August 8, 2015 Sexual predators are more prevalent among rabbis, pastors and yogis than among Catholic priests But they are not as widely reported by the secular especially the international media

Q&A on the issues of homosexual priests, the pedophilia issue, the biased reporting by the secular media, etc. answered by Bro. Ignatius Mary OLSM, arranged in chronological order:

I was recently in a debate in which I believe I gave a rather poor showing, so I'd like to have some help if the topic were to be broached in the future.

How does one defend the Church in light of the current abuses? What I am referring to are the priest child abuse scandal, etc. How does one defend celibacy in light of these abuses?

Also, how does one also defend the opulence of the Church? It is one of the richest organizations in the world with priceless masterpieces everywhere, yet it preaches the values poverty and selflessness. One of the examples given was the opulence that the local archbishop lives in (a multimillion dollar high rise).

I took the position that the church may have corrupt elements but that comes from being a very old bureaucracy. I said that every organization goes through periods of relative decadence and the Church is fallible in matters of bureaucratic administration and efficiency and therefor mistakes are to be deplored but not unexpected. I also stated that loyalty in the Church was, and needs to be, to the faith of the church. The people who left the church after the abuse didn't "get it." Apostolic tradition is still valid before as well as after and the same is true of Christ's message. He responded by saying, in effect, "by their fruits you shall know them." So, could you help give me some ammunition to help defend this in the future? I honestly believe he's overstating his case as far as corruption is concerned, but I don't have enough facts to prove it. –John

http://oswc.org/stmike/qa/df/viewanswer.asp?QID=65

July 20, 2004

The first thing to remember is that these arguments are false arguments made by unthinking people who are bigots. Remember the source of such ignorant arguments.

With that said, the issue of celibacy has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with sexual abuse. The FACTS are that most child abusers are MARRIED MEN.

Among professionals the 66% of the perpetrators come from the professionals of (in this order) psychiatry, psychology, and social work. This is according to a study by the Wisconsin Psychological Association.

The same study found that only 11% of those in the profession of clergy have molested. Now ANY percentage other than ZERO is too much, but the point is that the largest problem of molesting children is not priest (only 1 1/2 percent of priest have sinned in this way), nor is it clergy; it is the Mental Health Profession.

Who do children end up going to for help once they are molested by clergy? Social workers, psychologist, and psychiatrist (the largest group of professions who molest children).

Secondly, the Church does not teach that molesting children is a good thing. Those priests (who by the way are mostly NOT pedophiles, but homosexuals with teenage boys) committed SIN against the children, against the Church, and against God. The Church does not support sin.

Maybe 1 1/2 percent of priest have sinned in this fashion. A handful of bishops have sinned in covering it up perhaps. There are about half a million bishops and somewhere around 4-5 million priests. In the United States the figures I think are around 46,000 priests and around 428 Bishops and Cardinals. There is a better statistical probability that there is a higher percentage of child molesters in the families of these people who attack the church than there is among priests.

The Church herself cannot be blamed for the sins of its people any more than I can be held responsible for my great, great cousin who was a horse-thief and tarred and feathered and run out of town. Those priests and bishops who committed the sin are responsible for that sin.

As for the "opulence" of the Church and its riches, there is nothing to defend since the Catholic Church is NOT even close to being the richest organization in the world and is NOT opulent. I use to be a member of a Baptist Church that had a budget of $4,000,000 and that was only ONE parish. The Baptist Church down the road had a budget of $20,000,000. Keep in mind these are 1976 dollars.

The artwork at the Vatican are not assets of the Church to use as it pleases to buy expensive steaks or something. That artwork is held in trust in the Vatican museums. Like ANY museum its holdings are in trust to the public. To sell off those holdings is as stupid as any other museum selling its holding so that the hungry can eat for a few days. As the old cliche says, it is better to teach a person how to fish than to give him a fish; to give the hungry food for a week has no meaning against teaching people to fish or farm whereby they can feed themselves for life.

If the Vatican would sell all of these holdings, the hungry of the world will be fed for about one week, and the world will be deprived of the art auctioned off to private collectors and museums scattered throughout the world.

Jesus said that the poor will always be among us. It was Judas who criticized Jesus for what he thought was "opulence". Jesus chastised Judas.

If we are to construct great buildings for kings and presidents, should not God be given a great building? God thinks so. Take a look in the Old Testament when poverty and hunger was about 1000 times worse than today. Despite the hunger and poverty God directed the building of a great and expensive Temple.

Those who make this argument are ignorant of the Bible, and worse, are usually hypocrites. At the same time they are attacking the Church on this, they are spending $20+ on Internet Access (something utterly unnecessary), on coffee, soda pop and meat and other lovely foods while at the same time people are starving, even here in the United States. Think of all the hungry who would be fed for a couple days if all the bigots got off the Internet, gave-up smoking and drinking, sold their boats, move to a low income areas for a cheap house, etc. and spent the saving on feeding the poor. Until they do that, I shall not throw my pearls before swine.

The fact is that the Catholic Church is the NUMBER ONE charity in the world helping the poor. The fact is that nearly all of the great vestments, marble floors and statues are DONATED to the Church by private citizens. The fact is that we can honor God by giving God the best we can offer and at the same time help the poor.

I live on less than $400 per month and I still find the money to support a girl in India whose family makes less than $100 per month. Almost 20% of their income comes from me. Once can do both.

I might add that the apartments of the Pope are small and not that comfortable from what I understand. Until recent years much of the Vatican was falling apart. But let us not confuse the bigots with the facts. :)

For the most part, I would advise NOT arguing with dingbats who make such stupid arguments. St. Paul tells us to not involve ourselves in unproductive argumentation.

In addition, we need to remember Proverbs:

Proverbs 26:4: "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. 5, Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes." -Bro. Ignatius Mary OLSM

I recently had a discussion with someone on the priest abuse scandal. I said that there were two things that make it more difficult than if it were just some scandal within the management of a big corporation:

1) Once ordained a priest, a person remains a priest, and he still has those "powers." They cannot be taken away any more than an MD can have knowledge sucked out of him when convicted of malpractice.

2) The church preaches forgiveness and the possibility of redemption from even the most heinous sins. For the Church to be unforgiving would be terrible.

On #1 was I right? What happens to these priests who have been found to be guilty of child molestation, etc.? What does the Church do? What constraints are on the Church theologically that wouldn't be on, say, Burger King or Microsoft? -David

http://oswc.org/stmike/qa/fs/viewanswer.asp?QID=81

July 29, 2004

You are correct and the analogy of a Medical Doctor is a good one. The Medical Doctor still has the "powers" of medical treatment at his disposal even if his license to practice medicine is revoked.

If he performs medical procedures, those medical procedures are still valid, but he performs them illegally.

The same goes for a "defrocked" priest. Once a person is validly ordained a priest, he is a priest forever even if that man ends up in hell. His faculties as a priest, however, can be suspended or revoked. That is, his "license" to perform the duties of a priest can be revoked. This is called laicization -- returning the priest to the lay state (defrocked). The priest is still a priest, but he is no longer clergy. He is returned to the lay state. If a defrocked priest tries to say Mass, or offer confession, or perform any other duty of a priest, he does so validly as a priest, but does so illegally (without permission from the Church).

But in times of emergency, in danger of death, a non-clergy (defrocked) priest may still legally provide "last rites".

A defrocked priest also is no longer called "Father".

As for what happens with a priest discovered to be molesting children, the Church has handled that according to the advice given to them by the psychiatric community. Most of the situations for which we now hear so much about were situations in the 1960's and 1970's and some in the 1980's. At that time, the psychiatric community did not understand the dynamics of pedophilia as it does today. Thus the psychiatric community recommended the Church simply move the priest to a new parish to get him away from the one he was attracted to sexually. This, of course, does not work, but psychiatry did not understand that at the time.

Since the Church is not a psychiatric agency, the bishops trusted the psychiatrist on what to do with these priest.

This is not to say that there were not bishops who genuinely tried to cover-up things and not do as they ought, but the point is that most bishops were doing only what the psychiatric community told them. They made the BIG mistake of trusting psychiatry.

As to the charge of covering-up, in most cases the bishops were doing their job according to the moral imperatives of the faith. It is a bishop's job to try to avoid scandal. Scandal is one of the most dangerous things that can happen because it can adversely affect so many people. These sex scandal of the past few years is proof of that -- many Catholics have lost their faith because of the scandal. Yes, this is very immature of them, but it is the case nevertheless.

Scandal should be avoided at all possible costs, but this morally required need to avoid scandal is NOT supposed to be an excuse to not deal with the people who have done wrong. While it is a moral mandate to avoid scandal, it is also a moral obligation to hold the sinner responsible for his actions in a real and demonstrable way. It is also a moral obligation to provide pastoral care and concern for the victim.

The public blood-lust for fallen priests should not interfere with the moral obligations of the Church, or how the Church properly deals with these situations -- at least in a perfect world.

As a result, I am afraid that the Church has been pushed into the corner by the enemy and the blood-lust of the public to hand over fallen priests to the wolves.

This blood-lust is mostly against Catholic Priest even though fewer Catholic priest are involved in this sin than are Protestant ministers. In fact, among the molesters who are professionals the greatest amount of molesting is not with any sort of clergy at all, but with the mental health professionals.

According to study by the Wisconsin Psychological Society of the children who are molested by professionals, 66% are molested by psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers, in that order. That same study found that clergy represented 11%.

Now I am not suggesting that this lets clergy off the hook, I am only pointing out the total perspective and the lack of blood-lust toward the largest group of molesters -- the mental health professionals who are supposed to help the children after they are molested by the clergy and other people.

Now keep in mind that the largest group of molesters overall are married men who are family or friends of the family of the child. But among professionals priest are the safest group one can entrust their children. I do not even think twice about leaving my grandchildren in the care of a priest, but I have great concern about leaving my grandchildren in the care of a social worker or other so-called "child welfare" worker or agency.

Anyway, back to your question. The Church has an obligation under God to offer pastoral care and concern, forgiveness, and assistance to a priest who has fallen. Burger King and Microsoft have no such obligation.

What does the Church do now?

I haven't kept up with the policies on this but one aspect of the Church policy is that criminal activity needs to be referred to the police authorities. To quote a statement from the Diocese of Denver's website:

"All incidents of sexual abuse of anyone under the age of 18 years of age, should be reported immediately to the civil authorities."

In addition a priest is usually either relieved of his duties or suspended pending the outcome of the investigation of the charges. If the priest is found guilty then he would be "defrocked" -- laicized -- removed from the clerical state. The Church will still provide pastoral care to the fallen priest as well as to the victims. -Bro. Ignatius Mary OLSM

Just one correction on your answer---

Although all Masses celebrated by laicized priests are valid but illicit that is not true for any of the other sacraments

The faculties of the Bishop are absolutely necessary for even the validity of granting absolution, confirming, witnessing marriages (except in danger of death where the universal Canons provide the faculties)


http://oswc.org/stmike/qa/fs/viewanswer.asp?QID=83

August 3, 2004

Dear Father, Thank you for the clarification. I went back and saw the statement you are responding to. That statement was indeed not accurate. Thanks. -Bro. Ignatius Mary OLSM
Many of us are forgetting that we are all sinners in the eyes of God, and we all fall short and cannot enter into the Kingdom, myself too. I thank God for his abundance of mercy and love. The Church has her own Judas, and the priests who are truly guilty of violating the trust of an innocent child or a young teenager have betrayed the Church.

We are entrusted with the message of Divine Mercy; therefore we are obligated to show that Mercy even to those traitors of the Church and our children.

I myself was abused as a young kid at the age of 10 by a cousin no more than 5 years older than me. A few years ago I wrote a letter sharing that very mercy and love and forgave him- I DID NOT CHARGE HIM OF ANY CRIME! And I did not have to. Yes, I could have, but what good would it have done me- God is our only Judge.

I also experienced the other side of the same coin- 1985 I was charged with 2 counts of child abuse and I declared my innocence, and maintain that to this day and will continued to do so. Charges were dropped for lack of evidence. I thank God for his Mercy. I faced 16 years of my life behind bars! I can truly understand the plight of the innocent priests who cannot prove their innocence, especially those who had no choice but to plead no-contest. I know of one priest and I pray for him all the time; I also pray for his accusers. The truth will come out! -Michael

http://oswc.org/stmike/qa/df/viewanswer.asp?QID=67

July 31, 2004 

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and experiences. All I can do to add to your words is: AMEN. -Bro. Ignatius Mary OLSM
If I may be permitted, I'd like to add a response I have used when speaking to others about the priest/abuse issue:

Christ warned us there would be wolves among us and false prophets but we must always remember that there are thousands and thousands of very good, decent priests in the Church.

Because the Church is filled with humans there will always be those who commit sin and we must remember that as a whole what the Church teaches is true and trustworthy since these teachings came from Christ first, then passed on down, unchanged throughout the centuries.

Yes there have been evil priests, some bad Popes, and others who committed evil, but they never changed the teachings of the Church. If a math teacher for example molested a student, that math teacher committed an evil act upon an innocent yet what the math teacher taught, i.e.: 1 + 1 = 2 and so on will still be a truth and unchanged no matter the actions of the teacher. We do not stop sending our children to schools, for it is not the school that did the evil or taught incorrectly, but we get rid of the evil-doer. The same holds true if a parent molests their own child (which sadly happens throughout the world's history). We do not get rid of the "institution" of the family. Just because some parents are abusive doesn't mean every mother or father is abusive. So it is with the R.C. Church.

For those people who use this as an excuse to leave the Catholic Church, going to another denominational church is not the answer to getting rid of evil minded molesters. Unfortunately, you will find that there are those kind of people everywhere, (ministers, Reverends, judges, policemen, boy scout leaders -- you name it.). Abandoning the true Church founded by Christ, the only Church that has the fullness of truth and complete teachings of Christ is not the answer.

Whoever does becomes separated from the Eucharist (the Body of Christ) and Christ's true Church. -Claire

http://oswc.org/stmike/qa/df/viewanswer.asp?QID=68

August 1, 2004 

I normally do not allow posting of reader's responses to questions unless the response adds significantly to the already published answer. What you are saying here has already been said, but you say it so well that I think that it is a good summary and thus I have posted it. -Bro. Ignatius Mary OLSM
Can a Roman Catholic priest be validly ordained if he is a homosexual? -George

http://oswc.org/stmike/qa/sw/viewanswer.asp?QID=173

November 8, 2004

Yes, a homosexual man may be validly ordained, but shouldn't be.

The following is reported by the BBC and the National Catholic Register on this issue:

Ordaining homosexuals "is absolutely inadvisable and imprudent and, from a pastoral point of view, very risky," wrote the Vatican's point man on the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments in an official communication.

Cardinal Jorge Medina Estévez, responding to a letter from a bishop, added that "a person who is homosexual or has homosexual tendencies is not, therefore, suitable to receive the sacrament of sacred orders."

The Congregation (Vatican Department) for Divine Worship and the Sacraments published Cardinal Medina's letter in December in the congregation's bulletin. It was written last May to an unnamed bishop who had inquired about the propriety of ordaining homosexual men.

In addition, a February 1961 Vatican document also clearly states: "Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers.” -Bro. Ignatius Mary OLSM

Thank you for answering my previous questions. Suppose I go to a local priest for the Sacraments of Confession and Communion. If that priest is a homosexual, are the Sacraments valid? Should I avoid priests that I presume to be homosexual? -George

http://oswc.org/stmike/qa/sw/viewanswer.asp?QID=174

November 9, 2004

A priest who is homosexual is still a valid priest, thus the Sacraments are valid.

There is no reason to avoid a homosexual priest to receive the Sacraments. Besides, it would be sinful for you to "presume" a priest is homosexual. Such presumption is at best the Grave Sin of Rash Judgment. -Bro. Ignatius Mary OLSM

It’s me again. I'm doing a final graduation project for school. I'm taking a stand for priests, cardinals, bishops, and etc. who have been falsely accused of sexual abuse and how our religion is being discriminated against by other religions who act like they don’t have sexual abuse in their clergy.

I need to know if Cardinal Joseph Bernardin who innocent. I want to use his story as an example. I can't find straight information on him. Do you know anything of his story? -Suzanne

http://oswc.org/stmike/qa/fs/viewanswer.asp?QID=905

February 11, 2008

There are many people out there who traffic in rumor, innuendo, and gossip about Cardinal Bernardin. Some of this gossip is quite vitriolic, calling him everything from a pederast to a Satanist, and none of if supported by evidence as far as I know.

Cardinal Bernardin was accused, along with some other priests, of molesting Steven Cook. Cook filed an $810 million dollar law suit naming the Cardinal and the other priests.

The "memory" of Cook, however, came into question, even to himself. His so-called memory was gained by hypnosis, which is a highly unreliable technique for this purpose. Since Cook himself could not trust his own memory and had no direct memory of the Cardinal molesting him, Cook recanted his allegations against the Cardinal and removed him from the Law Suit.

The Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests (SNAP) supported Cook's decision and praised his decision to remove the Cardinal from the Law Suit:

"Our hearts go out to Cardinal Bernardin," said David Clohessy, the organization’s national director. "We believe Steve Cook did the right thing by dropping his suit if he is unsure of his memories, and we applaud the cardinal's Christian response to this suit and his defending himself while not attacking his accuser."

Read the whole story here.

By the way, many years ago, in the late 1980s or maybe early 90s the Evangelical magazine, "Christianity Today" published a study that found that around 30% of Protestant ministers admitted to sexual improprieties with their parishioners. This is a percentage FAR greater than among priests. -Bro. Ignatius Mary OLSM
I always wonder when I read books like that of Ralph Sarchie's "Beware the Night" about how the author would deal with the question of the part that apparently numerous catholic priests played or took part in very improper sexual conduct and touching with children in their custody?

I thought when these stories were first hitting the media - how could this extensive sort of abuse happen in a church so dedicated to truth and justice et al? Any thoughts would be appreciated this question has always troubled me. -Joe

http://oswc.org/stmike/qa/fs/viewanswer.asp?QID=944

March 21, 2008

Well you are misinformed. We need to remember that the media is not in the business of telling the truth, but in getting ratings to make money.

The "extensive" sex scandal in the Catholic Church is a fantasy invention of a bigoted media. There is no "extensive" sex scandal in the Catholic Church. There is a sex scandal but only about 1% of the priests in the United States are involved. While even one priest involved in a sex scandal is one too many 1% does not constitute "extensive."