« Translated | Main | Kerry and PBA »
October 13, 2004
Now we get it
Toledo seminarian drops out 2 days before ordination. Now we know why.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/1233907
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Now we get it:
Comments
How tragic... all those exploited children really gets me. I know I'm completely naive on this subject but the sexual attraction to children just eludes me altogether. I'm sure there are many reasons for this but why is it I've never heard of a female who was attracted to children in that way?
Posted by: Colleen at Oct 13, 2004 8:59:45 AM
Amy,
Thanks for the posting. It is hard to be grateful for such news, but it is essential. Kind of like a shot of penicillin in the rump when you're ill.
Can yokels like this still have their heads up their rectums? How long ago did the public disclosure of "the Situation" occur? Three, four years ago? My six year old knows about it - could this gentleman not?
Due the Scandal, the Catholic clergy has essentially been painted bright red and set out in the woods as in a deer hunt. Are individuals unaware that they are under heightened scrutiny? Do they not know that their very position brings them under suspicion?
I have zero sympathy for Mr. Tynan. Actually, less than zero. I have negative sympathy. Furthermore, I repudiate all who might suggest that Mr. Tynan "has a right to his reputation." Unless, of course, that "reputation" is an accurate one - as a person who indulges in child pornography. In that case, I will concede that he does indeed have a right to that reputation.
Finally, I wonder if there is something about the name of Tynan uniquely associated with this kind of behavior. The late Kenneth Tynan, English drama critic, was similarly known for tastes in sexual oddity: "Probably his greatest claim to popular fame was to be the first person to say “f--k” on the BBC, and as the creative force behind Oh! Calcutta!, the erotic review which crashed the sex barrier in 1967 and played for a quarter of a century after that."
A Tynan apologist offers the following: "I don't feel that Tynan was in any sense depraved or corrupted. You could, at worst, accuse him of exhibitionism or selfishness. But he was essentially a libertarian and, as far as I can judge, his spanking activities, his sexual Olympics and his transvestite role-playing were all carried out with willing and enthusiastic partners. I also feel that what he did in his bedroom - or even a Madrid hotel or Regent's Park - was very much his own business."
Let us hope that Deacon Tynan will not garner similar apologetics.
Posted by: Mark Kasper at Oct 13, 2004 9:10:09 AM
Good for Bishop Blair to send Tynan packing. Down I75 in Cincinnati, Bishop Pilarczyk takes a more "enlightened" view of these things. When one of his priests was caught in a public restroom last spring exposing himself to a male undercover police officer, our good bishop prescribed a few months of counseling and then reinstated him at the cathedral.
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Oct 13, 2004 9:18:30 AM
Mr. Kasper spends almost half of his comment drawing a parallel with someone whose sins, while also salacious, are not those of the Mr. Tynan under discussion. That's a foul. Two minutes for unnecessary sliming.
What this young man has done is bad enough, thank you. Thank God he was stopped. May God have mercy on him, give him to courage to change, and lead him to true repentance and conversion of life. And may God bless all seminarians with true formation in the Gospel and purity of heart.
But for the mercy and grace of Christ, there go I. Or you.
Posted by: Roz at Oct 13, 2004 10:02:03 AM
I'm very thankful that this information cane to
light before he was ordained.
Posted by: Lynn at Oct 13, 2004 10:25:36 AM
Perhaps a priest or former seminarian could comment:
Do seminaries have "wise men,'' that is, experienced older priests who assess the fitness of candidates who present themselves for the priesthood?
In other words, are there kindly old Father O'Malley types who sit some of these guys down and say, 'I want you to think long and hard about this--you think you have a calling to the priesthood, but you really don't.' And then explain why?
Or have I seen too many Bing Crosby movies?
I'm not thinking solely of identifying the men with sexual deviancies; I also can imagine there are perfectly solid seminarians who get 95 percent of the way through, then conclude the priesthood isn't for them. But they don't want to disappoint their mothers, families etc., so they go through with it.
Do seminaries, in short, have priests who function as witnesses for the prosecution?
Posted by: Whitcomb at Oct 13, 2004 10:46:46 AM
Colleen,
You've never heard of Mary K Letourneau?
It seems as if the majority of offenders are men, but it is not a male only problem.
Posted by: moronikos at Oct 13, 2004 10:55:10 AM
Well, so much for Seattle's Archbishop who said in an AP article that the problem can be traced to those ordained in the '60s. So, is the Archbishop clueless? Then Lord help the Church. Or is the Archbishop duplicitous? Then Lord help the Church even more. We need to be able to trust these men.
No folks, it's not just a hippie phenomenon. The problem is still with us, giving Catholics more and more reason to look at priests in general with a jaundiced eye. And we won't even think about the image the general public must have by now. If these disclosures don't stop soon, there is not going to be anyone but the angels at Mass. As it is, at my parish the noon Mass is turning into a ghost Mass with lots of empty pew. (But maybe they're just attending earlier Masses, instead, huh. Yeah, that's it.)
I'm beginning to be concerned that just saying I'm Catholic is going to put the image of child abuser in the mind of anyone listening.
Posted by: Carrie at Oct 13, 2004 11:05:50 AM
Roz,
Thanks for your gracious comments. Your's is a textbook case of turning things precisely on their head. Deacon Tynan is found to be trafficking in child pornography, but I'm the one who is slimy. Logic isn't your forte.
I would offer a diagnosis that you are suffering from the "let those who are without sin, cast the first stone" syndrome. Those suffering from this syndrome tend to show violent reactions at any criticism leveled against another person, regardless of how heinous the crime. Delusions are also observed in that "sin" is not evil, but rather the "condemnation of sin" is evil. In the terminal stages of this disorder, those afflicted are stricken with moral silence, moral blindness and moral impotence.
It is exactly this attitude that let "the Situation" arise in the first place. If the clergy involved in seminarian formation had had the least amount of outrage over the evils being committed, then perhaps the Scandal could have been avoided. But instead, "condemnation of sin" was the far, far greater evil, and the Scandal lived another day.
Read how Detroit's late Archbishop Deardon punished Fr. (now Seattle Archbishop) Burnett for his villany in complaining about homosexuality in the seminary.
Yes, Archbishop Burnett is the villan and Archbishop Deardon is the compassionate saint who muttered to himself "but for the mercy and grace of Christ, there go I." And evil was given yet another day to flourish.
Posted by: Mark Kasper at Oct 13, 2004 11:11:50 AM
From the book Liberty, Equality, Fraternity (1873) by James Fitzjames Stephen.
"Strenuously preach and rigorously practise the doctrine that our neighbor's private character is nothing to us, and the number of unfavorable judgments formed, and therefore the number of inconveniences inflicted by them can be reduced as much as we please, and the province of liberty can be enlarged in corresponding ratio. Does any reasonable man wish for this? Could anyone desire gross licentiousness, monstrous extravagance, ridiculous vanity, or the like, to be unnoticed, or, being known, to inflict no inconveniences which can possibly be avoided? "
"The custom of looking upon certain courses of conduct with aversion," Stephen notes, "is the essence of morality."
Read this article at the New Criterion as an example of the consequences of moral blindness and weep.
Posted by: Mark Kasper at Oct 13, 2004 11:32:29 AM
Mark:
I would offer a diagnosis that you are suffering from the "let those who are without sin, cast the first stone" syndrome. Those suffering from this syndrome tend to show violent reactions at any criticism leveled against another person, regardless of how heinous the crime. Delusions are also observed in that "sin" is not evil, but rather the "condemnation of sin" is evil. In the terminal stages of this disorder, those afflicted are stricken with moral silence, moral blindness and moral impotence.
Yes, Jesus suffered from this too, and it led to the ruin of his Church on Good Friday. Hit 'em while they're down! say I.
Posted by: BA at Oct 13, 2004 11:40:17 AM
Sorry, BA, but like Casey at the Bat, you struck out. It is a common symptom of those stricken with moral blindness to be deluded that Jesus Himself was morally blind. Any brief perusal of the Gospels is sufficient to disprove this. However, the desire to make God into our own image is powerful. The projection of our own qualities upon the divine is a tempting approach to take God down a notch or two.
Stoning was a form of execution, not criticism. How is it that we have come to the stage that type-written criticism of reprehensible acts is now equated with execution?
"Hit 'em while they're down!"? I criticize Deacon Tynan's use of pornography, and now I'm accused of hitting him. Again, just as Roz argued, those who object to sin are the truly evil, while those who sin are just, oh, misguided souls. Read the link on Archbishop Burnett. You'd fall into the Bishop Deardon camp.
As I posted on one of Amy's blogs in the Deal Hudson scandal:
"Many of the Left-Libertarian stance (and increasingly many Christians) use a deliberate misinterpretation of Jesus' words: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
Jesus' words have, in essence, now become: "Let he who is without sin be the first to dare utter a word of condemnation of sin." This is the current mantra of the libertine left and it has been used to incredible effect against Catholics as a moral cork.
Fortunately, we need not be fooled. Stoning was not criticism, it was execution. A better paraphrase would be "Let he who is without sin throw the switch" or "Let he who is without sin pull the trigger." Shutting up and sitting down was not was Jesus had in mind for the Body of Christ."
Posted by: Mark Kasper at Oct 13, 2004 12:11:24 PM
For Colleen & Moronikos: I've never heard or read about female homosexuals being interested in sex with little girls. Mary K. Letourneau was involved with a boy. That there is a substantial segment of male homosexuals who are preoccupied with boys would seem to be obvious, based on "Man/Boy" groups, "gay" literature, and, sadly, the 80% of the complaints against our priests.
Posted by: Dudley at Oct 13, 2004 12:27:39 PM
Mark,
Sin is evil. The sinner is not inherently evil, but the sinner is wrong. The sinner needs to ask forgiveness, ask for the grace to stop sinning and reparation needs to be made wherever possible. Each of us is capable of sin that, in my case when God gives me eyes to see my own, makes me writhe with regret.
This is all congruent with Catholic teaching. Nothing can possibly be extrapolated from what I said that would excuse a nonrepentant attitude nor a coverup.
It's vital that the Church clean itself out, no question. But that's like saying that the main function of a mother is to keep the bathroom clean. Do we want to settle for that? Will that give life?
There's more at stake here than merely making sure our priests enmeshed in patterns of sin don't harm others. Do we just want the satisfaction of running the bums out? Or do we want priests and religious with genuine hearts for God who do more than just keep their parishioners safe -- who instead minister the Sacraments and the Word in holiness and power? How about both?
You're absolutely right that the clergy in charge of seminary training have a pivotal role to play. You're also right that the rest of us can probably make a contribution to making things right. There's room for informed and charitable discussion about what those constructive contributions might be.
Posted by: Roz at Oct 13, 2004 12:35:32 PM
, just as Roz argued, those who object to sin are the truly evil, while those who sin are just, oh, misguided souls.
Mark, I didn't say this or imply it. Please don't attribute this to me any more.
Posted by: Roz at Oct 13, 2004 12:37:27 PM
Roz,
I am frankly unhappy that you felt it necessary to start a comments box war. My first post had nothing to do with you whatsoever, but you felt it your right to turn up the heat. You finally state: "Please don't attribute this to me any more." If you expect consideration from another, you should be willing to offer it in return. Do not have the expectation that people won't react if you come at them with an attitude.
I take no satisfaction in Deacon Tynan's downfall. Why do you presume that I do? I would much rather that he have gone through life being a proper seminarian and became a holy priest, and I never would have heard of his name.
One does not have to be quiet and mewling and piteous when a seminarian of the Catholic Church gets caught trafficking child pornography. Just as in the Deal Hudson scandal, people would be more credible if they actually objected to immorality committed, instead of objecting to those who object to sin. It's just plain bizarre.
Posted by: Mark Kasper at Oct 13, 2004 1:01:47 PM
This morning I read this blog entry, which is so sad. Later I chanted Psalm 10, which seemed so relevant and comforting.
Why, LORD, do you stand at a distance and pay no heed to these troubled times?
Arrogant scoundrels pursue the poor; they trap them by their cunning schemes. The wicked even boast of their greed; these robbers curse and scorn the LORD. In their insolence the wicked boast: "God doesn't care, doesn't even exist." Yet their affairs always succeed; they ignore your judgment on high; they sneer at all who oppose them. They say in their hearts, "We will never fall; never will we see misfortune." Their mouths are full of oaths, violence, and lies; discord and evil are under their tongues. They wait in ambush near towns; their eyes watch for the helpless. to murder the innocent in secret. They lurk in ambush like lions in a thicket, hide there to trap the poor, snare them and close the net. The helpless are crushed, laid low; they fall into the power of the wicked, Who say in their hearts, "God pays no attention, shows no concern, never bothers to look."
Rise up, LORD God! Raise your arm! Do not forget the poor! Why should the wicked scorn God, say in their hearts, "God doesn't care"? But you do see; you do observe this misery and sorrow; you take the matter in hand. To you the helpless can entrust their cause; you are the defender of orphans. Break the arms of the wicked and depraved; make them account for their crimes; let none of them survive. The LORD is king forever; the nations have vanished from God's land. You listen, LORD, to the needs of the poor; you encourage them and hear their prayers. You win justice for the orphaned and oppressed; no one on earth will cause terror again.
Posted by: b at Oct 13, 2004 1:30:55 PM
I believe, Mr. Kasper, that Roz's original "penalty" was for bringing in another Mr. Tynan who has no relevance to the present case.
But further, I find myself in agreement with any dismay expressed at the sentiment expressed in "I have zero sympathy for Mr. Tynan. Actually, less than zero. I have negative sympathy." The acts of which he is accused are wrong. If he did them, as we are presuming he did, he deserves to be punished, and needs to repent to save his soul from eternal damnation. He does not deserve to be a priest.
But I am just sinner enough, and possibly soft enough, to feel sympathy for any sinner. Jesus wept over Jerusalem because He saw that her sins merited a terrible punishment that was coming upon her, and she had refused to recognize her Savior. He was the sinless Son of God. Can I, myself a sinner (although my sins, by the grace of God, are not the same as Mr. Tynan's), fail to sympathize with a soul who is on the brink of destruction? I feel sympathy for people so consumed by hatred that they blow themselves up in order to kill others, an action toward which I feel no inclination. How much more should I feel sympathy for a young man whose twisted lusts draw him into such perversions when I myself have experienced the power of lust, although not in the same perverted form?
Mr. Kasper, mere death is no tragedy. The only tragedy is eternal damnation, that a soul created to enjoy the eternal love of Almighty God deliberately turns away from that love. Should we not feel pity for those who, in spite of the teaching of the Church and the availability of the holy sacraments, nevertheless are being drawn by the Devil into such a tragic fate?
Posted by: Henry Dieterich at Oct 13, 2004 1:40:03 PM
I'm not sure why Mark Kasper suddenly reassigned Roz's comparison of the two Tynans so it included himself, which she clearly didn't do, but let's concentrate on a very good point he DID make: that Deacon Tynan would hopefully not draw any apologists to his side, that people won't jump in and suggest that he be given another chance, that sinners can reform, or that looking at child porn is not that big a deal, or godnoze.
Should he be given another chance? The article said "his name appeared" on a child porn site, but in what context? Did they trackback visits? Did he participate in a chatroom? I'd hate to guarantee to someone that I never ever strayed (as in followed a link and backed out) into a website that puts me thisclose to major sinfulness. Would that mean that I could never work with children in my parish again?
Posted by: Therese Z at Oct 13, 2004 1:48:46 PM
Mr. Dieterich,
I accept your and Roz's objections to my comments about "zero and negative sympathy." You are both correct that I should not have stated such things.
MKasper
Posted by: Mark Kasper at Oct 13, 2004 1:49:24 PM
Mark:
Stoning was a form of execution, not criticism. How is it that we have come to the stage that type-written criticism of reprehensible acts is now equated with execution?
The man has left the priesthood; he's publically disgraced; he'll probably go to jail. As far as earthly standards go, that's proportional justice for the crime. So, yes, throwing on now is hitting him while he's down. God did not appoint you as Special Agent in Charge to his case, so there's no need to add insult to injury.
And yes, the Gospels and the Catechism equate destroying a man's reputation with destroying him.
Jesus didn't excuse sin, but he also didn't excuse the human tendency to berate others for their sins. Beam. Eye. Removal.
Posted by: BA at Oct 13, 2004 2:32:47 PM
Devoutly as I wish it were not true I cannot
help but feel that in today's Church our priest-
hood is in secular terms dysfunctional. Priests
are disproportionately odd people, and not only in
the area of sexuality. The exceptions tend to
prove the rule. My best clerical friends tell
me that they do not particularly like or trust
other priests. It's a fundamental problem that
neither the Pope nor the most liberal American
bishop wants to admit or deal with.
Posted by: David Kubiak at Oct 13, 2004 5:52:06 PM
Dear David K.,
These days, I think everything is dysfunctional. The Church, the political leaders, the courts, the schools, marriage, families. I know openly gay priests; I know priests who dislike anything from Rome; I know husbands who divorce their wives to become transgender women, and our great country has the first openly gay Episcopal bishop. This week a 12 year old girl murdered her mother (in Texas, I think), after a fight. The flu vaccine is going for $200 a shot on the black market. Retirees are losing pensions and health care coverage. I don't think that, as a group, preists are any more dysfunctional than, say, cosmetic surgeons or criminal attorneys. So what to do? I think I'll take a cue from this Sunday's Gospel and be a tenacious old lady bothering the Judge. Neither the Pope nor the bishops can fix the human heart. Only God can do that.
Posted by: b at Oct 13, 2004 6:19:33 PM
Dear b:
You are right. The priests we have today weren't hatched. They are the sons of our grandparents, parents, aunts and uncles, cousins, or our own brothers. They are the same as us.
I do see some wonderfully 'normal' priests coming up the ranks though. It is very heartening to come across most of the newly ordained ones. They seem to (at least the ones I've met) have fewer Father Drinan type genes than their older brother priests do.
Posted by: Colleen at Oct 13, 2004 7:22:57 PM
No one should feel sorry for Michael Tynan. I am from the parish that he served as seminarian and he ate at my family's home several times. There are several young girls in my family and I thank God that he never had any activities with them. Knowing the story now, I wonder if he just never got his chance? The thought that he would look at them and find enjoyment in them makes me sick. Someone that would find joy in the humiliation and degradation of our most innocent and precious resources is not fit to live in society. He was promoting the abuse of these childern that he had photos/videos of. There is no hope for someone like this. I just hope that the authorties will never let him be in a position to ever hurt a child! Ever!
Posted by: J. at Oct 17, 2004 7:44:58 PM
It has been so long since the last post here, I don't know if anytone will even see this.
Michael Tynan removed HIMSELF from candidacy for ordination and HE petitioned for laicization. It was not forced on him. HE went to the Bishop.
I know Michael Tynan, have known him the entire time he was in seminary. He has 'walk in'priviledges in our home- and still does. I don't have my head in the ground- I was sexually abused as a child...and I work hard at educating my 7 children to protect themselves.But at the same time, I have taught my children that when we love, that does not change because someone makes a mistake- no matter how huge. Michael still needs our love and support, more now that ever. The chasuble I made as his ordination gift hangs in the hall to remind us to pray for him every time we see it.
Everyone who knows Michael feels betrayed in some way. But we still love him, and want to help him overcome this work of Satan in his life.
I don't know what led him down this path- but he was NOT trafficing child porn. it is a deep tragedy he was not able to fight off Satan's influence. He would have been an awesome priest.
Just remember- there are more pedophiles out there than you would begin to believe. And they all look like your good old fashioned guy next door. Most are upstanding members of the community- the LAST person anyone would expect.And they are smart. And they is why they get away with it.
Posted by: IAA at Nov 7, 2004 8:11:21 PM
