www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Cause of Sex Scandal in RCC

First, I would like to thank the participants in this thread for attempting to keep this discussion focused and impersonal.

Second, I would like to respond to Lemko�s specific points in that this problem exists in all Churches, Roman and Byzantine Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant and even in non-Christian Churches. It also exists at roughly the same percentages. We are just so much smaller than the Roman Catholic Church that it appears not to be an issue in our Church. I would agree that the majority of Byzantines might believe that this is not a problem in our Church. Their not believing it (or more likely simply not being aware of it) does not mean that such a problem has never affected our Churches or does not currently affect our Church.

Finally, it would be my suggestion that these discussions focus on concrete solutions, including real actions that may be taken by individuals within their local Church/diocese/etc.

I was recently told, by a trustworthy person, why our bishops were involved in Dallas. After all, I thought this was soley a Latin problem too! I made the typical Byz. commnet: "Yeah the RC's are gonna come up with some flashy policy and mandate it on us without our own consent, even when we don't have such problems!"

I was informed that one of the first public cases to break, on CBS I believe, was of a Ukrainian Catholic priest accused of molesting a child. Can anyone verify this?

The truth is probably very close to what the Administrator said: that we have the problem too, just much smaller due to the fact of our much smaller numbers.

The Roman Catholics are every bit welcome to share there views here and it is very cheap, and "ad hominem" of some Byzantines to dismiss their points simply because they are Roman Catholic. Am I to assume that if it is a Roman Catholic teaching, then it is bad/wrong/un-byzantine?

On the contrary, it seems to me, although tactily, that there are a number of members who claim to be Byzantine Catholic/Orthodox, who seem to be proponents of homosexuality, or seem to argue in defense of homosexuals. So, I will put it to those directly. Do you believe that according to your tradition in Christianity that homosexuality is a) sinful b)immoral c)wrong in God's eyes? Or do you believe something else? If so then what is it and stop personally insulting people with views you don't necessarliy agree with. Put your position on the table for discussion.

As a Byzanitne Catholic lifer, I have been taught that homosexuality is a sinful, abnormal lifestyle.

Jesus in teaching on porneia, translated as "unchastity" in the New American Bible, would have definately encompassed homosexuality in His teaching on sinful/immoral sexual acts of perversion of His day.

Christ also stepped up one notch in teaching that "whosoever even looks at another women with lust in his eyes commits adultery" (my paraphrase). Not acting out is not enough, we must control and stop the active imagination, lest it lead us into sin.

[As a side note= off topic] As a heterosexual male, I find this a very hard teaching to follow. Women dress in very revealing and sexual ways and I often find myself thinking many things, in places as common as the grocery store. Modesty in dress has become very uncool and everyone is responsible for their own behavior, except when that behavior is a choice of fashion that might lead another into temptation. Then one is not accountable. It is the other's burden.

In Christ,
ALity

Thanks and Kudos to both Ality and the Administrator. You have put your finger on two very important issues. Ality has reminded us of the abnormality and sinfulness of a homosexual lifestyle. Our Administrator has reminded us that in fact the problem of immoral sexual contacts by our BC priests is just as real as it is in the RCC.

I have no real solution. However, four things we must do. Remind our bishops that homosexual lust is unnatuaral, as is all lust, and the acting out on such lust is a grave sin. A priest who does so needs to be disciplined and the bishops are charged with doing the disciplining. Second, whenever we know of any priest acting out on their lusts we are to rebuke them and to bring it to the attention of our bishops. Third, we must pray for all involved whether they are guilty or not. Let us pray that the guilty will repent and take their discipline even to the point of laixizing. Let us pray for the innocent that this evil done by their colleagues and intended by Satan to ruin the Church will be turned instead for the good of all, to the glory of God, and for the holiness of the innocent priests and people. Finally, let us do all we can to support our priests and to build them up every chance we get until or unless we have solid evidence of serious wrong doing.

Dan Lauffer

Yes, the Ukrainian priest in question did abuse a minor. He was re-assigned to the eparchy of Stamford, from Florida, where he was a pastor. I hope he will now be defrocked under the new rules.

I note that one can wade through both of the statements [of the bishops gathered in Dallas] the Administrator has posted contain no mention of homosexuality (the word does not even appear a single time) nor makes any reference to the gender of the children.

Axios

[ 06-18-2002: Message edited by: Axios ]

Axios,

You might wish to clarify these remarks. Please do not in any way interpret my lack of the use of the term "homosexuality" or the gender of the children to mean that I or the Church endorses any sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage as anything but sinful.

There are clearly two separate issues here:

1) Pedophilia (and, by extension and including, wrongful sexual activity between clergy and adolescents, be it heterosexual or homosexual).

2) Wrongful sexual activity between celibate clergy and other (consenting or non-consenting) adults. Regarding homosexuals, the Church clearly teaches that a) it is not wrong to be homosexual and that we are to treat such individuals with respect, compassion and sensitivity, b) that the condition is intrinsically disordered and contrary to the natural law and c) those persons with this disorder are called to live lives of chastity.

It should be noted that pedophilia is more common in the general population than it is among the clergy population. It should also be noted that the bishops addressed only issue number one and did not address issue number two. No one should assume from this that they in some way endorse sexual activity - heterosexual or homosexual - among clergy that has taken an oath of celibacy and is unmarried (to a woman in a Sacramental marriage).

Administrator

As is every human being, married or unmarried, disordered or "normal", child or adult.

Slava Jesu Kristu,

Traditionally, ALity, whenever the topic of homosexuality arises, the Forum tends to turn into personal attacks and sarcasm. The threads are even deleted at times. I often feel that it is not the idea that homosexual or heterosexual sex is sinful outside of marriage, it is the degree and the emphasis that we disagree. In my opinion, sin is sin, regradless of who does it. Theosis is the goal, no legalization. I don't feel we should argue about personal views that may not totally agree with the Catechism but that we must nevertheless obey.

Dmitri

Dear Administrator,

My apologies, I meant to say (and have since corrected) the statements from Dallas that you posted. I did not mean to suggest the omission by the bishops indictated anything new in the Catholic Church's teachings on non-marital sex. Their spokesperson did note that they affirmatively decided that that topic was not relevant to their work in Dallas, though it was noted that some outside the Bishops' Conference did suggest it be addressed.

My only point was that the bishops appear to have decide not to go that route. I think it was a wise choice, though I fully understand others have different views.

Axios

I have a quick comment for the Admin here.


The defination of Pedophilia is;

psychosexual disorder in which an adult's arousal and sexual gratification occur primarily through sexual contact with prepubescent children

So any sexual contact with an adolescent would have to fall under your second condition and would be called heterosexual or homosexual activity.

I am not defending any of these activities but the large majority of them are not pedophilia, they are homosexual in nature.


David

David,

I grouped as I did because the bishops� entitled their document: �Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People� and they addressed both pedophilia and sex with adolescents.

Administrator

The term of the week:

homosexual ephebophilia -- the attraction of adults to same-sex adolescents.

there is a differnece between this and pedophilia.
According to the article, this is the phenomena that has occurred most often in this scandal. If the bishops decided not to mention this in there resolutions, one could take it two ways: 1. a cover up, or 2. getting to the heart of the matter which is the sin of porneia in all it's forms. Whether it is with a beast, man, women, living or dead, the act of sex outside of a marriage between a man and a women is a grave sin.


ALity

I'm somewhat uncomfortable about a lot of the terms being used in this discussion, because I think that words like "sexuality", "sex", "sinful" etc. are being used with a wide variety of meanings by the individual posters and that perhaps the true understanding of what one or another person means is not being comprehended or adequately addressed by responders.

My own personal perspective on the issue focuses primarily upon the fact that a member of the clergy or monastic community has made a public promise/vow to abstain from sexual activity. If someone engages in any sexual activity, then one has broken the promise - and this is, in itself a failing and a sin. Adults are expected to give their word and live up to it. If they do not do so, then their status as 'adult' and their capability of disciplining themselves to follow their word is destroyed. And their public status is destroyed as well. (And, as we have seen, the status of the Church is destroyed as well.)

A key factor that is oftentimes overlooked (and/or misinterpreted) is the fact that any action that a person does must be interpreted in terms of his/her spiritual state. It is a core principle of both moral and pastoral theology, that the sacrament of confession/penance be more than just a bald listing of 'actions'. The priest is obligated to question the penitent about a wide variety of circumstances so as to determine both why and how a confessed 'sin' occurred. The Roman Catechism (including the "Baltimore Catechism" of happy memory - it was a good book!) said that 'mortal sin' required three things: sufficient matter, reflection, and full consent of the will. I.e., a person had to both KNOW an action was wrong, reflect upon the action, and then had to say "I'm doing it anyway". This approach is clearly influenced by canon lawyers, but I think it is a good approach.

If we condemn actions solely perforce of their external manifestations, then we are being neither pastoral nor really moral.

I am recalled of a nun in Wilmington, Delaware, who worked with homeless street kids. She tolkd me that they squatted in abandoned buildings and shared sleeping bags (as well as food, drink and clothing) and sometimes became physical with each other. Were I the confessor, could I just say "you've committed sin" without taking into consideration the painful and horrid circumstances that they faced on a daily basis? The WWJD principle comes immediately to mind. If Our Lord were talking with these kids, what would He say to them?

I also think of some elderly pensioners in Florida. Each one lives alone after the passing of a decades-long spouse. They find someone else whom they fall in love with. And so they decide to share quarters and a life with each other, but if they were to "get married", then one or both would lose either 50% of their Social Security benefits or all of it (as surviving widow). And they would be reduced to penury. What Would Jesus Do?

I'm not saying that we should just let everything go, or say that "everything goes"; but I am suggesting that the circumstances have got to have an impact upon any judgement.

Our Lord was pretty vehement in His condemnation of "sin", but the sins that He condemned were those that destroyed the love that we human beings are supposed to have for God and for one another. E.g., money changers in the temple, usury, unfair taxes, the woman caught in adultery about to be stoned, etc.

But He also made it very clear by telling us that the first commandment was to love God; the second one "was like unto it: you shall love your neighbor as you love yourself for this is the summation of the Law and the Prophets".

Let's find out what is really going on (not just the "sinful action") and then show love to the person to make them come to the Father.

Blessings from the old, loving softy.

Dr. John - Good post! I agree

Unfortunately, the actions of a few priests in this instance in the Roman Church, and the Byz. Churches for that matter, make it very hard for the Church to publically follow your principles of circumstance - If I can call it that? -

They are in between a rock and a hard place and have to act very strict in the public eye.

ALity

Jesus did not condemn the woman caught in adultery but he clearly told her to "go and sin no more". He did not say, "I understand, it's OK, and go back to your lover."

There are liberals in the church who do not believe in sin but the church still does teach that sin is sin and that it is wrong. There is a double sin here being committed by the priests. First, sex with children and adolescents is WRONG. Second, sex between two men is WRONG and SINFUL. The example used by Dr. John is not acceptable because it involved two children having sex. Jesus would have loved them enough to teach them right from wrong as he found food and shelter for them. There is no excuse for an adult priest to have sex with children or with another adult man or woman. This is clearly sinful dispute what Dr. John would like to believe. The Church needs to get rid of all sexually active priests. Sadly, the bishops in Dallas chose to turn a blind eye to this sin of homosexual sex by priests because a number of them are implicated.

Here we go again....I get so tired of this fixation on homosexuality with these current problems. As someone who was a victim of this abuse I think you are all barking up the wrong tree. In my opinion the problem isn't with gay priests, but rather with bishops, priests, brothers and sisters (yes, they have done it too, it just doesn't get the press attention) who are psychosocially immature and emotional adolescents themselves. I have been a Byzantine Catholic all of my life and have known many priests...both Roman and Byzantine...both good and bad...but in my opinion where sexuality is concerned they all tend to be stuck about the age of 13. The problem is how our clergy are trained and their inability to function in the real world. I could care less what a priest does in his private life, that is between him and God and I don't think bishops should be going on witch hunts to root out "homosexual" priests..if they break the law or are a source of public scandal discipline them as the law (both civil and canonical) requires. But in all things do it with love. And I see precious little of that in most of the posts here. Dr. John, I wish I had you for a parish priest and confessor...and even more so I wish we had a man like you on Peter's Throne. The bishops and higher clergy have much to answer for and I hope there will be real changes and not just blowing smoke to contain the damage. Moe