The Independent News Source
NCR classifieds - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Bishops were warned of abusive priests
1957 letter: "These men, Your Excellency, are devils, the wrath of God is upon them
Mar. 30, 2009
The Servants of the Paraclete complex in Jemez Springs, N.M., in 1993 (Jeffrey D. Scott)
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF versionAs early as the mid-1950s, decades before the clergy sexual-abuse crisis broke publicly across the U.S. Catholic landscape, the founder of a religious order that dealt regularly with priest sex abusers was so convinced of their inability to change that he searched for an island to purchase with the intent of using it as a place to isolate such offenders, according to documents recently obtained by NCR.
Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald, founder of the Servants of the Paracletes, an order established in 1947 to deal with problem priests, wrote regularly to bishops in the United States and to Vatican officials, including the pope, of his opinion that many sexual abusers in the priesthood should be laicized immediately.
Fitzgerald was a prolific correspondent who wrote regularly of his frustration with and disdain for priests "who have seduced or attempted to seduce little boys or girls." His views are contained in letters and other correspondence that had previously been under court seal and were made available to NCR by a California law firm in February.
Read copies of letters Fitzgerald exchanged with U.S. bishops and one pope.
Listen to Tom Roberts discuss this story on the April 1 edition of "Here & Now," a National Public Radio news program from WBUR in Boston. (Scroll down the page to just before the photo of the waxy monkey frogs.)
Fitzgerald's convictions appear to significantly contradict the claims of contemporary bishops that the hierarchy was unaware until recent years of the danger in shuffling priests from one parish to another and in concealing the priests' problems from those they served.
It is clear, too, in letters between Fitzgerald and a range of bishops, among bishops themselves, and between Fitzgerald and the Vatican, that the hierarchy was aware of the problem and its implications well before the problem surfaced as a national story in the mid-1980s.
Cardinal Roger Mahony of the Los Angeles archdiocese, reacting in February to a federal investigation into his handling of the crisis, said: "We have said repeatedly that ... our understanding of this problem and the way it's dealt with today evolved, and that in those years ago, decades ago, people didn't realize how serious this was, and so, rather than pulling people out of ministry directly and fully, they were moved."
Indeed, some psychology experts seemed to hold the position that priest offenders could be returned to ministry. Even the Paracletes, as the order developed and grew, employed experts who said that certain men could be returned to ministry under stringent conditions and with strict supervision.
The order itself ultimately was so inundated with lawsuits regarding priests who molested children while or after being treated at its facility in Jemez Springs, N.M., that it closed the facility in 1995.
Whatever discussion occurred during the 1970s and 1980s over proper treatment, however, for nearly two decades Fitzgerald spoke a rather consistent conviction about the dim prospects for returning sex abusers to ministry. Fitzgerald seemed to know almost from the start the danger such priests posed. He was adamant in his conviction that priests who sexually abused children (often the language of that era was more circumspect in naming the problem) should not be returned to ministry.
In a 1957 letter to an unnamed archbishop, Fitzgerald said, "These men, Your Excellency, are devils and the wrath of God is upon them and if I were a bishop I would tremble when I failed to report them to Rome for involuntary layization [sic]." The letter, addressed to "Most dear Cofounder," was apparently to Archbishop Edwin V. Byrne of Santa Fe, N.M., who was considered a cofounder of the Paraclete facility at Jemez Springs and a good friend of Fitzgerald.
Later in the same letter, in language that revealed deep passion, he wrote: "It is for this class of rattlesnake I have always wished the island retreat -- but even an island is too good for these vipers of whom the Gentle Master said it were better they had not been born -- this is an indirect way of saying damned, is it not?"
The documents were sealed at the request of the church in an earlier civil case involving Fr. Rudolph Kos of Dallas. Eleven plaintiffs won awards in the case in which Kos was accused of molesting minors over a 12-year period. He had been treated at the Paraclete facility in New Mexico. The documents were unsealed in 2007 by a court order obtained by the Beverly Hills law firm of Kiesel, Boucher & Larson, according to Anthony DeMarco, an attorney with the firm that has handled hundreds of cases for alleged victims of sexual abuse in the Los Angeles archdiocese and elsewhere.
According to Helen Zukin, another member of the firm, the documents have been used in some cases to dispute the church claim that it knew nothing about the behavior of sex abusers or the warning signs of abuse prior to the 1980s.
In a September 1952 letter to the then- bishop of Reno, Nev., Fitzgerald wrote: "I myself would be inclined to favor laicization for any priest, upon objective evidence, for tampering with the virtue of the young, my argument being, from this point onward the charity to the Mystical Body should take precedence over charity to the individual and when a man has so far fallen away from the purpose of the priesthood the very best that should be offered him is his Mass in the seclusion of a monastery. Moreover, in practice, real conversions will be found to be extremely rare. ... Hence, leaving them on duty or wandering from diocese to diocese is contributing to scandal or at least to the approximate danger of scandal." The advice was ignored and the priest was allowed to continue in ministry, and was ultimately accused of abusing numerous children, for which the church paid out huge sums in court awards.
While Fitzgerald told anyone who would listen of the futility of returning sexually abusive priests to ministry, that conviction became less absolute as the order, today headquartered in St. Louis, grew and the scope of its work became more complex. Fitzgerald, by most accounts, was deeply motivated by a sense of obligation to care for priests who were in trouble. Originally a priest of the Boston archdiocese for 12 years, he became a member of the Congregation of the Holy Cross in 1934, and started the Servants of the Paraclete in 1947. His concern at the time was primarily for priests struggling with alcoholism. As his new order matured and its ministry became known, bishops began referring priests with other maladies, particularly those who had been sexually abusive of children. The order for years was the primary source for care of priests in the United States with alcohol and sexual problems.
At times, Fitzgerald appears to have resisted taking in priests who had sexually abused youngsters. In his 1957 letter he requested concurrence from the cofounder archbishop "of what I consider a very vital decision on our part -- that for the sake of preventing scandal that might endanger the good name of Via Coeli [the name of the New Mexico facility] we will not offer hospitality to men who have seduced or attempted to seduce" children. "Experience has taught us these men are too dangerous to the children of the parish and neighborhood for us to be justified in receiving them here."
In September 1957 the bishop of Manchester, N.H., Matthew F. Brady, sought Fitzgerald's advice regarding "a problem priest," John T. Sullivan, who seemed sincerely repentant and whose difficulty "is not drink but a series of scandal-causing escapades with young girls. There is no section of the diocese in which he is not known and no pastor seems willing to accept him," Brady wrote. The "escapades" involved molestation of young girls. In at least one instance, he procured an abortion for a teenager he had impregnated. In another case, he fathered a child and provided support to the mother until she later married. The charges of molesting girls would follow him the rest of his life.
"The solution of his problem seems to be a fresh start in some diocese where he is not known. It occurred to me that you might know of some bishop who would be willing to give him that opportunity," Brady wrote in his original letter.
Fitzgerald responded that in his judgment the "repentance and amendment" in such cases "is superficial and, if not formally at least subconsciously, is motivated by a desire to be again in a position where they can continue their wonted activity. A new diocese means only green pastures."
Fitzgerald added that the Paracletes had "adopted a definite policy not to recommend to bishops men of this character, even presuming the sincerity of their conversion. We feel that the protection of our glorious priesthood will demand, in time, the establishment of a uniform code of discipline and of penalties."
He acknowledged the degree of deference with which Catholic clergy were treated even by civil authorities. "We are amazed to find how often a man who would be behind bars if he were not a priest is entrusted with the cura animarum [the care of souls]," he wrote.
Sullivan apparently had already been pulled from active ministry. In October 1957, less than a month after contacting Fitzgerald, Brady wrote a response to the bishop of Burlington, Vt., among the first of more than a dozen bishops approached by Sullivan for the next five years, warning against accepting him.
Brady then wrote a letter that he sent out time after time to bishops inquiring about Sullivan after he had requested acceptance for ministry. "My conscience will not allow me to recommend him to any bishop and I feel that every inquiring bishop should know some of the circumstances that range from parenthood, through violation of the Mann Act, attempted suicide, and abortion.
"Father Fitzgerald of Via Coeli would accept him only as a permanent guest to help save his soul but with no hope of recommending him to a bishop."
According to a 2003 Washington Post story, Sullivan, who had bounced around from diocese to diocese for nearly 30 years, "was stripped of his faculties to serve as a priest after he kissed a 13-year-old girl in Laconia, N.H., in 1983, when he was 66. He died in 1999, never having faced a criminal charge." After his death the church paid out more than a half-million dollars in awards to Sullivan's victims, including three in Grand Rapids, Mich., and one in Amarillo, Texas, two dioceses that did not heed the warnings of the bishops in New Hampshire. The victims said they were abused when they were between 7 and 12 years old.
In April 1962, Fitzgerald wrote a five-page response to a query from the Vatican's Congregation of the Holy Office about "the tremendous problem presented by the priest who through lack of priestly self-discipline has become a problem to Mother Church." One of his recommendations was for "a more distinct teaching in the last years of the seminary of the heavy penalty involved in tampering with the innocence (or even non-innocence) of little ones."
Regarding priests who have "fallen into repeated sins ... and most especially the abuse of children, we feel strongly that such unfortunate priests should be given the alternative of a retired life within the protection of monastery walls or complete laicization."
In August of the following year, he met with newly elected Pope Paul VI to inform him about his work and problems he perceived in the priesthood. His follow-up letter contained this assessment: "Personally I am not sanguine of the return of priests to active duty who have been addicted to abnormal practices, especially sins with the young. However, the needs of the church must be taken into consideration and an activation of priests who have seemingly recovered in this field may be considered but is only recommended where careful guidance and supervision is possible. Where there is indication of incorrigibility, because of the tremendous scandal given, I would most earnestly recommend total laicization."
But by 1963, Fitzgerald's powerful hold on the direction of the order was weakening. According to a 1993 affidavit by Fr. Joseph McNamara, who succeeded Fitzgerald as Servant General, the appointment of a new archbishop, James Davis, began a new era of the relationship between the order, which was a "congregation of diocesan right," and the archdiocese. Davis and Fitzgerald apparently clashed over a number of issues. Davis was far more concerned than his predecessor about the business aspects of the Santa Fe facility and demanded greater accountability. He also demanded greater involvement of medical and psychological professionals, while "Fr. Gerald [Fitzgerald] distrusted lay programs, psychologists and psychiatrists," favoring a more spiritual approach, according to McNamara.
McNamara said Fitzgerald was eventually forced from leadership by a combination of factors, not least of which was a growing disagreement with the bishop and other members of the order over the direction of the Paracletes. After 1965, said McNamara, Fitzgerald "never again resided at Via Coeli Monastery, nor did he ever regain the power he had once had."
Nor did he get his island. In 1965 Fitzgerald had put a $5,000 deposit on an island in Barbados, near Carriacou, in the Caribbean that had a total purchase price of $50,000. But the new bishop apparently wanted nothing to do with owning an island, and Fitzgerald, who died in 1969, was forced to sell his long-sought means for isolating priest sex offenders.
When asked for comment, a spokesman for the Paraceltes referred NCR to historic accounts previoulsy written about the order.
Tom Roberts is NCR editor at large. He can be reached at troberts@ncronline.org.
Online resources
A 1993 affidavit by Fr. Joseph McNamara, who succeeded Fitzgerald as Servant General.
Read copies of letters Fitzgerald exchanged with U.S. bishops and one pope.
Please recall that Cardinal
Please recall that Cardinal Antonelli had asked the Priests in America to do something (that Vatican has chosen to ignore) in 1789 - ELECTING their FIRST American Catholic Bishop!
The First Catholic Bishop of America JOHN CARROLL was elected (REPEAT WAS ELECTED) by THE CATHOLIC PRIESTS IN AMERICA, before being appointed by ROME!
Please see:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03381b.htm
"Church troubles, Trusteeism in New York, and Nationalism in Philadelphia, at this time decided the priests of Maryland (March, 1788) to petition Rome for a bishop for the United States. Cardinal Antonelli replied, allowing the priests on the mission to select the city and, for this case only, to name the candidate for presentation to the pope. Twenty-four of the twenty-five other priests in the meeting voted for Father Carroll. Accordingly on 6 November, 1789, Pope Pius VI appointed him bishop. His consecration took place in Mr. Weld's chapel at Lulworth Castle, England, 15 August, 1790, at the hands of the Rt. Rev. Charles Walmesley, Senior Vicar Apostolic of England. Bishop Carroll returned to Baltimore in triumph, 7 December, when he preached an appropriate and touching sermon in St. Peter's church."
Please also see:
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/history/us/ah0016.html
"John Carroll (1735-1815), Daniel Carroll's younger brother, was educated in Europe, joined the Jesuit order, and was ordained a priest. He founded a private school for boys and named it after the town where it was located, Georgetown, a port on the Potomac River that later became part of Washington, D.C.
He went on to be elected — by all the Catholic priests in America — to become America's first Catholic bishop.
He later became archbishop of Baltimore. In any procession of American bishops, the archbishop of Baltimore always goes last in recognition of its role as America's oldest diocese. In 1789, John Carroll founded the college in Georgetown that later became known as Georgetown University."
God bless,
M.Francis
He may have been elected, but
He may have been elected, but he was appointed by the Pope and hands were therefore conferred upon him (the fullness of Holy Orders). This sometimes happens within Monastic communities when it becomes necessary that the Abbot be made a Bishop and the Pope decides its appropriate. What you are saying is not news to Roman Catholics, thats why all the websites that you reference are in fact Catholic websites. God love you!
Twp points: the inability of
Twp points: the inability of many bishops, in the past as well as now, to forthrightly face the crisis of priestly child abuse no doubt stems from the fact the some of these bishops are or were child abusers themselves or victims of child abuse and so cannot objectively deal with the phenomenon. But more significantly, in order to deal with the crisis of priestly child abuse, it is necessary to question in a most radical fashion the whole institution of priestly celibacy and its relationship to deviant sexual behavior. For while it is true that celibacy does not cause deviancy, it is equally true that the institution of priestly celibacy in bound to attract men who are sexually damaged in one way or another, perhaps as a "cure" for their deviancy. After all, how many physically and psychologically healthy young men would ever seriously consider swearing off sexual activity for life? Precious few, if any. This is not to imply that all sexual deviants become child molesters; in fact the majority do not. Still, an institution that attracts deviants is sure to attract more than its fair share of molesters.
I think you make a very good
I think you make a very good observation, orion71.
very well said
very well said
Behind monastic enclosure
Behind monastic enclosure might have seemed a stop gap measure forty years ago.
But where is such cloister now in these Americas?
Anywhere?
Hey, wait. Not in MY desert hermitage! No way . . .
This new information and the
This new information and the letters give historical context to the argument that many Catholics have that most of the "priest sexual scandals" developed after Vatican II.
I have found that many Catholics believe that the bulk of the problem with priests abusing children, especially young boys, occurred post-Vatican II and because of Vatican II. I would appreciate more dialogue on this concept or argument, because it is difficult to discuss without accurate information.
I sit here after reading this
I sit here after reading this article totally stunned and on the verge of tears. I am left speechless. How could the warnings of this priest be totally ignored. We are truly being lead by a bunch of felons. I feel like I'm adrift in an endless sea and no one can provide a rescue boat. I can't imagine what this news would do to the victims of these men. I'm not sure how to even procede from here. Leave the church, demand prison terms for all those who knew and did nothing...How could we ever recover from such a deep darkness?
These letters are a
These letters are a revelation - only because they were kept hidden for so long. It is so very sad that the church kept this going for such a long time. We in the Boston area look at all of the cases of abuse that went on under the hierarchy here. And what happens? Cardinal Law is swooped away by Rome to some cushy position at a basilica! If he were the superintendent of the Boston Public Schools and moved (or had knowledge of) deviant teachers from one school system to the next - where do you think he would now be? It sickened me to see him voting for the new Pope in the College of Cardinals. I don't see the church ever changing when you have a small group of elderly men at it's helm..
Yes, Cardinal Law should have
Yes, Cardinal Law should have been jailed--and for life! Hopefully God will take care of that when Law dies!
Yes we are truly "stuck" with wicked, lying old men" at the helm in Rome and many other places in our Catholic world. But remember---it is your informed conscience that will keep you----not the "moralistic rantings" of these clerical sinners!
Thank you, Tom Roberts, for
Thank you, Tom Roberts, for bringing forth these letters. Now, perhaps
the right-wing clergy will stop criticizing our President re: stem cell
research and always, always, the abortion issues. I will try to remain
a Catholic, but the hierarchy is making it very difficult and embarrasing
for me.
It is about time someone
It is about time someone posted this information at a national level. Thank you NCR for taking the step out of the box and such an emotional time for clerical abuse victims/survivors. Over and over we are told to carry our crosses and so many Simons and Veronicas stand there stunned to think that the weight of our sinning Fathers (and Sisters) is too much to "touch" and deal with. Can this Easter see some light at the end of the tunnel for the countless children who were STRIPPED, NAILED AND LEFT TO HANG AND EMOTIONAL DEATH all for the sake of protecting the "Good Reputation" of the Church.
How many times did Mary stand their weeping, WEEPING, as thousands of children were treated so cruelly by those who were to protect and nuture, to bless and sanctify, to profess constant faith and abide in fidelity---to a lie of self-serving, soul wrecking and constant rejection towards healing by their Shepherd priests, who left their little bodies in pastures to rot or frustration, cancellation, denial or care, denial of therapy, denial of meetings, denial of pastoral love, denial of love and denial of justice.
Mother Mary sat silent as the hammer pounded again and again into the flesh of her babies.
It was NOT THE ROMAN SOLDIERS who held the nails and raised the mallets to break the skin on the tiny hands of babes.
LAITY, WAKE UP. Wake from you slumber.
For those who shun the works of the Spirit even within the walls of the Roman Empire must rememeber; there is but only one God.
Stop donating. Stop standing there. Help your brothers and sisters, the woundeded and the agressors, to hoist their crosses and move towards the truth.
Reconcialtion and accountabilty ARE NOT the same thing.
Mary, I am sorry that you are still weeping...
Pray, people. It is not "over with"...help carry the cross of our wounded and very human church.
If we had a married clergy,
If we had a married clergy, with priests with children, priest wives with children.. can you imagine any coverup/transfer if their children were molested.. I see necks being seized,..
...and if we had ordained
...and if we had ordained women also at the center, around the table, at the altar.
wait - it would be officially
wait - it would be officially 'priestess'. Sounds a little new-agey to me.
I spent a lot of time
I spent a lot of time crafting a comment on this topic, but CAPTCHA rejected my entry, I suppose because I couldn't tell the difference between a P and a p.
The P appeared to be almost exactly the size of both one upper case letter and one lower case letter. When CAPTCHA said I'd given the wrong answer, I backed up to try again, and CAPTCHA had erased my couple of hours worth of work. Many upper case letters do not resemble their lower case versions; but some do. Whoever is in charge of this system needs to make it work better. This isn't the first time it's happened. I am frustrated.
Don't back up when you get
Don't back up when you get the captcha wrong but go forward. It gives you another and another without you losing your letter. Good luck.
I changed the CAPTCHA
I changed the CAPTCHA settings. Now all letters are upper case. I hope this helps.
Dennis Coday
NCR online editor
Thank you Dennis. I too was
Thank you Dennis. I too was having a whole bunch of trouble identifying the case of some letters.
Thank you Dennis. Steve
Thank you Dennis.
Steve
Peter, I know exactly how
Peter,
I know exactly how you feel. I have been posting on discussion and comment boards for so long that now I always "copy" before sending
Thanks for this. Perhaps it
Thanks for this. Perhaps it will go a long way towards stopping all the "Vatican II is to blame for all the Churches' problems" nonsense.
To the person who referenced
To the person who referenced "travelling salesman," here is the difference. I would've WARNED my precious sons about travelling salesmen possibly being sexual predators. We TRUSTED the priests because they claimed and the hierarchy that "ordains" them claimed to represent and to SPEAK for GOD--which turns out, in light of the above and in light of many priest predators, the ultimate of all blasphemies.
For those who conveniently blame the priest predators on Vatican II, these things have been happening for hundreds of years. Why? Because molesting a little boy or a little child, in their sick twisted "celibate" minds, is not the same thing as touching one on of those off-limits, filthy, inferior, less than human women and having "real sex," whatever that is in the eyes of the church hierarchy. Therefore it doesn't count as a sin in the eyes of God.
I remember the Newfoundland
I remember the Newfoundland priest who said that buggering little boys did not break his vow of celibacy, because it wasn't sexual intercourse.
It was the final straw for me.
Why on earth would you even
Why on earth would you even begin to associate such a statement with a person in their right mind? Pray for all concerned...
Amazing how they didn't care
Amazing how they didn't care about innocent children. Exactly like the progressives who excuse abortion. Compassion and forgiveness for the guilty, psycobabble excuses, and tough luck for the victims, innocent children. Things never really change.
Wow, you really are a
Wow, you really are a one-trick pony. Once again, the only insight you gather from a lengthy piece on an entirely different topic is your usual snarky swipe about abortion. Really?? Where's your outrage over THIS issue? Why aren't you also willing to speak out in opposition to the official institution which had clear evidence, knowledge over decades, and yet consistently refused to act to protect children? By the way, most of the "progressives" you loathe do not "excuse abortion"--they just think eliminating it requires more intellectual firepower than bromides barely worthy of an Operation Rescue pamphlet.
WOW! Let the light of truth
WOW! Let the light of truth shine in.We are finally seeing "The Emperors New Clothes" and he stands there where eveyone can really see him.The Emperor in this case is the misguided, dishonest, pathetic and irrelevant heirerarchy of the Church. They aren't really the Church, we the people,the laity are the Church.They have squandered their right to.be trusted about anything. All of them, all the way to Rome for a long, long time.
This information leaves me
This information leaves me speechless. I have always felt that the bishops bore more responsibility than they were owning up to, and this proves it!
Every bishop who moved a priest after the second whiff of scandal should be removed from office. Let them wander around Rome, NOT retiring to the nicely appointed 'vacation' homes they somehow seem to accumulate.
When are we gonna get past
When are we gonna get past all this? Enough is enough. Move on. Haven't we had enough catharsis? Do you want to bring up Father Coughlin in the 30's and John Hughes during the 1863 riots too? Move on.
We'll get past it when the
We'll get past it when the culprits (priests and bishops) are removed from being able to hurt us anymore! Get past it? I bet if your kid were molested by a teacher or scout leader you'd have them arrested and you'd sue the school or Boy Scouts if they knew about this person but left them there to hurt your child. And guess what? The whole system would back you up. But that isn't what's happened and still happening in our church. The priests are still molesting children right into the 2000's and bishops still refuse to be accountable. So you get past it and get with it!
No, this isn't a call for
No, this isn't a call for accountability; it's yet another "journalistic" attempt to pile on the Church. This is about something that happened in the 50's and 60's, not now. This is not news; this is history. And in that vein, it is akin to a "report" about "news" of Father Coughlin or Archbishop Hughes. I love all you "Unless-we-do-exactly-what-I-want-in-the-way-I-want people" who claim that justice is never done. You are like people in counseling who say, "Three years ago you got angry and put your hand on my arm. Five years ago you borrowed $50 and didn't pay me back. Ten years ago you called me a jerk. Fifteen years ago you gave me a dirty look. I can't heal the relationship right now. I need to get an apology for all these things first." You are not happy unless the Church address each and every one of your grievences. You are stuck in a rut. MOVE ON!
Brian, this is not about the
Brian, this is not about the hand on an arm or fifty dollars. This is about the destruction of the soul of very young people who had neither the brain maturity nor help to handle these grievous offenses against their personhood.
I would elaborate, but it would be pointless.
Saying "get past it" is
Saying "get past it" is certainly not sensitive to those who have suffered at the hands of the priests. And, as is obvious from many of these postings, we have all suffered.
But, the only way to peace and healing is forgiveness.
I know. How can I expect you to forgive? I don't expect you to but Jesus asks us to.
And really, all the hatred and rage does nothing to the perpetrators, it only causes those victimized more pain.
I've read so many comment here.
I am a woman and I have to ask: Where do we get the arrogance to believe we would do a better job? Are women beyond sin? I know I'm not. And statistically women abuse children more than men do, sadly many are the mothers of those children.
Are we forgetting what it really means to be a Roman Catholic?
I do not attend and support my church because of any priest.
I do it for Christ and He is the true head of the church.
Maybe this scandal coming to light wasn't just to clear out the church of these villans but also to show us how strong our own faith is - or isn't.
Look at what they did to our dear Lord Jesus. And He said "forgive them father"
We are supposed to be following Him.
Should they be punished? Absolutely. Will they be? Maybe/maybe not.
Should we allow it to tear us away from our true faith and cause us to leave the church built by Christ? Of course not.
I pray for God's mercy, the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the love of Christ on us all.
Could you please cite a
Could you please cite a credible statistical analysis that women sexually abuse more than men? I sure hope you're not including changing diapers. That would be as absurd as your original claim.
All of you who put money into
All of you who put money into the collecting plate should reflect on the fact that by doing so you are giving active support to the action of the bishops who hide and connive with this appalling crime; you are in fact in part personally responsible for the suffering of the children who have been abused. You are also personally contributing to the deaths of millions of Africans through AIDS. You might like to consider withdrawing all financial support to the Church even if you cannot bring yourselves to leave such a corrupt and abusive organisation.
I don't give to my parish
I don't give to my parish fund as part of it goes to the bishops for their own choice of using it. But I do give as in to some missions, to CRS, and to a catholic group who directly helps children and the aged. This way I am helping our church and the world but not the bishops agendas as best I can. So think about it, you can do your part as you see it while trying not to be an abettor to an abusive system.
Kate! You can't truly
Kate! You can't truly believe that!?!?!?
The money that goes into the collection plate pays the bills to keep our churches open. You know, like heat, electric, building maintenence.
It also pays the church secretary and the accountant.
It pays for the religious training of our kids and adults.
Don't forget all the Catholic Charities that are supported by that money.
In my parish we have a collection to help support our sister church in Haiti.
It goes to the training of lay ministers etc. etc.
And it causes the deaths in Africa due to AIDS?!?!?!?
If that is because the church teaches against the use of condoms; it became known years ago that a condom does not truly protect against AIDS.
Are you a Catholic?
What an insane and idiotic
What an insane and idiotic statement.
So...let's say that you don't put money in the collection basket...this is what actually happens:
1. All professional ministers (Religious Ed directors, Music Ministers, Administrative Assistant) are all laid off because their jobs depend on the weekly collection baskets.
2. Any programs funded by the parish (outreach, child daycare, food kitchen to the poor) are either cut or greatly reduced in funding because of people who "won't put money in the collection basket".
3. Churches are closed because those churches who can not sustain themselves financially (because people don't put money in the basket) are the first to be put on the diocesan chopping block.
Learn how parish finances work before you make such foolish statements.
I personally don`t think that
I personally don`t think that you can threaten to withold funds from the collection when one doesn`t contribute in the first place. (EYES ROLLING)
Remember too the
Remember too the investigation of the seminaries to weed out gay candidates. Perhaps seminaries such as the one John T. Sullivan atended should have been the first to be investigated. Girls 7 to 12 years old were raped by this man.
This is neither a gay issue nor a Vatican II issue.
You are entitled to your
You are entitled to your opinion. However, we must first examine our personal conscience in light of the Catechism, earnestly working on removing obstacles to holiness such as prejudice, etc.. in our own lives, watching and praying always. Holiness is the obligation of every Catholic. And of course, praying for the Bishop whose responsibility it is. Grace and peace with prayers always...
Laicization is an easy out
Laicization is an easy out for the Church. Dismiss these men from the clerical state and send them on their way. The Church does not have to pay them, house them or be responsible for them. They are on their own and the Church can wash its hands of them. They become someone else's problem.
Once a priest is laicized, the priest no longer is under the authority of the bishop and he can go and do as he pleases. Rather than dismissing them from the clerical state, or laicizing them, we should follow the example of the religious orders. These men are the sons and brothers of the bishops. When family members sin or err or are sick, we do not turn our backs on them. We get them help. We should do this in the Church.
These priests should be assigned to monasteries. If each diocese cannot afford a monastery of its own, then each archdiocese should be responsible for building one for its province. These men would form a community, under the strict supervision of the bishop(s) of their diocese or province, and led by an abbot and prior who are good and upright priests. These priests who have committed such acts can then live the remainder of their lives as priests, praying for the Church and for their victims and families and living a life of mortification and penance. They would receive counseling, and some might be able to perform certain duties in the diocese (at the chanceries, perhaps) but nothing that would put them in contact with children.
This would serve a few purposes. First, it recognizes the theological truth that a priest is a "priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek". Second, it continues the bonds of filial devotion that priests have with their bishops. Third, it allows priests to practice their vocation in a way that in no way threatens children or other potential victims. Fourth, it provides each diocese or province with fortress of prayer and gives these priests the opportunity for conversion and penance. Finally, it maintains the authority of the bishop over these men, thereby insuring that they have no further interaction with potential victims. That cannot be guaranteed once a priest is laicized.
Granted this will not be easy. But, I think it's worth it, both for the sake of the victims and the sake of the priests. It is also good theology, which never hurts either.
So, a priest is forever. How
So, a priest is forever. How about helping the ones who choose to get married? Why do they lose their retirements and credibility but perverts shouldn't?
I do not believe that an Oath
I do not believe that an Oath breaker should licitly celebrate Mass. You are mixing apples and oranges...
Someone who realizes they
Someone who realizes they can't hold up to the oath they took and asks for and receives dispensation is worse than a priest who breaks his oath by molesting little boys? I don't get your apples and oranges. I am just saying the church helps and keeps paying for perverts but lets the honest men go.
Sorry Clint Green, You stated
Sorry Clint Green,
You stated that these erring priest should be assigned to a monastery! Believe me the priests and brothers of religious orders don't want these men among them either. Besides, members of religious orders are under a Superior General (Minister General--if Franciscan), etc. and most of these orders are international in scope. They are not under the orders of any particular Bishop---but do respect their authority.
A monastery is founded so that its members may grow spiritually by following the rule of its founder, by living out the special charism of that order. It is not a prison---it is not a half-way house. The religious who are there are there by their free will and bound to each other, and the ministries that they serve by their vows.
The men who committed crimes while diocesan priests---should be in prison---not in a monastery.
WOW! This is a bomshell!
WOW! This is a bomshell! Tom, please print the full texts of these letters in NCR or at least make them available on line. The right wing says this problem started with Vatican II. These letters show that this problem preceded the 1960's. Indeed, since Dante Aligheri put an abuser in Hell in The Comedy, it has been around as long as the church. We know now that we have been lied to yet again by mendacious bishops.
According to an apparition of
According to an apparition of The Blessed Virgin Mary in regards to the Priest/Sex-Abuse Scandal the main reason for this happening was the catholic laity! "You did This" is what she said; because as catholic laity we have an obligation to pray & sacrifice for our Priests. Catholic Priests are the ones who are under the most demonic attacks. They are on the front lines. People expect to live their lives the way they want & not pay the consequences. Lack of veneration for the sacraments of Holy Order, & especially the sacrament of marriage affects the entire mystical body of Our Holy Mother Church. As the sin of Mankind increases, The power of the devil increases...This is one of the results of your generation's "free-love", man-hate-mongering "feminist" movement, & Abortion on demand. Now no one wants to take responsibility for it. Look to our own eyes first. All of us are hypocrites, & we will pay the Price on Judgement Day when All The Millions of Aborted Un-born (The martyrs in Revelation) bear witness against our generation(s)...
If you didn't notice, this
If you didn't notice, this problem pre-dated that generation of ""free-love", man-hate-mongering "feminist" movement, & Abortion on demand"! Get your facts straight before blasting those of us who were in that generation (which did not actually overwhelmingly do what you are saying). Quit the easy sour lines and check the facts.
It seems that you are not
It seems that you are not understanding what has been uncovered and reported in this article. The pedophiles were known about before "free love" and "feminism" and abortion on demand. In fact, someone else might claim that the actions of pedophiles within the Catholic Church directly caused a moral decline in society, leading to everything you think is desperately wrong with it these days.
Snap out of it. The evidence
Snap out of it. The evidence clearly shows, if you actually READ the article, that abuse, knowledge of it, and systematic unwillingness to act appropriately to deal with it existed long before the 60s you caricature. Abortion was illegal until 1973, so unless you're suspending the laws of cause and effect, your position is nonsense. It strains credulity to suggest that the male hierarchy of the Church that was responsible for dealing with the behavior of abusive priests was led to screw it up so badly by throngs of slobbering man-hating feminists.
Sorry. I missed that
Sorry. I missed that apparition. Please fill me in. I will never accept blame for the perversions of others nor will I take credit for their good acts. I won't believe Mary made any such ridiculous declaration either. If she did she's batting for the other team. (satan)
So much for healing from
So much for healing from within. The lesson to be learned is that criminal behavior requires resolution by the criminal law system -- not the canon law system.
Hear! Hear!
Hear! Hear!
I recently met a man in his
I recently met a man in his 80s who was molested by a priest as a boy. He cried when he related the story. There are also individuals who are just starting to deal with what has happened to them who are in their late teens. We're supposed to just let it go? No, we must ever remain vigilant.
The letters indicate a lot of
The letters indicate a lot of concern for the Shepards and the Sheparding profession.
Little is said about the Sheep. The true "Shepard" is supposed to be the one who loves the Sheep; who would lay his life down for them.
I daresay that under difficult and dangerous circumstances, most parents' first concern is for the effect of those circumstances on their children. The letters indicate that even the most concerned writers are concerned first for their peers and their profession. That's shocks me; I thought priests were supposed to be Shepards first.
No wonder John McCormack
No wonder John McCormack dragged his feet about letting the state of New Hampshire audit his records. He had to clean up everything that he could. These records were not released to the state, butr were clearly in the Diocese of Manchester files. The past Bishops (Primeau and Brady) were deep into it and it could only continue to McCormack.
Thanks, NCR, for publishing
Thanks, NCR, for publishing this piece. An interesting companion piece would be one that explores how the position articulated by Cardinal Mahoney--i.e., that "our understanding of this problem has evolved, and that...decades ago, people didn't realize how serious this was..."--became the official line. Who first proposed that view publicly? How did it become the consensus opinion? Were there any bishops who resisted that characterization of the matter?
Sadly, I think it's less likely today that a Fr. Fitzgerald would emerge among the ranks of the clergy and challenge a bishop to think differently. We may be gaining obedience at the cost of authenticity. And the Church wonders why so few men want to be priests.
As usual, this whole mess is
As usual, this whole mess is sickening and medieval. I can't see putting it behind us in our life time. And who would have thought the Catholic Church would end up looking 'progressive' in dumping this horrible business on the public stage ahead of the debacle of the U.S. Government and financial institutions! So much for 'avoiding scandal'. We had better pray, folks, because if there is a God around here somewhere, only he/she can sort this out.
There is but one solution to
There is but one solution to 52+ years of USCCB aid & abetting, perpetrating, enabling, embezzling, racketeering, defrauding, perjuring, mass child endagering, daily documented in verified & vetted repoting at www.bishop-accountability.org/abusetracker, with demons like Roger M. Mahony, Bernard Law, Edward Egan, Francis George, William Leveda, Raymond Burke, Wilton Gregory, Sean O'Malley, Theodore McCarrick and MANY hundreds more.
"STOP DONATING LAITY" as St. Peter Damien correctly asserted.
Fiat Lux & Veritas,
Albino Luciani,
MURDERED POPE
Ask Jesus to give you His
Ask Jesus to give you His peace...
Here is a very interesting
Here is a very interesting take on this article:
READ IT HERE!
Interesting, indeed, Mike in
Interesting, indeed, Mike in KC.
Why is Diogenes, by the way?
Why does he/she need to employ a pseudonym?
Should the need or choice to use a pseudonym in any way affect our interpretation of what Diogenes has to say? He/she presents what purports to be an authoritative insider view of the "real" reasons for the clerical abuse crisis.
Is that view less authoritative due to Diogenes's choice to employ a pseudonym?
How does one reconcile Diogenes's longstanding claim that the abuse crisis is "really" all about homosexuality in the priesthood with Father Fitzgerald's very clear analysis, which shows that the abuse crisis is "really" all about abuse of children, male and female, by priests whose behavior bishops and religious superiors often covered over?
In what way is Diogenes's comment on Father Fitzerald's work compelling or correct, if Diogenes's analysis of the root causes of this crisis is so radically different from that offered by Father Fitzgerald?
What does Diogenes mean by his "interesting" statement that experts now advising bishops about the abuse crisis "coincidentally, have the same conflict of interest as Fr. Peterson"?
Is it charitable, truthful, helpful, in the best interests of the church to make insinuations about the sexual orientation of those advising bishops about the abuse crisis, or to attribute this crisis to the presence of gays in the priesthood.
I find Father Fitzgerald's analysis of the abuse crisis gripping and true--and very helpful to the Christian community. I find Diogenes's analysis unhelpful, and frankly, vicious. And I am willing to say that without employing a pseudonym.
I fail to see why using a
I fail to see why using a pseudonym is a bad thing. Many nuns who post here use pseudonyms or just simply post as "Anonymous". At least one 'progressive' cleric on this forum uses a pseudonym as well. Is everything he says suspect because of this, or does that judgement apply only to orthodox Catholics and those you disagree with?
I simply thought the article was interesting.
Why do you find it 'vicious'?
It's sort of a predictable
It's sort of a predictable take, isn't it?
You must be one of the
You must be one of the meatballs. This article is a flat joke.
I am certain the problem is
I am certain the problem is years older than that and may have gone on for hundreds of years. My Grandmother tried to take some action against an abusive Priest molesting children in the 1920's. We still have some of the replies to her letters but nothing was done. I believe the problem is the doctrine of celibacy and it seems to me that since there is no actual evidence of the succession from St Peter (only supposition) there is no actual authority for that doctrine or indeed any doctrine or ordination. In my view if this were any other organisation it would have been closed down long ago as it is I believe no child should ever be left alone with a religious celibate.
Obviously, from the article
Obviously, from the article and other places, it is now well known that a pedophile is a pedophile and would be a pedophile even if he had a wife. It really is a different thing to violate children than to have a mature sexual relationship. Therefore, there is no direct connection between celibacy and pedophile priests, except for this one thing, where a married person might confide his suspicions about another person and be encouraged by his wife to do something to put a stop to it, the celibate priest is rather more of a lone wolf who does better if he ignores the faults of his fellow priests.
Werent these bishops just
Werent these bishops just like today's abortion excusers?
Wrapped up in worldly concerns, making excuses for the guilty, indifferent to the innocent victims.
Post new comment