Did Priest Break Seal Of Confession?

National Catholic Register ^ | 4/22/10 | Patrick Archbold

[marcbold]

In all the media hype surrounding the sex abuse scandal, haters of the Church have wondered if that scandal could destroy the Church and the priesthood. The short answer is no, but a scandal like this one could. (Not destroy permanently, of course. Nothing could do that.)

Father David Verhasselt, a priest in the parish of St. Catherine of Alexandria Church in the diocese of Milwaukee, has been placed on administrative leave because he is under investigation for breaking the seal of confession.

The charge is so serious that Archbishop Jerome Listecki has even barred Fr. Verhasselt from visiting the church.

According to local news in Milwaukee ...

[TSgt]

Yes, a small number. A much smaller number then say the public schools or the population at large. But that is right, you have an agenda.

"We rape children less than other groups. - RCC"

Public schools are not portending to be moral authorities and most of the cases are teacher student relationships and not outright rape. Still wrong, but far different than child rape by priests.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Again, your error here is saying that Campion or some other FReepers have offered an "excuse" or "justification" for sex abuse. They have not. Nobody has offered any "excuse" or "justification" whatsoever. All of us think it is damnable.

Perhaps you didn't understand that. But now that it has been pointed out to you, you should cease repeating falsehoods about other FReepers.

[TSgt]

All of us think it is damnable.

Unless it makes "the Church" look bad. Sorry, if you and others really believed it was damnable you wouldn't personally attack me for defending the abused.

[Terabitten]

When there's a credible allegation against a priest, three things have to happen, and fast: the victim needs to bring criminal charges against the abuser, the bishop must cancel all the accused man's priestly assignments, and the bishop must forbid him, in any case (assignment or no assignment) to function as a priest (this is what we call "the loss of priestly faculties.") AND In addition, a person who commits such a sin and does not repent of it, is liable to eternal damnation.

Hey there Mrs. Don-o. As a Protestant, I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiment. It saddens me as a Christian that this seemingly obvious reaction hasn't always been the case. The Catholic Church does appear to be taking priestly abuse seriously now, which is a good thing.

On other threads about the abuse scandal, I've posted this thought:

No one can deny the general pattern: When informed of a priestly abuse case, the priest in question was moved to another parish within the diocese, without regard to whether they might have continuing access to children. The priests involved do not appear to have been otherwise disciplined by the Church in any way. This pattern appears to continue, even when the same priest is accused of abuse in more than one parish. I don’t recall any cases where the priests were transferred to another diocese, where they continued their pattern of abuse, but I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong.

We’ve seen this often enough that, regardless of the specifics of any one case, we recognize the pattern.

It appears that the Vatican made the decision years ago to keep abuse from priests quiet and handle it “in house,” to not air their dirty laundry. I’m sure this decision was made with the best of intentions and the welfare of the Church in mind – “this is an internal problem, we’ll handle it internally, and not give the public a reason to distrust the Church.” They wanted to avoid death by papercut. I’m sure their concern was much less with “protect the pedophile” than with “protect the Church’s reputation.”

The question really isn’t who has the higher percentage - who cares? One pedophile or gay predator is too many.

The question is how are such people dealt with when their behavior is discovered?

In any (admittedly conservative Protestant) church I’ve ever attended, no practicing homosexual (or admitted adulterer or fornicator, for that matter) was allowed to have any position of authority or leadership within the church. They could attend church, but that was it. They couldn’t be a deacon or elder, help lead worship, couldn’t even teach a Sunday School class.

The typical response when a leader is found to be in some sort of inappropriate relationship, is that they are given the choice to immediately resign whatever position they may have, or be publicly removed from it. Either way, they are typically out of leadership in a matter of days, not weeks, months, or years.

I don't believe there was ever any concerted attempt by the Catholic Church to protect pedophiles. I believe their motive was to protect the Church. The problem is that in their zeal to protect the Church, they forgot to protect the innocent.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"you wouldn't personally attack me for defending the abused"

To my knowledge, nobody has attacked you 'for defending the abused.' If I am wrong, I beg your pardon and ask you to supply a link and a courtesy ping. Thank you.

[Mrs. Don-o]

What you say is true: all of it, or most of it, even if I would have said with with different emphases.

There was a article in the Times U.K. (here, I'll fetch it: "Therapy led to soaring abuse rate in Irish Church" (Link)) concerning the role a "culture of therapy" played in the sex abuse scandal in Ireland. This section caught my eye:

---

"But the Murphy report itself is very interesting about canon law. It points out that a big problem with this law isn’t that it was used, but that it wasn’t used.

"It says: 'The Church authorities failed to implement most of their own canon law rules on dealing with child sex abuse...canon law appears to have fallen into disuse and disrespect during the mid 20th century. In particular, there was little or no experience of operating the penal (that is, the criminal) provision of that law... for many years offenders were neither prosecuted nor made accountable within the Church.' "Why did it fall into disuse and disrespect? It was because priests and bishops began to regard it as being overly legalistic and too focused on punishment. They decided it lacked compassion.

"Therefore, they stopped using it. No longer did priests accused of child abuse face a canonical trial and the possibility of 'defrocking'. "Instead, and with disastrous consequences, they were sent for therapy and then, "cured", they were reassigned to ministry."

---

If I may recognize the pattern you correctly pointed out, but add a point for accuracy: this "pattern" represents, not the Church leaders acting "predictably Catholic," but the calamities that overwhelm us from not acting "Catholic enough."

See as well mine, #52.

By the way, thanks for this post. You are a reasonable person, and by jiminy it is a relief to be able to reason with the reasonable.

Let's pray for each other.

[Campion]

I'm not the one attempting to cover up child rape by calling it consensual homosexual sex

Who said anything about "consensual"?????

[Terabitten]

I pray for all my brothers and sisters in Christ, be they Protestant, Orthodox, or Catholic - that we may have unity in the essentials, and charity in everything else -- and that most of all, we reflect Christ's love and grace to the world at large.

That's an interesting article. I freely admit to my ignorance of canon law, so it's fascinating to see that it's already addressed and that the real failure resulted from NOT following it.

[Campion]

most of the cases are teacher student relationships and not outright rape

"teacher student relationships"??

Maybe you're not understanding something. Carnal knowledge of a minor below the age of consent is statutory rape, no matter how "consensual" it is, and even if the abuser is not a Catholic priest.

Carnal knowledge of a subordinate by a superior party using his office to gain that knowledge is sexual abuse, even if the abuser is not a Catholic priest.

Plenty of sex abuse cases involving Catholic priests did not involve violence. They are just as wrong, and just as illegal.

It's appalling to me that you justify sexual abuse by teachers as a "teacher student relationships" and you justify Harvey Milk's molestation of teenage children by attesting to his alleged "integrity," and then you accuse us of defending child molesters.

And don't claim to be "defending the victims". You're excusing the abusers, as long as they don't wear a collar.

[TSgt]

Who said anything about "consensual"?????

Okay, then why even use an argument that it was homosexual rape rather than pedophile rape?

I'll tell you why, because homosexual doesn't sound as bad as pedophile. It takes an unthinkable amount of evil to rape a child. The RCC knows this and doesn't want to go anywhere near the word pedophile though it accurately describes the abusers.

The most hardened criminals in the worst prisons can tell you the difference between a homosexual and a pedophile. And they aren't too kind to the latter...

[TSgt]

It's appalling to me that you justify sexual abuse by teachers as a "teacher student relationships" and you justify Harvey Milk's molestation of teenage children by attesting to his alleged "integrity," and then you accuse us of defending child molesters.

It's appalling to me that you justify sexual abuse by priests because, hey, everybody does it.

Some religion you got there...

[TSgt]

And don't claim to be "defending the victims". You're excusing the abusers, as long as they don't wear a collar.

You're excusing the abusers because they do wear a collar or a red robe. Pot, meet kettle...

[ArrogantBustard]

I'll tell you why,

Cut it out with the attempted mind reading. You have failed miserably at doing it.

Unlike some folks, who seem to desire only throwing nasty rhetoric at the Church, many of us actually want to SOLVE the problem.

This cannot be done unless it is properly identified.

Thing is, the problem has been properly identified: it's homosexuals assaulting young teenagers.

Solution: Comply with directives from the Vatican. DO NOT admit homosexuals to the priesthood or religious life.

You seem to be defending abusive homosexuals. It doesn't look good.

[GOPJ]

It's appalling to me that you justify sexual abuse by teachers as a "teacher student relationships" and you justify Harvey Milk's molestation of teenage children by attesting to his alleged "integrity," and then you accuse us of defending child molesters. And don't claim to be "defending the victims". You're excusing the abusers, as long as they don't wear a collar.

Good points.

[TSgt]

...it's homosexuals assaulting young teenagers.

It's pervert pedophile priests assaulting children. Hardened prisoners could tell you the difference but the truth hurts.

But go on and minimize the abuse as long as "the Church" is protected.

I'm not the one defending anyone other than the abused. Your side of the argument has all of the abusers. An uncomfortable place to be I'm sure but you don't seem to mind.

[ArrogantBustard]

Why are you defending abusive homosexuals? Why are you obfuscating the nature of the problem?

Those of us who want the problem actually solve don't defend abusive homosexuals, and don't obfuscate the nature of the problem.

I'm not the one defending anyone other than the abused.

Nonsense. You're defending the perpetrators, whether you intend to or not, by obscuring who and what they are. You actions, whether you intent it or not, will enable more abusive homosexuals to abuse boys.

[Antoninus]

You seem to be defending abusive homosexuals. It doesn't look good.

He is. He viciously attacks Catholics because a few within our ranks fail to live up to our standards and a few of our leaders have done a terrible job punishing those who abuse children.

Meanwhile, he defends admitted pedophile Harvey Milk.

Sounds like he's reading from Saul Alinsky's playbook to me.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Well said, and thank you.

[Antoninus]

All child rape is wrong, I’m sorry you don’t feel the same way.

Then admit outright that Harvey Milk was a disgusting pedophile who should have gone to prison, not be honored with a holiday.

I'm happy to do the same for any priest who brags about sexually abusing young boys.

[Angry_White_Man_Syndrome]

I remember a few years back stories of sexual harassment and even date rape coming out of the Air Force Academy. Much of it was sweep under the rug by the higher ups. Therefore since you are in the Air Force you must be OK with date rape and sexual harassment.

“We rape are cadets.- USAF”