The priests who sexually abused children? Should they be executed?

[JReducation]

Executed? NO! Excommunicated? Yes! Nobody should be put to death for a crime. Serve a prison sentance, yes. And one should find it in his or heart to forgive the criminal. That doesn’t mean a criminal shouldn’t be punished.

Excommunication is a litttle tricky here and that’s why the Holy Father did not include it in his latest ruling on priests who molest children. He did include immediate dismissal from the clerical state. This means that a man remains a priest for the rest of his life, but he cannot function as one. He loses all his faculties to preach, witness marriages and give absolution. Any other sacraments that he celebrates are valid, but illicit. He is to live the rest of his life among the laity. This is called laicization. He is not a lay person. He can never be brought down that low, because Holy Orders is a permanent sacrament, but he must live as if he were a lay person.

The excommunication question is a tricky one, because technically anyone who commits a grave sin, and this is grave, excommunicates himself. However, a pedophile has the right to confession and absolution. Once he has gone to confession and received absolution he is back in good standing with the Church and with God.

The key question that no one can answer is how much freedom of choice does a pedophile have. According to St. Alphonse Ligouri, to be personally culpable of grave sin, one condition that you must meet is total free will. If a pedophile is indeed driven by urges beyond his or her control, this raises a question for the confessor and the Church as to how culpable he is. This does not mean that he did not commit the action. He is legally culpable. The question is not one about civil law. It is about moral law. It’s weather the person actually is guilty of a grave sin or is his guilt less than a grave sin or maybe none existent.

A better example would be a 10-year old who sexually molests a 5-year old. He is guilty in a civil court. But whether he is culpable of grave sin is highly questionable. Does a 10-year old really understand the moral gravity of his action?

A person who is psychotic and goes on a killing spree. How much freedom does that person really have?

This is the dilemma that confessors have. Therefore, it is safest course to grant absolution and hope for the mercy of God and contrition in the sinner.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Tantum_ergo]

So you are stating that priests/bishops represent the CC ‘in toto.’

Well then, if you say that 2% of priests/bishops mean the** whole** Catholic Church is at fault for their personal sins, then you also have to say that 98% of the priests and bishops --remember, you did say they also ‘represented the CC’ are not at fault for their personal virtue.

So if the Church is guilty, it is likewise not guilty. And by a much higher percentage of ‘non guilt’.

 

[JohnT58]

What are your view on all the priests in Ireland who abused children for decades.
What is a just punishment? What does the bible say?
I think they should be executed:thumbsup:. What are your views?

They should be tried and convicted the same as anyone else. Just so you know the death penalty has been abolished in Ireland for quite some time, and unfortunately, those convicted of sexual offences get notoriously lenient sentences.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

With respect, tweetymom, I obviously do not agree with you that those who flout the Church’s teachings somehow in their personal sin thus ‘tar the Church’.

It simply defies logic. I’m sure there are much more capable members who can point out using the appropriate terminology where the flaw lies in imputing the deeds of a ‘few’ to cover the ‘all’, but I’m not sure that even logical explanation will satisfy. I’ve seen all too many cases not only here but in all areas in ‘society’ where people have already made up their minds to accept a fallacy or flawed argument and nothing will change them. “Hearts of stone” as Scripture might put it. . .

 

[tweetymom]

Oh brother? So you’re going to hold the 98% of priests who neither participated in the abuse nor had any knowledge whatsoever of the abuse as being just as guilty as the ones who abused?

Or are you going to say that because 1, 2, or some minority number of bishops may have for whatever misguided reason decided that they would ‘risk’ the abuse happening somewhere else, even if they could not know for certain that it would. . .that somehow the ‘whole Church’ is responsible?

With due respect. . .wouldn’t that be a tad unfair? If you think it fair, exactly what are your reasons?

Oh brother wasn’t for the Church and there are more than 2 percent gullty. More than that here in Calif. And once a molester always a molester, I know exactulylwhat I am talking about. They are never cured because they don’t think what they do is wrong. Regardless if they did not know it would happen again don’t you think they wouldn’t take a chance And The C hurch is made up by whom? I have been there and all kinds of therapy.Maybe you have too but if you haven’t walked in someones shoes. You do not realize the anger that one feels. Forgive them yes, but make excuses for the ones who moved them no way!

 

[JohnT58]

I only pointed it out because there seemed to be a clear hint of anti-clericalismin the statement, though we should hold our priests to a higher standard. What the world needs are examples of holy men, not these men, who did so much damage to individuals and nations as a whole.

 

[tweetymom]

I have been looking for information on The Churh and molested childre and what I found was sickening. The Pope forgives the Children . What sin??? I wish someone would explain to me what those children have to be forgiven for? Go tp the interent and type THe Pope and molesting children.

 

[Luke65]

“And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.” (Romans 8:28)

If the priest abuse scandal causes anyone to stumble permanently, it says more about them than the guilty priests. But woe to him through whom scandal comes.

 

[tweetymom]

“And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.” (Romans 8:28)

If the priest abuse scandal causes anyone to stumble permanently, it says more about them than the guilty priests. But woe to him through whom scandal comes.

Yes all things for the glory of God no question there Do you think God was glorified with it? And it has not caused me to stumble only put on the whole armor of God.

 

[Luke65]

And it has not caused me to stumble only put on the whole armor of God.

Well that says more about you than it does about the guilty priests.

 

[JReducation]

I have been looking for information on The Churh and molested childre and what I found was sickening. The Pope forgives the Children . What sin??? I wish someone would explain to me what those children have to be forgiven for? Go tp the interent and type THe Pope and molesting children.

I went back and read the article and I understand the context. Unfortunately, the article does not go into the whole context. Maybe because the reporter does not understand it himself. I don’t know. Let me try to explain it.

1. The Holy Father wanted to relieve children of the guilt that they feel regarding their participation in these situations. This is the first point. It’s important to help these children understand that they are not guilty, but victims.
2. An action, such as sexual intercourse, is always objectively sinful, regardless of your age. However, culpability for the action is not always applicable if you have been forced into a situation or you do not understand the gravity of the situation, even if you entered into it voluntarilly. In the case of most children, they really don’t understand the gravity of sexual activity. Therefore, there is an objective sin, but there is no personal culpability. The Church has an obligation to make that clear. In other words, what you did was wrong, but you are not in a state of sin, because there is more here than meets the eye. In addition, you probably don’t even understand why it was wrong to agree to something like this.
3. Some of the victims were considered victims because they were minors, not because they did not have awareness. For example, a 16-year old has awareness of sexual activity and has awarenes of right and wrong. I’m using that age randomly. But I would say that anyone between 14 and 17 is pretty aware of sex and sexual activity. Some kids this age are deliberately seductive, not to mention sexually active. The difference is that in our society when two 16-year olds have sex someone hands them a condom. When a 16-year old has sex with a 30-year old, it’s a crime. What the Holy Father is saying to this age group is that what they did was wrong. At this age you know what is right and wrong. However, the fact that they engaged in sexual activity with an adult (priest or not) the adult is held to a higher standard of moral responsibility and the responsibility of the youth in this case is mitigated. The adult should have put a stop on things, if it was the youth who is being seductive. In this case, it is appropriate to extend forgiveness to the youth. The adult should have behaved much more like a moral healthy adult.

The overall message is for kids not to feel guilty. The only way that kids are going to get over the guilt is to hear from the Holy Father himself, that they are forgiven. If he sat there and explained all the rules of moral theology to a group of kids, they would sill feel guilty, because these rules are complicated and usually go over their heads.

If we look at the picture, Pope John Paul is surrounded by kids. What the article does not tell us is that the Holy Father was speaking directly to them. Therefore, he is going to speak to them in words that they understand. What is the easiest thing for them to understand? “You are forgiven, because you are a victim.” If you notice, the one priest who spoke up against the Pope’s actions is himself waiting for trial or was at the time. He was shifting responsibility to the kids. The Holy Father was trying to do just the opposite. He was trying to shift the responsibility to the adult.

Personally, I believe that there are ages when a youth knows what he is doing. He or she knows that it is wrong. This does relieve the adult of responsibility as an adult. But the youth also has moral responsibility proportionate to his degree of understanding and degree of consent. The ruler that I use is this. If a 16-year old boy and impregnated a 15-year old girl, would society say that they have no moral responsibility because of their age? I don’t think so.

I hope these thoughts are helpful to someone.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Newbie2]

Murder our Priests?

Well, execution, not exactly murder. But point well taken. Jail them’s that get convicted.

Executed? NO! Excommunicated? Yes! Nobody should be put to death for a crime. Serve a prison sentance, yes. And one should find it in his or heart to forgive the criminal. That doesn’t mean a criminal shouldn’t be punished.

Yes, exactly…except excommunication. Don’t allow them to be priests anymore (laicize sp?), but don’t excommunicate them.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Well, execution, not exactly murder. But point well taken. Jail them’s that get convicted.

Yes, exactly…except excommunication. Don’t allow them to be priests anymore (laicize sp?), but don’t excommunicate them.

JReducation already covered that point by stating that person excommunicated themselves by their actions.

I think there is a possibility you are thinking about formal excommunication, rather than self-excommunication.?

 

[JReducation]

Yes, exactly…except excommunication. Don’t allow them to be priests anymore (laicize sp?), but don’t excommunicate them.

Laicization does not take away a man’s priesthood. He remains a priest until death. Laicization means that he must live as a lay person, but it’s only an image. In fact, the person remains a validly ordained priest who can exercise his priesthood in the event of an emergency. For example, let’s say that you call your parish because you’re in the hospital and you need Anointing of the Sick. You’re very sick. No priest is available. Your neighbor his a laicized priest. You can call him and he can validly and licitly hear your confession and absolve you. If he has the oils, he can annoint you. This is a case where the Church supplies the faculties.

Even an excommunicated priesst remains a priest. Look at the bishops of the SSPX. They were excommunicated, but they were still bishops. They exercised ilicit, but valid sacraments. Excommunication does not take away a man’s priesthood, even if it’s formal. I can give you one historical example, Martin Luther. Martin Luther died a priest. Even though he was a heretic. He was Friar Martin, until death. He was both an Augustinian friar and an ordained priest. That could not be taken away from him. The Church does not have the power to manipulate the sacraments that way.

She can determine if they are valid or invalid, licit or ilicit, but she cannot undo them. Once a host is consecrated, it is what it is, the body and blood of Christ. When a couple is married, they remain married. When a man is ordained a deacon, priest or bishop, he remains what he is, even if he lives as a lay man and has his faculities taken away. The only faculties that that Church can take away are: to preach, to absolve and to witness marriages. As I pointed above, he can absolve in an emergency where there is no priest immediately available.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[tweetymom]

Thank you BR.JR. I appreciate you explaination very much. As a person who was molested as a 5 year old I was really shocked at the article. I had no realization of the evil, and was told it was a secret etc.And as a Child you don’t know better so thats why I was a lot put off by the article.

As you can tell I am very disturbed at molestation and it is hard for me to accept all the hiding etc. that went on in the Church. Some of this actually happened in my life and now that I am older even thou I have tried to forgive the evil I still have a very diffcult time with it.

There does come a time in your chidhood that you realize something is not right and for me that happened when I was 10 and I left home for the most part and stayed with whoever would have me. Gods Grace was with me and I found some very loving people. Now no one knew the reason I stayed away from home because as you never speak of it because you are the one who is ashamed and you haven’t done anything wrong. So I guess thats a reason for my indignation at the article.

Again thank you for the explanation. It is all a bit plainer since I read your post. God Bless you.

 

[Mark77]

**"And Jesus said, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” (Mt 23:34)

we are all horrible sinners and without the Infinite Mercy of Jesus, we would all be condemned to eternal damnation without parole.**

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark

 

[Newbie2]

JReducation already covered that point by stating that person excommunicated themselves by their actions.

I think there is a possibility you are thinking about formal excommunication, rather than self-excommunication.?

I missed that, but yes, a formal one.

Laicization does not take away a man’s priesthood. He remains a priest until death. Laicization means that he must live as a lay person, but it’s only an image. In fact, the person remains a validly ordained priest who can exercise his priesthood in the event of an emergency. For example, let’s say that you call your parish because you’re in the hospital and you need Anointing of the Sick. You’re very sick. No priest is available. Your neighbor his a laicized priest. You can call him and he can validly and licitly hear your confession and absolve you. If he has the oils, he can annoint you. This is a case where the Church supplies the faculties.

Even an excommunicated priesst remains a priest. Look at the bishops of the SSPX. They were excommunicated, but they were still bishops. They exercised ilicit, but valid sacraments. Excommunication does not take away a man’s priesthood, even if it’s formal. I can give you one historical example, Martin Luther. Martin Luther died a priest. Even though he was a heretic. He was Friar Martin, until death. He was both an Augustinian friar and an ordained priest. That could not be taken away from him. The Church does not have the power to manipulate the sacraments that way.

She can determine if they are valid or invalid, licit or ilicit, but she cannot undo them. Once a host is consecrated, it is what it is, the body and blood of Christ. When a couple is married, they remain married. When a man is ordained a deacon, priest or bishop, he remains what he is, even if he lives as a lay man and has his faculities taken away. The only faculties that that Church can take away are: to preach, to absolve and to witness marriages. As I pointed above, he can absolve in an emergency where there is no priest immediately available.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Yes, thank you for the excellent expansion of the point. What I’m getting at is that such a crime, both in the social and spiritual sense should not be punished by banishment from the church. We don’t kick out murderers, and while we can discuss which is worse, getting abused by a clergyman or being killed, the Church is about healing and reconciliation. That doesn’t mean allowing a priest to be in a position of ecclesiastical authority ever again, but logistically making him in effect a “lay” person.

 

[mnealon1]

The sexual abuse in Ireland was one, if not the most shocking thing to happen in Ireland, for the the victims , and the Church as a whole. People were shocked, in disbelief, and very, very angry. Many people backed away from Priests, and some used it as an excuse not to go to Mass or confession. Strange thing is, I heard several interviews with many victims,and THEY did not turn from the Church.
Where I know there were abominable things done to children at the hands of Religious and I fully agree with the full rigor of the law being applied, compensation ect. I do not believe the Priests should be ececuted… even if we had the death penalty … We may judge on a human level but God is the ultimate Judge, and I leave it to Him. Our Dublin Bishop is dealing with all aspects of the problem and will leave no stone unturned to bring justice, to victims and their families and criminal charges for the Religious.
There was damage done to the Church which will take years to recover from,( especially how our young people see the Church) but that is no reason to turn away from the Church and our Faith, or Priests.
Priests need our support more than ever. Although only a small percentage ( which ANY was too big ) are guilty, there are many many wonderful Priests.

The Prayer in our Churches is as follows.

We Pray for the priests who have wounded priesthood
May we be willing to forgive
And may they be open to healing,
Let us support one another during times of crisis

God our Father, we ask you to bless our priests
And confirm them in their call.
Give them the gifts they need
To respond with generosity and a joyful heart.

We offer this prayer for our peiest
Who is our brother and friend. Amen.

I like to think that Jesus suffered and died so that ALL sins could be forgiven. If Jesus could do that for us, surely we can be forgiving also, no matter how hideous the sin.

God Bless

 

[vcs]

The secular, civil punishment should be imprisonment The offenders should remain imprisoned until the state can GUARANTEE that the offenders pose no risk to society (for most this would mean life in prison). The Church should also defrock these abusers for their grave offenses against their victims and God.

 

[moonletters]

I agree. At the very least, priests accurately convicted of this should never be seen in vestments again.

Life imprisonment is probably the best, because while I would like to say kill all of the rapists and child molesters, etc, I don’t really know that is for the best, and afterall, who am I to decide? An eye for an eye makes us all blind.