But before I do...let me bring this one, single article to your attention - from New Hampshire.
Now, one of the echoes from the audit is that most of the charges are "decades" old, and that is obviously true. That doesn't minimize their importance, but it does serve to lull us into thinking all is well in the here and now.
Is it?
Read this article.
The admission and formation of candidates for the priesthood is a process that varies from diocese to diocese. You can't paint the whole process with a broad brush. Obviously, men that are rejected from one diocese or kicked out of a particular seminary, can still go hunting for a place that will take them, either another diocese or a religious order. In the past, it was far easier to do this than today, and today, the growing perception is that more dioceses are being tougher and more selective. Just a couple of weeks ago, I heard a story about a diocese in which a bishop had asked all seminarians to be present at an event. One seminarian didn't go, pleading family problems of some sort. It was discovered he was lying, and had no such problems. He wasn't spending that time doing anything immoral, but the fact was, he had disobeyed the bishop and lied. The day after this was discovered, the seminarian was in the bishop's office and being told he was dismissed from formation in that diocese.
Excellent. But in other places...not so great.
KPMG pieced together details about "Priest A" through notes in his personnel file and an interview with the Rev. Edward Arsenault, the diocese's top official for clergy conduct. Priest A was a relatively new priest assigned to a North Country parish when the diocese received a letter about his conduct from a parish deacon in September 2003. The deacon was concerned that the priest was "intimidating" altar servers by grabbing the children and forcing them to don their vests quickly.
The same month, high school students in a religious class said the priest used "graphic sexual language" while explaining how he was "married to the church," the audit said. Police investigated the matter and found no evidence that a crime had been committed, the audit said.
The priest resigned from the North Country church Sept. 27, 2003, and checked into a psychiatric hospital soon after. He was later sent to a Catholic treatment center that specializes in substance abuse and psychological disorders. His doctors prepared a contract that called for him to have no access to the internet for six months, and to have restricted access after that.
The diocese then placed the priest in two central New Hampshire parishes and assigned him to live in the rectory of a third. Arsenault told the local priests to watch for "budding signs" of repeat behavior in the newly assigned priest.
The priest used the internet anyway. On Jan. 22, 2005, a network administrator at the priest's parish discovered pornography on a rectory computer and told Arsenault. The diocese informed its internal investigator, who referred the matter to federal officials.
Good: Once the pornography was discovered, the diocese referred it to the feds. Bad: the behavior leading up to it didn't get the guy kicked out. Note: even though no previously acknowledged porn problems are described directly in the article, part of the treatment is no internet access for six months. Someone knew there was a problem.
We've gone around and around about this, and views certainly differ. But I keep wondering again why a seminarian or priest who is discovered to be immersed in pornography and has problems that require him to put into a situation in which he is monitored and supervised shouldn't be dismissed?
Comments