Seattle Catholic church members outraged to learn of violations by longtime priest

My Northwest.com ^ | Josh Kerns | May 6, 2014

[Gamecock]

Members of a Seattle church are outraged they're just learning a priest who had a longtime sexual relationship with a young man was disciplined in 2004. And they're disturbed he was prohibited from performing baptisms and other sacraments but continued doing so.

The Archdiocese of Seattle sent a letter to members of St. Bridget Parish last Friday, notifying them that the Archdiocesan Case Review Board concluded Harry Quigg had sexual contact with a then-17-year-old in 1980, and continued the relationship for 15 years.

The letter said because both civil and canon law considered the age of majority to be 16-years-old at the time, the panel concluded it did not constitute sexual abuse of a minor.

Then-Archbishop Alexander J. Brunett notified Quigg in person and writing he was no longer allowed to perform any public priestly duties, present himself publicly as a priest, or wear clerical garb.

The Archdiocese says the information was not made public because it was determined the the sexual contact did not involve a minor and to respect Quigg's privacy because it was considered a personnel matter.

Church members who wish to remain anonymous say they are extremely upset, and a number boycotted a church fundraising auction last weekend after learning about Quigg's past and the Archdiocese's failure to properly supervise him and prevent him from performing baptisms and other services.

"It is evident from what the Archdiocese has learned recently that Harry Quigg did not comply with the terms of his ministry restrictions," the letter said. "It is also clear, given this information, that the steps taken by the Archdiocese were not sufficient to alert us of Quigg's violations of the restrictions on the celebration of the sacraments."

The letter said parish leadership at St. Bridget's and neighboring church Assumption were unaware of Quigg's restrictions, and the Archdiocese is making changes to minimize the chances of this type of situation from happening again.

"We regret that the steps we took were inadequate to make sure that those restrictions were not violated," said Greg Magnoni, Archdiocese spokesman. "We're going to do everything that we can to make sure that these restrictions, no matter what the reason, are not violated, and that they are followed."

In addition to performing mass and other sacraments at St. Bridget's, Mangoni says Quigg - who retired in 2000 - also performed some priestly duties at other local churches.

"We believed at the time that the steps we had taken would restrict him in ministry and provide adequate protection for any vulnerable population," he says.

Magnoni reassured church members that although Quigg violated restrictions, he was still formally a priest and any baptisms or other sacraments would be considered official in the eyes of the church.

Archbishop J. Peter Sartain will hold a meeting with St. Bridget parish members Tuesday that is closed to the media.

[Gamecock]

More coverups and denials.

[cherry]

are these the same Seattle supposed Catholics who were outraged that a gay teacher got fired for bringing his gay marriage into the classroom?...

it really depends on whose bull gets gorged I guess.....

the Catholic church can not win....they get strict and they get hosed...they aren't strict and they get hosed....

[Alex Murphy]

The Archdiocese of Seattle sent a letter to members of St. Bridget Parish last Friday, notifying them that the Archdiocesan Case Review Board concluded Harry Quigg had sexual contact with a then-17-year-old in 1980, and continued the relationship for 15 years. The letter said because both civil and canon law considered the age of majority to be 16-years-old at the time, the panel concluded it did not constitute sexual abuse of a minor.

Then-Archbishop Alexander J. Brunett notified Quigg in person and writing he was no longer allowed to perform any public priestly duties, present himself publicly as a priest, or wear clerical garb. The Archdiocese says the information was not made public because it was determined the the sexual contact did not involve a minor and to respect Quigg's privacy because it was considered a personnel matter.

Colbert: One of these days, the Catholic church will make it 10 days with no sex abuse scandal

[Gamecock]

Don’t warn the sheep when there is a wolf in the flock!

[RegulatorCountry]

they're disturbed he was prohibited from performing baptisms and other sacraments but continued doing so.

Given the importance placed upon physical, ritual actions performed by a priest, does this mean any baptisms performed will not be regarded as valid, if he was prohibited from performing them?

[Arthur McGowan]

You didn’t read the article.

[Celtic Cross]

Per Church doctrine anyone can perform a valid baptism, even a perform who is not themselves baptised, so I assume baptisms this guy performed were valid.

[Gamecock]

**You didn’t read the article.**

Let me summarize.

-He was stripped of his priestly duties.
-He performed the sacraments
-But in typical Roman Catholic obfuscation, they count anyway. (See: Annulment. Married, but not really.)

[Gamecock]

Really? Source please.
I know they can in case of emergency, but under normal circumstances?

[a fool in paradise]

Does he ever tally public school sexual scandals?

[Gamecock]

That's right. Catholic parishes are the moral equivalent to public schools. </sarc>

[a fool in paradise]

This man hasn’t been charged with sexual abuse yet to some it goes in that same category.

Teachers are having sex with minors every week and “nobody knows nothing”.

The kids have an option to go to church once or twice a week but they are required by law to be at school upwards of 8 hours a day 5 days a week.

[Gamecock]

WOW! Using your logic priests can do in an hour or two a week what it takes teachers a full 40 hour week to accomplish!

BTW when teachers are caught they go to jail. Priests, like the one in this story, are hidden by the Roman Catholic hierarchy. That is the difference.

[daniel1212]

Let me summarize. -He was stripped of his priestly duties. -He performed the sacraments -But in typical Roman Catholic obfuscation, they count anyway. (See: Annulment. Married, but not really.)

But what did he intend to do?

[IrishBrigade]

BTW when teachers are caught they go to jail. Priests, like the one in this story, are hidden by the Roman Catholic hierarchy. That is the difference.

...sure am glad we have you on this forum to tell us all how the RCC operates...I’m sure you’re the very voice of objectivity on the matter...

[fwdude]

Do these priests never have to report to “headquarters?”

I swear, the RCC is the most poorly run organization on earth. The Keystone cops are laughing.

[Seraphicaviary]

The priniciple is Ex Opere Operato. The power of the sacrament is Christ’s, not of the priest or minister. In Baptisms, so long as the one baptizing has the intention of what the Church intends and use the proper form and matter(i.e. must say the right words), the sacrament is valid. The sinful state of the minister is not relevant. In Marriage, the ministers of the sacrament are the people being married, not the priest.

The sacramments needing a priestly ordination are Eucharist, Annointing the Sick, and Reconciliation, all of which have a absolution component. The sacraments by the priest would be considered valid because the priest was not laicised (which requires Vatican approval), but illicit because he did not have the permission of the bishop. They will not have to be “re-done”.

If the preist had not used the words “In the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” during Baptisms, then it would have been a Chinese Fire Drill trying to find everyone affected to let them know the Baptisms were invalid.

Much of Catholic theology follows Aristotelian philosophy with regard to Form and Matter to make something real. Such it is with the Sacraments.

[Jeff Chandler]

Another instance of “Bravo”?