Replies

Dear dsc,

"I'm not going to get into this kind of a peeing contest with you, either. I'm going to address just a few things, then turn in."

Good for you. Now, I will unravel your misconstructions.

"'If you are going to cut and paste, you should at least try to provide the more important details.'

"I did better than that. I provided the links."

Yes you did provide the links. But there are many posts on FR, and many links given. One is obligated to try to cut and paste representative excerpts from the links one wishes to quote. In my view, you failed to do this.

"The section of the article I posted contains the words, 'on a substitute basis.'"

Indeed, you did. Though I don't think your excerpt really represents the full circumstances adequately, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and withdraw my comment on this particular detail.

"'"Since then our sexual abuse policy has been revised so that no one removed from priestly ministry can be reinstated," Kenny said.'

"Myers should have done that from day one. How could he even think of reinstating a priest who had molested a young teenager? Looks to me like he got away with what he could while he could."

Well, hindsight is 20/20, isn't it? Prior to the whole Boston explosion, it had often been standard pollicy to permit abuser priests to exercise limited ministry in cirucmstances where they might do no more harm. Your criticism of Archbishop Myers in this regard is really a criticism of pretty much all the bishops in the Church. You wouldn't be alone in that stance.

I don't join you.

Our own previous archbishop in one case sent an abuser priest to a new assignment in another state. The man continued to exercise his priestly ministry. But it is unlikely that he was afforded the opportunity to prey on young boys, again. He was made chaplain at a maximum security prison.

In my own thinking, this didn't seem such an offensive thing to do.

Now, priests are to be permanently removed from the clerical state. Okay, I can see why folks might want to do that.

But there are advantages and disadvantages to each policy. Retaining a man in the clerical state, but with restrictions to the exercise of his ministry, permits a bishop to keep a man under his authority, and hopefullly, then, under his control. Removing a man from the clerical state releases him, as well, from obedience, and from any oversight by the bishop.

In the case of Mr. Koenigs' abuser, since the statute of limitations had expired, merely expelling the man from the priesthood set him free to prey on others in the general population, albeit without a collar. Retaining him in the priesthood, with limited ministry, gave the bishop some small means of safeguarding others.

If you wish to make the argument that many bishops didn't do a very good job of oversight, that's fair and true. And in hindsight, perhaps the bishops oughtn't be trying, and removal from the clerical state is the best remedy.

But you are criticizing bishops who, in many cases, were trying to do what was best in often very difficult situations.

As to your last sentence:

"Looks to me like he got away with what he could while he could."

That's just cynical, uncharitable, unfair, unfounded, uncalled for, and un-Catholic.

"'Of course, you have left out the part that the abuse happened long before Bishop Myers became bishop of Peoria, that the case was reported to Bishop Myers years after it happened'

"Nonsense. The portion of the article I posted contained the dates."

Well, according to your links, the abuse stopped in 1983:

"Koenigs alleges William Harbert, another priest and a friend of Engels, began molesting him the following summer and continued to do so occasionally until Koenigs broke off his sexual relationship with both men in 1983."

But according to the Newark Archdiocesan website:

"On Sept. 3, 1987, Bishop Myers was installed as Coadjutor Bishop of Peoria, and acceded to the See of Peoria on Jan. 23, 1990."

Auxiliary four years after the abuse stopped, Ordinary of the See seven years afterward. It appears that it is you who are uttering nonsense.

"'and that it was Bishop Myers who disciplined the priest, and removed him from active ministry.'

"And you consider that adequate, in light of the 1961 prohibition on ordaining SSAD sufferers?"

In light of the practices of the bishops prior to this past year, and in light of the fact that these practices were obviously accepted by Rome, yes.

And as I have pointed out, removing a man completely from the clerical state accomplishes little more than freeing him from any further constraints the bishop may place upon him. A suspended priest may still be on the diocesan payroll. He is obligated morally to obedience to his bishop, but more importantly, he is dependent on the bishop for his meals, his housing, his health insurance, etc., etc. The bishop may fairly be thought to have some leverage over the man in this case, to prevent him from positions where he might do harm again.

Once a man is laicized, removed altogether from the clerical state, the man is on his own, to fend for himself. You may think that is more just, I see the point. But the bishop's leverage over the man is now dramatically reduced. He is now a roaming beast, free to prey on the unsuspecting. That's the downside to "zero tolerance".

"I am aghast that he did not have that priest defrocked. That he would even in a nightmare consider allowing him to celebrate Mass is an abomination."

The term "defrocked" isn't a Catholic term. Perhaps Protestant ministers can be effectively "defrocked", but Catholic priests, properly speaking, cannot. Once a man is ordained a priest, he is a priest forever, in the line of Melchizedek. A bishop can no more undo his ordination than a bishop could command the tides.

A bishop may suspend a priest from the exercise of his priestly duties, but leave him in the clerical state, or a bishop can have a man removed from the clerical state altogether. The second action is what we usually refer to as "laicization", and is called by some "defrocking".

If a man cooperates, a bishop can do either thing. But if a man does not wish to be laicized, a bishop may not do so without due process, including appeals to Rome. Thus, it often effects a faster solution to suspend a priest rather than to "defrock" him.

Of course, even if a bishop "defrocks" a priest, and forbid him from saying Mass, the priest is still a priest, and may still validly say Mass. Thus, if the man is not inclined to obey the bishop, he may continue to say Mass, anyway, even after he is laicized. There are laicized Catholic priests who actually rent themselves out to others for just these purposes.

But honestly, your remarks at least hint of the heresy of Donatism, that an unworthy priest may not rightly administer the Sacraments, even if he has repented of his sins, and is trying to walk the path of repentance. Well, the Church is a Church of sinners, including the priests, and it is not an abomination for a forgiven sinner, who may be walking the path of repentance, to administer the Sacraments, even to say Mass.

If the man is persisting in his sin, it is sacrilege. But if the man has repented, it may be distasteful to you, but it isn't an abomination.

"'also, after reflecting on Koenigs' protest, stopped even that.'

"After somebody blew the whistle on him, you mean."

Ah, more cynicism. Well, that's the uncharitable view. I will continue to give the archbishop the benefit of the doubt, as we are obligated to do.

"'And, it was under Bishop Myers that the policy was changed, to forbid abusing priests from ever being reinstated to active ministry.'

"Only after he realized he wasn't going to get away with protecting them any more."

What you view as protection of the offender may have been viewed by the bishop as a means of control and leverage over the offender, to reduce the chances of his giving offense again.

"'say he left "a mess", regarding the seven priests cited by AlguyA in this thread, for the next bishop. But no evidence is offered of that.'

"You don't think seven homosexual priests is a mess? Amazing."

The facts of their abuse, which occurred prior to Bishop Myers becoming bishop, were reported by the victims after he left.

But of course, you're saying that the fact that then-Bishop Myers permitted any homosexual men to be priests in his diocese was "a mess". Well, I have news for you, dsc. It is unlikely that there is a single diocese in the United States where there are no homosexual men serving as priests. Thus, again, you indict every bishop in the United States, not only Archbishop Myers.

And of course, I know that you believe that your "gaydar", as you call it, is in perfect working order, but you might be surprised at the ones your "gaydar" has missed. Contrary to popular belief, a homosexual orientation is not always readily apparent. Thus, the first problem for your charge against the bishop, and indeed, all the bishops, is that in justice, it may have been that then-Bishop Myers did not know the men were homosexual, and in justice, there was no real reason for him to know that.

But even if he did know, I don't believe that there is any policy in the Church which would permit him to laicize men whom he thinks are homosexual. You cite the 1961 document, but seem to forget that Rome herself has ignored the logical conclusions of it. Once a man is validly ordained, it's difficult for a bishop to laicize him against his will. I don't know that in the past 40 years, anyone has been forcibly laicized for being a homosexual. Perhaps for committing homosexual acts, but not for being a homosexual. It is foolish to think that bishops could have gone around laicizing men only because a bishop suspected that they were homosexual. It betrays an utter lack of understanding of how the Church works, how Church law operates.

"'Well, as AlguyA has pointed out IN THIS THREAD, the accusers DIDN'T EVEN COME FORTH UNTIL AFTER BISHOP MYERS LEFT PEORIA.'

"What do you mean, 'left Peoria?' The article I posted said that Koenigs went to him while he still had the diocese. You yourself pointed out that Myers changed the policy when Mrs. Koenigs raised a fuss."

Try to keep things straight, here, dsc. The case concerning Mr. Koenigs is not one of the seven cases which came up after Bishop Myers left Peoria. Those were seven separate cases, which relate to your second link, which has some anonymous parishioners and a heterodox theologian from another state complaining about the mess that Bishop Myers left for Bishop Jenky. In THOSE seven cases, the victims did not come forth until after Bishop Myers left Peoria.

C'mon, dsc, you can do better.

"'And it was pointed out to you. Yet you chose to repeat already-discredited calumny.'

"The only thing you've discredited here is your own objectivity."

In light of your above-displayed confusion over the facts, I think I'll ignore this comment, as it is negated by your confusion.

"Buncombe. Myers had a diocese with seven priests that needed to be fired--eight if you count the and one that he tried to ease back into active service--and he utterly failed to deal with it."

As explained above, it was unlikely that a bishop would be able to successfully laicize a man for having a homosexual orientation. Even now, I don't think that such a laicization would fly in Rome.

"'It was contemptible.'

"I withdraw my apology, with regret at having wasted it on such a sorry specimen of humanity."

While I criticize your words and actions, you descend to insults of my person. I think that this displays adequately the difference in our positions.

"I don't intend to make Archbishop Myers my life's work, but when you put together his treatment of the one known molester, his failure (apparently even to try) to weed out others, and the bizzaro behavior of putting in a swimming pool, a person is entitled to go 'hmmmm.'"

"bizzaro behavior"??? Getting a swimming pool is "bizzaro behavior"??? HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

I'll let that one speak for itself.

"Yes, it is, but home swimming pools are intrinsically sybaritic."

????

Frankly, what is bizzaro is that assertion.

" Expensive to build, expensive to maintain, and private--in the worst sense of the word."

Perhaps you are projecting some issues with which you may be dealing. Try not to project them onto others undeserving of malicious gossip.

"'To put a very nice pool in the backyard will run about $20,000 - $50,000.'

"$50,000 is well above the median annual income. How much more bang for the buck would the Church have gotten if he'd raised a little more and put in a Catholic youth center with a pool?"

Oh yes, yes. And why didn't Cardinal O'Connor sell that beautiful, large, valuable Victorian mansion in New York City where he lived (in one room, sinkspur tells us), and build housing for the poor? He could have taken up residence in some inexpensive, small flat! And we can sell all the art treasures of the Vatican! And all those vast holdings of real estate owned by the Church! Yes, yes! That's the ticket!! You guys are too much, lol.

"Since my knees went bad, I have used pools of various sizes for lap swimming, and IMO for any kind of efficient exercise, you need at least 25 meters of length. Ever seen a 25-meter pool in a back yard?"

Yes. I could easily put one in my own backyard, especially if it were designed as a lap pool.

I don't know much about the archbishop's new residence other than that it cost $650,000, or so they say. I can imagine that a $650,000 residence may have room for a nice lap pool.

In closing, when one looks carefully at all that you've spewed, one finds little else but stale gossip, uncharitable construction of facts, and some warped ideas about swimming pools.

sitetest