There are two sources to this unprecedented scandal in the Church. One is post-Vatican II and the other is pre-Vatican II. But both together account for the meltdown we are now experiencing compounded by a 1970's thinking pope.
Let's start with the pre-Vatican II problem. The priesthood of course creates an indelible mark on the soul of the priest at his ordination. Once a priest always a priest. This is dogma. Not even lacization changes this. Only a canonical trial to determine the validity of ordination can declare a priest was not validly ordained a priest can deal with some of the most egregious derelicts concerning some of the miscreant priests and their depraved acts to determine if their ordinations were valid or not. I know of no situation in modern times where a canonical trial of this sort has taken place. These trials should be recovered in our modern day.
But apart from that are the bishops who mismanaged miscreant priests and recycled them back into ministry after lengthy and very costly residential psychiatric treatment thereapy.
Why did they do this? Partly because of this "once a priest always a priest" mentality. Let me give anecdotal evidence for this:
When as a baby priest I was on the bishop's personnel board in the early 1980's under the late Bishop Raymond Lessard, we were discussing a priest who was a personnel problem. As far as I know it didn't have to do with sexual abuse of anyone but rather his incompetence and the bishop's inability to assign him to anything but a made up ministry. So I asked, why don't you just fire him? I was so naive!
My bishop with fire in his eyes retorted to this young upstart that when a priest is ordained, the priest's relationship to his bishop and diocese is like the Sacrament of Marriage. The priest is wedded to the diocese and the bishop can't divorce him from his diocese.
In private Bishop Lessard read me the riot act for being so brash and unthinking in a personnel board meeting and putting him on the spot! In those days, I was kind of liberal and kind of enjoyed challenging Bishop Lessard and putting him on the spot.
This brings me to the post-Vatican II problem with all of what I described above but built upon the pre-Vatican II theology of once a priest always a priest. It has to do with the triumphalism of the post-Vatican II Church which makes the pre-Vatican II version look like a shack.
The Church can bring about God's kingdom on earth by her efforts to fix everything and everyone. It is truly a eutopian ideology bound to fail and cause havoc for the Church all everyone in it, kind of like other eutopian ideologies like Nazism and Communism and secularism.
Part of the post-Vatican II Church's concern for ecology is that the Church can fix global warming and other problems of nature which some in the Church think are manmade. Of course this might be true or it might not be true but what the heck, let the Church stick her institutional nose into science which really isn't the Church's mandate.
Part of fixing things was to fix miscreant priests and it was all based upon the heretical theology of mercy as it has developed in the post-Vatican II Church and placed on steroids by Pope Francis, but with his version clearly found in the Church of the 1970's prior to Pope St. John Paul II. The Church's version of mercy fixes all.
Thus, we see in Pope Francis' version of 1970's mercy, the true problem. Mercy means restoration and usually doesn't entail justice whatsoever especially life long justice or the death penalty if only symbolic. Thus Pope Francis didn't think Cardinal McCarrick's peccadilloes that were homosexual and directed towards men of age who were good looking seminarians and priests, rose to the level of lacizing him or making him do a life of prayer and penance in the seclusion of a monastery.
Pope Francis forgave that and gave Cardinal McCarrick room to be one of his advisors even to the point of naming new bishops for our country. It wasn't until the underage stuff came out that the pope took his red hat and ordered a canonical trial.
The pope has also said we shouldn't punish forever a priest who acted out sexually in the youth of his priesthood especially if he abused only on teenager.
Yes, there is that kind of thinking in the minds of popes and bishops as well as brother priests and many laity. That's the root of the post-Vatican II's version of this scandal, mercy without justice.
22 comments:
Mercy and forgiveness don't mean you let the fox back in the hen house because he swears he'll behave this time.
Fr. McDonald,
I was always taught the once a priest always a priest (indelible mark on his soul) concept from my days in the little Catholic school we used to have here in Waycross. Believe me, I understand that.
Still, given this most recent wave of horrendous revelations that have emerged regarding sexual abuse by clerics (of children, mostly male, as well as seminarians and junior priests), it is patently obvious to me that a gay element in the clergy is a major part of the problem. So we may be stuck with a significant group of gay priests (some truly celibate and some, at least 4% but likely more--just haven't been caught, sexually active and a major problem and liability for the Church).
I say that we are in for a long period of painful purification in the Church which may result in many more parishes without resident priests and parish closings due to lack of priests to staff them. The problematic abusing priests MUST be removed from active ministry. We will lose their services as priests. Further, and this may sound "homophobic" and offensive to some, but I believe that men with homosexual proclivities should not be accepted in the seminaries. I have read that Rome issued a directive to this effect during B16's tenure but it has not been uniformly followed.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Church still considers homosexuality to be a "disordered condition". We should love and pray for these people and they should be accepted into our parishes and deserve our prayer and support as they struggle to live our their lives chastely. However, how can it be a good practice to allow men with such a disorder to be our spiritual advisers when they suffer from such a wounding psychological disability themselves (I am only going by what I understand the Church's position on this condition--not what any secular psychological professional group may have said in 1975)? When they have such an issue that can be so self-consuming and inner-directing how can they effectively focus outward to help others?
Fr McD:
"But apart from that are the bishops who mismanaged miscreant priests and recycled them back into ministry after lengthy and very costly residential psychiatric treatment thereapy.
Why did they do this? Partly because of this "once a priest always a priest" mentality."
Indeed, the other part is the influence of modern (relativistic) thinking in the Church. Rather than look at the issue of sexually abusive priests as one of sin, it was/is too often looked at as a psychiatric problem (I even heard that from the pope recently with regards to kids). This may be anathema to the Modernists, but psychiatry or psychology are not sciences, but are, rather, in the realm of opinion which shifts depending on which protagonists gain influence. One day modern psychologists consider homosexuality an illness, the next day they do not. In post V2 theology it is sin that often becomes looked at as being in the realm of opinion, particularly sexual sin, which shifts depending on which protagonist theologians gain influence (eg contraception).
The view of God's mercy following the Council (or perhaps even suggested by the Council) is at the root of the problem. With a view that seems to be that of the pope sometimes, sin, particularly sexual sins, are no longer taken seriously. In that case, priests following their sexual proclivities becomes a matter not of sin but of not getting caught by those who would object. That is how the Catholic priesthood became a great place for homosexuals after the Council.
Taken to its logical conclusion, God's infinite mercy without His infinite justice is Universalism in which everyone is saved; you really have to not want to go to heaven to not go there.
What conflict is there between “once a priest, always a priest” and removing any number of responsibilities and privileges from someone? Per your example of the poor incompetent priest he could have been assigned something according to his ability. He can still treated with respect and kindness. I had an enlisted man who had a terrible time gaining rank although he was hard working and honest within his ability. It was tough to keep him in the service but he knew his limits and was greatful to do what he could. A good example for others of any rank.
In contrast I once removed rank from an officer and made him the lowest possible enlisted rank to serve his sentence. When he was released I was contacted with the request to reinstate him to O-3; the excuse given was that it was a demeaning rank for him to retire. At the time I was acquainted with a prior enlisted retired captain with three Purple Hearts, Navy Cross with ‘V’ and three other awards with multiple combat devices. I would not use the prisoner’s hide for the captains door mat. I recommended the prisoner be released and retired at the lowest possible rank. It is possible that after the statutory five years he appealed to Congress and was reinstated to his former rank. I did what I could do and leave to let the congressman answer for what he did.
With regards to God's mercy, I found this post from the old WCR, now shut down by the Bishop of Edmonton (Alberta), on Francis/Vatican II's view of mercy. As short as it is, it accurately explains a lot:
https://www.wcr.ab.ca/Columns/Columns/entryid/7114
Yes I knew Wayward and despised him for what I intuitively thought he was doing although I had no hard evidence. As a young priest I was scandalized by older priests jokingly referring him as Waywsrd. If what others thought was his waywardness why hadn’t bishop Lessard sacked him?
In fact I asked that question at the same personnel board meeting in the early 89’s that if what Wayland was doing what all idof us think he’s doing, isn’t that immoral and a criminal offense.
Bishop Lesssrd coddled him and tried to fix him and sent him to St. Luke’s and we were told he was an alcoholic!!!! About a year later Lessard confided in me a very difficult meeting he had with Wsyland but not going into the meat of it. I finally said to him “why don’t you fire that fucking ass!” I was angry and sorry for the uncensored quote, but that was my sngry response. He then placed Wayland on a non assigned status but could say a nursing home Mass. this was 1987. To his credit Lesssrd developed protocols in 87,88 to deal with sexual abuse similar to the 2002 charter.
Sorry for typos posting with iPhone
Thank you, Father.
I first met that a-hole in 1977 when he was transferred by the Bishop to an Augusta parish—I was working in the office as a volunteer for the Pastor and secretary trying to get our first computerized listing of parishioners. He did great damage while there. The Pastor involved stayed distraught, and on a fishing trip with my husband confessed his distress which included abuse of the Pastors beloved dog. Nausea doesn’t even begin to describe...
See: http://www.snapnetwork.org/ga_damning_church_document_surfaces
You had serious concerns about Fr. Brown. Did you contact the legal authorities?
The authorities investigated him in Augusta and Moultrie and Maryland in the early 80’s.
But, you said you had serious concerns about Fr. Brown. Did you contact the legal authorities?
You seem to be very dense. The authorities were notified as far back as the 80's and did not arrest him because they lacked evidence. So your beef is with the authorities and even poor victims who did not report him, to include their parents who were suspicious. It wasn't until 2002 that a victim well into his 40's accused him in Maryland that he was arrested, put on trial and served prison time.
No, I am not dense. I asked if you had gone to the legal authorities to report what you said you suspected. Did you?
No, you are beyond dense.
To the dense Anon:
Prior to 1980, it is very likely that only the Bishop knew the actual allegations/facts; thus he is the one who should have notified legal authorities. If you study the record, no allegations were made to a named parish priest, and certainly not to a newbie like Fr. McDonald. Gossip and innuendo are not enough to go on. But the Bishop...?
In that era, the bishops in general were erroneously thinking that reprimand, then “treatment” at St. Luke’s was the way to go. Many of them made that wrong-headed, cataclysmic mistake. Now many of them are dead, so they can’t be questioned.
Anon 3:00 pm
Bishops listened to pyschologists, PR types, and lawyers instead of Christ:
"But whoso shall cause one of these little ones who believe in Me to fall, it were better for him that a millstone were hung about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea".
Disastrous choice.
"Prior to 1980, it is very likely that only the Bishop knew the actual allegations/facts;..."
Not so. Unless the Bishop was the witness or the victim, there HAD to be other who were aware of the actual allegations/facts. The victim - usually a minor who I am NOT blaming - his/her parents or teachers, the parish priest or parochial vicar - other knew and did not report to legal authorities.
"If you study the record, no allegations were made to a named parish priest, and certainly not to a newbie like Fr. McDonald."
How then does Fr. McDonald come to assert that, "older priests jokingly referring him as Waywsrd (sic)". Were they using their "intuition" as Fr. McDonald says he was, or were there significant rumors and tales that led a significant number of clergy, including Fr. McDonald, to have significant concerns?
My point is that, in those days, we, almost all of us, did not act with adequate, to put it mildly, concern and care for those who might be endangered. It is very easy now to look back and say "They were wrong" or "They didn't act appropriately" or "The Bishops were at fault."
If you see something or have a reasonable suspicion, say something.
What seems to be lost in all of this comments is what I have reiterated over and over again, law enforcement in Augusta and Mountie, Ga were, let me repeat that, were notified about concerns prior to 1985 and did investigations and no charges were filed. It seems to me law enforcement failed in their jobs, no? It wasn't until 2002 when the one who actually was an eyewitness to the facts, one victim, came forward as an adult and courageously pressed charges that led to a conviction and prison term. Two Savannahians have done do again recently and Wayland is in jail in Jasper County, SC awaiting trial. Fortunately there are no statutes of limitations in SC and Wayland brought some of his middle school victims there for his perverted abuses.
I might add that I wrote an op ed piece around 2002 for the Augusta Chronicle about Wayland Brown and asked his victims in Augusta to come forward. I do not believe any did. I was also interviewed on a local 3 hour afternoon radio talk show about the sexual abuse crisis and encouraged victims to come forward.
What seems to be lost, actually, is a response to the earlier question, "You had serious concerns about Fr. Brown. Did you contact the legal authorities?"
If you did, good. If you did not, why not?
"It seems to me law enforcement failed in their jobs, no?"
No. Investigations by law enforcement don't always get all the facts. Investigators aren't infallible, are they? Let's not shift the blame.
Dense, have you ever had an intuitive sense about criminal activity of a person and reported that intuition to law enforcement without any evidence whatsoever? Yes or no. Let me reiterate, because of your denseness, law enforcement was notified and no charges were filed.
Fr. McDonald, what you did was courageous. What did Mr. Anonymous (you know who) do?
Post a Comment