Sexual-abuse scandal leads to Catholic university official’s resignation

Catholic Online ^ | October 17, 2006

[mtbopfuyn]

According to Father Whitney, the province has spent about $8.5 million in recent years to settle sex abuse claims, some going back more than 50 years, and still has dozens of claims pending.

A couple of points here. If they would have nipped it in the bud and prosecuted those sickos rather than sending them on to new unsuspecting parishes it wouldn't be costing $8.5 million now. Also, I'm sure the statute of limitations ran out long before 50 years.

[trisham]

In an e-mail to Seattle University faculty and students, Father Harris said, "I do not want to be a distraction from the important work at hand." He said he believed his resignation would be "in the best interests of both me and the university."

*************

It would be nice if one of these priests simply said "I'm guilty and I'm sorry. What I did was wrong".

[NYer]

Wouldn't that be refreshing. Someone being forthright for a change.

[Antoninus]

It would be nice if one of these priests simply said "I'm guilty and I'm sorry. What I did was wrong".

Most of them probably don't believe that. If you're a homo and you enter the priesthood, you're probably doing so for reasons other than your devotion to Christ and your wish to emulate Him and profess the Gospel.

[trisham]

Most of them probably don't believe that.

*************

I guess that's a likely explanation. I would hope that another might be that they are ashamed, but I've yet to see much evidence of that.

[Tax-chick]

This is getting crazy ... he "abused" a man in his 20's by sending him dirty pictures? It's like the feminist claim that any sexual overture a woman doesn't accept is "sexual harassment."

It seems nobody wants to say that all homosexual overtures and acts are sinful, regardless of the ages and/or professional position of the persons involved. So I'll say it! Stop mumbling about details and "boundaries," guys, and acknowledge that all "gay" behavior is a sin!

[steve8714]

Can Georgetown and Loyola be far behind?

[trisham]

It seems nobody wants to say that all homosexual overtures and acts are sinful, regardless of the ages and/or professional position of the persons involved. So I'll say it! Stop mumbling about details and "boundaries," guys, and acknowledge that all "gay" behavior is a sin!

************

Agreed. I'm not sure why the Church has been so reluctant to state the obvious.

[Tax-chick]

I don't understand it, either. They seem paralyzed.

[Tax-chick]

Now that I think about it more, I believe one of the problems is that "they" - the people who seem unable to formulate a serious response to the incidence of homosexuality - simply have not internalized Catholic sexual morality at all.

They get bogged down in details, rather than taking a clear stand, I think because they are blinded by the culture, in which "anything goes" unless it's illegal.

It just occurred to me that the behavior of this man would still be sinful ... even if he weren't a priest ... even if the recipient of the smut were not his student ... even if they were the same age ... even if one were a man and the other a woman! In fact, I can't think of any situation in which one person's mailing nude pictures to another wouldn't be sinful; it seems morally parlous even in marriage.

We've become so focussed on the homosexual transgressions that we need to bring back to the forefront, the truth that the only morally-acceptable venue for sexual activity is in a Christian marriage.

I'm sure you can imagine the outraged shrieks of "Taliban!" that would arise if I mentioned this on a more general FR thread ... so maybe it's understandable that the Church spokesmen don't go back to the foundation and say, "This behavior is sinful: no matter who, no matter when, no matter how old, no matter what sex ... this is wrong."

[redhead]

"I'm sure you can imagine the outraged shrieks of "Taliban!" that would arise if I mentioned this on a more general FR thread ... so maybe it's understandable that the Church spokesmen don't go back to the foundation and say, "This behavior is sinful: no matter who, no matter when, no matter how old, no matter what sex ... this is wrong."

Oh, you have hit the nail SQUARELY on the head! I just thought of the same thing myself, and thought also of the number of nominal Catholics (as well as others) who will be aghast at such a concept. We have sunk so low in regard to sexual morality that I wonder if we will ever again be able to express the truth that any sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful. To our shame (sin and shame...hmmm...), and in our rush to be "accepted," we have allowed the opposition to steal not just the game, but its terminology.

[Tax-chick]

in our rush to be "accepted," we have allowed the opposition to steal not just the game, but its terminology

Great summary.

[trisham]

I'm sure you can imagine the outraged shrieks of "Taliban!" that would arise if I mentioned this on a more general FR thread ... so maybe it's understandable that the Church spokesmen don't go back to the foundation and say, "This behavior is sinful: no matter who, no matter when, no matter how old, no matter what sex ... this is wrong."

****************

Agreed. There are those who will not accept any limits at all, particularly those that are prescribed by religion/God. Just try introducing the subject of sin in one of those conversations. It will be met with either laughter, bewilderment, or outrage.

[Tax-chick]

There are those who will not accept any limits at all, particularly those that are prescribed by religion/God.

Exactly. They won't even allow for the theoretical possibility of objective morality. None of us is proposing making laws based on Catholic teaching ... but listen to the howls of "Theocracy!" if you even say, "That's immoral."

[trisham]

None of us is proposing making laws based on Catholic teaching ... but listen to the howls of "Theocracy!" if you even say, "That's immoral."

***************

It's true. I don't think many of us even realize how much we censor our speech today. There are certain subjects that are simply verboten. Even here.

[Tax-chick]

Yes, it's hard to imagine feeling comfortable about stating the truth of Catholic teaching in public! Amazing.

At least Pope Benedict has more nerve than I do!

[bornacatholic]

I think the use of "behind" is insensitive

[RKBA Democrat]

"I'm sure you can imagine the outraged shrieks of "Taliban!" that would arise if I mentioned this on a more general FR thread ... so maybe it's understandable that the Church spokesmen don't go back to the foundation and say, "This behavior is sinful: no matter who, no matter when, no matter how old, no matter what sex ... this is wrong."

So let them shriek.

Being something of an expert on incoming shrieks on this website, I can tell you that it isn't that big of a deal. So what does it matter if someone doesn't like an opinion that I post? Or that I happen to be one of those ______ (insert the expletive of your choice) Democrats?

Lord knows I've had more barbs sent my direction than I can remember. But I'm still here. I'm still posting. And you know, I've found that if you're willing to stand and take the slings and arrows, you'll often be able to shift the thinking a bit.

Your post is an excellent one, BTW.