statutes broken. We just don’t know which, if any, it was.

The action that was taken was the filing of a civil suit by the family. Civil action does not use the legal standard of “proof beyond any reasonable doubt” like criminal courts do; they use the standard of “preponderance of the evidence,” which is a much lower standard. Without seeing the suit, we don’t know what the family is alleging happened, and we don’t know what they seek as remedy. Those are the two crucial things to know that will tell you why the suit was filed, and it may shed light on why no criminal charges were filed.

As to the Church’s response, all we know is what the article reported. They are these:

1. The parents suspected something was amiss
2. They went to the school, the school took no action
3. They went to the diocese, they didn’t get satisfaction
4. They made a tape and went back to the diocese with proof in hand
5. Fr. was removed from duties and sent to treatment

We don’t know the conversations or what was said, but from this list we see a distinct line at the point where proof was given, and we see prompt action upon receipt of that proof.

So it looks to me like all avenues having an interest have had opportunity to weigh in on the matter. The criminal law did not charge Fr., a civil suit is ongoing, and the Bishop removed him from ministry and sent him to treatment.

I realize none of those actions are going to heal wounded feelings and they do not address any sort of betrayal or distrust (though it may be part of the lawsuit, who knows?). My question to you is, what is it you think needs to be done beyond what has already happened that is going to make any improvement in the situation? It seems like you are calling for something more, and I can’t figure out what that “something” is.

Can you please elaborate or explain?

I don;t think that I was addressing many of the questions you have mentioned here.
I was only giving my opinion that a Catholic Reverend Father should be held to a higher standard than the man in the street. As I already said, I based my opinion on the fact that:Reverend Father is another Christ who preaches to us the moral laws, brings us the holy Eucharist, and we confess our sins to Reverend Father. “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/pr…man_father.htm
I don’t have much more to elaborate on right now.

 

[OriginalJS]

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

These are technical and erudite arguments that, if stated in plain language, would likely come as a surprise to much of the laity. Your explanations show why far too many authorities could, with a firm basis in canon law, justify moving sexually abusing priests from one venue to another to avoid scandal and prosecutions. A classic example, of course, is the high regard shown Cardinal Bernard Law in Rome. It seems to me it would be wise for the Church to educate the laity on these harsh realities about canon law.

 

[JReducation]

These are technical and erudite arguments that, if stated in plain language, would likely come as a surprise to much of the laity. Your explanations show why far too many authorities could, with a firm basis in canon law, justify moving sexually abusing priests from one venue to another to avoid scandal and prosecutions. A classic example, of course, is the high regard shown Cardinal Bernard Law in Rome. It seems to me it would be wise for the Church to educate the laity on these harsh realities about canon law.

First of all, let’s take Cardinal Law out of the equation here. The Cardinal is the Archpriest of a basilica. It’s about the lowerst assignment that you can give to a Prince of the Church. It has no juridical power at all. Aside from that, he remains a prince and the Church (all of us) must treat him as such. I like to use the example of a secular monarchy. When Prince Charles and Princess Diana were married, the behavior of the Prince left much to be desired. However, the honors that go with that rank could not be taken from him, even by Parliament. The same thing happens in the Church. We may question the behaviors and choices of the princess, but they remain princess and the have certain rights that cannot be denied. In the past, those cardinals who were naugty were incarcerated by the Church, but what was interesting was that they had to be allowed to vote in consistories and they could even be elected pope. Even then, their rank was not stripped from them.

As far as the law is concerned, it is very fair, because it protects the victim, the priest, the Church and most importantly, the sacrament of Holy Orders. Basically, what the law is saying is that there is only so much that you can do, because the Sacrament of Holy Order cannot be trumped or undone. The most that the Church can do is suspend immediately, then begin the process for dismissal from the clerical state. There is not much more to tell the laity. It’s pretty straightfoward.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[DOShea]

I don;t think that I was addressing many of the questions you have mentioned here.
I was only giving my opinion that a Catholic Reverend Father should be held to a higher standard than the man in the street.

Thank you for your reply. I do get the idea that you think Fr. should be held to this higher standard; what I still don’t get is, what is that higher standard?

You see, a higher standard means a different standard, and that difference has to be borne out in some tangible way to actually BE different. For example, we hold airline pilots to a higher standard than cab drivers; we make the pilot take periodic physical exams, demonstrate proficiency in flight, conduct casualty response in simulators, meet sobriety tests, etc. whereas with a cab driver they need to have a driver’s license, insurance, and a cab. Clearly there is a distinction one can make to actually see the differences in standards.

So where I am confused is, are you saying there should be, in fact, a different standard to which we hold a priest, or are you saying there is a difference not in standard but only in expectation? The thing with expectations are they are only a sort of norm. We expect people to stop at stop signs and the norm is that they do, however there are always the few who will not.

 

[OriginalJS]

First of all, let’s take Cardinal Law out of the equation here. The Cardinal is the Archpriest of a basilica. It’s about the lowerst assignment that you can give to a Prince of the Church. It has no juridical power at all. Aside from that, he remains a prince and the Church (all of us) must treat him as such. I like to use the example of a secular monarchy. When Prince Charles and Princess Diana were married, the behavior of the Prince left much to be desired. However, the honors that go with that rank could not be taken from him, even by Parliament. The same thing happens in the Church. We may question the behaviors and choices of the princess, but they remain princess and the have certain rights that cannot be denied. In the past, those cardinals who were naugty were incarcerated by the Church, but what was interesting was that they had to be allowed to vote in consistories and they could even be elected pope. Even then, their rank was not stripped from them.

As far as the law is concerned, it is very fair, because it protects the victim, the priest, the Church and most importantly, the sacrament of Holy Orders. Basically, what the law is saying is that there is only so much that you can do, because the Sacrament of Holy Order cannot be trumped or undone. The most that the Church can do is suspend immediately, then begin the process for dismissal from the clerical state. There is not much more to tell the laity. It’s pretty straightfoward.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I appreciate your explanations. In plain language this means that no matter how criminal or hypocritical one who has been invested with holy orders may have been, his status in the Church remains sacrosanct and he must be respected and honored unless suspended. For this reason it seems to me to have been almost mandatory for the ecclesiastical authorities to do whatever needed to be done to protect abusers from prosecution and scandal. It would hardly be showing respect and honor to turn them over to civil authorities for prosecution.

 

[jilly4ski]

I appreciate your explanations. In plain language this means that no matter how criminal or hypocritical one who has been invested with holy orders may have been, his status in the Church remains sacrosanct and he must be respected and honored unless suspended. For this reason it seems to me to have been almost mandatory for the ecclesiastical authorities to do whatever needed to be done to protect abusers from prosecution and scandal. It would hardly be showing respect and honor to turn them over to civil authorities for prosecution.

Except that this particular priest did not violate the law of the state or country as far as we, the bishop, or the parents know (he might have but only he or the girl know this). He did violate moral law, which is why there is an out rage. He is supposed to be a moral authority and not only did he break moral law, but he broke his promise of his ordination.

So in a way, we are holding him to a higher standard because he got suspended from his duties, and his job at the school. Any other average 30 year old Joe can have an 18 year old girl friend and get her pregnant without losing his job.

 

[JReducation]

I appreciate your explanations. In plain language this means that no matter how criminal or hypocritical one who has been invested with holy orders may have been, his status in the Church remains sacrosanct and he must be respected and honored unless suspended. For this reason it seems to me to have been almost mandatory for the ecclesiastical authorities to do whatever needed to be done to protect abusers from prosecution and scandal. It would hardly be showing respect and honor to turn them over to civil authorities for prosecution.

That’s not what it means at all. What it means is that you can prosecute or sue in a civil court. You cannot take away man’s ordination. He is always, until death, a deacon, priest or bishop. Even if you dismiss him, what you are doing is stripping him of the right to exercise the ministry, not the power. The power can never be taken away. It has been put there by Christ himself, not by the Church. The Church is just the conduit for ordination.

As far as respect and reverence goes, yes you must always resepct the fact that he is a deacon, priest or bishop. Regardless of how sinful he is, the work of Christ is not changed. What Christ did in that person’s soul is not affected by his sins. Christ’s work is not subordinate to sin, because sin has no power over Christ. Therefore, when Christ seals a man with the Sacrament of Holy Orders, be he a deacon, priest or bishop, this is Christ’s work, not man’s. No sin can undo that seal.

We cannot compromise on our love and respect for Christ’s work in the soul of a person, no matter how righteous our rage and indignation about his behavior. I can be outraged at someone’s behavior. But if he is an ordained man, I cannot deny him the respect that goes with the sacrament.

Even when a cleric is laicized, all that means is that he is sent back to live among the laity AS IF he were a lay man. He’s not really a lay man. He will never be a lay man. But he has to live as if he were. What does this mean for you and me? If I have an emergency and I need a priest and my neighbor is a laicized priest, I can ask him to hear my confession or for annointing of the sick. The absolution is both valid and legal, because it was an emergency.

On the other hand, you want to avoid laicizing bishops, because bishops have power to ordain other bishops. You run the risk of triggering the birth of a schismatic Church. It would be a true Apostolic Church. Because every bishop is an Apostle. You’re better off putting a bishop where he can do no harm, behind a desk or a confessor to some convent of cloistered nuns or something that has no canonical power.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[OriginalJS]

Except that this particular priest did not violate the law of the state or country as far as we, the bishop, or the parents know (he might have but only he or the girl know this). He did violate moral law, which is why there is an out rage. He is supposed to be a moral authority and not only did he break moral law, but he broke his promise of his ordination.

So in a way, we are holding him to a higher standard because he got suspended from his duties, and his job at the school. Any other average 30 year old Joe can have an 18 year old girl friend and get her pregnant without losing his job.

So, a priest is an average 30 year old Joe? I don’t think so. But I don’t think it can be argued that a priest is not a professional person, so let’s talk about other professional persons. Medical doctors who have sexual relations with patients can be severely disciplined and in the case of minors, sent to prison; lawyers can be disciplined rather severely for having consensual sexual relations with clients even if the clients are of full legal age. In the case of lawyers, legal ethics require them to report transgressions of other lawyers that come to their attention. Higher standard - sure there is. These are people that society trusts and for that they have to conform to higher standards.