Having read this morning the Vatican has refused to accept the guidelines set by American Bishops leads to the Question? Have we a seperate Church now in America? Also is Church Law above Civil Law and the Rights of the People?

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), October 18, 2002

Answers

It's a disturbing situation indeed. My sympathies tend to be with the Vatican, because I think "zero tolerance" policies tend towards overkill.

Remember the high school student last year who was suspended for giving an aspirin to another student? Her school had a policy of "zero tolerance" for drug use. And before that, there was a 5- year-old who was sent home from kindergarten because he had a nail file in his pocket - "zero tolerance" for weapons!

Too often, "zero tolerance" translates to "zero common sense"!

There must be a sensible middle ground somewhere ...

-- Christine L. (chris_tine_lehman@hotmail.com), October 18, 2002.

Hey Jean, we've been wondering about you. Hope you're alright! Here's an articles from Catholic News Service that goes a little more in depth on the subject.

VATICAN-NORMS Oct-18-2002 (1,300 words) With photos. xxxi Vatican calls for joint commission to revise bishops' sex abuse norms

By John Thavis Catholic News Service

ROME (CNS) -- In its long-awaited response to the U.S. bishops' sex abuse norms, the Vatican has called for a joint commission to study and revise some of the key elements of the bishops' plan before formal Vatican approval is granted.

The Vatican said it was concerned that "ambiguity and confusion" could arise when the norms are applied, because some provisions are "difficult to reconcile with the universal law of the church."

The problematic areas include the definition of terms like "sexual abuse," the role of diocesan review boards and the canonical procedures for dealing with priests who have abused minors, Bishop Wilton D. Gregory, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, said in a statement released in Rome Oct. 18.

Bishop Gregory, bishop of Belleville, Ill., said a commission made up of four U.S. bishops and four Vatican officials would meet soon and hoped to finish its work in time for the plenary meeting of U.S. bishops in November.

"We're dealing with a basically sound document that needs modification rather than recasting," Bishop Gregory told reporters at a Rome press conference. He said the commission would be "fine- tuning" the norms, and that the Vatican had not categorically rejected any element of the bishops' sex abuse plan.

"Nothing (in the charter and norms) has been taken off the table," he said. "Nothing has been ruled out."

He said the commission's review did not mean that implementation of the sex abuse charter was now "frozen" in U.S. dioceses.

"The mixed commission has not asked the bishops to stop pursuing the charter. It simply says let us sit down and talk together about issues that need to be clarified or modified so that 'recognitio' can be granted to the norms," he said.

Bishop Gregory said the joint review did not imply a softening of the bishops' policies.

"We have not stepped back from our compassion for those who have been harmed, nor from our determination to put into place policies that will protect children," he said.

Bishop Gregory made public a two-page letter from Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, head of the Vatican's Congregation for Bishops. The letter voiced strong support for the bishops' efforts to respond to the sex abuse crisis, but said the Vatican saw possible areas of confusion and questions of interpretation in the norms.

At a meeting in Dallas last June, the bishops overwhelmingly approved the "essential norms" that outlined strict penalties against priests who sexually abuse minors, along with a "Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People." Vatican approval, or "recognitio," would make the norms binding in all U.S. dioceses.

Cardinal Re's carefully worded letter was the result of weeks of internal discussion among five Vatican departments. It reflected the unease voiced privately by some officials that certain provisions of the norms may violate the due-process rights of accused priests.

But rather than simply reject the norms, the Vatican asked the bishops to work with them to resolve the remaining difficulties.

"It has been judged appropriate that before the 'recognitio' can be granted, a further reflection on and revision of the norms and the charter are necessary," Cardinal Re wrote.

Cardinal Re described three problem areas in general terms; Bishop Gregory gave more specific examples in his statement:

-- Cardinal Re said the norms and the charter contain provisions that "in some aspects are difficult to reconcile with the universal law of the church."

Bishop Gregory said an example was the proper role of review boards, which are to be established in every diocese. Although these were envisioned as consultative bodies, Vatican officials are concerned that bishops might be held accountable to these boards; they say that would be an unacceptable infringement on the bishop's authority.

-- Cardinal Re said the terminology of the norms and the charter was "at times vague or imprecise and therefore difficult to interpret."

Bishop Gregory said an example was the term "sexual abuse." The U.S. bishops' charter said sex abuse "need not be a complete act of intercourse" and cited a definition that said sexual abuse of children need not involve physical or genital contact. Vatican officials fear that this is too ambiguous and relies too much on subjective feelings of a victim to define the crime.

-- Cardinal Re said that "questions also remain concerning the concrete manner in which the procedures outlined in the norms and charter are to be applied in conjunction with the requirements of the Code of Canon Law" and with Pope John Paul II's 2001 apostolic letter, "Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela," which gave to the Vatican's doctrinal congregation oversight on cases of clerical sex abuse against minors.

Bishop Gregory said an example of the Vatican's concern in this area would be the procedures for dealing with a priest who is known to have abused a minor. The U.S. bishops' plan says that a priest who has committed any act of sexual abuse against a minor -- past, present or future -- is to be permanently removed from the active ministry. It also sets dismissal from the priesthood as a standard penalty, even against a priest's will, but allows for some exceptions.

Those provisions are more strict and less flexible than those of canon law or the pope's 2001 letter. However, the U.S. bishops' plan said explicitly that church law procedures would be respected. Now, Bishop Gregory said, the Vatican wants "further specification" on how that will be done.

Bishop Gregory spent a week in October meeting with Vatican officials on the issue and said he came away convinced that the Vatican wants to work out remaining problems in a spirit of cooperation.

He said Vatican officials "have shown great pastoral care in their sensitivity to the pain caused to victims, their commitment to the need to protect society from perpetrators of abuse, their regard for the respect that needs to be shown the rights of the accused, and their pain at the anguish caused to faithful Catholics by this sinful and criminal conduct."

Bishop Gregory said that when he and other conference officials met with the pope Oct. 17 they did not discuss in detail the sex abuse policy.

Bishop Gregory said he was in the process of appointing the four U.S. bishops to the mixed commission. The Vatican members will come from the congregations for the Doctrine of the Faith, for Bishops and for Clergy and the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts.

At a separate press conference Oct. 18, Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, head of the clergy congregation, said he was concerned that the U.S. approach to clerical sex abuse did not do enough to protect the rights of accused priests. The church defends the human rights of everyone and "does not privilege the ecclesiastical delinquent when it defends his rights," he said.

He said church policies must reflect the right of accused priests to their good name, especially because of the risk of false accusations.

Even reformed abusers also have a right to their good name, the cardinal said. The norms must reflect the church's deep sense of the power of mercy and conversion, he said.

Other potential issues he raised included the need for a statute of limitations, which the current norms do not specify. He said there should be no "external conditioning" on the relationship of trust between bishops and their priests -- an apparent reference to the norms' requirement that bishops report all credible accusations to civil authorities.

Cardinal Castrillon said the commission must come up with a formula that provides for a "strong and clear response" to clerical sex abuse without at the same time "going against the fundamental principles of the church."

- - -

Contributing to this story was John Norton at the Vatican.

END

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), October 18, 2002.

"Even reformed abusers also have a right to their good name, the cardinal said. The norms must reflect the church's deep sense of the power of mercy and conversion, he said."

There is no such thing as reformed pedophiles....the jails are full of pedophiles who said they would do the same thing all over again - the desire to abuse children does not go away. It is a sickness.

How very disappointing that the Vatican has chosen to protect its priests in this regard. You see, these priests have been protected all these years - protected by hush money and silence.

May God bless the Catholic Church and its children.

MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), October 18, 2002.

The problem is, to most of us, there IS a difference between a convicted pedophile and a priest who had a one-night stand FIFTY YEARS ago -- but under "zero tolerance" both would be treated exactly the same! THAT is why Rome is right and the American Bishops are wrong.

-- Christine L. (chris_tine_lehman@hotmail.com), October 18, 2002.

Hi Jean nice to hear from you again. :)

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), October 18, 2002.

Yeah same here jean; was thinking about you yesterday and today.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 18, 2002.

Christine,

If the one-night stand was with your child, you may feel differently about it - no matter how many years ago it was because the damage done to the victim lasts a life time.

When I go to confession, can I not confess sins I committed many years ago because so much time has passed that the sin is no longer important?

When you say, "one-night stand" are you talking about an adult relationship or a 'one-night stand' with a child? Because as far as I am concerned there is no one night stand with a child. It is abuse.

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), October 18, 2002.

Hi MaryLu:

I have to tell you that just a couple of months ago my husband revealed a deep dark secret; he was violently sexually assaulted by his elder brother and sister when he was 5. I was never SO ANGRY in my life! I wanted to . . . well, I'll spare you the methods of torture and revenge that I had planned for them! I felt the rage of a mother protecting her son. Combined with that fact is that these two siblings are now suing my husband and I. They abused him over several years, but that wasn't enough. They still continue to try to destroy him even now. And to add insult to injury, his own mother joined in the fray and is a party to one of the lawsuits!

The only way we've been able to deal with this is by praying for them. It somehow mysteriously released us of the bitter anger we both held. We can't sue them because the statute has run, and it was so long ago we couldn't prove it anyway. We can do absolutely nothing! Nothing! We can't even confront them because you can't converse with people that are suing you.

I share this with you because your comments to me on another post were SOO far off and cut me to the bone, especially in light of what we've been through the last month!

I do want justice, for my husband, and for the victims of priests, but I want REAL justice and not revenge, for "Revenge is mine sayeth the Lord and I will repay." We can't scourge the earth lest innocent priests get burned! We will have to be patient. God will have the final say.

Love,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), October 18, 2002.

THE POPE IS A SENILE, OLD FOOL. BLINDED TOO LONG BY THE GOLD THAT SURROUNDS HIM, AND TOO FILLED WITH HIS PERSONAL NEED FOR POWER. SHAME ON ANY WHO SUPPORT HIS NONSENSE CONCERNING MOLESTATION AND SUCH. HE SHOULD BE JAILED!

-- FB (FB@AOL.COM), October 18, 2002.

Hello, Christine

"The problem is, to most of us, there is a difference between a convicted PEDOPHILE and a priest who had a one night stand FIFTY YEARS AGO..."

Does this imply that if you do it once fifty years ago and you don't get convicted for it, than it is any lesser of a crime in your eyes than someone who happened to tell the truth and get found guilty? A good percentages of theses cases are over 20 years old.

What is you one night stand? Is it a adult and child that you are calling a one night stand? Or a gay man and a gay younger man one night stand? I ask because the criminal charges would be very different.

David

-- David (David@excite.com), October 19, 2002.

Hey David:

I'm not answering for Christine, but I hope everyone realizes that the Church does have a legitimate concern with the document as it stands. As I read it earlier this year it did not distinguish between a priest who "looks suggestively" towards a young person under 18, or someone who actually carried out a heinous act! That is much too broad, legally speaking. I don't think that anyone here would want to lose their priest because someone says "he looked funny at me." The document needs to be legally tweaked. It is ambiguous and vague in several areas. As to the "long time past, one time incident," if it was child, no way! But what if a priest had an affair with a 17 year old girl 20 years ago, should he be canned?

PLUS, We've got to keep in mind that most of the cases, other than Geoghan and Shanley, WERE NOT PEDOPHILIA! Remember 98 percent is homosexual man/boy relationships -- WHICH SHOULD STILL GET THEM KICKED OUT! And hence, the "Ban on Homosexual Priests Document" the Vatican is working on will attack the problem from that angle.

Okay, gotta go. We've already hashed through this over and over. The media has done a good job of making this whole thing a "pedophilia" thing when in essence its a "homosexual thing" Propaganda -- very powerful indeed!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), October 19, 2002.

Christine - I fully agree with you on the examples you gave. That was of course inane and insane to treat children in that manner. As is said " A little knowledge is dangerous. " In these scenes with teachers " A little power is dangerous. As to sympathy for priests and nuns it does not apply to this question at all for the lives of children are at hand and risk.

Gail - Thank you for the posting and article. Often as has been known throughout history the Church had a great deal and at times total power of the peoples of many countries.

Those days are gone now as we have learned to read write discern and express our individuality. Were you aware the Cardinal and Bishops of Paris deemed the printing press a direct product of the devil? The List of Books not to be read came from that along with a continued thrust to this day.

My point being the Church still attempts to formulate the minds of men when it is God's will we be FREE and follow Him and His Son only. Did not Christ say " Better a stone be placed around your neck and be thrown into the sea - then to meet ME on your last day! "

Surely the " men " of the Church have toyed and dallied with this long enough.

Mary-Lu Your are right on the money as this probelm is ages old and the Magesterium is more then often still embedded in the medievel mode of power given to the priest. Yes they are protecting the known offenders.

Eg: here in Canada during the intial exposure a Vatican ordained representative in Ottawa was accused of pedophilia. Result - he was " recalled " within 30 days never to be heard from again. Is this not a form of coullusion?

Christne - Knowledgeable professionals in treating these people are FULLY aware it is never a one night stand only occurance. What we do not know is how many children have been injured prior to the exposure. Rare indeed would be the single occurance and then healing. Pedophilia is untreatable along with narcissism and psychopathy.

Kiwi - Thank you so much as often I become the brunt of Catholic fundamentalists on the forum. I run into the in real life also very often in my work.

Eg: Currently there is a teenager in need of a bed due to poverty in the family. Asking around the parish which is very wealth the responce was " I shall pray for her."

Reality - I purchased the bed for her and had it delivered. End of story. Some talk the talk only.

Gail - You husband's pain has been released for bringing it out. What a totally brave man you have in your life. Yes wive's are mothers also to their spouse also as we are all children inside.

God Bless you both. As to the court case coming up judes and lawyers are not fools and will see through the glass darkly being presented.

David - As a pedophile commits that act he/she learns what does and what does not work. An offender in his/her early 20's is no longer the neophyte in his/her 50's. Perhaps some reading on profiling may be of help to you in this area.

Gail - This not an overworked issue by all means. A pedophile seeks those under 12. What you have missed perhaps is the lack of emotional growth in a young priest/nun. The homosexual priest/nun will be with us forever amen.

The issue is the willfully planned destruction of a human being by those having been given the Office of Trust. Sick no - predators YES!! They chose the life of predator due to lack of developed responsibilty. Remember they themselves may have been abused either in homelife or community life. Or as some have related to me " I like it! "

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), October 19, 2002.

Emerald - looking over my E:Mail I had overlooked you thoughts. Thank you so much.

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), October 19, 2002.

^

-- ^ (^@^.^), October 23, 2002.

Jean,

You said:

Sick no - predators YES!! They chose the life of predator due to lack of developed responsibilty. Remember they themselves may have been abused either in homelife or community life. Or as some have related to me " I like it! "

You don't think a pedophile is sick? If your definition of "normal" includes pedophilia, I personally don't think you should be advising or counseling people at all. Have you shared this belief of yours with your supervisors? Also, an abusive past is NO EXCUSE for committing crimes as an adult! That's what being an adult means, being responsible for one's actions.

I'm curious Jean, have I interpretted your post correctly, and if so and you don't consider pedophilia to be morally wrong, what DO you believe is immoral behavior?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 23, 2002.

Hi, Gail

Sorry, I am late answering your questions to me on Oct, 19. I will try and answer mow.

"..rember 98 percent is homosexual man/boy relationship."

I do rember this. My questions to Christine was about what was she refering to about a "one night stand"?

"But what if a priest had an affair with a 17 year old girl 20 years ago, should he be canned?"

I realy don't have the answer to such a open question. I know having sex with a minor is a very serious offense Gail. Do you think it is ok for a 59 year old priest to have sex with an 17 year old minor even if it was 20 years ago? I don't. When it comes to our children I am one to take no chances, period!

"If you fool me once shame on you, but if you fool me twice, than shame on me"

Please bear in mind that I didn't say what I agree with as far as with the orginal posters question, but I don't compare things that went on as,"...rembering a student that was punished for giving aspirin to another student."

I was asking another poster about there statements and opinion as to what they mean't about the BIG, one night stand in there example.

David

God bless our holy Catholic Church.

David

-- David (David@excite.com), October 25, 2002.

Hi, Mr. Bouchard

How have you been? It is nice to read you posting again here sir! I didn't understand your post to me.(Like old times):-)

Mr. Bouchard said," Perhaps some reading on profiling may be of some help to you in this area..."

Mr Bouchard, I asked what Christine mean't as a definition in her opinion of a one night stand is. So your advice has me confused like usual. I am not trying to "profile" anyone!

Perhaps reading the posts would be of some help to you! Do you treat the "slashers"(your words) like you do some people in this forum? If so, I would ask you have a little patience.

May He bless you, and the people that you help at work.

David

-- David (David@excite.com), October 25, 2002.

What I meant was that the Dallas policy does not distinguish between priests who molested children, and priests who, as teenagers or pre- 21-year-olds themselves, had sexual relationships with someone else close to their own age. Zero tolerance apparently means zero tolerance for ANY sexual misbehaviour, not just pedophilia. THAT'S what I meant.

-- Christine L. (chris_tinelehman@hotmail.com), October 30, 2002.

Did the church ever consider perhaps lifting the ban on marriage for clergy ?

On the one hand it is sick and horrible what some of those priests have done but c'mon, these are humans, they get urges just like any other humans. How much could we stay controlled if we were to have to abstain from any marital relationships ?

I'm not saying that should make you a pedophile, that's just gross, but i'm trying to appeal to the heart of these priests here. Surely we can understand that it is a heavy heavy burden for them.

At the end of the day we are all vessels, and it's the enemy who tries to corrupt us. We need to pray for one another and encourage one another.

I used to have a terrible problem with pornography until just recently. I decided to do something about it and come out in the open about it with a Christian radio station. They prayed with me, and also someone from a Christian support website also prayed for me. I can honestly say the prayers worked. I don't know what took place in those prayers but the desire has simply fled.

I have no boast in myself for this. I could be snatched up by the enemy in that area again for all I know. It is paramount that we have a good open relationship with our brothers and sisters that we can confess to them our weaknesses so that we can be strengthened and encouraged.

These priests took it upon themselves to devote their entire lives to God. I am not trying to take anything away from the hurt or suffering of the victims. I just hope that u can have a further insight into this that really we are all sinners and we need the grace of the Lord.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), November 02, 2002.

Oliver:
It is paramount that we have a good open relationship with our brothers and sisters that we can confess to them our weaknesses so that we can be strengthened and encouraged.

Don't you see, this is the precise reason the Church hierarchy is in trouble for ''condoning'' a grievous sin. We do confess our sins. The sacrament of Penance gives us the clear conscience Paull speaks of; the return to God's grace. As such, a repentent priest is cleansed of his offenses. As Christ has said to us, ''Go, and sin no more.''

Many offending priests are given absolution for the sin of pederasty, adultery, masturbation, even child-molesting. They confess and receive pardon.

Now we see a revolt against them by the laity, and more so by non-Catholics and people like David and Dennis and Bouchard. Zero tolerance as opposed to forgiveness of sin.

There is always de-frocking to fall back on. Ridding our sanctuaries of the perverted ones; whether they confess or not. I think it's reasonable.

Celibacy isn't their main problem, Oliver. You could abolish celibacy forever, and the sin would reccur; maybe not as surrepticiously as in these past years. But sin is ever among us. Nobody can avoid it. Keep in mind Saint Paul and even Christ were celibates. If there were anything unhealthy or senseless about celibate priests, God would not have allowed His only-begotten Son to take it upon Himself. It is and always was a holy estate; one which most often promotes saintly lives. Think about it.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 02, 2002.

I think if we can confess to any brother or sister who can pray for us it can still be effective.

The thing is that the Apostle Paul said He'd prefer if they didn't marry but if it is hard for them to overcome the lusts of the flesh it is better that they marry.

I can only imagine what it must be like for those priests. I would think it would be almost like a prison for them in some ways.

Personally, I don't think it's good to give absolutions so that sin can be repeated. Confession should bring about a renewing of the mind, a mind that would not will to sin again.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), November 02, 2002.

Look, sacramental absolution is valid. Yes, the sinner's total repentence is required in order that it be effective. You can confess forty times to a priest, or as you like it, to anybody else. It makes no difference without heartfelt contrition. But if you are truly sorry, the sacrament imparts grace to help avoid falling once more, plus God's absolution of your sins. In consequence, the baptismal character is restored to us; a clear conscience, free of all guilt. Christ has entrusted this to His Church, giving His apostles the real power to forgive sin in His name. It passes with the laying on of hands to the successors of the same apostles, and from them to every priest. We are truly forgiven for sins! (John 20 :22, :23)

I'm sorry, Oliver; it is NOT effective the same way when you confess a sin to some other person; because he/she is not called to the same ministry. The sacrament isn't everyone's to give. Christ selected His own. They must be CALLED to be His ministers.

I have to say, though, if you are truly repentent and you turn from your sins, it is an outward sign of contrition, and God may very well take away your sin. But this would not infuse new sanctifiying grace in your soul. Why? It's not a sacrament originating in Christ. There must be real apostolic authority behind it. Christ said to the apostles, ''--[teach them] to observe all that I have commanded you'' Matt 28:20).

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 02, 2002.

Gene,

Am I the David you are refering about a few posts up when you mentioned David, Dennis, Bouchard?

Thanks in advance.

David S

-- David (David@excite.com), November 02, 2002.

Dear David--
Just because you're mentioned in that group doesn't mean I have less respect for you. You have stated in the past there can be no space in our priesthood for a priest who couldn't stay away from kids. I realise your feelings are out of compassion for the victims.

I made reference to offenders who confess and receive absolution: ''Many offending priests are given absolution for the sin of pederasty, adultery, masturbation, even child-molesting. They confess and receive pardon.''

Did I mistake your words of condemnation for these offenders? You've stated in the past they deserve to die. Haven't you?

Which is nothing so evil I could blame you for. But here in this thread I was talking about how many forumites think there can be no forgiveness A whole other subject. Does Jesus Christ hate them? Is it impossible for these sinners to be forgiven?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 02, 2002.

Hi, Oliver

"Did the Church ever consider lifting the ban on marriage for clergy?"

The Church doesn't marry gay people Oliver. This was mostly a gay problem.

" How much could we stay controlled if we were to abstain from any Martial relationship?"

I see you don't have to much confidense in yourself, Oliver as a man. Would you be attracted to other young men if you had to abstain from any martial relationship? In a way thats what you saying, right? There are people living chaste lives right now in this forum. I can promise you they don't become gay because of it.

David

When you were"spinning wheels" in your porn habit, did it make you attracted to people of the opposite sex? You see Oliver you were comparing apples and corn.

A man is not going to be attracted to younger men because he is not married.

David

-- David (David@excite.com), November 02, 2002.

Gene,

If you had a 12 year old boy, would you want him around a Priest that has in the past molested other boys? Would you want him staying late to help the Priest do some things around the rectory alone?

Thats what Cardinal Law did wasn't it? Let the Priest around children again. Didn't you say before that if you kill the rabid dog you get the rabies out of the neighborhood? Why would you want a sick man around children? Attitudes like yours already cost the Church millions and millions. Maybe if you had a boy or girl that was molested you would feel diferent.

David

-- David (David@excite.com), November 02, 2002.

Gene,

"David, you have stated in the past there can be no space in our Priesthood for a Priest who couldn't stay away from kids."

Gene, What are you saying?? I don't think a pervert that can't stay away from kids deseves to be on the streets do you? What space do you want to put him in if he can't stay away from innocent, pure boys?

Gene, just because a man receives absolution doesn't mean he won't commit the same vile crime. Why do you throw in masterbation in the same sentence as a child molestor? I know there are probably thousands of Priests who have sinned and masterbated and repented for it, and received absolution. But I don't think for a second that this means children are in trouble. Do you?

Get real Gene. Who would you rather have dinner with tommorow night, A man that has masterbated before, or a child molestor? One has NOTHING to do with the other in the context you were using them. Please, don't go that silly route with me.

David

-- David (David@excite.com), November 02, 2002.

Hi Gene David and Oliver I just wish to add that in my own profession as a teacher if I commit a sex crime against a child I will be unable to continue as a teacher ever again. And rightly so. No passing the buck, or shuffling me off to another area, no secret payouts, no loss of privilages, NO SECOND CHANCES. " Ohh but thats not fair every one makes a mistake, or it was only a minor offence?" TOUGH !!!LIFE AINT FAIR GET USED TO IT.

This does not prevent me from asking for and recieving forgivness. There will be good men who make a horrible mistake and will perhaps never do the same thing again, my heart bleeds but its the price they must pay to keep our most precious children safe.

Openness, transparency, accountability, honesty,responsibility,love

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 02, 2002.

Ok everyone, sorry for the late reply. I think Eugene you misunderstood my sentiment. I was not actually trying to lower the effectiveness or validity of absolution, but my thought is rather that I don't think that it should be the resolution of the problem so as to allow them the opportunity to do it again.

Let me put it this way bro. Let's take a violent example for a second. Suppose a priest killed another priest or maybe a child. Then he confesses to another clergy member. And later on he does it again. What do you tell the family of that victim ? Sorry, we didn't think he'd do it again ?

Bro, of course we need to have a forgiving heart, just as the Lord has a forgiving heart toward us, but on the other hand we really need to be practical and consider the safety and well-being of others as well. We are all sinners and subject to the fallen nature of the flesh. We cannot place trust in ourselves.

Which brings me to my next point and this is mainly directed toward David. I believe you misunderstood my sentiment as well. No, I would never desire to sleep with little boys or any children, that's just plain disgusting to me. What I'm saying is that while we are not those who are practising in the way of the clergy of the Catholic church, we do not know what kind of sexual frustration they must be going through. Jesus said it is more profitable these ppl have a millstone hung around their neck and drowned in open sea than to stumble a little one, so while I absolutely do not excuse the filth that has been committed, I say still we must realise A> It is the work of the enemy and B> Such an environment and restrictions I'm sure would cause u and I to get frustrated. And no, I don't trust in my flesh. Noone should, including yourself, but I feel a very very strong speaking in my spirit concerning such matters which causes me to find such acts as utterly repulsive. People will react to it in different ways I guess. For me I don't think they should be forced into celibacy because Paul said that it is better to marry than to burn, but that's just my view. The catholic church has it's reasons for forcing celibacy on the clergy and that's their choice to do so. It's up to the people wanting to serve to accept this if they want to practice as priests. It's their call.

Olly.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), November 03, 2002.

Oh btw Kiwi I agree with you whole-heartedly. I guess in my original post I was just trying to discourage ppl from condemning these priests so freely, cos they're human just like us and subject to sin just as we are.

However, the victim has no choice and I agree with u, a one time offence should be enough I believe to have them removed. This does not mean that they not be forgiven. Just that in life we have laws to abide to and while you can indeed be forgiven it doesn't change the fact that someone has been hurt.

If someone from the securlar community as you pointed out (not necessarily themselves being secular), commit a crime, and are punished for it, who are religious people to say they are immune ? What kind of image does it give the rest of the world about Christianity ? They will label us as hypocrites. If I have children in the future, I want them to have the same level of safety from secular people as religious. I think this is only fair.

The point is barrment of office does not mean no forgiveness, God chastens those whom He loves. Otherwise where do we draw the line ? Is sexual abuse not serious enough ?

Olly.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), November 03, 2002.

Olly, sorry if I misunderstood you. I am slow to catch on sometimes.

Kiwi, I agree with you.

Gene, Don't let someones compliments of you on another thread go to your head! I do know you are a devout Catholic and I have a lot of respect for you. But some of the things you said were just plain silly.

God bless you

David

-- David (David@excite.com), November 03, 2002.

Oliver,
God is the One who calls men to the holy priesthood. You seem to believe they somehow pick it for their career, and I've suggested in the past, here on forum, too many ignorant Catholics believe the same thing. If God isn't truly calling a man, he ordinarily will NOT enroll in the seminary. Nobody ''forces'' celibacy on a seminarian. He is never under any obligation to study for the priesthood. It's 100% voluntary.

There've been in recent times, during the ''sexual revolution'', evil men who, though not being called, took holy orders. They may have actually done it to bring vicitms under their influence. They operated under cover of the priesthood, not because of the priesthood. Some of these characters have made it very obvious!

The celibate life is no problem to them. It's really ideal for their purposes. They have convenient opportunities at hand: they can hear the penitent confessions (in secret) of other homosexuals, or at least certain vulnerable boys who have sexual hangups. They are secretly informed by their own intended victims!

This has happened, tragically, because our bishops and priests did not keep the necessary vigilance over seminaries which accepted men without true vocations. I believe they were never called by God. God wouldn't inspire a perverted man to enter the priesthood. So, celibacy and latent homosexuality aren't the evils many imagine them to be. They are usually directed into those channels God gives priests of good will. This is called sublimation, the way of conquering yourself for the service of Jesus Christ; as holy priests do every day! Men who are pure.

ANYBODY CAN BE PURE, with God's grace. Open seminaries, obviously, are a disservice to God. I pray our bishops will have realised that during this upheaval. Or else the Church will suffer even greater evils.

--David; -- I never meant to insult you. If you feel offended, let me apologise to you here. I see your objections. You are correct about many aspects of these sins. ''Gene, just because a man receives absolution doesn't mean he won't commit the same vile crime. Why do you throw in masturbation in the same sentence as a child molestor? I know there are probably thousands of priests who have sinned and masturbated and repented for it, and received absolution.''

OK; why shouldn't I say as many sins as I recognise? They are sins. I know what the consequences of allowing predators into the seminaries are. I told you many other times before: Not all homosexually oriented men are predators. Not all latent homosexuals give vent to their passions. It wouldn't make sense. Particularly after they commit themselves to leading a pure and holy life as priests.

THINK: I said NOT ALL-- I know there are serious exceptions, those that can't maintain the proper respect for their office. But if the merest suggestion of this weakness is evident when they're screened for entrance into a seminary, that is the moment to block them. God gives us the necessary grace to discern the truth, if we truly love Him.

As for the perps who have managed to get in already, and proven themselves to be predators and active homosexuals (under cover), they should be unfrocked. Not just that, they should be arrested and tried. Bishops who allowed them to escape detection and punishment should have their diocese taken away from them. Because they've failed their duty, not only to the innocent victims who were injured but to the Church herself. The Catholic Church is also a victim, in my honest opinion.

I don't know if the Pope is inclined to demote an untrustworthy bishop. But he really ought to be; and we should pray, Catholics must pray; that God intervenes to bring it about. With God nothing is impossible.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 03, 2002.

Eugene, Kiwi brought up an excellent point regarding what happens to people in secular positions, e.g. teacher. If they are found guilty they are rightfully dismissed because they have the childrens' best interest at heart.

I believe there needs to be a different attitude from the church as to who much value it places on the safety of children.

note: i'm not trying to compare priesthood with a secular job, they are indeed as u point out quite different, but what message is the church sending to the secular world ? What kind of testimony is this for Jesus ? Sure, they may have been called by God, but if u sexually abuse a child then u can't expect immunity. Even if it's a one-off, that child's entire life will be destroyed.

Yes forgive them, but no, don't give them the opportunity to do it again. I already expressed my emapthy with the priests who must themselves be in a difficult position, but really, why not just follow Paul's words "It is better to marry than burn ?"

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), November 03, 2002.

Dear Oliver,
You are once again insinuating all priests have the predisposition to sin because of celibacy alone. That's false. I don't understand such a belief. It would mean all priests will be tempted to find an outlet with innocent boys or girls.

David tried it another way:'' Why would you want a sick man around children? Attitudes like yours already cost the Church millions and millions. Maybe if you had a boy or girl that was molested you would feel diferent.'',

As if I had sympathy for the criminals. I said not all have a criminal past! Not all are a potential danger.

You apparently think, Oliver, that the Church was guilty of sending children into danger on purpose. (This is bashing) and I'm here to correct you. A few offensers were allowed to change parishes; which proved a drastic mistake. I would figure these men, deviants all, made fake confessions and swore they'd never sin that way again. Fake, insincere confessions. How else could a supervising prelate of the Church give them another chance, in somebody else's parish? That was criminal, seen in retrospect. But, in the confessional, a bishop may have truly expected the ''penitent'' to go straight! In retrospect, it was stupid. Add to this stupidity another stupid move: taking any stock in the word of so-called therapists and ''experts''. A kindly bishop like Cardinal Law never expected these predators to continue their depravities; the psychologists told him they were rehabilitated under therapy.

He was doubly stupid. He believed in the grace of God and the sacrament of reconciliation to an absurd degree; and he became part of the problem. The sacrament is of no effect, when a ''penitent'' misleads his confessor!

Now, having read this post, and if you see what I'm saying, don't try to say anymore that I have ever condoned the sins of impurity of any priest! I haven't. I'm tired of being lectured by everyone as if I were an enabler or stupid myself. David has publicly accused me of silliness, because I don't hate homosexuals. I'm not silly. I never voted in favor of letting predators get away with crime. Nor harming innocent boys. Why he thinks I did, I can't understand.

''Why would you want a sick man around children? Do I ? Attitudes like yours already cost the Church millions and millions. Maybe if you had a boy or girl that was molested you would feel different.'' --What attitudes, DAVID? WHAT IS MY ATTITUDE???

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 03, 2002.

Gene I see your point and sorry if you felt lectured to by me at all. I think though your postion need to be clarrified for those who like it kept strightforward and simple.

I dont want to get involved in the celibacy issue- I think it is red herring but I need to hear you say you agree with my basic assertion NO SECOND chances for priests found guilty of sex crimes against children.

Secondly why do you fell the need to attack David again?

"David; -- I never meant to insult you. If you feel offended, let me apologise to you here. I see your objections."

You offer a rare acknowledgement of sorrow yet follow it up with a totaly unnessary attack. Whats that all about? Take a deep breath and look at what you wrote Gene after admiting upthread you see Davids objections. God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), November 03, 2002.

I didn't attack David. I asked what attitude he was telling me about. I also said, I was sorry if he felt offended. It wasn't intentional.

Agree with your basic assertion NO SECOND chances for priests found guilty of sex crimes against children? --Sure I agree, didn't I make that understood? I think I was straightforward:

(Above) ''As for the perps who have managed to get in already, and proven themselves to be predators and active homosexuals (under cover), they should be unfrocked. Not just that, they should be arrested and tried. Bishops who allowed them to escape detection and punishment should have their diocese taken away from them. Because they've failed their duty, not only to the innocent victims who were injured but to the Church.'' --Is this giving a second chance to the guilty???

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 03, 2002.

Dear Mr. Chavez,

Would you please read what I post before you make false comments on them. I don't think you did this on purpose, so if you are going to comment on what I write please be more careful. Because You said something, that I said the complete opposite of;

You said to Ollly;"Dear Oliver, you are once again insinuating all Priests have the predisposition to sin because of celibacy alone................."

You than said to Olly; " David tried it another way, 'Why would you want a sick man around children? Attitides like yours already cost the Church.................."

Gene, I said no such thing. STOP IT!!! What is it with you? Now scroll up and read what I posted AGAIN to Olly! See how wrong you are saying that? I was debating with Olly and saying the complete opposite. I even used people in this forum as examples about celibacy. I never insinuated this was a celibacy issue like you are claiming now.

I know if the proper rules were followed we would not of had this mess to deal with, and people would not of been harmed. Thats why I agree with the Holy Father. People with the SSA can not be ordained! It is to much of a risk for the Catholic Church. I agree that the Catholic Church is a victim here as well. Rules are mean't to followed Mr. Chavez.

God bless you

David

-- David (David@excite.com), November 03, 2002.

Eugene, I wasn't trying to accuse you of anything bro. I think what u and me split on is what should happen to first time offenders. I believe they should be removed from office. Of course they need to be able to confess their sins, but I don't think it should be in the view of keeping them in office. You believe they should be allowed to continue in office if they sincerely repent. That's I guess where u and I are divided on the issue. You might also notice that I was trying to show a bit of empathy for them too. And no, I don't think all priests do that, I'd say it's definitely a minority and it is a shame that a few would cause such a tarnish, it's like the verse that says a little leaven leavens the whole lump. Bro, if you were offended I'm sorry, I didn't mean anything nasty to those priests. I just have different views to u about whether they should stay in office after the first incident.

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), November 03, 2002.

Dear Gene,

Sorry, I forgot to give you another example of how you are being silly with me;

" David has publicly accused me off silliness, because I don't hate HOMOSEXUALS. I'm not silly..."

You are being silly Gene! I never said NO such thing to you! STOP PUTTING FALSE WORDS IN MY MOUTH!!! I agree with the Church on Homosexuals not being allowed to be ordained. You don't! You are the only one to use the word "hate".

Stop making up stuff up Silly![ Wern't you the man telling someone who owes who an apology a few days ago?]

David

-- David (David@excite.com), November 03, 2002.

David:
I answered Oliver so: ''You are once again insinuating all priests have the predisposition to sin because of celibacy alone.'' Further on I said, David tries it another way. But I should have clarified, ''because of homosexual orientaion alone'', rather than because of celibacy. My error. You say nothing about celibacy. You are in the anti-homosexual ordination category.

I disagree with you. Until a man has committed some offense, he is not guilty of anything. You say bar homosexuals absolutely because the can't be trusted even if they're innocent of indecent activity. I don't. I don't care if you are on the side of the bishops. Neither you or I make policy. We're merely exchanging pricvate opinions. If you disagree i's OK. But don't EVER call me ''silly'' again. I want the same respect from you which I extend to you. Just because I disagree with you doesn't call for name-calling, David.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 03, 2002.

Gene,

I don't think calling someone silly is to bad. But I will honor your request to me, and I won't call you silly anymore. I realy didn't mean to offend you just show you that I am not a Mr. Bouchard or a Dennis Molson.

But I promise I won't do it again. Sorry if you were offended Mr. Chavez. You are not silly. ;-) I know I am sometimes.

God bless you

David S

-- David (David@excite.com), November 04, 2002.

I appreciate that, David. You're a good friend, and I would never alienate you, even if we have a disagreement. In truth, I can't forgive myself for grouping you with those other two. I deserved your acid reaction, and for that detail, I really am sorry. Carry on with your good posts.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 04, 2002.

Behold how good and how pleasant it is, for bretheren to dwell together in unity. It is like the precious ointment that fell upon the head and ran down upon Aaron's beard and went down to the skirts of his garments.

The Lord bless you all Olly8-)

-- Oliver Fischer (spicenut@excite.com), November 04, 2002.

Thanks, Gene

I think a lot of you too. Rember my thread [Eugene a gift for the board?] God bless you. You are my friend.

David

-- David (David@excite.com), November 04, 2002.

-- (^@^.^), November 06, 2002.