What Can We Expect From the Vatican Summit?

  • Thread starter Thread starter yankeesouth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
That example is a case of abuse, which I am explicitly not talking about.
I will give a real life example. I have a good friend who is a wonderful priest. He once told me the story of his first assignment after he was ordained as a assistant priest at a parish. A lady, who often went to daily mass wanted to see him for counseling. By their second meeting it was obvious to him she was trying to seduce him. He immediately went and told the pastor and broke off all communications to this lady. If, as a young priest, he would have succumbed to her advances, should his priestly career have been ended for that one mistake?
 
The example may or may not be abuse. The priest says it isn’t. That it was consensual. The example stands.
I’m shocked you can’t see this.
 
Yes, absolutely yes. If it was public! I mean this is really black and white!
 
No, I am saying if a case of sinning against chastity is not abuse, no question, then he should not be removed from ministry. In you example, you claim that people know (as opposed to suspect) that it was abuse. Now you say it may or may not have been. You can’t have it both ways. Don’t change your example.
For cases of abuse, the legal standard of guilty beyond reasonable doubt, should not be needed to end a priest’s career. It should be more along the lines of the what is used in a civil proceeding: preponderance of evidence.

But again, my original point on this topic was very clear, I am not talking about sexual abuse in any way, shape or form. I am saying that there are cases where a priest sins against chastity and should not be removed from his ministry permanently. Just as you admit that there are cases where a parent can sin against chastity and should not loose his/her rights as a parent.

Note:. Edited to insert word “not”
 
Last edited:
What if it wasn’t public? What if the priest, in my example, responded with a passionate kiss, then realized his mistake and told the pastor, outside the confessional. He did not initiate the encounter. He deviated from chastity. should his career be ended?
 
Let me propose a question to your question: How many consensual “slips” to ones vow of chastity will it take to defrock a Priest? 1, or 2, or how many? Serious question. To what level of dedication do we hold our Priests? How many Mea Culpa’s does one get?
With the revelation of 50,000 children fathered by Priests, it seems like a serious problem.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Vatican reveals the secret rules for priests who father children

Vincent Doyle, whose father was a Catholic priest, founded a group called 'Coping International' to bring together the children of priests, which has 50,000 members.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
 
I don’t have a precise answer, beyond : not very many. I am simply saying that “a zero tolerance of ALL deviations from chastity on the part of Priests” where zero-tolerance is assumed to be permanent removal from priestly ministries, is too far.
Let’s say a priest masturbates once? He should report it so he can be removed? What about a second time a few years later?

Look, I wish you guys would not take my thoughts as not wanting a very strict policy against all sexual abuse by clergy. It has to be very strict (as I believe it is at this point in time in the US).
 
If it wasn’t public and wasn’t abuse then you have a valid point. But publically. Even with consent even a one time thing gone. Other jobs are like this as well. Sometimes (though not often) voters are zero tolerance when it comes to public information. A public sin mandates s public consequence. A man cannot minister as needed if it becomes public. I’m so tired of the so called defense if priests under the banner of mercy. Fair or unfair they are called to live honorably. And faithfully. As are we all.
 
It’s a good question. How many times does a priest have to commit a sex act that people know of and not lose his job?
 
But if it isn’t public who even knows? Only his confessor. I’m not sure you really have a point. And you say thank you but then ignore the rest.

If it’s not public, then no one even knows. So zero tolerance does not apply. That’s like saying a school has zero tolerance for drug use but no one ever tests.
 
Taran. Does it matter if the sexual act is hetero or homosexual?
 
Honestly, I don’t see why you stress the “public” aspect of it so much. Yes, the scandal is caused by that. But I can easily see where a case of abuse or even non-abusive consensual sex occurs, it is not made public due to the desire of the person abused, yet the penalties should be the same.
Part of the reason we do now have a problem is due to bishops in the past having different reactions based on publicity.
 
I don’t know, I would have to think about that. You are taking my very simple position and asking for me to define it further. That takes some thought. I can see arguments both ways.
 
Hoosier-Daddy said:
But if it isn’t public who even knows?
Click to expand...
You have a different meaning of “public” than I. I can certainly sin, someone besides my confessor knows about it, yet it is not public knowledge. Many sins fall into this category
 
Does my wife have the right to expect zero tollerance for fidelity? Or morally must she forgive and accept me back into her bed?
 
Public means others know. And others always know. Other clergy, office employees at the diocese. The people who engaged in an act with the priest. Law enforcement news reports, janitors, friends, family, etc.
This is why zero tollerance is so important. There are others victimized.
It’s interesting you cant give strait answers here.
 
I am trying hard to give straight answers. I will restate my initial point: “a zero tolerance of ALL deviations from chastity on the part of Priests” policy is an overreaction, if by zero-tolerance we mean a permanent removal from priestly ministry. I am not saying that any sexual abuse should be tolerated, it should not.

I am sorry if that is not straight enough for you.

As to your definition of public, I simply disagree. Public means the public at large has access to the information. If someone has an affair with another person, just because the other person knows, it is not necessarily public. If a priest masturbates and tells his spiritual director, it is not public at that point. A priest can sin against chastity with another person, and that person is not necessarily victimized.

Those are straight answers. You, on the other hand, go on and on about “if it is public” and then say that everything is public as soon as any other single person knows about it. You bring up examples that are obviously not what I was referring to. I am not the one who is not being straight in this dialogue.
 
Yes she does have a right to expect zero-tolerance for this. But what is the definition of zero-tolerance? At some point, if you have sincerely reformed and are truly sorry and have regained her trust, she must forgive you and take you into her bed.
 
I think it depends.

If the mortal sin was he was impure with himself one time in 1996, or skipped mass in 2004, of course not.

If the mortal sin was molestation, then goodbye.

Using mortal sin as the qualifier leaves it too wide open.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top