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

Moe,

I hope you are not disagreeing with the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding the sinfulness of homosexual sexual activity. The church has been very clear in her teaching on this topic and it is not up to you, Dr. John or anyone else to ignore it.

I am not suggesting there be any witch hunts. I am suggesting that all priests who admit to pedophilia or sex with adolescents be defroked immediately and that all bishops who knowingly covered up such horrible sex crimes be forced to be resign or be defroked immediately. Priests who have had an adult sexual relationship (either heterosexual or homosexual) that is in the far past should be forgiven and allowed to serve. Those who have repeated offenses or are currently active should be defrocked. Yes, homosexuality sex is a more serious sin then heterosexual sex outside of marriage. Both are wrong and sinful and both need to be addressed.

Steve

Really???

"No one who is bound to carnal desires or pleasures is worthy to approach you or to draw near to you, or to minister to you, O King of Glory."

- Prayer of the priest during the Cherubimic Hymn, before the Great Entrance of the gifts to the alter. Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom

I personally would care what my priest does, especially if he were molesting little children or adolescent teens. Is the above prayer just poetry??????

I agree with many people here that immature sexuality is the problem. Sex of any kind, outside of heterosexual marriage is wrong in the eyes of the church. Do you disagree Moe? Is it wrong to believe that homosexuality is unnatural? Does that make me a NAZI? Stating that belief and witch hunts are totally different actions. I find it interesting on this post that so many people equate having such a belief with getting torches out, and clubs, and burning people at the stake. Honestly, it is insulting!


Many people will say that sex outside of heterosexual marriage is wrong, but they cringe at the teeth if they should follow that with the conclusion that homosexual sex is wrong.

WWJD? He threw out the money changers who scandalized His Temple. These priests have brought scandal to Christ's Church . . . .


ALity

[ 06-19-2002: Message edited by: ALity ]

Slava Jesu Kristu,

I agree with Moe. Here we go a "witch hunting" yet again. I do not feel that we should weigh sin according to our personal opinions. Yes, the Church teaches that homosexual sex is a sin but does not teach that it is any less a sin than heterosexual sex outside of marriage. That is pure arrogance. I agree that this is about priests who are psychosexually immature. I believe that if you had removed all the homosexual priests 30yrs ago, the Church would still be having this issue. It would not, I imagine, have gained the media frenzi, however.

Dmitri

Dmitri,

I don't agree with you. Now, I've produced as much evidence as you have.

Ality,

Again I agree with you. One has suggested that we send our offerings to Rome and march around our bishop's residences, if they are among the lazy ones, singing some great religious songs. Right now, I'd just as soon send my money to Mt. Athos.

Dan Lauffer

Slava Jesu Kristu,

No evidence is necessary.

Dmitri.

Dear Ality,

Thanks for your post. These past weeks have been very difficult for me, watching all this on television.

But you quote a prayer I love. "None of those who are entangled in carnal desires and pleasures is worthy to approach or draw near or minister to you, King of Glory; for to serve you is great and awesome even for the heavenly powers."

Now, apart from those rare holy ones in our midst, who are granted perfect passionlessness (apatheia), a rare and great grace from God; this is all of us. We are all battling the passions. The point of this prayer, is "Lord, I am not worthy". In this prayer, I admit my sinfulness.

"Therefore I entreat you, who alone are good and ready to hear: Look upon me, your sinful and unprofitable servant, and purify my soul and heart from an evil conscience. By the power of your Holy Spirit, enable me, clothed with the grace of the priesthood, to stand at this your Holy Table and celebrate the mystery of your holy and most pure Body and your precious Blood."

It is a gift of God at the Liturgy, that though I am "unworthy and sinful", God nevertheless uses my poor ministry and enables the Liturgy to be celebrated in spite of my unworthiness. He is so great.

All of us are unworthy to approach the Mysteries, but we open our hearts, and beg God to cleanse us.

What about unworthy priests? Well, who is worthy?

There is an old Roman Catholic teaching, that the worthiness (or unworthiness) of the minister does not have any bearing on the grace received by those attending Mass, or receiving communion. If there is an Eastern equivalent for this rather scholastic teaching; it must be this prayer. (our eastern prayers are our eastern theology).

Though I am still fighting with the passions, nevertheless, God in his great power can reach beyond me and my unworthiness, and use [me] his poor creature to communicate Himself, who alone is pure and holy, without any taint or fault being transmitted to his faithful people.

Is this a comfort? It is clericalism, in its worst aspect to think that "Father" will save me, or that the priest will accomplish my salvation. The Bishops, priests, and ministers are servants too, and sinful like me. It is Christ only -- who will save. He alone can cure my soul.

It is the post-Vatican II obsession with the "face" and personality of the priest (since he is now facing me) which obscures this old teaching and has encouraged us to focus on the priest. As the icons and statues were removed, all that was left was the icon of the priests face, and that is so troublesome. The cult of the priesthood was raised so high, ...teaching ordinands to be "effective celebrants" (I heard this phrase in seminary, and cringed.) It became "Father's Mass" more than ever before. And his personality, speaking gifts, singing voice, communication skills became crucial to my religious experience.

Is clericalism dead? Well, it has been dealt a terrible blow, and GOOD! But even if we rid the priestly ranks of every notorious and hidden sinner, every pedophile, every homosexual, every "13 year-old immature cripple" that will not solve this error by which we focus too much on the priest. My experience of "Church" does not depend upon him, and we mustn't give him a power or authority that God does not give him.

It is not about the priest. Holy priests are what God wants. (He wants everyone to be holy). It is not unfair to expect high standards of our priests, and hope that our preachers are sincere and true (God has serious warnings for hypocrites.) But should my experience of God depend upon this. No!

Our Church is great, not because its priests (or bishops) are great, but because God is great! Priests have been ordained, despite their unworthiness, to serve at the altar. period. full stop.

My faith is not about the priests, and we have to stop obsessing about them.

I have spoken to people who have found the press coverage, the stories, and even the Bishops' discussions personally crushing. I am so sympathetic. With them, I too have found this whole event too disappointing for words. I have really been shaken.

Can we let clericalism die, finally, please? Can we realise that priests are only priests... men like me, yet called to serve. Apart from the holy ones, (oh what a gift!), for the most part they [we] daily battle the passions, struggle with their prayers, and strive to be faithful.

"For to you I come, bending my neck and praying: Do not turn away your face from me, nor reject me from among your children, but count me, your sinful and unworthy servant, worthy to offer these gifts to you. For you are the one who offers and is offered, who receives and is distributed, Christ our God, and to you we give glory, together with your Father, who is without beginning, and your all-holy good and life-giving Spirit, now and for ever and forever. Amen."

Christ is my priest, offering and offered. I have no other, and no other can or will turn me from him.

Jewish World Review June 18, 2002
Cal Thomas

The Catholic (universal) problem

"The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it." That was Albert Einstein and while he was not known as a religious man, his mini-homily could apply to the sexual abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church.

Catholic Bishops, meeting in Dallas last week, adopted a new policy designed to ban any priest who has ever sexually assaulted a minor from ministerial duties. The policy stops short of defrocking such priests and the bishops disciplined none of their own for their Watergate-style cover-up of past transgressions. The new policy promises to alert civil authorities to all future allegations of sexual abuse by clergy against minors.

That is a good step, but the fact is many bishops who occupied a unique place of authority and trust did nothing and, thus, allowed evil to spread like untreated cancer throughout the church body. They also caused the name of the One they profess to follow to be dragged through the mud and held up to ridicule by nonbelievers.

The problem of sexual sin by clergy is not exclusively Catholic. In the March 30 issue of World magazine, an Evangelical Protestant publication, writer Lynn Vincent describes the "lurking sex scandal" within Protestant churches. Vincent cites Joe E. Trull, co-author of "Ministerial Ethics" (1993), who helped write the clergy sexual abuse policy for the Baptist General Convention of Texas:

"From his study of literature on clergy sexual abuse, (Trull) concludes that 'from 30 to 35 percent of ministers of all denominations admit to having sexual relationships - from inappropriate touching and kissing to sexual intercourse - outside of marriage.' Mr. Trull estimates that 'at least half' of that contact occurs in pastoral counseling."

While there is no current list of offending pastors, Vincent quotes from a 1984 survey by Fuller Seminary of 1,200 ministers. It found one in five theologically conservative pastors admitting to some sexual contact outside of marriage with a church member, with over two-fifths of theologically "moderate" and half of theologically "liberal" pastors confessing to similar behavior. A Web site (www.advocateweb.com [advocateweb.com]) includes stories of sexual abuse by Protestant ministers.

The problem is more than denominational. It is cultural and personal. Clergy are people, subject to the same temptations as the laity. But when the doctrine of G-d's grace has been cheapened by easy forgiveness and too-rapid restoration (attention church shoppers: those with 10 or fewer sins, please use the express checkout line), it is bound to affect even Christian leadership.

When lay people see TV evangelists committing adultery and quickly returning to television, when they see prominent Christian singers and authors having affairs, divorcing spouses and marrying someone else (and their Christian music companies and book publishers continuing to promote their wares, even using their sin as a marketing tool), why should anyone think that G-d is offended by such behavior? The message is that the bottom line is more important than the offense to a holy G-d.

The media and various authority figures constantly grant "permission" to sin by their words and deeds, thus encouraging more people to sin. There are now activists for virtually anything our lower nature urges us to do and, according to them, the real "sinners" are those who say what they advocate is wrong.

Having what one wants without consequences is a notion as old as the Garden of Eden. Satan told our first parents they could ignore G-d, eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and they would not die (see Genesis 2:16 and 3:4). He appealed to their pride to "be like G-d," though they already were, having been made in His image. That is why pride goes before every other sin. Culture and some theologians assert we can do what we want and who is anyone to say otherwise? If people say otherwise, they are called bigots and intolerant fundamentalists.

The offending Catholic priests and the bishops who covered up for them believed it was more important to preserve the institution than insure its integrity and purity. In fact, they are guilty of trespassing on G-d's property and their self-conceit is an offense, not only to Him, but also to every Catholic and non-Catholic.

Perhaps that is why Peter admonished the church, "For it is time for judgment to begin with the family of G-d." (1 Peter 4:17)

Elias,

In theory much of what you write is certainly true. Nevertheless, does it really cover someone who is intentionally hurting others and intentionally disobeying Church order and who justifies his behavior. Temptations to sin can be strong. They are certainly strong in different areas for different people. However, the real problem is continual sinful behavior which the perpetrator tries to justify has somehow acceptable because he is who he is. Would Jesus have tried to justify his behavior if He had refused the cross? Maybe so, but there would have been no salvation for Him or for us if He had. I'm seriously beginning to wonder if the Romans Catholics had it quite right when they seem to justify evil by implying that evil priests should continue in their work and continue to sin. It would seem that the modern application for such doctrine goes something like this, "Yes, do sin, that grace may abound."

It doesn't ring true, does it?

Dan Lauffer

Dear Dan,

Yes, you are right. There is no excuse for sin or depravity of any kind. My thoughts are not meant to excuse anyone who is hurting others, or disobeying the discipline of the Church. I did not mean that of course. I did not offer an excuse for any illegal, illicit, or immoral behaviour.

Personally I am so saddened by this whole matter, and the temptation to discouragement and even despair is real. This is a passion, and among those that priests [I] face daily today.

In other posts, I have made my thoughts on immoral priests, and perpetrators of rape and crimes against children clear. I shouldn't have posted, I suppose, without repeating all of those comments. I had hoped my thoughts on that were remembered. Criminals, and immoral priests should be removed from the ministry. I do not excuse them, and I support the Bishops' policy.

I am trying to wrestle with the issue of "scandal". I have spoken with parishioners and others who are concerned about what they have heard, and I wonder how to counsel them? What I am trying to consider 'aloud' with my friends here on the forum, is that though scandal remains, we have some control over what scandalizes us, and we must not let immorality drive us from our Church or the sacraments. That is the issue that some are dealing with, it is a real question, and it demands a pastoral response.

I decry, and do not excuse priests who have betrayed their priesthood. How are we to address those who are deeply troubled?

I still think part of the calamity of the current scandal is the result of the unreal expectations of post Vatican II priestly life. It is not an excuse, but an attempt to identify some possible answer to the title of this thread "cause".

We must not forget that priests, like people wrestle with passions, and their interior struggles do not diminish the gift of Divine Life in the Mysteries and the Liturgy. Is that a pastoral point that would be helpful, to those among the faithful who are troubled?

The "cause" is sin and evil. But the tools the evil one uses are subtle, and not always as simple as 'lust'.
Please forgive me, I should not have waded again into this topic. This sadness is on my mind every day, and occupies time even in prayer. It takes so much out of me, when I think of it. I cannot adequately convey this here, and hope you understand. The thought that I am making excuses for sin, or errant priests hurts, and I regret posting if that is what my post implied. I am trying to cope with the pain I feel... This scandal causes more than 'sadness' and 'disappointment'. It is crippling. It steals pastoral zeal. It is lonely, and dark, for who understands? It makes the isolation felt by a priest more of a burden than usual, and it tempts one to hide away more. It battles holy hope, and challenges faith. People ask me for guidance to help them understand, and enable them to cope. How can I offer this, when understanding escapes me, and grief overwhelms? I feel their sense of shock, and it is more serious for me, because I am a priest. Perhaps it would be easier to deal with, if I were not, and could simply stand back and be outraged from outside the clerical order.

Elias

Fr. Elias - Yes we are indeed unworthy, all of us. As a seminarian, these prayers and your reflections weigh heavily on my conscience.

Will I be worthy, free of pasions?

But should an "unworthy" priest, as all are to some degree, if he should molest, or rape a minor, should he be allowed to still function as a priest? That is the question that I is more specific to my thoughts on Moe's statements, not the general sinful state of all humanity.

If one says, "Homosexual acts are sinful." and another replies "But all sexual acts of lust outside of marriage are sinful." Granted this is true, but it avoids coming to an acknowledgment that the former in and of itself is sinful.

That the priests think they can get away with this behavior does show an acute spiritual crisis which is of the vice of lust and self-centeredness. That the bishops thought that they did not have any moral obligation to handle these situations in a decisive way also shows us another crisis in the Church. Now we must report them to the authorities, so that they can deal with the criminals, but had our church leaders done something about the problem, then maybe they would be able to deal with the problem themselves. That the bishops do not have any policy, as of yet, that will remove bishops from the episcopal office who do not handle such crimes in their kingdom also is disgusting.


The whole thing stinks. This thread is becoming spiritually destructive in itself.

ALity

Actually, I was thinking that this thread has become merely tiresome, but Ality's last comment is more apt.


Incidentally, for those to whom this is still new, a hieromonk is a priest and should be addressed "Father." Granted, it's hard to get used to all this "Byzantine" terminology, but for some of us it is a little grating.

Thank you Father Elias for your usual erudite Spirit-filled wisdom!

[ 06-19-2002: Message edited by: Lemko Rusyn ]

Dear Father Elias,

The Eastern prayer that you shared is a beautiful restatement of the old Roman Catholic teaching that you talk about. It is still the teaching of the Roman Church.

What happens at Mass does not depend on the moral status of the priest who presides and offers the sacrifice. For example, it is not because the priest is a man named Roger that the Mass is the Eucharistic re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Jesus. It is because the man Roger, unworthy though he may be, has been chosen to be used to be the vehicle through which God communicates Himself to us.

The great majority of Roman Catholics are in horror and angry about the abuse of trust on the part of some priests. In media reports though, Roman Catholics say their faith is undisturbed and that they will continue to participate in Mass. In terms of the example above, they seem to know the difference between Roger and Jesus.

I have a couple of questions about parts of your posting though. I ask them respectfully.

You wrote:

"It is the post-Vatican II obsession with the "face" and personality of the priest (since he is now facing me) which obscures this old teaching and has encouraged us to focus on the priest. As the icons and statues were removed, all that was left was the icon of the priests face, and that is so troublesome."

When you say this, what are you saying?

Do you mean that somehow the change from priest facing away from the people to the priest facing the people is the cause or is connected to the cause of the problems that were dealt with in Dallas?

Do you mean that these liturgical changes are somehow a cause for the problems of pedophilia or ephebophila among the small number of priests who have behaved in such a horrible fashion?

Do you mean that it is somehow wrong for a priest to feel a serious responsibility to celebrate Mass in an effective manner?

Here's why I am asking. Your comments could be misconstrued to mean that Latin Catholics see the priest as Roger to be the most important element in the Mass.

Dr. John has written often about the need for the priest, Eastern Catholic, Orthodox, or Latin Catholic to effectively celebrate the Liturgy. To do so does not mean that the Mass belongs to the priest more than it does to the community for which he celebrates it. It seems to me that for a priest to consciously work to try to effectively celebrate the liturgy does not mean that it is any less the work of Christ who uses the priest to re-present His Sacrifice.

Effective celebration is a tool to bring people to Christ and to help them to participate more deeply in the Liturgy. It was this that I understood when I heard in the Roman seminary the same words that you did.

It seems to me that your comments could lead to conclusions about the effect of current Liturgical practices in the Western Church that are not what you intend. Your words could lead persons to conclude that Roman Catholics do not understand that it is Jesus who is the High Priest and focus at the Mass and not Roger.

I find it difficult to discern a way to connect the position of the priest's body at Mass with a cause for the problem that is under discussion in this thread. I find it equally difficult to understand how removing statues or icons from the Roman Catholic Churches which do not have them are connected to the cause for the same problem.
(The great majority of our Churches still have statues and other traditional appointments in them in my experience.)

You say to Dan, "I still think part of the calamity of the current scandal is the result of the unreal expectations of post Vatican II priestly life. It is not an excuse, but an attempt to identify some possible answer to the title of this thread 'cause'."

I do not see the causal connection.

Perhaps I have misunderstood your comments. If so, please help me to understand.

If I have understood your meaning, I am puzzled because I know that you respect the Liturgies of all of the Churches.

In that case, can you clarify your comments so that those who are not familiar with the Roman Church and our Liturgy will not be tempted to conclude that our Liturgical practices are a cause for scandalous and sinful behavior.

I ask this with great respect for Christ and His Priesthood and for you who share it. I ask your blessing.

Steve

[ 06-19-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

[ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

Forgive me Father Elias. I meant no disrespect.

Dan Lauffer

Dear Ality,

You ask:

"But should an "unworthy" priest, as all are to some degree, if he should molest, or rape a minor, should he be allowed to still function as a priest?"

Of course not! I have said above, and repeat, that no molestor or rapist should be functioning as a priest, and I support the policy published by our bishops.

Elias

Dear Steve,

You are right to ask me to be clearer. I have quite strong opinions about Liturgy, and specifically how the revised Roman Ritual has promoted the "cult" of the priesthood, in a way never experienced before the Council. (...but that belongs in another thread?)

I believe that the efficient cause (to be scholastic) of the scandal we are experiencing is sexual abuse by priests. The proximate cause (which also explains the intensity of the reaction) is the "cult" of the priesthood.

Why do I say this? Well, it is said that there is exactly the same figures for sexual abuse of minors among other non-catholic clergy, youth workers, teachers, office workers, etc. etc. Why is the catholic priesthood receiving the unrelenting attention of media and courts? Why do they not include all abusers in the spotlight? What is different that makes priests merit the media concern?

Because, since the Council, the person of the priest has been a main focus and locus of the spiritual experience of the average Catholic. "I like the way Father Fred says Mass." "I don't get anything out of Father Joe's Mass." "Father Tom celebrates a beautiful Mass." I have heard these and similar comments.
I could write a book about this topic, but this is off topic here. I think it is important that we discuss Liturgical issues on this forum. Especially as some of the revisions proposed in the Byzantine Liturgy greatly expand the audible priestly parts, at the expense of cutting out diaconal and congregational hymns and prayers, shifting the existing balance within the genius of the Liturgy of Saint John. But to expand that point is clearly off topic too.

You are right to ask how I can connect Liturgical revisionism with this scandal. Clearly the only cause is the sinfulness of priests who rape children.

But, I think there is a connection, not as an 'efficient' cause, but merely as a 'proximate' cause with the intensity of the scandal, and the gravity of the distress felt by the faithful. It doesn't cause the scandal, but it causes the intense distress which is connected to it.

I should explain this better, but I must go. I am sorry if I cannot explain this adequately. It would have been better not to make the point, than to make it poorly, as I have done.

Elias