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

Axios,

I don't know if you were addressing me, or Dan?

I can't speak for Dan, but I will reaffirm what I already said previously. Heterosexual ephboliphilia and pedophilia, or unchastity with an adult female, should meet with the same consequences of being stripped from sacramental service as priest in any community.

Who is this person whom Cardinal Law praises who is a pco-founder of NAMBLA?

ALity

The article does not trace the problem to some group or orientation, the problem is traced to
immoral sexual activity. To say, "regardless of orientation, sex is sex and all the sin that goes with it", reveals a misunderstanding of the Church's teaching on human sexuality. There is quite a difference between sex (sexual behavior and activity) and orientation. There is also a difference between homosexual sexual activity and heterosexual sexual activity. In all cases the Church teaches that sexuality activity of homosexuals is both immoral (sinful) and unnatural (in the sense of the natural law). With respect to the sexual activity of heterosexuals, it is natural (in the sense of the natural law), but is only immoral (sinful) outside of marriage. In fact, within the marriage convenant between the man and the woman, the sexual activity is blessed by God(Gen 1:28-31). Within the loving marriage of a man and woman, there is no sinful sexual activity.

Bisantio,

I understand your use of the Latin catagorization in term of scholasticism. But given this is a Byzantine board, I don't think any of us need be straightjacketed into thinking in such Latin terms.

From a broader standpoint not foreign to our tradtion I would note an unmarried priest and his paramour are doing one of two things. They are UNNATURALLY using artifical chemicals to prevent conception OR they are taking the chance they will produce a child who will suffer the UNNATURAL situation of not having his/her mommy and daddy married to each other.

Typical of certain small but dangerous element of American society who, like Cardinal Law's indifference to abused children, also minimize the evil of children raised without a daddy while obsessing with gays.

Axios

P.S. ALity, the name of Cardinal Law's friend is Father Paul Shanley.

[ 06-15-2002: Message edited by: Axios ]

Personally I think that any sexually active cleric (excluding obviously those that are married!) should be removed from public ministry (at least for an extended time).
I do think the article's comment regarding seminaries' responsibility relating to homosexual seminarians is appropriate. The seminary setting, unlike parish life, is much more intimate by the very fact that a semi-large group is living in close quarters for several years.
I also think it is valid to consider the broader patterns of the abuse that has been discovered. Whether it is pedophilia, homosexual, hetrosexual, etc. I think its reasonable to try to understand the various subcategories of the problem so as to help ensure that the Church's response is adequate and appropriate.

Dear Axios,

As you know, I am glad that you are posting on this Forum. Your postings are sometimes challenging, but they are clear and to the point. I understand most of the points and agree with many. There are other points and positions with which I disagree. I have learned from them.

I have a couple of questions about a couple of statements in your postings in this thread.

The first question is this. What would you have us conclude from what you say in this paragraph?

"NAMBLA, of course, is wholey outside and rejected by the gay community. It co-founder and most noted proponent is, of course, a man praised by Cardinal Law and shunned by the gay community."

Here's why I'm asking about it. It seems to be open to misinterpretation. It seems to imply that the Cardinal erred totally in ever praising the priest. It could lead one to conclude that he did so because Fr. Shanley was involved in NAMBLA. It also suggests that the gay community always shunned Fr. Shanley and his work.

From what I know the first sentence in your paragraph is a statement of fact as it is now. This has been reported in the media. Was it a statement of fact that the gay community always shunned NAMBLA?

The second sentence in the paragraph might need clarification.

It is true that the priest, Paul Shanley, did help to found NAMBLA.

It is true that Cardinal Law did praise Fr. Shanley for his work among troubled youth when many others were also praising him for that work. Apparently this priest did do some good work at some time.

This raises some further questions.

Did the Cardinal, with full knowledge about what NAMBLA stands for, praise Paul Shanley for his work in founding it. Did he praise him for being a proponent for it? Did the gay community shun Fr. Shanley at the time that the Cardinal was praising him for his work with troubled youth?

If the answers to these questions are yeses, the statement needs no clarification. What is the evidence to support the things implied?

If the answers are no(s), the statement needs to be amplified to make the facts clear. That would help eliminate the potential for misunderstanding.


Here's the second statement I have a question about.

"Ality, the name of Cardinal Law's friend is Father Paul Shanley."

Here's why I am asking about this. I know that the priest has been a member of the clergy in the Boston Archdiocese. He and the Cardinal had the relationship of priest and bishop.

What led you to state that Cardinal Law and Fr. Shanley are personal friends in a relationship beyond that of a priest and bishop? Has there been a suggestion that Cardinal Law protected this priest out of friendship. Is there evidence to sustain this?

Cardinal Law has been charged with many things. I do not question the appropriateness of that. I pray that justice will be served along with mercy.

Axios, evil behavior needs to be clearly seen and labeled so that we can protect against it.

If the Cardinal praised a priest and part of that praise was for the founding of NAMBLA and the Cardinal knew what NAMBLA was;

If the Cardinal used his office out of friendship to protect this priest; and

If members of the gay community, or for that matter, members of any community knew of the evil being done to children by this priest and did not report him to his bishop or to the civil authorities; then,

it seems to me that the horror that we are all experiencing takes on other layers.

Do you mean to suggest the above by your statements? If so, evidence about these matters is important and needs to be shared with the appropriate authorities. Has such evidence been brought forward to your knowledge?

If there is no evidence, and your statements are understandable exaggerations or mistatements in reaction to unspeakable evil, just say so.

I understand.

I have been known to react to things a bit myself with some provocation.

Please understand that I am asking for clarification of things that might be misconstrued.

Thanks,

Steve

[ 06-15-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

[ 06-15-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

[ 06-15-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

[ 06-15-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

[ 06-15-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

Axios,
I agree with your position above.

Using your argument, then you would agree with the following:

In the case when the unmarried priest's paramour is another man, then they too are engaging in sexual activity that is just as UNNATURAL as the use of artificial contraceptives within heterosexual sexual activity.

Steve,

Yes, in my haste, I made comments that in their brievity may be open to misinterpetation.

I assume and hope Cardinal Law had no real understanding or knowledge on NAMBLA. He refered to Shanley as "a friend" in one of his letters. That is my only basis for describing it as such.

NAMBLA is and has been 'persona non grata' (pardon the latin) in the gay community. As somethings much looser organizied and decentralized than the Catholic Church, the gay community is not quite in control of things to the same degree. But the community has PRO-Actively ferreted out NAMBLA attempt to weasel itself into our community.

I would give as an example the Gay & Lesbian Community Center in Los Angeles. It has an area where people drop off various newsletters, flyers, etc. It is generally unmonitored and quite open. Every now and then, NAMBLA makes a drop. Well, let us just say that "fast-moving" does not do justice to the speed to which such trash is disposed of. You would thik someone had announced a half-price sale at Barney's.

[ 06-15-2002: Message edited by: Axios ]

ALity,

Homosexuality is the cause of the current scandal. There is a Homosexual Sub-Culture within the Church. In addition, the Church has condemed this activity is sinful and against Christ teaches (i.e. a Sin). This book points out how much Homosexuality has infected the Church. We should pray for a conversion of these people

God Bless!

Interesting that the most aggressive postings on this topic have come from Latins or those who have been Byzantine Catholic for all of about five minutes.

The issue from the Eastern perspective relating to this thread really gets down to disordered passions. One can either participate in closer union with God and fight these disordered passions and their attendant disordered tendencies/behavior, or one can give into them and sin.

Using this relationship to the current issue, then anyone who fights a disordered passion successfully with the help of God the Father, the Logos and the Holy Spirit is "fighting the good fight". Why should they be automaticlly shunned from doing something they may be very good at and love with their whole heart? Should every married man that looks at another woman except his wife be shunned for that? No, only if he acts on those passions and thus causes a greater injury to his betrothed and creates a public scandal (unfortunately taken for granted these days and not perceived by many as scandalous).

On the other hand, if one does give into those disordered passions and create injury and a public scandal through a homosexual relationship, then absolutely, ring him out and show him the door and let the full force of ecclesial and civil law come on him.

But let us not premptively punish those who are actively fighting the passions and the Evil One successfully by cooperating with the energies of God.

Diak,


That is the very problem! These Priest act out on their Homosexuality that is scandal we face today. Whether it is in the seminarian or the Parish residence. Active homosexual priest have infected the priesthood both East and West. Even the Cardinal of Chicago said this publicly!

The Bishops are AFRAID to discipline them because they believe the numbers are so great that it have devastating effects on the Church. Many priest have said this publicly and Catholic newspapers and magazines have been reporting it for years.

If the Church has to sell of property to pay for this scandal it should start with the Universities first!

I have never had a problem with a priest who is gay and remains celibate. However, it you are not gay then image trying to live with a bunch of beautiful women day in and day out and maintain a celibate life. It would be very difficult! Thus remains the logic of the U.S. military with the �don�t ask don�t tell philosophy.� Image a submarine full of gay men.

God Bless
Ray

I should clarify what I mean by this. What this tells me is one of the following:

1) The lack of interest by Byzantines here in this topic would indicate that we do not have such a problem, or that for us it is not a problem.

2) Some (Latin Catholic folks) believe that this is a universal problem (evidence to the contrary or supporting not yet presented) and that we should be as alarmed as they are, OR that they know better than we do what our own people should be concerned about. (It wouldn't be the first time this has happened.)

3) The lone Byzantine voice who is crying out for a "final solution" seems to have some special knowledge about this problem that the rest of us apparently do not, and perhaps that person needs to stop beating around the bush since the rest of us are too dense to see it.

Lemko,

"But then you won't be satisfied, because there might still be limp-wristed, lispy, effeminate yet CELIBATE, CHASTE, HOLY priests around. And you won't like that, either! So what then?"

The problem has nothing to do with lips (at least not directly) or limp wrists. The problem has everything to do with other appendages that are not limp.

Your approach is part of the problem. It doesn't matter how effiminate a person is. That person has not sinned unless that person has had sex with someone of the same sex. Then it means that the sin within has not been surrendered to God.

Dan Lauffer

I will not name names no matter how much Lemko wants me to. Suffice it to say that the Byzantine Church in America is not free of the kinds of problems with priests acting out their homosexual lusts nor has the seminary been free of such problems. Our bishops are aware of the problems and have chosen not to act against them. Others who occasion this board can confirm that my testimony is sound if they choose to do so.

Dan Lauffer

BTW I know too many people who have been hurt by evil people acting as priests to have much patience with your childish comments. I don't know why John doesn't pull the plug on you, but as far as I am concerned your comments are beneath contempt.

[ 06-16-2002: Message edited by: Dan Lauffer ]

Dear Dan,

Please take it easy, and I know this is an important issue.

Lemko's point about this being an RC issue that doesn't affect Byzantines stands.

I know many of our own people who, rightly or wrongly, see it as an issue for a Church with enforced celibacy, rather than for us with our married priests.

That may be utterly simplistic, but the attitude of our babushkas is often "Then why don't you just let them get married."

Alex