www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Pedophile priest recounts years of abuse

Associated Press Story [portal.wowway.net]

I have no idea if this thing actually rips on the Catholic Church or not, but it sounds like something that probably shouldn't be shown in too many public places.

Thank God we don't have homosexual or pedophile priests here!

I hope you never do, kid.


I am not surprised that there are so many Priests who are child molesters. many Priests I have known are quite childish in their behaviour, and I suspect that their psycho sexual level is at a prespubescent level. I also fault the training some of the older pedos had in Catholic school with all this Augustinian crap that sex is so nasty and sinful, etc. and that staying away from the opposite sex is superior to marriage (odd, and Rome wants us to breed like rabbits, isn't sex involved here?)ironic, St. Augustine had a problem with sex, I am reading that in his Confessions.why all this double talk from Latin theologians throughout the centuries?
as a moderator for a site visited mainly by young people, I am quite sensitive to the problem of pedophilia. last year we had a pedo wanting pictures of boys as young as eight in their underwear. this wretch tried to pass himself off as being twelve (and just the week before, he was thirteen, how old is he now, two?). the kids caught on, I printed up its (yes, I did say "its") posts, faxed them to my lawyer and notified the FBI. the FBI never contacted me and the pedo has evidently found another hunting ground. this, and the fact that when I was eight or nine, some pedo tried to yank me into his car, right there in broad daylight, and in the presence of my shocked playmates. I was able to wrest my arm free, a couple of kids told their parents, and I guess they called the cops, but I just went home, so I don't know.
we need to rid the Priesthood of all the creeps of whatever ilk. I really don't care about the Priest shortage, and thus we need all the Priests we can get. that is no excuse, nor am I satisfied with the Bishops who covered up all the scandals in their dioceses.speaking of Bishops, in the Knoxville Dioces, our founding Bishop was transferred to the Palm Beach Dioces after their Bishop was tossed out for being a pedo. guess what,folks? our former Bishop was no better. we have many decent married men who are currently Anglican or Protestant clergy who are seeking to join the Catholic Church. I say ordain these men at the speed of light and have them pastor our parishes.kids are not there for the lust of a few pervs. and until the Bishops repent of their coverup and do something, I cannot lend them the least damned bit of credence when they whine about abortion, stem cell research, or anything else. what do they want us, the Faithful to do? have more kids for pedos to molest? no wonder we are in such bad shape! Blessed Mary Immaculate Theotokos, pray for us!
Much Love,
Jonn

Unfortunately, married people can be molesters too, as several recent cases in our area have shown. Two involved married Protestant clergymen. Simply bringing married men into the priesthood will NOT resolve the problem; we need to have priests who are willing to remain chaste according to their state in life (in a society which refuses to honor almost any kind of self-control), and we need bishops who support good priests and dismiss bad ones.

That man is a sicko and the interview probably does more harm than good, though I guess it's a catharsis for the victims. Those with eyes to see and ears to hear can observe this guy closely and use their observations to recognized other possibly hidden sickos.

Jonn, are you a convert? I ask because I've noticed that cradle catholics are din my mind disturbingly passive about these scandal and defensive of protests against them. It's the converts who get up in arms at the mere thought of them.

Can anybody explain this? I assume it's a serious cultural difference between cradle and convert mentality.

Peace,
Indigo

This is my take on this:
The Church has some weeds in the wheat field. I know I also have weeds in my wheat field or I would have no sin. Most of my weeds were planted in early childhood. The childhood of the Church would be the early years.
The Church while it has the largest clump of the Holy Spirit has to be missing some small parts. Sometimes a splinter group gets hold of a missing piece of truth and starts a religion from that.
I pray for the day when all followers of Christ come together as one.

Wonderful point, ByzKat! The majority of those who sexually abuse minors are married men. They tend to be fathers, step-fathers, uncles, grandpas, neighbors, teachers, coaches. They also tend to be very charismatic which allows people to overlook the odd situations by attributing positive intentions to them. They, naturally, gravitate to places they will find children. Protestant ministers (typically youth ministers) have been charged and convicted with this crime more frequently than Catholic ministers. The clergy being a cross-cut of our society, though, we are seeing the ills of our society reflected in our priests. It is an outrage. It is intolerable. We must work to address it swiftly and fairly. But allowing married priests will not solve this problem. It could actually complicate it as it would provide the perfect cover for children staying the night with them--what better excuse than a children's slumber party? The issue is not their married state but their psychological and psycho-sexual one.

Those with an attraction to children will not be satisfied with the marital bed. Those with an attraction to children will not be satisfied with a spouse. I have seen statistics that say the majority of people with attractions to children never act on them. The problem is, though, that they do always have the attraction and it isn't going to go away without serious, intensive, long term therapy (and even then might only be kept under control, but not gone).

I do understand that the argument could be tendered that we could be more choosy in the psychological state of seminarians if we had more seminarians to choose from. In the Latin church, the married diaconate is quite recent, and it has not produced the flood of applicants predicted. Surely in the east there is considerable room for improvement based on our traditions and not on the clergy sex scandals. But married priests will not resolve the latter problem any more than celibate ones did. We need to reform our society and we need to reform the culture of our church, and then the vocations will flow from that.

Most uncles, grandpas, and cousins molest girls. The priests overwhelmingly molested teen-age boys.

Yes. Are you implying that it is worse to molest a boy than a girl? Of those who are attracted to children, there are those attracted to the same sex as themselves or the opposite sex as themselves. The mere fact that they are attracted to children at all shows a stunted psycho-sexual development which is not conducive to the priesthood. There are several explanations for why this is so, but none of them minimize the damage done by molesters toward children of either sex.

1. Maybe the gravity of molesting a girl kept those attracted to young girls from acting on their inclinations while those with same-sex inclinations were able to pass it off more easily. Reports show that molesters really did not understand at the time that they were hurting the children and only come to realize this in counseling after the fact (generalized, and not specific to priests). Not an excuse, but a possible explanation.

2. Maybe those with an attraction to young girls did not seek out the priesthood in the same numbers. If they were attracted to teenage girls, they might have been more inclined to marry a young woman. (Then most likely divorce her in 5-10 years for another young woman, but that doesn't involve the priesthood.)

3. Maybe those with a professed attraction to girls were moved more quickly for any number of reasons, thus limiting their contact. (Homosexuality being far more taboo until very recently, they might have thought those attracted to same-sex would never act on it with it being a much bigger taboo.)

4. Maybe those with same-sex tendencies were put in situations that made it easier to act on their desires than those with opposite sex attractions (ie: minor seminaries, altar boys, etc)

5. Perhaps those with opposite sex tendencies tried to fulfill their desires with young women (18+) instead.

The fact of the matter is that the system is broken. There were several other intervening factors at the time most of these molestations occurred. Our society was becoming one that revolved around sex and sexuality. The respect for the church and the priest was declining. The adherence to the tenets of the faith by those who were connected to the church and teaching in the seminaries was on a great decline (with entire books promoting "experimenting" with the liturgy being promoted through said seminaries.) The (secular) psychologists were reporting that pedophilia could be overcome with counseling and recommending the priests be returned to their assignments. The taboo against homosexuality along with the fear of an authority figure molesting a child along with the attacks against the church already going on that the people and the hierarchy did not want to compound all combined to keep the victims from speaking up. These factors need to be evaluated individually and collectively, then acted on to keep this from happening again.

Having married priests in the Latin church is a goal I've always supported, but I do not believe it will cure the priest shortage or the sex abuse problems. Married priests should be allowed in their own right, not because some celibate priests messed it up. We need to change the culture within the church before any real growth can occur, and I see that culture changing right before my eyes. Compare the seminarians of the 60s to the seminarians of today. The most conservative orders are growing while the most heterodox are dwindling. The youth are much more active and aware of the tenets of their faith. Sexuality is being reclaimed and put in its proper perspective. Seminaries are returning to morality in all things, which in turn will include sexuality. These things will combine to change the face of the church, just as their opposites did much to its detriment a few decades ago. That the majority of victims were boys really has nothing to do with any of that.

#s 1,2,4,&5 were what I was implying.

Having homosexuals in the priesthood only leaves them in (in Latin terms) a near occasion of sin.

Homosexuals (certainly active ones) should not be allowed in the seminaries.

Does anyone know if a married priest has ever been indicted for ephebophilia in recent years?

It is not better or worse to molest a boy or a girl, both are mortal sins and if not confessed and forgiven will damn the offender to unquenchable fire.

But my whole point in this is that I think for decades upon decades the seminary system was infiltrated and corrupted by those who would use it to bring down the Church from the inside by creating these abominable "priests."

Again I don't understand what homosexuals have to do with pedophiles. One is attracted to those of a legal age and the same sex, the other is attracted to children. What would barring those with SSA do for the problem of pedophilia? And what does a married ephebophile priest have to do with the discussion? As you apparently assent, there are a number of complicating factors that make such a comparison unequal.

So you are saying homosexual men taught seminarians to be pedophiles? I don't get the connection. I do agree that the seminaries was one of the compounding problems. I argue, though, that the state of the seminary was reflecting the state of the church, which in turn affected the church, which affected the seminaries. It is a merry-go-round that it finally being put to a stop with devout men who are answering the call to the priesthood and good leaders who are welcoming them into service for the church. It will in turn create good leaders who will attract new devout men. The key is where we as a church, the laity, the culture, stand. Instead of a perversion of sexuality, our current problem is a perversion of life itself. Look for talks 30 years from now about priests who assisted in abortions, euthanasia, etc. If the culture of the church doesn't change (which it is), that is where we will go.

Once again, a homosexual priest who lives in a minor seminary with teen-age boys would be perpetually in a near occasion of sin. Just like if I lived in a women's dormitory.

And... there is no difference between a person who is 17 years and 364 days old and a person who is 18 years and 2 days old. They're both sexually mature and indistiguishable, it is a matter of semantics and the law of the pariticular state that one happens to live in.

The age of consent varies by state, from 13-18 years of age.

I'm not encouraging any sinful behavior, I'm trying to demonstrate that putting a person in a near occasion of sin is a bad idea.

There is not a big difference in the same individual 3 days later. There is, however, a large difference between children of these ages. I know of many young adults who are easily manipulated and taken advantage of into the early 20s. I also know of many young teens who were manipulative and took advantage of others. The age is an average age one could expect the average child to be mature enough to make such a decision while keeping in mind the restrictions one places on those who are above the average line as well as one own's ability to enforce the rule. Do you argue that all 13 year olds are equivalent to 18 year olds? If so, there would be no problem in having them in minor seminaries with active homosexuals because the 13 year olds could make such a decision themselves. That's preposterous!

A married ephebophile (again point out to me any discernable difference between a person who is 17 years and 364 days old and a person who is 18 years and 2 days old) should probably not be near any person who is a near occasion of sin... period.

Is it not hard to conceive that a predatory person would not look for a teen-aged boy who showed tendencies to act in a homosexual manner and try to convince him to enter the minor seminary so that he could do what he wanted? And if the boy was inclined to homosexual activities, that he would be easier to molest?

And that as a priest the former seminarian would in turn corrupt the next generation?

Pope Leo XIII had a vision in which the Church would be attacked by the devil in the 20th century. And in LaSalette Our Lady ahd allegedly warned that our priests would be corrupted. Maybe there was something really from heaven in those appartions.