My Photo

Insight Scoop

Catholic World News Top Headlines (CWNews.com)

The Curt Jester

JIMMY AKIN.ORG

Poor Box

Render Unto Us

Tip Jar
Blog powered by Typepad

« Outrage Over 'Last Supper' Ad | Main | From The Orange County Register: Brown Accuser Talks About His Past »

Saturday, September 29, 2007

Comments

Christopher H.

Show your support for John Urell
SAVE JOHN URELL

Patrick

Thomistic,

The priest mentioned above taught at my Catholic high school in '72. At that time, he was still a deacon. Man, I'm glad I was kicked out of that place :o) It was an awful school. There was also a strange friar there. In later years, I heard that he was "laying hands" on the young male students, and it wasn't a blessing.

Frank Jump

Jesus was born and died a Jewish man.

Thomistic

Nobody denies that Jesus was Jewish, so I'm not sure why you felt compelled to point that out.

Pax,

Thomistic

Patrick

Addendum to the above comment: The Catholic high school, which I mentioned above, was very liberal and progressive. The people running the place were members of the "spirit of Vatican II" crowd. I am unable to remember even one class which had anything to do with the Faith. I do remember self-esteem exercises during the period which was supposed to be devoted to a religion class. The priest mentioned above liked to bring his favorite LPs for us to hear. I bet more than half the kids who attended that school fell away from the Church. The former students, who are members of an organized religion, are probably Mormons or something.

A Simple Sinner

Meanwhile, outside of Orange County and Fox News...

Ignatius

I take a dim view of all this. Rev Dr Alcuin Reid author was suspended from the Diaconate in the Archdiocese of Melbourne. He was sexually active through his seminary days and propositioned males in his parish Antioch Group. He would groom males and then proposition them after gaining their confidence. He left Australia and did the same after joining Farnborough Abbey. All this can be verified.
What I find astonishing is the great difficulty there is in removing someone from the clerical state in the new Code Of Canon Law. Also whenever something like this or the case you outline is made public accusations of calumny and detraction follow. Those who sexually abuse or don't believe in celbacy while clerics, just ignore their own behaviour. It is others who are forced to make it public.

Christopher H.

500 Irish priests 'having regular sex with women'
By Tom Peterkin, Ireland Correspondent

At least 500 women in Ireland are conducting clandestine affairs with Roman Catholic priests, according to the leader of a support group set up to look after those in forbidden relationships.

An indication of the extent of illicit sexual relationships within the church was given after it was disclosed that Fr Maurice "Mossy" Dillane, 73, had fathered a child with his 31-year-old girlfriend.

Bishop Pat Buckley said an extremely conservative estimate was that one in 10 of the 5,000 Catholic priests in Ireland enjoyed regular sex with women and some even referred to their clerical collar as the "bird catcher".

Studies had shown that 80 per cent of priests had broken their vows of celibacy on at least one occasion, he said.

Bishop Buckley runs the Bethany organisation in Larne, Co Antrim, which he set up to provide support to those in love affairs with the clergy.

Described as Ireland's rebel bishop, Bishop Buckley was sidelined by the Catholic church in the mid-1980s when he pursued his own ministry for those who felt alienated by the traditional church.

When the statistics were widened to take in practising homosexuals, Bishop Buckley said up to 40 per cent of the Catholic clergy in Ireland were sexually active.

Counselling sessions organised by Bethany have disclosed that several women were unwittingly having sex with the same priest.

He claimed the church's hierarchy was prepared to turn a blind eye to sexual indiscretion because it was so widespread. "Bishops are caught between Rome and the priests and, of course, some of the bishops are in the same position (i.e. having relationships)," he said.

"From the top down it is hypocritical. We are preaching compulsory celibacy, but very few are living it."

He said he had met 147 women who had joined Bethany in order to share their stories of adultery and priestly promiscuity.

Romances between an understanding man of God and an unloved wife were commonplace, as were priests and their housekeepers secretly living together as man and wife while relationships between priests and nuns were unofficially known as the "third way" by the church.

Bishop Buckley said Fr Dillane and the mother of his child had nothing to be ashamed of and urged them to come out of the safe houses where they have been hiding since news of their relationship swept through Ireland.

The case of Fr Dillane, a sociable and charismatic priest from Co Galway, has been greeted with a tolerance that was absent 14-years ago when Bishop Eamon Casey, the Bishop of Galway, was disclosed as the father of a teenage son by an American divorcee, Annie Murphy. He was forced to apologise when it emerged that he had siphoned £70,000 from the diocese for their upkeep.

Bishop Buckley has been a long-standing campaigner against compulsory celibacy and points to a recent Irish survey suggesting that 90 per cent of the population thought clergy should be allowed to marry. He also believes that enforced celibacy is an unnatural state that could be to blame for the sexual deviancy that led to the child abuse scandal that erupted in Ireland last year.

"Some priests are in the Jack the lad mould and have several relationships in various parishes. I have heard priests refer to their clerical collar as the bird catcher," Bishop Buckley said.

The Roman Catholic Church in Ireland declined to comment on Bishop Buckley's claims.

...and some even referred to their clerical collar as the "bird catcher".

Eeegads!

A Simple Sinner

Why have I gotten to the point that I am relieved to find priest who break their vows, are at least breaking them with adult women?

This is a very sad point to have come to!

At least we see signs of hope in a goodly number of places. Some time ago I wrote a little story about some of the good news:

Counting Blessings

We have more than another decade of negative stories coming to light. But I firmly believe we are going to continue to hear some very positive things that we would not have expected to hear at all 10 years ago.

Maximus

Thomistic:

Gustavo and I are friends, but there is no way he is going to give Msgr. Urell a fair hearing. For example, did you read his descriptions of the documents in the Addendum?

For example: 6. Urell e-mail complaining that a Ramos victim was "getting the best help he can at $140 per hour." Read the e-mail. Msgr. Urell isn't complaining. Quite the opposite. He's expressing his desire that the victim get the best care possible for the $140 per hour. That should give you a clue to how Gustavo will present facts -- which, as you know, is not equivalent to truth.

Or how about this one:

5. 2001 Urell note to a psychologist complaining that her treatment of a Ramos victim "could be at odds with the Catholic Church moral teachings in the way you might suggest that [the victim] deal with this issue, which, in itself, if experienced outside of the marriage bond, is contrary to our Church teaching."

Shouldn't Msgr. Urell be commended for standing up for Church teaching, even in a politically radioactive environment like that?

Ask yourself, Thomistic: Do you want minor victims of abuse -- whether from clergy, teachers or coaches -- to be compensated and their therapy paid for? Because that is one thing, and I agree it should happen. And it is happening.

Recognizing the facts of abuse and desiring just compensation is far different than supporting the efforts of litigators like John Manly to loot the Church six-ways-to-Sunday. Who do you think ends up footing the bill? Those who are guilty?

Gustavo Arellano

Maximus: dunno who you are--you can't be that much of a friend if I don't know your nom de plume! Rudeness aside (and I'm sorry, but I just find it odd when folks who post anonymously use a supposed friendship with me as a catalyst to make their point even stronger--it's happened before), I'll move on to your critique.

The first Urell note (the $140/hour) was the culmination of many other memos in which Urell is increasingly getting frustrated over the length and cost of the treatment for the Ramos victim. My main story tracks this. Viewed in that context, Urell's "concern" sentence comes off as sarcastic, especially when he ends his "concern" with the cost of the treatment.

The second complaint you have of my reporting regards Urell standing up for Church teachings. Doesn't it seem bizarre and terribly short-sighted for Urell to worry about how a sex-abuse victim is finding therapy, especially in light of the decidedly non-Catholic pedophilia tolerance that allowed Ramos to evade the law's reach? That offends me, at least.

Thomistic

I agree with Gustavo's point about Msgr. Urell's expressions of concern (or complaints) about the cost of therapy for victims, which is unbelievably calloused if finances were the primary motive for his concern.

However...

In terms of any expressions of concern for the way the therapy was being handled, I would be supportive of challenging therapeutic techniques of dubious merit, especially if they encourage a client to commit objectively sinful acts (which would also violate Church teaching, but that's not why they're objectively sinful, the Church teaches they are objectively sinful because of the nature of the acts themselves, Church teaching doesn't render the acts objectively sinful).

The client's culpability would depend the disposition of his or her conscience, meaning they would need to know the action was objectively sinful, and freely choose to commit the sinful act after sufficient reflection (which merely entails recognition that the considered action is morally evil and is in no way dependent upon the client's personal feelings or desires.

The late Fr. John Hardon, S.J. defines conscience in this way in his Pocket Catholic Dictionary:

Conscience - The judgment of the practical intellect deciding, from general principles of faith and reason, the goodness or badness of a way of acting that a person now faces.

It is an operation of the intellect and not of the feelings or even of the will. An action is right or wrong because of objective principles to which the mind must subscribe, not because a person subjectively feels that way or because his will wants it that way.

Conscience, therefore, is a specific act of the mind applying its knowledge to a concrete moral situation. What the mind decides in a given case depends on principles already in the mind.

These principles are presupposed as known to the mind, either from the light of natural reason reflecting on the data of creation, or from divine faith responding to God's supernatural revelation. Conscience does not produce these principles; it accepts them. Nor does conscience pass judgment on the truths of reason and divine faith; it uses them as the premises from which to conclude whether something should be done (or should have been done) because it is good, or should be omitted (or should have been omitted) because it is bad. Its conclusions also apply to situations where the mind decides that something is permissible or preferable but not obligatory.

Always the role of conscience is to decide subjectively on the ethical propriety of a specific action, here and now, for this person, in these circumstances. But always, too, the decision is a mental conclusion derived from objective norms that conscience does not determine on its own, receiving it as given by the Author of nature and divine grace.

One example I can think of where objecting to a type of therapy would be morally required would be a therapist advocating the use of a so-called "sexual surrogate", which is essentially a euphemism for prostitution. Utilizing a "sexual surrogate" to overcome sexual difficulties would not only violate Church teaching, but would also be a controversial recommendation, as the practice has been highly criticized by respected psychologists.

I would also have problems with encouraging people to use pornography, because it's sinful, and it has been criticized as psychologically damaging, promoting the objectification of human beings, creating unrealistic expectations with respect to sex, creating the need for variety in the types of pornography the viewer must experience (including seeking out more explicit and/or deviant forms of pornography) in order for the viewer to maintain interest, as well as its generally addictive nature.

I would also have problems with encouraging people to commit sexual sin by engaging in sexual activity outside of the context of marital intimacy between one man and one woman, because I am aware that God, the Divine Physician, is also the author of human sexuality, and no human expert can justifiably claim that they can help heal sexual dysfunction by encouraging people to violate the natural law, which has been elucidated for us by the Divine Physician, who knows more about what is good for us and what will ruin us than any human physician or psychologist.

So, if Msgr. Urell's objection was to continuing to spend any amount of money on practices of questionable value from a scientific standpoint and/or which are known by those who believe in Divine Revelation, guided by solid philosophy and sound Theology to be evil and ruinous to those who engage in such practices, then I would actually support such objections.

No Catholic can, in good conscience, turn a blind eye to, or morally support (much less financially support) leading people into sin, even venial sin, much less objectively serious sin. Doing so would be the equivalent of turning a blind eye to, or morally supporting, self-destructive behavior – despite potential repercussions of dire, eternal consequences.

That's not in anyone's best interest.

Pax,

Thomistic

Nota Bena

One Billion Dollars! And it CONTINUES and CONTINUES! What is the Church is doing to its own flock? Where are the lawyers for the people of St. Norbert's parish? We got shoved down our throats a sick and mentally defective priest. When do we get to ask the questions? It was really funny, the Yellow insert in the parish paper from the lawyer for Urell. Yellow, the color of a coward! So, Norbert's parish is now being run by a outside lawyer! I thought the Catholic Church was of the people, by the people and for the people. I guess it's for the Cult of the Priest's only. The hell with their priestly sacrament! Urell, you can run but you can not hide from the truth! Anxiety, that's his sub-conscience eating away at his soul!

Jimbo

Nota Bena,

What did you do copy and paste your comment from the other article? Come on now. Don't clog the blog with your pasted copies.

Avenging Arch Angel

www.bishop-accountability.org/abusetracker for daily global vetted coverage of the ongoing criminal cover up and enabling by less that 3,500 miters and red hats, at the total expense of 1.1 billion laity, in the multi BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, and counting, with no end in site.

When the likes of Teflon Mahal Mahony, aka 'What Gay Orgy At St. John's Seminary In Camarillo?' of LA, George 'Boys Club' of Chicago, Walsh 'Head Start Before I Call The Cops'of Santa Rosa, Rivera 'Code Blue' of Mexico City, Brom 'Normal Accounting Practices' of San Diego, Steinbock of Fresno, Weigland 'I Am Not A Crook But Carry One' of Sacramento, Bernie Law-less formerly of Boston and now full salaried at one of only 4 Papally designated Roman Basilicas, No Shoes O'Malley of Boston, Barnes of pure as the driven dust of San Bernadino, Egan 'What Gay Lover's Family Suing?" of NYC, Darth Leveda formerly of Portland & SF and now CDF Prelate, Brown of Gay Orange, to name but a few, are canonically censored, removed from office, placed for LIFE under hard labor, bad food, in remote, dark, cold monasteries, or if they refuse, swiftly and irrevocably EXCOMMUNICATED, only then, will justice be served of these multi decade criminal ENABLERS and OBSTRUCTORS.

Until then...

No Bishop Accountability?

No Laity Monies!

Veritas et Caritas

Simple sinner: Reid is neither suspended nor has he been accused of predatory behaviour and he was not dismissed from any seminary or Farnborough for sexual misconduct.

Benedicite

It is very strange that these 'rumours' about Reid keep surfacing. Is it a case of 'no smoke without fire'? Surely, it cannot all be lies, there must be a basis of truth?
I know Reid a little - but well enough to say that his official face is different from his private face. Similarly the inner workings at Farnborough may not be quite so pleasant and edifying as the official blurb suggests given the number of excellent vocations who 'left' in the last 10 years. But then we are all sinners ........

Oyez!!

It always strikes me as odd that Farnborough Abbey - according to the information it supplies to the Benedictine Yearbook - is relatively thriving, yet whenever I visit the stalls are almost empty! There is obviously a 'problem' there, even if its only a difficulty they have with counting ......

OC Reg

An unemployed patient at Lestonnac Free Clinic in Orange became its executive director.
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/life/themorningread/article_2183623.php

Oyez!!

I gather that Farnborough is now very much depleted in numbers & only surviving because it has a lot of cash stashed away thanks to the late Empress's generosity. In view of all the rumours re turmoil & Alcuin Reid etc she must be revolving in her tomb!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Pope Benedict XVI Homilies & Statements

Codex of Catholic Blogs

Orthodox Blogs

Blogs From People We Wish Were Catholic