I read the following today, 6/11/02, in the paper and was outraged.

-In Evansville, Ind., Bishop Gerald Gettelfinger, who has allowed two priests to remain active despite sexual improprieties, said he opposes zero tolerance. He said two priests in his diocese who were rehabilitated and assigned to new parishes after sexual misconduct are examples of successes that would have been impossible under such a policy.

**What did the bishop do to rehabilitate the child/children?**

I went to the vatican own webpage and searched for homosexual & pedifile and here is what I found on the subject:

International Symposium on the Thirtieth Anniversary of the Promulgation of the Conciliar Decree Presbyterorum Ordinis (23-28 October 1995)

LIFE AND MINISTRY OF PRIESTS 1 Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger 2

To obey Christ means to obey His Body, to obey Him in His body. From the letter to the Philippians, the obedience of Jesus as the overcoming of Adam's disobedience is at the heart of the history of salvation. In priestly life, the obedience should be incarnate as obedience to the authority of the Church, concretely, to the bishop. This is the only way to avoid realistically the idolatry of oneself. Only in this way will Adam be overcome in us and give way to a new humanity. In a time in which emancipation is considered the essence of redemption and freedom seems to be the right to do anything I want, the concept of obedience has been practically put under an anathema. It has been eliminated not only from our vocabulary but also from our thought. It is the concept of freedom that provokes the inability to belong together, the inability to love. It makes man a slave. For this reason obedience well understood has to be reestablished and once again has to be emphasized at the core of Christian and priestly spirituality.

We can return to the decree of Vatican II on priestly ministry. Speaking of the various kinds of preaching, the document makes a constant point: the priest should never teach his own wisdom, but what is important is always the Word of God which urges to truth and holiness (4). Being formed in accord with the word of St. Paul, the ministry of the word demands of the priest that he die spiritually to self: "It is no longer I who live but Christ lives in me" (Galatians 2:20).

For this reason the Council, maybe in a way that was somewhat forced, emphasizes the bond priests have with their bishop: they represent him and act in his name and with his mission. Christian obedience which reverses Adam's disobedience, is made concrete in ecclesial obedience, which for the priest is the obedience he owes his bishop. Certainly, the Council could have insisted more on the fact that first comes the obedience of all to the Word of God and to the presentation of the living tradition of the Church. This common bond is also the common freedom; it protects from arbitrariness and guarantees the authentically Christological character of ecclesial obedience. Ecclesial obedience is not positivist; it is not directed simply to a formal authority, but to him, who obedient himself, personifies the obedient Christ.

At the threshold of the Third Millennium, we are conscious of the magnificent task which belongs to every priest to bring the originality of the person of Christ and his message to a world marked by contradictions; at the same time becoming ourselves credible and visible signs of Christ, the Good Shepherd. This is the grand divine-human adventure to which we are all called and which must be lived out in a spirit of joy and courage.

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. (You will note homosexuality relates to men or women, nowhere is mentioned a child. When a man takes advantage of a child it is a crime, no matter if that man is a priest or not. We as humans need to protect our children, you as a priest or bishop need to protect the church from this invasion by the devil by removing the man who calls himself a priest.)

Priestly celibacy in the light of medicine and psychology

Wanda Poltawska Professor of Pastoral Medicine at the Pontifical Academy of Cracow

Unlike celibacy for lay people, the celibacy of the priest is determined by the free and conscious choice made by a psychically mature man (it is one of the main conditions put to anyone wishing to take Holy Orders) and as such does not cause a sense of frustration

As most people see it, the priest is bound forever to the obligation of celibacy and, generally speaking, this disposition of the Church has hardly been challenged in past centuries. The vocation to the priesthood and the vocation to marriage both require the same total devotion and hence are mutually exclusive, even though the type of personality required is basically the same in both cases. In the twentieth century, however, we do not so much have a repudiation of the actual ideal of celibacy as doubt over the real possibility of sticking to decisions connected with it.

When John Paul II speaks of priestly celibacy, he often qualifies it as 'sacred' -'sacred priestly celibacy' -emphasizing that it is not just a matter of renouncing married life, for its deep significance lies in chastity and virginity, in supreme union with God

Since priestly celibacy, introduced on the basis of experience, has intrinsically the nature of human and not divine decision, the people of the twentieth century seem to be waiting for 'something to change'. This attitude of uncertainty, of the 'open door', makes respect for chastity even harder, even on the part of priests. Now, the final and unequivocal decision - «I choose celibacy once and forever, beyond all hope of recall» -like all unequivocal and final decisions, is easier to fulfil than an uncertain one -«Perhaps I will, but we'll see about that -later» which encourages the sin of fornication by weakening the mechanism of self-control needed for keeping the sixth commandment. There is a fairly general conviction that the only cure for the problems connected with celibacy would be to allow the clergy to get married. For the frequency with which fornication is committed raises doubts over the real possibility of living according to other models. Modern people often forget that the sixth commandment applies to everyone without exception, and that no circumstances exist that can suspend the validity of this divine law.

Priesthood precludes marriage not so much because the Church has decided that it does, but rather because, requiring an absolute devotion, it leaves no room for the commitment, equally total, demanded by marriage and fatherhood. Unfortunately, the future priest often lives in an environment where the hedonistic attitude prevails and hence the ideal of total devotion is not respected.

Difficulties in observing celibacy: Today's way of thinking presents an obstacle to the ideal of priesthood as the quest for personal sanctity and the sanctification of the world. The difficulties the priest encounters in following his vocation are of various kinds, but those connected with the observance of celibacy are particularly grave, since transgressing this obligation usually means sinning against the sixth commandment. A religious, in point of fact, never asks for a dispensation and permission to get married before having committed the sin. But it cannot be forgotten that in the life of the priest there no longer exists a power of choosing between priesthood and marriage: the choice has already been taken and is to all intents and purposes irrevocable, for reneging on one's own commitment signifies moral degradation.

So it is extremely important for every priest to know how to maintain discipline over his thoughts and his imagination. For one can also sin alone, in thought: by looking at another person with desire, by treating that other person as an object, the sin of fornication is committed in the depths of the heart. If an attitude of this sort dominates the heart, it will also manifest itself outside. On the other hand, if we are clean within, no external situation can provoke somatic reactions against our will. Sexual excitement depends, in the first place, on the intentions with which we approach our neighbour, how we look at him or her and what we see there. The priest is obliged to see the very Christ in his neighbour; the aim of any encounter can only be to bring that person nearer to God. (c) The weight of the past. Not without reason, in days gone by, did the Church demand virginity of candidates for the priesthood, for one of the conditions making the observance of celibacy especially hard is the memory the body retains of its own past experiences. Return to God and renewal of the soul are always possible but, since the body retains the memory of the past, even if the sin has been absolved, its effects persist. Being used to surrendering to a given type of reaction, the body finds it hard to submit to a new kind of discipline; as a result, those who have committed the sins of fornication or masturbation find the obligation of celibacy all the more difficult to observe. The same is true for pornographic pictures: the memory retained by the eye, if on the one hand it makes the whole sexual sector seem hateful, on the other provokes excitement and internal conflict. Obviously the priest cannot be isolated from the world around him; the important thing is to protect that great gift of his chastity. Important to this end will be inner discipline, but more important still the capacity for admiring the beauty radiated by innocence and chastity.

The conscious quest for holiness is not against the individual, but against our individual paltriness and leads us to transcend ourselves. A full realization of priesthood and celibacy develops the human personality to its full potential and hence makes it easier to achieve the objective to which we all are summoned -holiness.

How can anyone read the above and not believe in zero tolerance?

-- Just Me (choas@ivillage.com), June 11, 2002

Answers

-- (_@_._), June 11, 2002.

Just You,
Let's be very understanding for your feelings. You read such a report; and you're ''outraged''.

The two priests were called ''active despite sexual improprieties''. According to this bishop, they are rehabilitated after having sinned.

I'm asking what you, as an observer and judge of this matter, think they mean by ''despite sexual improprieties.'' You think they're continuing, to this day? Or, maybe you are aware of every aspect of those improprieties?

Were these improprieties something concrete, and did the priests confess to some guilt?

You can't be outraged, and say: ''What was done to rehabilitate the children?'' --if you never saw them. They might not BE children; or-- maybe they were homosexual encounters. You simply assume the worst.

To me, and any impartial judge, ''sexual impropriety'' means a whole range of sins of impurity. A priest may have been caught looking at child pornography on the Web (it has happened). It could mean he left the church looking for a boy to have relations with; or went where prostitutes hang out. It could mean he tried to fondle a child, or actually made pedophile advances. But my antennae start picking up a signal. Whatever the offenses were, these guilty priests had confessed, repented, and likely resumed a celibate and healthy life-style in the process of rebuilding their reputations.

Otherwise, why has a bishop found it his obligation to speak against zero-tolerance? I'll still be careful; because the welfare of young boys and girls is supremely important. But I wouldn't simply dismiss the bishop's argument; simply to feed my ''outrage''. God is willing to forgive. These are human beings with souls.

You can't hate them. They are not all human debris, as some would like to think.

In the coming days, a legal procedure most likely will be adopted; with due process of law. With THAT part of some solution, no Catholic should have any problem. If found guilty, Hell with getting re-assigned to another parish. They'll do time in a penitentiary. While in there, they can pray to God for redemption and rehabilitation. Afterwards, back to civilian life. Defrocked.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), June 14, 2002.

I am studying the book of 1 Corinthians, and last night we reviewed chapters 5-7. In those chapters Paul specifically lays out what to do with those in the church who are misconducting themselves sexually. In it, he says expel them! God's own words tell us to expel those in the church who are committing these types of acts -- in order to save their souls. By hiding, rearranging their duties, or reassigning priests, the church is just as sinful. "A little yeast makes its way through a whole batch of bread" says Paul, just as a little misconduct makes its way through the entire church and takes the focus off of Christ and our mission to spread the word.

-- Food for thought (jmoreau485@aol.com), June 18, 2002.

Assumptions only make the work of the evil one the more easy. Yes the Bishops are fully aware of the book of Corinthians and are doing what they need to do in ALL cases of abuse. To merely cast the abusers out is asking for more trouble and by identifying the individuals and defrocking them is the beginning of the whole process of what Corinthians is all about. The secular leagal people cannot act until actual charges are filed by the ABUSED. The bishops are NOT the ones who are authorized to file charges, but they can contain the individuals until the are PROVEN GUILTY. YOU ALL GET THAT PROVEN GUILTY. It is the responsibility of the secular justice to determine that not the Bishops. If a priest is wrongly accused by his peers he can sue the Church too. That is precisely why the Bishops chosed the plan they have.

Now PLEASE PEOPLE, SCREW YOUR HEADS ON!!!! STOP this VIGILANTE BEHAVIOR. It is totally un-Christ like.

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

Of course we must expel them; when they are recidivist and unrepentant. But Christ forgave sinners, Food For Thought-- He had compassion for them. We see in the gospels that He freed those who had devils. That's what a compulsion to sin is! A devil in the flesh>

When any man refuses to turn away from his sin for Jesus; THEN we expel that sinner. Paul spoke of men who were habitual sinners, not every sinner. We don't know how many impure priests sin from habit; nor which ones repent, necessarily. That's part of this complex problem in our Church.

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