|
 It seems not a month goes by that one does not read of
some new revelation concerning the conduct of one or another Roman Catholic
priest. Recently, the Diocese of Dallas was financially wrecked by the award
of $120 million dollars to victims of convicted pedophile priest Rudy Kos.
All told, the number of offenses alleged against Kos came to 1350 over an 11
year period.
Shortly after Kos' trial, the Archbishop of San Antonio
made a public plea for funds to help the Archdiocese of San Antonio pay
penalties and compensation awarded by local courts to the victims of two
pedophile priests.
These are not isolated incidents. Within the past 20
months or so, the Diocese of Bridgeport (CT), was successfully sued by two
victims of priestly child abuse in separate cases. A New Haven (CT) priest
was successfully sued for sexually abusing a child. A diocese in Alabama and
another in Springfield, (IL) and individual priests also were taken to
court.
Jody Ericson, writing in the April 3, 1998 edition of the
Providence Phoenix , reported the likely imminent ouster of long-time
Rhode Island bishop Louis Gelineau in the wake of mounting sexual abuse
scandals. Ericson reported that "some 40 rape and molestation suits have
been filed against 13 priests in Rhode Island."
"Okay," say those inclined to turn a blind eye to such
symptoms of depravity in the clergy and hierarchy of the Roman Catholic
Church, "there are bound to be a few bad apples who evade the close scrutiny
of the the bishops and manage to get through seminary and be ordained to the
priesthood. Their corrupt behavior should be viewed as the failings of
individual men and not of the Catholic Church as a whole." On the surface,
that sounds pretty good. On the surface.
Do officials of the RCC seek to "cover up" the aberrant
sexual behavior of its priests? Let us examine the manner in which the
various ordinaries are said to have dealt with the allegations and charges
laid against priests under their authority. In San Antonio, claims surfaced
that the Archdiocese was aware of the vile sexual preferences and behavior
of at least one of the convicted priests but that rather than acting to
protect children and others of the RCC faithful, simply transferred the
offender to another parish.
Defrocked priest Rudy Kos claims he tried for years to
tell officials something was wrong with him and that he needed help. He says
he was told he was on his own. When he was 16, Kos was sent to a juvenile
facility for deviant bevahior. He claims to have seen a number of
psychiatrists who either could not or would not help him. He said he entered
the priesthood seeking a refuge from homosexual feelings he had been having.
Kos blames the RCC hierarchy, which he says betrayed him.
A suit against the Bridgeport (CT) Diocese was allowed to
go to jury in spite of the abuse victim's age because there was an issue of
fact as to whether the Diocese had fraudulently concealed the cause of the
action. The Diocese was also ordered to pay $33,195 in sanctions for
withholding evidence. (Martinelli v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocese. No.
3:93 CV 1482 (Arterton, J.) U.S.D.C. , New Haven, August 26, 1997
In a recent Alabama case, a woman claimed, in a suit
against a priest and the catholic diocese, that her parish priest sexually
abused her as a child, and that one of his female followers raped her. The
case was dismissed on a technicality involving the statute of limitations.
(Alabama, Doe v. Roman Catholic Church , 656 So.2d 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1995)
One can only wonder how such monsters can become priests.
However, once the pedophiles, fornicators and carousers within the
"celibate" priesthood are identified, why does the hierarchy of the Roman
Catholic Church appear to protect them, rather than separate them from the
innocents they are charged to shepherd? Why does the RCC hierarchy appear to
do nothing, or very little, to help them. Sending a depraved priest on a
retreat to the "mother house" of his order, seems hardly enough. Certainly,
merely transferring such a person to a different parish does nothing more
than expose other innocents to his predatory behavior.
Perhaps one reason is that Catholicism does not require
impeccability of its priests. In itself, of course, this is not unusual, for
who can live a sin-free life? Certainly not this writer and, as we have seen
over the past several years, not some who would preach from a Protestant
pulpit. What makes a difference within the RCC is its failure or refusal to
adhere to its own doctrine and laws. Scripture is quite clear as to God's
opinion of those who willingly participate in deviant sexual behavior:
Leviticus 18:22, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as
with womankind: it is abomination."
Leviticus 20:13, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he
lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall
surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."
There may be those who would argue that priestly
pedophilia is not quite the same thing as homosexuality. I would agree. It
is worse. In any case, the Lord God Almighty admits to no weaseling:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10, "Know ye not that the unrighteous
shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither
fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of
themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor
revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
The Lord has provided a golden parachute for those who
turn aside from the reprobate life.
1 Corinthians 6:11-13, "And such were some of you: but
ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of
the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. All things are lawful unto
me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I
will not be brought under the power of any. Meats for the belly, and the
belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is
not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body."
God forgives those who respond to His call and covers
theirs sins with the shed blood of Christ, but He holds in low esteem those
who, knowing Him turn back to their evil ways:
2 Peter 2:9-15, "The Lord knoweth how to deliver the
godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of
judgment to be punished: But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the
lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they,
selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. Whereas
angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation
against them before the Lord. But these, as natural brute beasts, made to
be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not;
and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; And shall receive the
reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the
day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own
deceivings while they feast with you; Having eyes full of adultery, and
that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have
exercised with covetous practices; cursed children: Which have forsaken
the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of
Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;"
The RCC, which is a law unto itself, has much to say
concerning those to whom it accords the authority and power (according to
her own dogma), to call Jesus Christ down from Heaven to reside in
eucharistic wafers. To whom it calls alter Christus, or "another
Christ." Compare the public behavior of the Roman Catholic hierarchy with
the Canons of its own Law.
Can. 1395 §1 Apart from the case mentioned in can.
1394, a cleric living in concubinage, and a cleric who continues in some
other external sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue which
causes scandal, is to be punished with suspension. To this, other
penalties can progressively be added if after a warning he persists in the
offence, until eventually he can be dismissed from the clerical state.
Whoa! Just what does this mean? In the Catholic reckoning
of the Decalogue, which conforms to the Augustinian model, the Sixth
Commandment is: Thou shalt not commit adultery. Now, according to the
Catholic understanding of adultery, it must involve sexual relations with a
married person. Clearly, a 10-year-old altar boy is not likely to be married
so, I suppose, according to the strict letter of the canon law, pedophilia
involving a priest and such a child would not strictly be considered
adultery.
Adultery is defined as carnal connection between a
married person and one unmarried, or between a married person and the
spouse of another. It is seen to differ from fornication in that it
supposes the marriage of one or both of the agents. Nor is it necessary
that this marriage be already consummated; it need only be what
theologians call matrimonium ratum. Sexual commerce with one engaged to
another does not, it is most generally held, constitute adultery. Again,
adultery, as the definition declares, is committed in carnal intercourse.
Nevertheless immodest actions indulged in between a married person and
another not the lawful spouse, while not of the same degree of, guilt, are
of the same character of malice as adultery (Sanchez, De Mat., L. IX. Disp.
XLVI, n. 17). It must be added, however, that St. A1phonsus Liguori, with
most theologians, declares that even between lawful man and wife adultery
is committed when their intercourse takes the form of sodomy (S. Liguori
L. III, n. 446). (Catholic Encyclopedia, copyright © 1913 by the
Encyclopedia Press, Inc. Electronic version copyright © 1997 by New
Advent, Inc. )
Continuing to read in Canon 1395:
§2 A cleric who has offended in other ways against the
sixth commandment of the Decalogue, if the crime was committed by force,
or by threats, or in public, or with a minor under the age of sixteen
years, is to be punished with just penalties, not excluding dismissal from
the clerical state if the case so warrants.
I suppose the questions here must be 1) is it adultery
when a priest sexually abuses an altar boy; and 2) if it is, what would be a
"just penalty"? Perhaps another question should be: If it isn't adultery, is
it not still wrong?
Well, "Mother Church" has a sort of catchall canon to
cover those ecclesiastical crimes not addressed specifically in the canon
law. When you read the following, please give particular notice to under
what conditions this law might be invoked.
Can. 1399 Besides the cases prescribed in this or in
other laws, the external violation of divine or canon law can be punished,
and with a just penalty, only when the special gravity of the violation
requires it and necessity demands that scandals be prevented or repaired
In other words, take action as necessary to protect the
RCC from unfavorable media attention.
Is the Roman Church unaware of the evil nature of the
predatory actions of its pedophile priests against the children who serve at
the altar? I think not, for in the Catholic Catechism, we read:
ARTICLE 4 - THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS 1749 Freedom
makes man a moral subject. When he acts deliberately, man is, so to speak,
the father of his acts. Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen
in consequence of a judgment of conscience, can be morally evaluated. They
are either good or evil.
1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the
object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end
corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying
and fasting "in order to be seen by men").
The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act
in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that
it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of
the will, that is, a moral evil.
1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of
human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the
circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.)
which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves,
independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit
by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and
adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it. (Catechism
of the Catholic Church)
How can a pedophile or other sexual predator officiate at
the Catholic Mass? How can a priest who, by even the Roman Catholic concept
of justification, clearly has fallen out of grace be permitted to invoke
priestly powers to call Christ down from Heaven to be offered yet again in
the Eucharistic sacrifice? How can a priest who has fouled his soul with
sexual sin take in his hands the consecrated wafer which is, according to
RCC dogma, the real and substantial body, blood, soul and divinity of the
Second Person of the Trinity? How can the Catholic faithful take this bread
from his tainted hands?
Does not Scripture warn that those who partake of the
Lord's Supper unworthily will incur God's wrath?
1 Corinthians 11:26-31, "For as often as ye eat this
bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord,
unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a
man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that
cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh
damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many
are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge
ourselves, we should not be judged."
Catholic canon law holds to a similar position:
Can. 915 Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication
or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately
persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.
This appears to cover those who continue to practice
grave sins such as fornication, pedophilia, and the like, but what about the
officiating priest? What about the man whom Catholics love to refer to as
alter Christus? Does he not only call Christ down from His seat at the right
side of the Father to become a communion wafer but actually partake of that
wafer, that so-called body of Christ, in the Eucharistic sacrifice? Can
someone guilty of persistent grave sin be qualified to do these things?
Canon law states:
Can. 916 Anyone who is conscious of grave sin may not
celebrate Mass or receive the Body of the Lord without previously having
been to sacramental confession, unless there is a grave reason and there
is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the
obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, which includes the
resolve to go to confession as soon as possible.
I am not prepared to address whether a "sacramental
confession" of persistent and continuing grave sin qualifies a person to be
another Christ. Nor will I address the issue of the validity of such a
confession when the confessing sinner has every intention of continuing to
sin in the same way. Let Rome's canon lawyers dispute over that. Suffice it
that the Council of Trent addressed the effect of grave sin on one's
standing with the grace of Christ:
Against the subtle wits of some also, who by pleasing
speeches and good words seduce the hearts of the innocent, it must be
maintained that the grace of justification once received is lost not only
by infidelity, whereby also faith itself is lost, but also by every other
mortal sin, though in this case faith is not lost; thus defending the
teaching of the divine law which excludes from the kingdom of God not only
unbelievers, but also the faithful [who are] fornicators, adulterers,
effeminate, liars with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, railers,
extortioners, and all others who commit deadly sins, from which with the
help of divine grace they can refrain, and on account of which they are
cut off from the grace of Christ. (Council of Trent, 6th Session, January
13, 1547, Decree Concerning Justification, Chapter XV)
Making the question as clear as possible, can a priest
who is cut off from the grace of Christ because of persistent sexual sin
truly celebrate the Eucharistic sacrifice that is the very heart of the
Mass? Trent says he can and, moreover, that his standing with the Lord has
no effect on the sacraments he confers or effects. Hard to believe, hunh?
Canon 12. If anyone says that a minister who is in
mortal sin, though he observes all the essentials that pertain to the
effecting or conferring of a sacrament, neither effects nor confers a
sacrament, let him be anathema (Council of Trent, 7th Session, March 3,
1547, Decree Concerning the Sacraments, Canons on the Sacraments in
General)
Those of you who in silence read the postings on this
site, I entreat to search your hearts. Can you believe that Christ would
choose to permit Himself to be controlled by the priestly incantations of
a man guilty of such vile and persistent sin as pedophilia? Do you
honestly believe that Christ, who is pure and holy, would submit to being
handled and broken, when in cookie form, by the sinful hands of a depraved
priest? When you take the consecrated host from the hands of the priestly
celebrant of the Mass, can you be sure that those hands are spiritually
clean? The canon law of the Roman Church requires that all Catholics
diligently seek the truth in matters which concern God and His church.
Can. 748 §1 All are bound to seek the truth in the
matters which concern God and his Church; when they have found it, then
by divine law they are bound, and they have the right, to embrace and
keep it
The Word of God makes the same charge to the faithful:
2 Timothy 2:15, "Study to shew thyself approved unto
God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word
of truth."
|
