I was just reading this opinion piece and was wondering if you all thought, perhaps, this would be the way to handle things?

LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE FOR PRIESTS? Fri Jun 7, 9:02 PM ET By William F. Buckley Jr.

The American Catholic bishops are staring at two challenges. One of them is how to restimulate the faith of the laity in the ministry. A second is how to protect children from wickedly weak priests.

The proposal released to the press by the working committee of bishops, preparing for the plenary session in Dallas next week, goes far in meeting both challenges, but not far enough, in some opinion. What the proposals say is that any priest detected in child abuse will be reported to civil authorities and removed from any ministerial duties in which children figure.

What about the priest who committed the crime many years ago, has submitted to psychological examination, has undergone therapy and has not transgressed again? The reform proposals do not specify that such a priest be discharged from the ministry, let alone defrocked.

Some bishops think this exception unwise, asking for retroactive zero tolerance. Vatican (news - web sites) sources are reportedly disturbed at the proposition that allowances should not be made in any circumstance.

Archbishop Harry Flynn of Minneapolis-St.Paul, who headed up the reform committee, said: "We need to believe in the possibility of conversion. We need to believe in the possibility that people can grow, people can turn a corner. Psychologically, medically, we would be fools if we were to say that someone cannot grow."

That is of course correct. Christ forgave his executioners. But in doing so, was he exercising a kind of charity that only divine resources can generate? And anyway, what was to prevent the executioners from further victimizations, on the cross or elsewhere?

The totalists in today's situation are driven less by the need to show the face of mercy than by the need to regenerate the confidence of the laity. How to maneuver, under the circumstances?

The laity see the following:

It was priests who committed the crimes.

It was bishops (in many cases) who failed to segregate, let alone adequately punish, the priests in question. These are men who, using one vocabulary, would be called criminal; in another, errant. Should it be expected that the episcopacy would give primary consideration to the morale of the flock? In specifying severe judgment, as is widely recommended, are the bishops engaged in a form of retribution for having erred in the past by latitudinarian excess?

The problem is grave. Obviously it is unjust to move with capital severity where there is less than conclusive factual certainty. To the proposal that a priest judged guilty should be defrocked, an Italian professor of dogmatic theology comments, "A priest, victim of an unjust condemnation, is condemned to death."

Two cardinals, Theodore McCarrick of Washington and Adam Maida of Detroit, recommend something other than defrocking: Send the errant priest to a monastery. "Put him in an atmosphere where he can't do any harm to anybody, but he can still live out his life as a priest." That expedient has the further benefit that to consent to the monastic life would give the sinner a means of reaffirming his faith. A secular priest willing to change entirely the culture of his calling from parish priest to monk would demonstrate to his fellow priests, and to former parishioners, that he was willing to pursue his calling, yea, even unto the confines of cell life, removed from temptations that, on one or more occasions, he proved incapable of resisting.

When the bishops meet in Dallas, what the Catholic public needs to record is something this side of a Jacobinical hunger to appease the blood lust of the afflicted and the disillusioned. The bishops are governed by a view of life that is distinctive, and they are now challenged to mediate between extremes that are un-Christian in character. Just as sin is exactly that -- sinful -- so a closed mind to any possibility of moral growth is a departure from the Christian way.

-- Jackiea (sorry@dontlikespam.com), June 08, 2002

Answers

You know what is just so sad about this whole thing? Other than the obvious toll it takes on the victims but it takes it's toll on the rest of the community, as well. The after effects are far reaching. I was reading a piece in our church bulletin the other day by our priest. He said that there were going to have to be changes made at the church. They already have windows on all of the doors and he doesn't hear confession or have meetings in his home because of the problems that could cause. Not only to himself but to the person he's with. It's just too risky these days, he said. They're going to put a window in the door of the confessional, too. I don't know about you but I'm not so sure I want someone standing outside the door waiting to come in have the chance to see me crying, for example. I thought the confessional was supposed to be the most private and sacred place. Oh, believe me. I understand the need for protection. Not just of the parishioners but the priest, too. But it just all seems so....wrong, I guess. He went on to say that we parents need to tell our children how they are supposed to act around a priest now. They can shake his hand, if they like, but that's it. NO hugging or touching of ANY kind. Now, how ridiculous is that? *sigh* It makes me really miss my old priest. More than I already did. You could always go up and hug him. Our daughter is a very affectionate child and she would always run to him and give him a big hug. Everyone would shake his hand or hug him after Mass outside. I have pictures of him with his arm around my husband and I after he married us. Or the way he cradled our children's head in his hand as he baptised them. I can remember the first time he laid his hand on my shoulder as I sat there crying in the church all alone and he KNEW what was wrong. It was a compassionate and thoughtful touch that I needed. It was his way of saying "I'm here. I care. I'm listening.". And now? Heaven forbid or else it could be misconstrued as being "inappropriate behavior". Sorry but after reading that bulletin the other day, it just got me upset thinking about it. As was once said "the times, they are a'changing". In some ways, that's a good thing. And in others....I'm not so sure.

-- Jackiea (sorry@dontlikespam.com), June 08, 2002.

"Life as a monk~Is this the way to go" for offenders?

Definitely not. This problem is one of homosexual acts. We should not want these deadly sins moved from rectories and into monasteries. The last place you want to place a sick man is into the middle of a bunch of "attractive" men (some others of whom might be sick too).

I visited a monastery for almost six months. The second-most offensive thing I saw there was two men who moved and spoke like women and were overly friendly to each other. Buckley should know better.

-- (+@+.+), June 08, 2002.

The problem with this suggestion - and I've heard it from others, not just Buckley - is that it reinforces the stereotype too many people have of monasteries (and convents) as prisons -- places to keep people who can't make it in the "real world".

It also seems quite disrespectful to the monks who are already there - why force them to deal with the problems the bishops can't handle?

Love, Christine :-)

-- Christine Lehman (christinelehman@hotmail.com), June 13, 2002.

If the problem was just homosexual priests, then why were girls raped too? MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), June 13, 2002.

You're right, Christine.
Unfortunately, there's no good method of exiling the unholy priest. Stocking a clean monastery with bad actors is repaying good with evil.

There was an old cliche once; defrocked priests in the novels wound up serving in the French Foreign Legion. Usually these were bad priests because they'd come unhinged in some terrible way. But it was a secret what they'd done. I guess now we ought to know. Buckley must think monasteries are for Legionnaires.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), June 13, 2002.

MaryLu,

What percentage of the abused children were female? I actually can't recall a single one but since you are watching CNN, perhaps you have a better idea.

This really is a homosexual problem and not a pedophile problem. Most of the victims are post puberty and male.

This does not excuse the priests or bishops, but it should help them determine where to start to address the problems.

-- (@ .), June 14, 2002.

Sir or whatever you are,

This really is a homosexual problem and not a pedophile problem

It is a sex abuse problem regardless of age, gender or sexual preference. Sexual abuse is what the issue is and that fact cannot be sliced like cheese. All of it needs to be addressed, not just part of it.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 14, 2002.

To "@"

On 60 minutes, anchored by Ed Bradley, there were two female victims..and there was a female victim who spoke at the Bishops Conference in Dallas...there may have been more, I don't know.

But, like Fred said, the problem is abuse - children were abused..no matter the gender and the problem has to be fixed.

MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), June 14, 2002.

I would think that an effective form of punishment would be to treat the offenders the same as anyone accused of sexual misconduct. Report them to the cops, not the Bishop. Lay your cards on the table and stand behind what you say. Sexual assault in any form is a crime and as such should be treated the same no matter if you are a priest or a construction worker. Because priests are in a position of authority they will be dealt with harder under the law- the same as say a teacher or parent accused of the same thing is. The Bishops are not the only ones who have an obligation to report these incidents---you do too if you have knowledge of something. There are sins of commission--like the accused priests and sins of ommisssion-- like those of us who have knowledge of a wrong and do nothing to correct it. If a member of a hockey team sexually assaulted a young boy, would we wait for his team captain or general manager to deal with it? NOOOOOOOOOO! So why are we waiting for the Bishops to "fix it?" There is something we can do today. Ellen

-- Ellen K. Hornby (dkh@canada.com), June 17, 2002.

Dear Ellen,

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!! ML

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

You are right in principle, Ellen. If anyone knows that a crime has been committed, we should report it to civil authorities.
But in practice, how often is this possible? Very, very rarely, I'm afraid.

Most of these crimes take place in secret, and only the adult in child (almost always an adolescent boy) are aware. Almost never does a second, unrelated adult learn of anything that could be reported to police. In most cases, not even the victim's parents learn of what has happened -- so there is not even a related adult to report to police, much less an unrelated one.

From this point forward, more minor victims than in the past are probably going to report crimes to their teachers or parents -- and more justice will be done.

But there will still be cases in which the minors will remain silent. And there may still be cases in which the parents, having learned what has happened, will keep silent rather than get their family name involved in a publicized scandal (sometimes ostensibly for the sake of the minor).

Finally there may be some more cases in which the victim's family will seek justice from the Church, but without wanting to contact the police. Why? It may happen as a misapplication of the following passage in the Bible, which -- for the past six months -- I have been waiting in vain for anyone to mention. I suspect that the following passage has played a part in many families going the way of private cash settlements for the past few decades, though I don't think that St. Paul intended it to apply to crimes such as sexual abuse:

1 Cor 6:1-6 -----
"When one of you has a grievance against a brother, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous [i.e., ordinary public officials] instead of the saints [i.e., Catholic Church members]? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, matters pertaining to this life! If then you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who are least esteemed by the church? I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no man among you wise enough to decide between members of the brotherhood, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers?"

-- (+@+.+), June 18, 2002.

Please forgive the stupid "typo." The second paragraph was supposed to start this way: "Most of these crimes take place in secret, and only the adult and child (almost always an adolescent boy) are aware."

-- (+@+.+), June 18, 2002.

I have a much better idea. Why don't we just have the WHOLE CHURCH, INCLUDING CHRIST taken to the nearest Police Department and let them execute them all. That way the whole problem will be done once and for all. No more need to sort them out. Just let satan do the sorting. No fuss and not a single error done. just a full cleanout of the house of GOD. Now we will see real progress. Vigilante style and all. Just like the Old West. Just string 'em all upand git rid o dem all. No judges needed at all. Best justice system of all. Who needs GOD any more. We can do it all.

THE BISHOPS HAVE DECIDED AND THAT IS THE END OF THE ISSUE. GET OVER IT.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 18, 2002.

A real Catholic version of Wounded Knee. Slaughter all of them. Them bury them later when they freeze. What the heck it is easier that way.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 18, 2002.

I would like to think that some parents had been content to claim a settlement without publicity, as the anonymous (+-a.+-) suggests.

But, it's doubtful many were impelled to that by the sane reason, which Paul points out in 1 Cor 6:1-6. That would be idealistic; where in reality, the plaintiffs wanted their pound of flesh.

Nothing about this crisis is ordinary. This is the price of debauching the holy sacristy, I have to think. +Yet, the sacristy hasn't disappointed any faithful Catholic. It's the sinner who deserves the blame. But, to the outside public, the two are inseparable. Most of all because our bishops didn't punish the evil-doers. --A bishop can say NOW: ''Archbishop Harry Flynn of Minneapolis-St.Paul, who headed up the reform committee, said: "We need to believe in the possibility of conversion. We need to believe in the possibility that people can grow, people can turn a corner.''

Yet the country is saying: ''They ( The Catholic Church) aren't going to change. It's about power, not saving our children.''

This, then-- is the ''millstone'' which Jesus prophesied would be tied to the necks of those who gave scandal to His Church. They have to be cast into the sea now; in order for the world to forgive the Church. The second-most offensive thing I saw there was two men who moved and spoke like women and were overly friendly to each other. Buckley should know better.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), June 18, 2002.

I am not being sarcastic here, but I wonder who the Bishops confess their sins to - other Bishops or priests? Who does the Pope confess his sins to? Why kind of penance does one give to the Pope? Or, does the Pope have to go to confession? I guess not.

Also, I wonder why kind of penance the Bishops got for the cover-up?

I am being serious. MaryLu

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

I was absent-minded, and forgot the segment I'd pasted down there,

The second-most offensive thing I saw there was two men who moved and spoke like women and were overly friendly to each other. Buckley should know better.

Out of a post by (+.a.++. )

I meant to ask him when I finished; ''What is the FIRST most offensive thing you saw, in that monastery?''

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), June 18, 2002.

Dear MaryLu:
You have no wish to bother with me. But, I have to wonder:

''I am not being sarcastic here, but I wonder who the Bishops confess their sins to - other Bishops or priests? Who does the Pope confess his sins to? Why kind of penance does one give to the Pope?''

Why would this concern YOU? Do other Catholics ask what your penance is, when you receive absolution? Is it our affair, to know what the bishops have to confess, or whether they are given a severe penance?

You have to settle down, MaryLu. You think you're judge and jury; but-- Just like me, you're only a sinner to God.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), June 18, 2002.

I was just being curious, Gene...I wonder who they confess to. I was not being sarcastic and I am sorry you took it that way. I really am curious who they confess to. Where is that playing judge and jury?

I am not playing judge and jury and I do not have to calm down because I am not upset today. You constantly play judge and jury when someone says something you disagree with.

It is something I often wondered. Who do priests confess their sins to - I guess other priests and I am serious when I ask if the Pope himself has to go to confession. I know he is infallible, but he is human and I wonder if he does sin at all.

I will ask my pastor tomorrow and see what he tells me.

There are threads on here that go on an on and on for days on end, so don't tell me Eugene, how many times I can post on the same subject. If it upsets you, you can just ignore it. You don't have to answer my posts.

I will post my answer tomorrow, after speaking to my paster.

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

MaryLu

The Pope used to Confess his sins to Padre Pio in the past. Did you know that? He was a well known confessor.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 18, 2002.

The passage that is brought up here in 1 Cor 6:1-6 .....are you incompetent to try TRIVIAL cases?.....

Correct me if I am wrong here, but trivial is something of little importance.

Am I understanding this correctly? The violation of sexual abuse against a child by another adult is trivial?

Someone please correct me if I am reading these posts wrong.

-- Kathy (sorry@nomail.com), June 18, 2002.

Hi Fred,

No, I didn't know that the Pope used to go to confession to Padre Pio. Imagine that? Imagine hearing the Pope's confession?

I would be so nervous going to Padre Pio for confession as much as I love him. He used to throw people out until he felt they were making a good confession.

Confession makes me so nervous. MaryLu

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

Hello, Mr. Bishop.

"The Pope used to confess his sins to Padre Pio in the past"

I think I rember reading that the Pope went to Confession once to St. Pio. I could be wrong, but if it was more than once I would like to read it for future reasons. Can you help me good man?

Hi, Marylu.

"St. Pio was constantly being attatcked by the devil"

I read that to Marylu, but I also read that when he got older that the devil left him be. He did get a break from that in his older years. (Thank God)

I hope you had a great time there Sunday.

I also wanted to tell you that I rember John G put up a very interesting post before on the Pope. It was a great link that explained in detail the Pope's daily activities. It also said how often the Holy Father went to Confession and He does have a private Confessor if I rember correctly? The link explained how Mass is celebrated when the Holy Father is in the hospital at his bedside. I will try and find it for you when I get a little more time. I think you will enjoy reading it.

God bless you.

David

-- David (David@excite.com), June 18, 2002.

Denver Catholic Register 9/19/01

Prior to and after his death, the stories of remarkable healings due to his intercession abounded, including one involving Pope John Paul II, who in 1962 as bishop of Krakow, Poland, wrote to Padre Pio asking prayer for Wanda Poltawska, a friend diagnosed with throat cancer. She was cancer-free 11 days later, according to a letter the future pope wrote to the priest. The pope had also visited the priest for confession in 1947 while still a priest himself.

Pope will canonize suffering monk Padre Pio June 15, 2002 — 2:17 a.m. VATICAN CITY (AP) — A mystic monk who won adulation from rank-and- file Roman Catholics but scorn from the Vatican during his lifetime will be made a saint Sunday by Pope John Paul II, a longtime admirer who once sought the priest out as his confessor.

Yes, he sought out padre Pio for confession only once. Seems that the news article related to more than that.

-- Fred Bishop (FCB@heartland.com), June 18, 2002.

Mary Lu, you wrote, "I wonder who the Bishops confess their sins to - other Bishops or priests? Who does the Pope confess his sins to? Why kind of penance does one give to the Pope? Or, does the Pope have to go to confession? I guess not. Also, I wonder why kind of penance the Bishops got for the cover-up?"

----- I would guess that most bishops confess to trusted priests. (They have priests around them all the time, working in the chanceries.) Some bishops have auxiliary bishops or a coadjutor bishop, so they may hear each other's confessions.
----- I believe I've read that the pope confesses to priests. He is a humble man who acknowledges his sinfulness. I have heard that he confesses at least once a week.
----- I'm sure that the pope wants a penance that is just like what you or I might get. He is not a "prima donna."
----- We will never know about penances received by bishops who may have done wrong in these abuse cases. Actually, except for the few bishops who have resigned for their own personal wrongdoing, no bishop has admitted having knowingly done anything sinful. Therefore, it makes no sense to even talk about what penance they may have received. Presumably they have not confessed anything.

Eugene, you asked me, "What is the FIRST most offensive thing you saw, in that monastery?"

The most offensive thing was not one specific event, but rather a collection of many interrelated actions (mostly on the part of the superior, now deceased). These were actions or omissions that added up to a gross overemphasis on the importance of keeping up the inflow of money -- putting that subject ahead of the importance of things of the spirit.

Kathy, you wrote, "The passage that is brought up here in 1 Cor 6:1-6 .....are you incompetent to try TRIVIAL cases?..... Correct me if I am wrong here, but trivial is something of little importance. Am I understanding this correctly? The violation of sexual abuse against a child by another adult is trivial?"

The verse quoted from the RSV above says, "Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases?"

I believe that some Christian readers would see this as saying that they are not just competent to judge trivial cases. They may think that the passage implies that, since we are to "judge the world" some day, we can and should privately handle most cases that arise now between believers, from the trivial ones on up to the toughest. This may have led to keeping some abuse cases out of the police reports and courts.

Also, what was quoted (including the word "trivial") is just one translation. A Christian may get even more impetus to stay private if he/she reads one of these other translations -----

----- "If the world is to be judged by you, are you unqualified for the lowest law courts?" {I think that some may have misunderstood this to be signalling that we are qualified privately to handle abuse cases, without resorting to law courts. By the way, this is from the most widespread Catholic translation, and it does not refer to "trivial cases" at all.}
----- "Know you not that we shall judge angels? How much more things of this world?" {This is the next verse, from another Catholic translation. Someone reading it, again, could misunderstand and keep an abuse case out of the courts because of these words.}
----- "Have ye not known that the saints shall judge the world? And if by you the world is judged, are ye unworthy of the smaller judgments? {Especially this translation could be misunderstand by victims and their families, and it is the most literal translation of all. Again "trivial cases" are not mentioned, and all cases on this earth, including abuse cases, are "smaller judgments" than the saints' future judgment of the world.}

-- (+@+.+), June 19, 2002.

I spoke to my pastor today and he told me that the Pope has a confessor assigned to him at the Vatican.

I also spoke to my pastor about my feelings towards the Bishops and Cardinals and am humbled by the above posts ("@"). My pastor told me, like the other priest did, that it is okay to be angry, but I must not judge them, their fate or their penance - that is up to God to deal with.

He also told me that as Spiritual leaders finding themseleves in the current position, he is sure they are suffering much for the role they played in all this. He said we do not know what is going on in their hearts and minds.

I am humbled. I have been rather harsh.

MaryLu

MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), June 19, 2002.

Dear David,

I would love to find the link about the Pope's daily activities. I'm sure that has to be very interesting.

What a humble, holy man the Pope is and I beieve he is a walking saint. My daughter saw him in person years ago on a school trip to Italy and she was high as a kite for days after. She said she felt like she saw Jesus - just could not put into words the feeling she got when he blessed her and her classmates.

MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), June 19, 2002.