Catholic Orders Might Keep Abusive Priests

hen the leaders of the nation's 125 Roman Catholic religious orders meet next month in Philadelphia, they will confront the issue of what to do with sexually abusive priests who belong to religious orders, like the Jesuits, Franciscans and Benedictines.

One-third of the nation's Catholic priests belong to religious orders, and their fates will be determined not by bishops, but by the major superiors and provincials who lead their orders.

Leaders of the Conference of Major Superiors of Men, which will meet next month, say the orders are unlikely to take the same approach as the nation's bishops.

The bishops agreed last month in most cases to seek to remove from the priesthood priests who had sexually abused a child or an adolescent.

But the leaders of the conference of superiors say they do not expect to take that step. The reason, they say, is that the relationship between a bishop and the priests of his diocese is very different from the relationship between a major superior and the priests, monks and brothers in a religious order.

When a man joins a Catholic order, he takes vows of poverty, chastity and obedience — lifelong vows that commit the man to the community and the community to the man, said the Rev. Ted Keating, a Marist who is executive director of the conference. While many diocesan priests live in rectories, are paid a salary and have some independence, a priest in a religious order often lives in a community house or a monastery and receives only a stipend for living expenses.

"He's been under a vow of poverty in this order for all of his life, and likely has no assets whatsoever," Father Keating said. "Whether he's sick, or in prison, or charged with something, he's still a member of the family, and we take care of him and watch out for him, even though we would not tolerate what he did in any way.

"Many of these men who are real sexual abusers are sick men, some who have been sexually abused themselves when they were young, or who are disturbed with compulsions," he said.

"These would be the very grounds for not dismissing a religious priest. The Congregation in Rome would say, he's a sick man; you need to take care of him," Father Keating said. He was referring to the Congregation for the Institutes of Consecrated Life, the Vatican office that oversees Catholic orders.

Lawyers who represent victims of sexual abuse, however, say that the orders' tradition of protecting their priests has allowed many of them to hide offenders.

"They have been successful at keeping a secret better or more than anyone else in the Catholic Church," said Jeffrey Anderson, a lawyer in St. Paul who has handled hundreds of cases against the church. "The monks, the cloistered orders, they are the darkest of the dark. Because they are so insular and secluded, they're even more closed and secretive than the bishops and their clerical culture."

Mr. Anderson has filed lawsuits accusing religious orders of moving abusive priests from one state to another, and even from one country to another, to avoid prosecution.

"They have complete control over their priests and no geographical limitations, like a bishop does in his diocese," he said.

About 15,000 of the nation's 45,000 priests belong to religious orders, said Mary L. Gautier, senior research associate at the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, at Georgetown University.

About one-third of priests in religious orders are assigned to parishes; another third work in schools, universities, hospitals or other ministries; and the others work in administration of the orders or are retired, Father Keating said. Some parishes, schools and ministries are run by dioceses, while others are run by orders. No order priest can work in ministry in a diocese without the permission of the bishop, he said.

In the past, some orders permitted priests who had been accused of sexual abuse and some who had received treatment as molesters to work in dioceses without informing bishops of the accusations. So, in 1995, the major superiors agreed formally to inform the bishop before sending anyone accused of sexual abuse to work in a diocesan parish or ministry.

Under the policy the bishops approved last month in Dallas, order priests who have sexually abused young people will be removed from ministry, as will diocesan priests. Dozens of order priests have already been removed by bishops in the last six months. The difference lies in the treatment that priests in orders face after they are removed from ministry.

Familial commitments are not the only reason that the orders are likely to decide to keep their priests, said the Rev. Canice Connors, a Franciscan friar who is president of the Conference of Major Superiors of Men and a former director of the St. Luke Institute, a psychiatric hospital in Maryland that treated sexually abusive priests.

"From my background in treatment, I always preferred the idea that we would stay in a relationship of accountability with somebody who is an abuser," Father Connors said.

Orders have experimented in the last decade with how to house, monitor and occupy offenders, he said. Many orders allow such priests to work in the order's archives, in administration, in nursing homes or in maintaining buildings or grounds.

But Father Connors said the orders were not happy with the suggestion of some bishops in Dallas that abusive priests be sent to monasteries. That idea was quickly discouraged by many monks and abbots, and the bishops retreated, Father Connors said.

"I think they realize it was a statement made in adversity," he said. "It can't be the answer."

The ascetic monastery life requires a person who feels called to it, said the Rev. Francis Kline, abbot of Mepkin Abbey, a Trappist monastery in Moncks Corner, S.C.

"Truth be told, it's a rare person that can adjust from a very active life of ministry to a contemplative life," Father Kline said.

Bishops sent a few abusive priests to Mepkin Abbey for temporary stays in the past, he said, but "usually the ones who are sent, they just can't stay. We live a very strict life. There is nothing there for them."

The major superiors may consider creating institutions to house, treat and monitor sexually abusive priests.

"Maybe even a new religious order could arise out of all of this," Father Connors said.

"There are parallels in history. Whole communities were founded to take care of lepers. These men are not lepers, but society is regarding them that way."

If you do the crime, you must do the time. While I agree that kicking someone out into the street who has taken a vow of poverty is uncharitable, temporal punishment should not be completely avoided. Surely, they can find a way to separate the pederasts/pedophiles from the children and the general religious population. If they won't accept troubled diocesan priests into their monasteries, they can at least assign their own troubled priests to "solitary confinement."

>>>>While I agree that kicking someone out into the street who has taken a vow of poverty is uncharitable

I'm not sure. They broke their vows, and didn't just break them, they shattered them all over the church floor. I don't think breaking your vows should automatically exclude you from the community, but some sins are rather great. I'm not sure they should be a resource drain on the order just because they were ordained, when they used that ordination for the most vile of purposes, rather than to serve God and the order.

patent

I can see both sides of the question "what to do with the sinful priests" - but I think it has to be a case by case evaluation. Surely, we couldn't allow a Paul Shanley or a Geoghan (can't think of his first name and can't bring myself to call him "Father") or a Rudy Kos and throw them out on the street where, if they cannot be prosecuted by civil law (and that is the case in most of the homosexually abusive priests), they would be a danger to other minors. Also, what do you do with a priest who is old and who cannot provide a roof over his head or food on his table? Some of these priests' families are long gone, so they cannot turn to family for support, or some of these priests have had one offense 30 years ago and none since.

If we can build facilities to "cure" them, we can build facilities to house them, IMO. Unfortunately, as usual, we are left with the tab either way. But it would seem more financially prudent for us (the Church) to house them somewhere instead of risking further abuse and/or lawsuits in the future.

The first draft of my reply included a mention of JPII's comment to the Cardinals that those who harm children have no place in the priesthood. I guess I should have left that in my reply.

I guess I'm somewhat ambivalent. I do think those who have seriously abused children should be laicized and handed over to the authorities (not necessarily in that order). I think "zero tolerance" is a cop out. Each case should be looked at individually. I think the selection process for priests needs to return to the days of intolerance of immoral behavior of any kind.

I guess I'm somewhat ambivalent. I do think those who have seriously abused children should be laicized and handed over to the authorities (not necessarily in that order). I think "zero tolerance" is a cop out. Each case should be looked at individually. I think the selection process for priests needs to return to the days of intolerance of immoral behavior of any kind.

I agree.

(now, now, don't pass out in shock)

>>>>, what do you do with a priest who is old and who cannot provide a roof over his head or food on his table?

Depends on alot to me. As a donor to the Church, if you come to me and ask for money to support retired priests, and I find out that an old and feeble rev. shanley is one of them, my response to you will be less than Christian. I don't care how unable to support himself he is, to be honest. He has sucked enough of the spiritual life and the financial resources out of the Church. He doesn't deserve any more. Forgive him, but let him fund himself, and do it without the collar on.

These are hard issues, and I can respect a difference in opinion, that is just my take.

patent

Your post #5,is packed with common sense and charity,a rare combination in this day and age.

From what I understand the Catholic Church has numerous seminaries and monasteries that are no longer in use.It would seem that some of them would be ideal places to shelter those that are old and unable to provide for themselves and to protect society from other priests,who might,go back into the secular world and continue to prey on minors.

It would seem that would be the Catholic thing to do;that is,to take responsibility for those who sinned in a way that mitigates the danger to the world and that provides for basic needs for those who should be cared for due to age or other incapacitating factors. This would be after any criminal charges are dealt with through the court system when applicable and appropriate.

With regards to establishing a new order to deal with this,I would think that this would be a wonderful mission for a good order of nuns. Those nuns who used to run hospitals and schools would be incredible,they were so resourceful.And most important of all,remember THEY HAD EYES IN THE BACK OF THEIR HEADS!!!

regarding your #9.

I completely agree with you. Fortunately, in the case of the worst priestly offenders (like that sick ba$tard Shanley) the (civil) law seems to be willing to bend and find any means available to prosecute and imprison them. I don't believe, when the smoke clears, we'll find anyone like Shanley not in state or federal prison (not sure which applies here) - and this has been happening in one of the most liberal states in the country, Massachusetts.

If what I read in the newspapers is true, most of the "offenders" seem to have one or two past offenses years ago, so they definately need to be taken out of circulation, but probably cannot be prosecuted under civil law. What do you do with them? Particularly if they are old and cannot support themselves and have no family to depend on.

Anyway, there is no easy answer to this. And whether the state or the Church takes care of them, the money comes from the same place - us.

Like you said - no collar.

Your post #5,is packed with common sense and charity,a rare combination in this day and age.

Well, thanks, but I think it was an accident!

Seriously though, you can't just throw them out, mostly for the good of society. It might just put other kids at risk. Plus, if they are old, and it seems like most of them are older to elderly, how can we throw them out on the street. They could be "warehoused" in monasteries and actually do penance for the rest of their lives and some might be useful in places like homeless soup kitchens, Catholic rest homes (laundry, cooking, mopping the floors, etc) as "unpaid" help. They could even wear one of those ankle monitors. We aren't talking high numbers here, maybe 300 or so, if the numbers I've seen are correct.

The nuns would keep 'em in line! (well, not the ones out of habit, but those old ones named "Sister Mary Annunciata" and the like.

"Many of these men who are real sexual abusers are sick men, some who have been sexually abused themselves when they were young, or who are disturbed with compulsions," he said. "These would be the very grounds for not dismissing a religious priest."

Huhn? Oh, yeah, that makes complete sense to me!

Here is the complete 1961 Vatican instruction, "Careful Selection and Training of Candidates for the States of Perfection and Sacred Orders" in PDF format.

Pray to St. Peter Damian for reform.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.