[Apologetics] RE: Re: More on (Alleged) Misconduct by Priests and Bishops

[Art Kelly]

Stuart,

Thank you for your clarification of your views.

Certainly, a priest who was involved with a young
person (male or female) should never again be allowed
to function in a role that could lead to that
situation.

However, in some circumstances, a priest who was
genuinely sorry and definitely rehabilitated could
still exercise his ministry in some OTHER way.

The former Bishop of Atlanta had an affair with a
young woman. He was sent to a monestary, where his
role was counselling priests who had committed similar
sins. Apparantly, he was effective in this ministry.

To require that a priest MUST always be laicized, no
exceptions whatsoever, is overly harsh, in my view.

I agree with Ward that the larger sin was committed by
a bishop who did not take decisive action to remove a
priest from contact with minors following creditable
allegations of wrongdoing.

However, even then, maybe there is a lot we don't
know.

First of all, some bishops simply may not have
considered varous allegations to be creditable. A
priest may have strongly denied the charges and was
given the benefit of a doubt.

The WORST case was in Boston with Paul Shanley, who
was later defrocked. The news media reported dozens of
charges against him. However, when prosecutors tried
to bring charges against him, they could find only ONE
that could hold up under scruntiny.

In turned out that all but one of the accusers told
contradictory stories or made statements that, upon
investigation, turned out to be false. Some claimed a
whole series of people in their lives--teaches,
relatives, employers, neighbors--had molested them.
Others had serious problems with drugs or alcohol and
often hallucinated experiences.

The one instance for which they obtained a conviction
was from someone who had a "recovered memory" of
involvement with Shanley. Before reading in the
newspaper about the other charges against Shanley,
which are now known to be false, this person had no
recollection of the events he later described.

Now, if PROSECUTORS could not substantiante cases
against the alleged WORST offender in the nation, I
think we can understand why Cardinal Law in Boston,
and bishops elsewhere, may have believed priests'
denials.

I sure don't want parishoners marching up to the
bishop's office with rumors about a priest because
they didn't like a sermon or something like that. An
inflexible rule could drive many innocent men from the
priesthood.

We should be slow to believe allegations about
priests, and about bishops handling of allegations
about priests, until we really know the true facts. 

A presumption of innocence until proven guilty is
valid for all accused persons.

The news media does not like Christians in general and
Catholics in particular. They love to jump on
sensational allegations. The claims may be completely
true, partially true, or totally false. We should
withold judgement until we know more.

When a Catholic is ordained to the priesthood, or a
Protestant to his ministry, the devil does not say,
"Heck, he's now ordained. I guess I better leave him
alone."

No, the devil thinks, "Hey, if I can tempt him and
lead him into a sin that I can later expose, it will
hurt the church and everything the church is trying to
do. I'll intensify my efforts with this guy."

So, whether its a Catholic priest or a Jimmy
Swaggart-type Protestant, the devil works extra hard
to tempt "a man of the cloth."

We should pray for all priests and ministers that they
can do God's work and resist the temptations that the
devil is certain to send their way.

Art

--- "Stuart D. Gathman" <stuart at bmsi.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005, Marty Rothwell wrote:
> 
> > In all fairness, I think this is comparing apples
> to oranges.  I think it is
> > fair to critize the Catholic bishops for being
> quiet way too long about
> > child molestation, then doing something only when
> the poop hits the fan in
> > the national media.  And child molestation is a
> no-brainer.  Of course
> > you're going to come down hard on it.  The
> Anglicans would do the same
> > thing, I'm sure.
> 
> Depends on how you define "molestation".  [Members
> of] the gay camp/ECUSA are
> fine with "appropriate intimacy" between adults and
> children.
> 
> The only flexibility on the Catholic side should be
> concerning the
> actual guilt of an accused priest - given the ease
> with which false
> accusations can be made.  Even with real repentance,
> their original
> ministry is kaput.  
> 
> A big problem I've seen on the other side is that
> persons afflicted with
> homosexual desires who desire to live a righteous
> and holy life, are met with
> natural distaste by most church members due to
> effeminate/"butch" mannerisms.
> This hinders them from experiencing the Godly
> fellowship they need to
> overcome their sin and change their habits.
> 
> I would suggest repentant priests specialize in such
> ministry - but
> that might present its own problems.  In any case,
> they should not
> be ministering to children.
> 
> -- 
> 	      Stuart D. Gathman <stuart at bmsi.com>
>     Business Management Systems Inc.  Phone: 703
> 591-0911 Fax: 703 591-6154
> "Confutatis maledictis, flamis acribus addictis" -
> background song for
> a Microsoft sponsored "Where do you want to go from
> here?" commercial.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Apologetics mailing list
> Apologetics at gathman.org
> http://bmsi.com/mailman/listinfo/apologetics
> 


=====
ART KELLY, ATM-S
13524 Brightfield Lane 
Herndon, Virginia 20171-3360 
(703) 904-3763 home
arthurkelly at yahoo.com
ArtK135 at Netscape.net
art.kelly at cox.net