« ID Me | Main | We love books »
November 17, 2005
All trails lead to Camarillo
The LAtimes wakes up and asks some questions.
You might note, too, that transparency only goes so far:
The Los Angeles Archdiocese said it did not have a comprehensive roster of St. John's graduates. It also declined to provide The Times with access to the campus or to photographs of graduating classes. For those reasons, The Times relied on ordination stories published annually in the archdiocesan newspaper, the Tidings — an approach that church officials said would yield accurate results.
The stories listed the names of about 620 St. John's priests who were ordained in the archdiocese since 1950. Several more graduates were identified in legal documents and in interviews with church officials and former St. John's students.
Some St. John's graduates were ordained into dioceses outside Los Angeles. Repeated attempts to obtain a complete list of these graduates were unsuccessful. Priests ordained into the Los Angeles Archdiocese were recruited and sponsored for the seminary by the archdiocese
Of interest in the story is the fact that all of those still in active ministry who are interviewed for the story swear up and down that they never saw anything, never heard anything and never picked up on any untoward vibe. Amazing.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d8346231c053ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference All trails lead to Camarillo:
Comments
"Yehling and others noted that engaging in consensual sex at the seminary and molesting minors were hugely different things, and said no link between them should be inferred."
Consensual sex....in a seminary....would be, uh....sodomy. Is it really such a huge leap to suggest that a person who is 'okay' with sodomy may also be 'okay' with child rape? I don't think so. Both are manifestations of a disordered sexual appetite.
Posted by: midwestmom at Nov 17, 2005 11:10:59 AM
Of interest in the story is the fact that all of those still in active ministry who are interviewed for the story swear up and down that they never saw anything, never heard anything and never picked up on any untoward vibe. Amazing.
I know a two priests that went through that place, and although neither of them told me about any untoward activity (I didn't ask), I was told that the moral theology curriculum was rather odd, particularly as the sexual branch of that subject was covered by that infamous text (I can't recall its title) that justifies doing "it" any which way you can.
Gee, I wonder if *that* has anything to do with these stats...
Posted by: Touchy Technician at Nov 17, 2005 11:49:23 AM
Touchy- that's interesting. I wonder if the seminary visitation looks at the textbooks used in each seminry's curriculum. Maybe a top down mandate on curriculum, and assurance of only orthodox texts, would help with seminary edication.
Posted by: thomas tucker at Nov 17, 2005 11:57:36 AM
There is no connection between seminarians having sex with each other and seminarians having sex with teen aged boys.
Keep repeating this until you believe it.
Posted by: joe at Nov 17, 2005 12:02:53 PM
I have to be anon here. If they had said anything they would have been ran out of the seminary. The lavender mafia does not take it kindly when they are exposed. Anyone who is a threat to them can have real trouble getting ordained. If they are ordained they can find themselves exiled or in some kind of trouble. These guys can be vicious. Will the Church ever address this problem?
Posted by: anon at Nov 17, 2005 12:02:57 PM
I attended a polyphony concert at St. John's about ten years ago. (Yes, at St. John's. Can you believe it?) The place just had a "bad vibe." It was empty, like a ghost town, or more aptly, like a devasted vineyard.
Posted by: Suibhne at Nov 17, 2005 12:16:06 PM
That should read devastated vinyard.
Posted by: Suibhne at Nov 17, 2005 12:17:38 PM
I know a man who went to St. John's. He complained about all the homosexuality at the school and got kicked out. He had a hard time finding another who would look past his expulsion, but now he is a priest in the Midwest.
Posted by: Sara at Nov 17, 2005 12:51:12 PM
"...particularly as the sexual branch of that subject was covered by that infamous text (I can't recall its title) that justifies doing 'it' any which way you can."
Kosnik's Human Sexuality, by any chance?
Posted by: Dale Price at Nov 17, 2005 1:11:07 PM
I asked this question on this blog some time ago: What was going on at St. John's Seminary of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles in the 1950's and 1960's, where Mahony, Levada and others were "formed"? I'm glad the LA Times is catching on. Apparently the seminary website has crashed or been taken offline.
I personally know some preists who went there. Some are gay and having a hard time with the current environment in the Church. Some are of no apparent orientation (good!) and doing fine jobs. And I believe Prof. Paul Ford is there, and I have some respect for his liturgical music.
I'm up to page 141 of Peter Manseau's "Vows" (Link on Amy's "Current Reads" over on the right hand margin. Peter's father (the Priest of the title) went to another infamous St. John's Seminary, the one in Boston, along with famous priests like Geoghan (ordained 1962) and Shanley (ordained 1960), and Bp. McCormack (ordained 1960). So far, the story has not mentioned any "overt homosexual activity" in the seminary. But a lot of sick and twisted preists in the Archdiocese who helped the "boys" realize the vocations in the 1950's (often by paying much special attention to them, even if not overtly sexual), and some clearly tormented but well-closeted gays in the seminary. It looks like a large part of the clerical community in Boston was having lots of issues with sexuality, but being discrete (but not totally secret) back to the end of World War II. The author's mother also had too much contact with a priest who was bounced around parishes like a ping-pong ball, probably for sleeping with the girls. This also matches my experience as a Catholic youth in Los Angeles in the 1960's. It was an "open secret" that you did not spend "private time" with clergy.
The obviously biased message from the book is that at least in the pre-Vatican II period, preists were "formed" to serve the Church, keep the rules and public image, privately dissent and grumble, and treat people as objects to be used for a "higher good."
I suspect that in the social upheaval of the late 1960's and 1970's, many clergy felt it was now alright to be "open" and "honest" about their feelings, and what went on for 20 or 30 years in secret was now more open. Hence the scandal.
This is the formation of most of our current American bishops.
Fascinating book.
Posted by: Old Zhou at Nov 17, 2005 1:42:08 PM
The current head of the CDF taught there. Let me repeat that: the current head of the CDF taught there -- at the seminary that produced accused clerical molesters at two and a half times the national rate.
Anybody care to hazard a guess as to the extent to which the Holy See will hold Archb Levada's homeboy Roger Mahony responsible for the human and financial disaster in the archdiocese of L.A.?
Is this a church, or a mafia?
Posted by: Palatine at Nov 17, 2005 2:13:42 PM
This is particularly interesting in light of some presentations I heard last Saturday at the Archdiocesan conference on "Issues in Human Sexuality."
Posted by: Clayton at Nov 17, 2005 2:35:26 PM
Just a taste of what the 30 or so catechists received in the presentation on Gay and Lesbian Catholics:
Dr. Bill Mochon (gay Catholic, aspiring permanent deacon for the archdiocese, and co-director of the Ministry to Gay and Lesbian Catholics) told us that the Bible has nothing to say about homosexuality. The OT passages were related to hospitality, and St. Paul's references were vestiges of the OT habit of avoiding all similarities with pagan practices. So am I supposed to conclude that the Bible's stance on homosexual activity is similar to its stance on eating shellfish? Ah, but all is holy under the new dispensation, right!?!
Posted by: Clayton at Nov 17, 2005 2:47:58 PM
There's only one way to destroy the Lavender Mafia: Encourage married men with children to become priests. That would mean eliminating mandatory celibacy. It's a discipline, not a doctrine. It also becomes irrelevant when married Protestant clergymen who convert retain their clerical status in the Church.
The effects of having increasing numbers of married men with children in the priesthood will, I believe, intimidate enough homosexuals to the point where 1)gay bishops will find it increasingly difficult to play either sexual or political games 2)fewer homosexuals will consider the priesthood as a vocation.
I understand that the Anglicans have a gay clergy and don't have mandatory celibacy. I also understand that a married clergy would present all sorts of problems with which the Church must come to grips: divorce, spousal abuse, the "preacher's kid" syndrome, financial support from congregations not used to tithing and from strapped dioceses, etc.
But if the Church doesn't do something drastic, this situation will continue. We need men in the priesthood, real men who aren't afraid of the testosterone God gave them. Can we truly say that about this bunch of hapless bishops and their bureaucratic subordinates?
Posted by: Joseph D'Hippolito at Nov 17, 2005 3:20:21 PM
Joe, I gotta ask, are you implying that homosexual men that have sex with adults are more apt to have sex with boys? I sensed irony, so I assume that you're making this correlation.
Are men that have sex with women more likely, therefore, to have sex with little girls?
Are men that prefer contact sports more likely to beat someone if given the opportunity?
Yes, homosexuality is intrinsically disordered, I know and agree with this. But, being attracted to men does not a pedophile make. I know far too many priests that have "same sex attraction", or whatever euphemism, who are decent, dedicated and holy men. One priest friend, who used to self-identify as homosexual, moved out of a priory because there were too many gay men. He told me that if he wanted to live like a gay man, he would have never entered his order.
So, it's not black and white. Not all homosexually-oriented (or insert your favorite label here) priests or religious are stereotypical gay men or women. And definitely not all of them are pedophiles.
Joe, here's a task for you: research on the internet how many of the men that are arrested for possession of child pornography are single. I am suggesting here that possession of child porn is a more apt indicator of the probability of committing a sexual assault against a minor rather than homesexual orientation. You'll be very surprised to find that a large percentage are married. Scary, I know.
Child rape is a crime. Homosexuality is a disorder. The two don't always go together.
Stephen
Posted by: Stephen at Nov 17, 2005 3:27:24 PM
Clayton- that is simply outrageous.
And so sad that people are not being fed Truth under the auspices of the archdiocese.
Posted by: thomas tucker at Nov 17, 2005 3:34:52 PM
Old Zhou knows "some preists [sic]who went there [the LA seminary]. Some are gay and having a hard time with the current environment in the Church. Some are of no apparent orientation (good!) and doing fine jobs. And I believe Prof. Paul Ford is there, and I have some respect for his liturgical music."
If a priest is celibate, why would he be having a hard time "with the current environment of the Church?"
Does writing liturgical music preclude the possibility that someone might also be a non-celibate homosexual?
Posted by: Minn-Ray at Nov 17, 2005 3:55:45 PM
Stephen,
Hetro men who have sex with underage teen girls are called rapists.
Yet
Homosexual men who have sex with underage teen boys are called pedophiles.
What you are in effect saying is homosexuals cannot commit rape. That is, homosexual men who prey are teen boys are not homosexuals, but pedophiles. Therefore, the problem isn't with predatory homsexual men.
I seriously doubt if the the predators were hetrosexual men preying on 15 year girls, that everyone would say the problem is pedophilia.
Posted by: JP at Nov 17, 2005 4:01:01 PM
Stephen,
Danile aint just a river in Egypt!
Posted by: Touchy Technician at Nov 17, 2005 4:07:46 PM
All gay men are not pedophiles. Of course.
However, a large part of the abuse in the church was of adolescents. Legally minors, but more or less sexually mature.
Now the world has a long history of relationships between older gay men and very young men. Some societies legitimized this. you can read about it in Plato. Some of these young men were probably what we call minors, and some weren't.
Furthermore, youth is sexually attractive.
Certainly heterosexual men know that 14,15,16,17 year old girls can be and are often devastatingly attractive. Some men do act on this. Most do not.
So are gay men more likely to approach young men of this age than heterosexuals are to approach young women of this age? I am thinking the answer to this question is yes. First of all, there is that long standing gay cultural tradition of this sort of relationship. Second, since acting on homosexual orientation is already somewhat transgressive in this culture, it is less of a distance for a person to go to be transgressive regarding the age of the object of the attraction. Third, if one accepts that homosexual attraction is intrinsically disordered, this means that there are defects in the personality, in the psychological development, of persons with this orientation (always, to a greater or lesser extent, and coexisting in many cases with fine qualities)and some of them will have boundary issues and fewer internal controls than those with normal psychosexual development.
Now, is this true of all gay men? No. Are there gay priests who are chaste and who are good priests? Yes. But if there is homosexual activity going on in the seminary, among men who are supposed to be preparing to take a vow of celibacy, it shows that some of them are not serious about that vow, or don't have the ability to live up to it. Of those, again, perhaps only a small percent will be exclusively attracted to adolescents or unable to find other partners, and become abusers. But it only takes a small percent to harm young people and cause all kinds of problems for the church.
Clayton, that is just what those people do say, that the Old Testament strictures against homosexuality are similar to those against eating shellfish. And Paul, you see, didn't understand that there exists a kind of people called homosexuals for whom homosexual attraction and relationships are normal; what he was condemning was for heterosexual people to engage in homosexual relationships. In the Episcopal church those who take this view are basically in charge of the machinery of the denomination and of many dioceses, and are called "reappraisers" because they have reappraised the previous Christian understanding of homosexuality. Those who disagree are called 'reasserters' because they are reasserting the traditional teaching.
We have re-appraisers among us also.
Susan Peterson
Posted by: Susan Peterson at Nov 17, 2005 4:22:27 PM
What he was condemning was for heterosexual people to engage in homosexual relationships.
Susan, you're right. This was also offered as an explanation at last Saturday's session.
Posted by: Clayton at Nov 17, 2005 4:35:56 PM
Joseph D. writes:
"There's only one way to destroy the Lavender Mafia: Encourage married men with children to become priests. That would mean eliminating mandatory celibacy. It's a discipline, not a doctrine. It also becomes irrelevant when married Protestant clergymen who convert retain their clerical status in the Church.
The effects of having increasing numbers of married men with children in the priesthood will, I believe, intimidate enough homosexuals to the point where 1)gay bishops will find it increasingly difficult to play either sexual or political games 2)fewer homosexuals will consider the priesthood as a vocation."
Joseph, wouldn't simply ordaining normal, straight men to the priesthood accomplish the same thing without the obvious and significant down-sides to married priests? There's no guarantee that a non-celibate clergy would have even the slightest effect on the problems associated with gay priests, and the headaches it would cause would more than likely have us wishing to go back to the days when all we had to worry about was the "Lavender Mafia". The Church doesn't need to do something "drastic", it needs to do something correctly.
Posted by: Poppi at Nov 17, 2005 4:41:44 PM
Susan,
You made excellent points. It should also be pointed out the St Paul was exposed to the promiscuous libertine culture of Greece. He encountered a society not much different than our own.
Posted by: JP at Nov 17, 2005 4:50:37 PM
Well, it looks like the courts are going to have access to the Archdiocesan records after all...
Posted by: Clayton at Nov 17, 2005 4:53:39 PM
"However, a large part of the abuse in the church was of adolescents."
Has it ever occurred to anyone that these sexually deviant priests preyed on boys rather than approaching other adult males solely for the purpose of hiding their indiscretions? It should be obvious by now that most of those young men kept their nightmare to themselves for years. Adults can't be manipulated quite as easily as a child.
First and foremost, the vast majority of sexually abusive priests were homosexuals. Kids just became the easy target for satisfying their degenerate sexual addictions.
Posted by: midwestmom at Nov 17, 2005 4:58:19 PM
