Should men just not be spiritual directors of women?
I know I, personally, would just never feel super comfortable having a male spiritual director, due to having read too many stories like this. Both in the Catholic and Protestant contexts. It's weirder in the Catholic world though because there's all this blasphemous "I'm actually kinda Jesus you know" shenanigans that groomer priests seem to love to pull.
There are priests I love and trust, and I'm even happy to do face to face confession with them. But a long term relationship in which I disclose all my vulnerabilities and wounds to this one guy, who is not my husband and who doesn't have a professional org that will pull his license if he crosses the line? Hard pass from me.
Maybe we need to take a closer look at how spiritual direction is defined, how these so-called directors are trained, etc, as well. Do I really need to tell my director my whole life story including secret temptations that I've never even disclosed in confession because they are temptations not sins... in order to get some advice on how to pray better and deepen my relationship with the Lord?
Do the practices associated with gaining indulgences - Rosary, daily mass as often as possible, regular confession, Lectio, and put up thru the desert times in the knowledge that the rain will come and water the ground. Ask Saint Mark Ji Tianxiang to help you patiently bear with temptations the Lord isn't taking away from you. Make decisions based on your best knowledge and don't worry too much about whether it's his will unless he makes it abundantly clear that it's not. And if you think the Lord or some Saint is speaking to you audibly or appearing to you visibly, then probably you should talk to both a priest and a shrink.
Not intending to sound flippant, I'm sure there are people who've gotten great benefits from spiritual direction but I'm so sick of reading about groomers and abusers taking advantage of pious, vulnerable people every day, and these bishops who ignore the blood of their flock crying out from the ground.
> Should men just not be spiritual directors of women?
For myself, I do not want a spiritual director who is not a priest. For other people there's a point in the climb where someone does need to look for a spiritual director (not a guarantee of finding one, but weird things happen and a doctor who has himself for a patient is a fool), but as St John of the Cross rants about in Living Flame of Love, it's worse to have a bad one than none at all and that's before we consider abuse. Folks should go in with eyes open.
Maybe, coming from a Protestant background, I don't fully understand what spiritual direction is or entails... can you explain why a priest would be a better spiritual director than, say, an abbess or a nun who's some years beyond her final profession, or a layperson (man or woman) who has a long association with a tertiary order of some kind?
I don't know that a priest would be better for an arbitrary person or not (however, before people reach the stage of wanting a spiritual director, they should ideally at least have a regular confessor who would necessarily be a priest. That is not the world we live in, but I'm just throwing this out there because some older books take it as a *given* or recommend it). For myself I am following my intuition and I do not have access to the reasoning (if we can call it that) of my intuition; do priests (in general) receive some grace of office that would in theory help with the job of spiritual direction? Or is my intuition just biased towards clerics? I don't know. Intuition is dumb (mute but also stupid).
I wonder if it might be that spiritual direction naturally has a sort of authority about it, and a layperson doesn't generally have authority over another layperson unless they're an actual parent/head of house/vowed religious superior? It winds up being a bit weird, even though it's OK, and even though spiritual director shouldn't be explicitly employing authority very often.
1. Historically monks were directors but not priests, so there is a strong root of holy lay people doing spiritual direction. (See e.g. Cassian's Conferences). To the extent directors had authority over directees it was not from ordination but from the role.
2. Some dioceses, such as Indianapolis, offer a listing of lay people the bishop has affirmed as orthodox for the role of director. This was out of a recognition that demand for priestly direction outstripped supply of good priest directors.
I addressed this in my comment. I had a priest that would do spiritual direction with me after my confessions. It was amazingly fruitful, and we would work on elimination of my venial sins... Which is so relieving because so many priests don't think venial sins are grave enough to confess. 🤦♀️
I see what you mean, that is a good reason to have a priest as director. Actually my regular confessor gives me tips/advice like that, often associating it with my penance, and so I'm always a little startled when I go to someone else and they just immediately go "OK make your act of contrition" and it's done, lol
Priests generally don't have time to do this with penitents in the confessional. We went through one sin, each instance of it since the last confession (and possibly common examples of situations I'm in where I commit the sin), ways to substitute it with the good, and ways to avoid temptation to do it again, and I was expected to eliminate or at least greatly reduce the sin in between weekly/every other week confessions. It was very, very helpful!
You put your finger on the problem in the last sentence. It is Bishop who has the responsibility, the authority, and the grace to deal with this problem. If he refuses to lead with due diligence, and to value the solid advice of psychologists, the sin is very much on him.
I think this is a good reason for having spiritual direction like women did in the past, through the confessional where both the woman and priest are protected from physical attraction. That is how Saint Faustina received spiritual direction from Blessed Michal Sopocko.
Another problem with this case is that the woman took a long time to inform her husband about the situation. There is no doubt the priest was abusive, but that is what a husband is for, for a wife to mention to him right away any discomfort about any situation, even if it turns out to be a misunderstanding.
We know several priests and my wife never feels comfortable if one of them visits us without me being present. The same goes for other men except the occasional repair guy. I also do the same regards women that we know (and my wife knows every woman friend I know). I would not call any woman, and never ever meet any woman alone, who was not my relative unless my wife knew about it. It just seems natural to us to do that because as best friends and being one body under God, there are no secrets between us and we both inform each other about nearly everything. A wife is not obligated to tell her husband what spiritual things she talks to a priest about, but she should tell her husband about any texts with any priest or other men, where and when she is meeting a priest for spiritual direction and anything that seems unusual. I think this problem would have never occurred if this had happened in regards to this woman and priest.
The first thing that a predator is going to do is to cut the animal out from the herd, so if I put my abuser hat on (like Chesterton's Father Brown, I will commit the crime in order to solve it) I would certainly want to sow gentle distrust between the woman and the man as part of the overall process. Lewis does not address this exact situation in the Screwtape Letters but the tactic of playing on a person's pride (how spiritual you have become; your old friends won't understand you, just talk to them about the same old things that interest them while secretly feeling superior) could be employed here too; there might be other tactics that would work too (the advantage of being a spiritual director is that the person would have willingly revealed their weak points, e.g. the SD would know that I, the directee, suffer from vanity and from an obsession with "what everyone else is thinking or saying about me" and this could be used to manipulate quite easily). As a prospective abusive spiritual director, I would want to get a sense of whether the woman goes running to the man about every little thing *before* I begin a serious campaign, and (if so) encourage her not to do that, but instead to stand on her own two feet; he does not need to be bothered with trivia, etc., in a mature marriage surely the parties trust one another (see how I have redefined "trust" to mean "keeping secrets from each other about serious matters of marital fidelity"!) This is a dreadful hat and I am taking it off again.
I agree that a person should be talking over "this person did this thing and ... something about it is just so *odd* and it bothers me but I can't put my finger on why" with someone receptive ("well if it feels odd then it is odd, so what should you do about that" type of problem-solving would be fine), and a married person should be able to do this talking-over with their spouse. The early red flags are something that a person's intuition would be uncomfortable with but intuition is terrible at explaining itself (by its nature) and so it's very easy for rationalization (and vanity) to trample it flat.
Yes, I've experienced this exact dynamic (not as the groomed person but as someone in the person's support network). Something that feels odd or off, trying to figure out how to articulate why and generally failing. The problem is that grooming often extends to the people the person directly being groomed would normally turn to (note the priest having phoned the husband to "get his permission" for their relationship, telling him only half the story and therefore making it harder for her to tell the whole story), and so it becomes an exercise in group-self-gaslighting.
How about some guidelines for spiritual direction? For example:
1. Meet in a way that allows you to speak confidentially but prevents physical contact. If the spiritual director is a priest, consider using a confessional.
2. Use a third party to set up/change/cancel appointments or to communicate otherwise: no direct texting or phone calls.
Concrete policies like these would make it harder for predators to ensnare their prey. It would also help prevent innocent spiritual directors from being unjustly accused of predatory behavior.
I have had the cell numbers of all but one of my Spiritual Directors. It has been very simple to communicate, and an absolute gift to text prayer requests in the moment. To the contrary, I do think if I had been given the cell number of the one priest, grave moral evils and criminal behavior would not have gone unpunished. Please pray for the poor priest who was not my Spiritual Director who in hindsight probably also wishes I had been given the director's cell number.
I don't know that direct communication is necessarily a problem. How often is that really abused? It would be interesting to know. I've seen first hand how not having it can manipulate and exploit 3 people in a situation... How often is it helpful?
I set up times with my spiritual director but that’s the extend of my communication. Never personal emails and he does not have my phone number (I don’t think he even has a cellphone.)
He comes off cold sometimes but I can greatly appreciate that now after reading so many of these stories.
Probably a very peripheral connection, but the canon lawyer Bishop celebrates Masses for Feast of Saint Josemaria Escriva. So turning a deaf ear to this poor woman doesn’t necessarily surprise me.
Provide other possibilities why a bishop would turn a deaf ear to a victim of predatory behavior. I’m listening. What would possibly influence an active prelate to be so deaf to this hideous behavior of one of his priests? Possibilities based on the Church’s actual history of protecting predators? I merely started a list of possibilities rooted in history.
I guess I just don't see how the Opus Dei Mass connection is relevant, or at least see it as a stretch. Still, obviously the bishop is very wrong in this case.
I can not give those who venerate Escriva (by celebrating Mass on his “feast day”) then ignore victims of predatory behavior - under the guise of spiritual assistance! - the benefit of MY doubt.
Regarding the link - I have not seen any substantive refutations of Gore’s book, specifically his account of the “saintly” life of Escriva. Provide me one and I will gladly provide the benefit of my doubt to any Bishop who reveres Escriva like this one.
Protecting predators, including by sins of omission and ignorance, MUST STOP.
We are talking about a canonized saint, right? Is the primary objection that it is a canonized saint who is not currently on the liturgical calendar? As an enthusiastic follower of rules, I can understand that kind of objection. I don't pay a whole lot of attention to saints who are not already favorites in my household but maybe you should ask this one to pray for the situation.
1) Canon law only requires action if the victim is a minor and he is a legalist.
2)The diocese is suffering from a priest shortage and needs all the men they can get.
3) The bishop is friends with the perpetrator and not the victim.
Perhaps other people can come up with some other reasonable suggestions. I don't think the diocese has too much money and is hoping to be sued after the priest commits similar indiscretions again is reasonable, however likely this result may be.
I suspect they are still amortizing the cost of Holy Name Cathedral. Groundbreaking for the cathedral took place on January 3, 2015. The construction of the cathedral cost $46 million.[3] The cathedral was dedicated on July 26, 2017.
> Costello would make analogies between their friendship and the mysticism of St. Theresa of Avila
Since he has allegedly brought up the subject of her (for his own purposes): St Teresa of Avila had a vision of hell and did not want anyone to go there, and so I am going to ask her to pray for this man.
From Marcelle Auclair's biography of Teresa of Avila (summarized/excerpted):
Teresa's confessor in Becedas was living in sin. He was attracted to Teresa and they had plenty of time to talk because Teresa's confessions were brief. "She spoke of God when the priest would have liked to talk with her of themselves... one evening, the confessor told his penitent that he was living in sin." He was having relations with a woman in the village for at least seven years and the whole while continued to say Mass. People knew about it, but no one dared challenge the priest. He even wore a necklace of charms she had given him, as a way of proving his love to her. They continued to meet and Teresa continued to talk entirely and only of God. Eventually the priest broke off the affair, tore off the necklace, and repented. Teresa threw the necklace in the river. She returned to Avila. The priest died one year later, to the day.
St. Teresa had also done quite a bit of study herself. How much are we expecting the woman here to have done? I think she believed the priest and trusted him, which is what makes this so wrong.
I'm not trying to Monday morning quarterback, I don't know nearly enough about her or her capabilities or what she went through to have any specific expectations.
But I am trying to think through the problem, as it is something that isn't limited to this particular priest, or this particular woman. I've met at least a couple priests who did similar things, so trust shouldn't be automatic. I'm thinking that touching would have put a stop to conversion efforts for St. Teresa. I think that most peoples' boundary should be considerably earlier than that, as there aren't many with her level of sanctity, or, based on half her autobiography, her level of distrust of self. I'm also pretty sure this priest wasn't her spiritual director. St. Teresa had enough experience with bad spiritual direction early on to avoid taking advice from or trusting that sort of priest. Basically, if a priest is trying anything sexual with anyone, even if only verbal, there is no further reason to trust him or believe anything he says. He is oriented wrong, and he is willing to break his solemn promise of chastity. The chances that he is lying to the directee are sky-high, as are the chances that he believes his own lies.
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/life-of-st-teresa-of-avila-5208 search for "river" to find her description of the story and you'll find that (rather than being holy enough and smart enough to pull it off) she says she was young and foolish and didn't understand what God considers good (vs what the world considers good) and that in hindsight it would have been a virtue to break off a friendship like that, and that while her intent in reforming him was good, her actions were not (spending more time with him, even though she spent it talking about God). So yeah her line by the time she writes about it would have been way earlier, NOT her younger self's flirt to convert.
I don't think I'd describe what she did as "flirt to convert", but it's good to know that she wouldn't suggest spending time with a priest like that at any stage.
My family member goes to St. Paul's. The first time I heard her talk about Fr. Costello was with excitement that she finally had a priest who seemed warm and was a better homilist than prior priests at the parish. I can only imagine the great scandal this will cause to that community...........and I hope it doesn't destroy the faith of my relative.
That area of NC isn't very Catholic, and this will certainly be scandalous in a very Protestant area, not to mention for the parishioners themselves. I pray my relative will stay strong in faith after this... The next closest Catholic church is like an hour away from New Bern.
I had thought about mentioning his mysterious removal to The Pillar, but I didn't know any details as to why and thought maybe it was under control of the diocese. Next time, I'll just tell them. I hope the diocese of Raleigh does the right thing.
Give the new priest arriving a chance. Fr John de Guzman was a parochial vicar at my parish and we were very sad to hear he was leaving. He's a young priest, and this will be his first time being the main pastor. It'll be a trial by fire, but anyone at his previous parish will vouch for his character. If your relatives give him a chance, they won't be disappointed.
The irony is, Catholicism is growing in NC, but having just left the diocese of Raleigh, under Zarama’s leadership they are totally fumbling the opportunity of an increasing number of faithful younger Catholics. My own experience is that the diocese is very reluctant to address the concerns of the laity. I thought maybe it was just the way the diocese behaved in the area of Catholic education, but the behavior pattern described in this particular, very grave matter was recognizable to me.
Consensual or not, I fail to see how it's appropriate to return a priest to a parish after an incident such as this. Is there some sort of protocol for situations like this? Do we always return a priest to a parish after he has had a physical affair?
It's absolutely horrendous. I am angry for his current parishioners who don't have another parish in town that they can just hop on over to instead while all of this occurs. He's still on the parish website, so given that it's Thursday, I wonder how quickly (or not) the diocese will scramble to remove him.
I've heard of laicization after affairs, either because the priest wanted to marry, or because the affairs were plural and serial in nature. A priest who had an affair and stayed in ministry was mentioned earlier in the comments, though that was in St. Teresa's time.
While priests can certainly abuse power in that way, having authority over someone does not automatically mean the subordinate can have no free will, or that their free will is necessarily impeded. Taking that as a principle would imply that no wife can ever freely consent to have marital relations with her husband, since he is head of house.
There is no legal basis for claiming a husband has authority over his wife. That is a red herring. There is thus no comparison between a husband and a priest who does have authority (and thus the ability to misuse it as power) over his congregation / parishioners in the parish or oratory for which he has been granted faculties by the residing Archbishop. This is based on canonical fact.
It's not legal, it's scriptural. "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything." Ephesians 5. Canon law is far more easily changed than that.
The priest's sphere of authority is considerably more circumscribed than the husband's, as the priest has no business in nearly all of the affairs of the household. Becoming a spiritual director widens that sphere, but that authority is gone pretty much as soon as the directee decides it is, which is not the case with the husband.
So many husbands have abused their authority, and usurped the role of the wife (and also of God), treating their wives like children or slaves rather than as persons of equal dignity, over whom they hold a superior office, not superior humanity or superior rights. But if abuse of an office meant that that office is removed from existence, we would no longer have either supervisors at work or priests in churches, or any other kind of hierarchy with humans in it.
Firstly, at no time did I advocate for removal of a priest's office, rightly called faculties, and secondly if you want to interpret the writer of Ephesians literally, that is your right. It doesn't make it " right". I'm not continuing this debate with you any further.
Priests definitely do return to ministry sometimes after they've had affairs (or were caught soliciting prostitutes, to name a specific example where I used to live).
And maybe this is an unpopular opinion here but I think that's... okay? Or at least it can be okay, (when the affair was truly consensual, when the priest has taken a long period of prayer and penance and affirmed that he still wants to be a priest, when he can be brought back as a vicar under a prudent and discerning pastor). It seems like the sort of thing that would have to be decided case by case rather than by a blanket protocol.
Long period of prayer and penance... now that, I've never heard of in modern times.
The part I would be concerned about would be accurately discerning whether the priest is a manipulator or not. If he is, he will be manipulating whoever is trying to discern if he is a manipulator. That aspect seems like it ought to have some protocols attached, rather than leaving it to the judgement of the authority that's being manipulated.
I am somehow still shocked by this, that the bishop didn’t see that the power differential between a priest as spiritual director and the woman means that there cannot truly be consent. The manipulation involved to get her to the point of thinking that this is appropriate and sanctioned by God means she wasn’t truly giving her consent.
This was a side note in the story, but her comments about her program at Divine Mercy University also make me wonder — what kind of program needs to break people down first? That doesn’t sound healthy.
Power differentials don't necessarily mean there isn't consent (deliberate seduction of powerful men was a KGB tactic). The manipulation is more to the point.
My college's computer science program had the tough classes in the junior year, and the physics and biology programs separated the "men from the boys" in the sophomore year. I expect it's a common pattern. You have the first year to get the fundamentals, and to let non-majors fill requirements, the second year to get the people who shouldn't be there to change their major, and the remaining years can then be done at a reasonable pace without slowing things down for someone who doesn't have what's needed. If the program is for a master's/PhD, I'd expect them to skip the easy year. I don't know of any programs that'll kick you out for taking less then a full load though, they'll just charge you for the extra year you'll need to graduate.
I think the power differential in the particular relationship of spiritual direction does diminish the directee’s ability to consent freely, or to give full consent. Especially when couched in religious terms, the manipulation inherent in the situation I think puts such a weight on the directee that any consent given is to some degree coerced. It’s the power that the director has over that particular person that is the issue, not how powerful the person is perceived to be by other people or by society.
It certainly can diminish it. Depending on the level of manipulation and the person's susceptibility to that manipulation, it could reduce freedom to consent to nothing. But if a person were to seek out a priest spiritual director with the intention of seducing the priest, I think we can agree that that would involve full consent. Having someone in authority over you tell you something does not always and necessarily remove your capacity for full consent, or at least that was what the Nuremberg trials concluded. I agree completely with that last sentence, "It’s the power that the director has over that particular person that is the issue, not how powerful the person is perceived to be by other people or by society."
I completely agree with you about a person seeking spiritual direction as a means of seducing a priest having full freedom to consent; I was not thinking of that dynamic but of this woman’s situation. I think you have convinced me that it’s possible for a directee to be able to fully and freely consent. I think that is somewhat rare, though, given how the director is most likely either manipulating or spiritually abusing the person (or both) to break down the person’s boundaries enough to get any kind of consent, as it seems this priest did.
I agree with you for this woman's situation, based on the evidence presented.
But I'm going to withhold judgement regarding what is most likely. I've never seen any statistics on the subject, and I'm quite sure that I haven't heard nearly enough to have a balanced assessment.
Your second paragraph seems to interpret the "breaking" language as referring to the academic rigor of the program. In context, I didn't get the sense she was discussing academic rigor, but something that involved the spiritual life of the students in the program. But maybe I am misreading it.
That was my understanding too, Clare, related to having to dredge up past wounds and memories that were difficult, which the priest then used to manipulate her later in spiritual direction. Academic rigor is one thing; this sounded different to me. I wonder what kind of program it was; if it was a master’s in counseling, that might be appropriate, but it definitely raised a red flag for me.
Academic rigor and spiritual growth. One must do a lot of spiritual work, often accompanied by counseling if desired, to understand personal wounds which become blocks to your relationship with God and others. It is very hard work and could be described as’ break’ IMHO. And by understanding your own ‘stuff’ it creates awareness in professional relationships to combat countertransference.
I can see that interpretation too. I have heard of the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius referred to as breaking a person down in order to build them back up. Working on deep wounds and their related predominant faults can be a rough experience even when approached gently and appropriately, and necessarily involves vulnerability.
I expect it's worth it, done right, but I wouldn't want to do it without significant distance between me and any manipulative people.
I know the word break was introduced above. To be clear, the goal of St Ignatius was always for spiritual liberty, not control or collapse. It is purely about freedom from illusion and sin. It is about seeing your disordered attachments and defenses you build up over time. This permits a deeper intimacy with Christ. If one wants to use the word break, it would be only in the context of breaking our human pride and self-reliance to see how our very existence relies on God. That means to live a joy filled life in Christ, we freely choose to allow him into our deepest wounds as we examine the lies along with the defenses we have acquired for self-protection. God cannot heal what we do not permit him to touch.
That is why one should be sure, for example, one works with a certified spiritual director. No one is immune to sin and falls from grace, but training matters. Absolutely! —-there is a higher standard for people called to the ministry into the sacred ground of work with souls!!
Who among us, however, has not been betrayed by those we absolutely thought we could trust through anything life threw at us? If humans are involved, there will always be horrible falls and people are hurt. This is life in a fallen world. What can we do? Please - Pray very hard for all priests, religious, catholic counselors and spiritual directors, etc.
I also wondered about that. I wasn't quite sure if she meant to be making a comment about that program specifically, or about grad programs in general. Because I've heard people say something like what she said, but saying it about 'grad school' taken in the abstract.
Right I think it's different in STEM. I was thinking specifically of someone with a Phil Ph.D who told me the only two ways people can make it through grad school are to have such a solid, unshakeable sense of purpose that you shape the program to your goals or else "to let the program completely break you"
It is for this that I read the pillar, yet I could barely get through this. The Church does not need priests like this. Bishops who cannot handle these cases should go. There does seem to be one man of God who is true to his vocation in this narrative, her husband.
I'm astonished at the husbands reaction. He went to the proper authorities, pushed the case, and supported his wife.
I would be VERY tempted to drive to the parish and beat the stuffing out of the offender. God save me from any situation where that would be a possibility.
@JD Flynn can we follow this up with an interview of the husband? That man rocks. It would be helpful to hear the perspective of someone immediately adjacent because it would give to perspective of spotting + confronting spiritual abuse in the lives of those close to us.
How so? He didn't know, and the wife admits to hiding it. I think he responded appropriately when he was first confronted with it, especially because she didn't recognize it as the abuse it was.
Such things remind me often of what I once read from one of the Doctors of the Church:
"One ought to be aware that falls of devout persons are not at first even understood by themselves, and so ought especially to be feared. For one at first feels that speaking with the other is of some benefit to one's soul, and so, trusting in this, they converse more frequently, and thus a love is engendered in their hearts that makes them its captive. For they begin to feel pain when they do not encounter each other and feel rest from the company and speech of the other. Only after this do they begin to understand the love they have for each other. Afterwards, their speech is not so spiritual as it was at first, they speak longer and longer with each other, and little by little that conversation that at first seemed such balm to their souls they feel holds them captive, by making them see each other many times, through the care and desire they possess of seeing each other often, even to the sending of gifts, greetings, and cards. These, and similar things, St. Jerome reminds us "holy love does not possess." And from these links from the one to the other come such ends that one discovers much to one's cost that even the beginning and means of such conversations, that at first seemed to be of God, and in which one felt no wrong, were none other than false deceits of the wily enemy, who first lulls and assuages so as to then better take one in the trap that he has hidden. Thus, through such falls, one learns that "man and woman are nothing but fire and friction." For the devil works hard to join them, and, once joined, blow them upon them with a thousand tricks and arts, so that he might light a fire in their flesh, and thus lead them ultimately to hell.
So, daughter, flee from familiarity with all men, and keep to the end of your life the good custom you have already taken, of never being alone with any man, save your confessor - and him, only when you go to confession, and even there say briefly what you have to confess, adding nothing more, nor speaking of other things, keeping in mind that you shall have to render account one day of what you speak or hear to the Just Judge. And even more is this to be avoided in the sacrament of confession, for it exists to quit us of our sins, not to add to them. Not to make us sick, but to be our medicine. And thus a spouse of Christ, especially if she is young, ought not to choose her confessor lightly, but seeking a good one, of proven life and of good reputation and mature age. And in this way your conscience will be clear before God, and your reputation clear and spotless before others..."
Being a convert who knows very little Latin, I asked for a translation via Google. It said "You are"....Can you explain better, and realize many other people do not know Latin? Thanks
Vos estis lex mundi (You are the light of the world) is a motu proprio by Pope Francis that requires that bishops are held accountable for their actions regarding cases of sexual abuse.
"While the priest insisted there was a 'context' to those admissions which was not being understood, he also conceded that their engagement was 'wrong,'"
The context being the years of grooming. Basically, "well when you put it that way you make me sound like a creep."
Wondering if The Pillar could do an investigation of what these “treatment programs” for abusive priests look like and entail exactly. Are they real life locations and businesses with licensed psychologists? Is it something where the priest moves in with another priest and takes an online safe environment course? I really have no idea.
They’ve been a thing for decades. There was one in the Baltimore/DC area that (I believe the name was St. Luke’s) that was one of the standard places to send priests who had issues back in the 70s and 80s. I’m not sure the track record indicated they were very effective, based on the number of alums of the program (including guys who’d gone there several times) who went on to commit further crimes.
Is this the same St Luke's that we have in Manchester, England? In 2018 Father David Marsden noted how St Luke's in Manchester did psychological assessments of Catholic seminarians. And the Manchester branch were definitely part of the seminarians' sexual problems, not of any solution.
So what if it is consensual? A priest who breaks his vow of chastity should be sentenced to a life of penance and prayer in a monastery. He could do a lot of good praying for victims of predatory priests.
How very sad. More so that it is not the first time I've heard of a Legionary of Christ having an inappropriate relationship with one of his directees.
I do not understand how or why the Legion has not been shut down (or whatever the proper ecclesiastical term is). I’m sure there are some good and holy LC priests, but the order at its core seems rotten since it was designed to protect a predator.
Follow the money. The LC's gave large sums to the Vatican, quite apart from the sums spent to wine and dine prelates. (Remember those $1000 Iberico hams?) The Order's whole system was designed to manipulate both its members and its donors. I wrote for the NC Register and Twin Circle back when the Legionaries owned both papers and thus developed a deep loathing for the Order.
The LCs bought the Register and Twin Circle from the Frawley family late in the last century and moved the offices from LA to CT. Twin Circle was briefly turned into a magazine under a different name. This didn't last long. They were dreadful people to work for--I could tell stories but will not. So I washed my hands of them, despite having been on the masthead at both papers. EWTN bought the Register years ago. It's clean & good now.
Seconded. The good LC priests can do what many good LC priests have done before- incardinate into a diocese or another religious community, and continue their good work no longer propping up an indefensible institution
indeed, that would be the red flag of red flags.
Gaaaaah
To say the absolute least
My thoughts exactly.
Should men just not be spiritual directors of women?
I know I, personally, would just never feel super comfortable having a male spiritual director, due to having read too many stories like this. Both in the Catholic and Protestant contexts. It's weirder in the Catholic world though because there's all this blasphemous "I'm actually kinda Jesus you know" shenanigans that groomer priests seem to love to pull.
There are priests I love and trust, and I'm even happy to do face to face confession with them. But a long term relationship in which I disclose all my vulnerabilities and wounds to this one guy, who is not my husband and who doesn't have a professional org that will pull his license if he crosses the line? Hard pass from me.
Maybe we need to take a closer look at how spiritual direction is defined, how these so-called directors are trained, etc, as well. Do I really need to tell my director my whole life story including secret temptations that I've never even disclosed in confession because they are temptations not sins... in order to get some advice on how to pray better and deepen my relationship with the Lord?
Do the practices associated with gaining indulgences - Rosary, daily mass as often as possible, regular confession, Lectio, and put up thru the desert times in the knowledge that the rain will come and water the ground. Ask Saint Mark Ji Tianxiang to help you patiently bear with temptations the Lord isn't taking away from you. Make decisions based on your best knowledge and don't worry too much about whether it's his will unless he makes it abundantly clear that it's not. And if you think the Lord or some Saint is speaking to you audibly or appearing to you visibly, then probably you should talk to both a priest and a shrink.
Not intending to sound flippant, I'm sure there are people who've gotten great benefits from spiritual direction but I'm so sick of reading about groomers and abusers taking advantage of pious, vulnerable people every day, and these bishops who ignore the blood of their flock crying out from the ground.
> Should men just not be spiritual directors of women?
For myself, I do not want a spiritual director who is not a priest. For other people there's a point in the climb where someone does need to look for a spiritual director (not a guarantee of finding one, but weird things happen and a doctor who has himself for a patient is a fool), but as St John of the Cross rants about in Living Flame of Love, it's worse to have a bad one than none at all and that's before we consider abuse. Folks should go in with eyes open.
Maybe, coming from a Protestant background, I don't fully understand what spiritual direction is or entails... can you explain why a priest would be a better spiritual director than, say, an abbess or a nun who's some years beyond her final profession, or a layperson (man or woman) who has a long association with a tertiary order of some kind?
I don't know that a priest would be better for an arbitrary person or not (however, before people reach the stage of wanting a spiritual director, they should ideally at least have a regular confessor who would necessarily be a priest. That is not the world we live in, but I'm just throwing this out there because some older books take it as a *given* or recommend it). For myself I am following my intuition and I do not have access to the reasoning (if we can call it that) of my intuition; do priests (in general) receive some grace of office that would in theory help with the job of spiritual direction? Or is my intuition just biased towards clerics? I don't know. Intuition is dumb (mute but also stupid).
I wonder if it might be that spiritual direction naturally has a sort of authority about it, and a layperson doesn't generally have authority over another layperson unless they're an actual parent/head of house/vowed religious superior? It winds up being a bit weird, even though it's OK, and even though spiritual director shouldn't be explicitly employing authority very often.
Two things, fwiw.
1. Historically monks were directors but not priests, so there is a strong root of holy lay people doing spiritual direction. (See e.g. Cassian's Conferences). To the extent directors had authority over directees it was not from ordination but from the role.
2. Some dioceses, such as Indianapolis, offer a listing of lay people the bishop has affirmed as orthodox for the role of director. This was out of a recognition that demand for priestly direction outstripped supply of good priest directors.
I addressed this in my comment. I had a priest that would do spiritual direction with me after my confessions. It was amazingly fruitful, and we would work on elimination of my venial sins... Which is so relieving because so many priests don't think venial sins are grave enough to confess. 🤦♀️
I see what you mean, that is a good reason to have a priest as director. Actually my regular confessor gives me tips/advice like that, often associating it with my penance, and so I'm always a little startled when I go to someone else and they just immediately go "OK make your act of contrition" and it's done, lol
Priests generally don't have time to do this with penitents in the confessional. We went through one sin, each instance of it since the last confession (and possibly common examples of situations I'm in where I commit the sin), ways to substitute it with the good, and ways to avoid temptation to do it again, and I was expected to eliminate or at least greatly reduce the sin in between weekly/every other week confessions. It was very, very helpful!
All of those people are also possible spiritual directors. I know men who go to Sisters for spiritual direction.
You put your finger on the problem in the last sentence. It is Bishop who has the responsibility, the authority, and the grace to deal with this problem. If he refuses to lead with due diligence, and to value the solid advice of psychologists, the sin is very much on him.
I think this is a good reason for having spiritual direction like women did in the past, through the confessional where both the woman and priest are protected from physical attraction. That is how Saint Faustina received spiritual direction from Blessed Michal Sopocko.
Another problem with this case is that the woman took a long time to inform her husband about the situation. There is no doubt the priest was abusive, but that is what a husband is for, for a wife to mention to him right away any discomfort about any situation, even if it turns out to be a misunderstanding.
We know several priests and my wife never feels comfortable if one of them visits us without me being present. The same goes for other men except the occasional repair guy. I also do the same regards women that we know (and my wife knows every woman friend I know). I would not call any woman, and never ever meet any woman alone, who was not my relative unless my wife knew about it. It just seems natural to us to do that because as best friends and being one body under God, there are no secrets between us and we both inform each other about nearly everything. A wife is not obligated to tell her husband what spiritual things she talks to a priest about, but she should tell her husband about any texts with any priest or other men, where and when she is meeting a priest for spiritual direction and anything that seems unusual. I think this problem would have never occurred if this had happened in regards to this woman and priest.
The first thing that a predator is going to do is to cut the animal out from the herd, so if I put my abuser hat on (like Chesterton's Father Brown, I will commit the crime in order to solve it) I would certainly want to sow gentle distrust between the woman and the man as part of the overall process. Lewis does not address this exact situation in the Screwtape Letters but the tactic of playing on a person's pride (how spiritual you have become; your old friends won't understand you, just talk to them about the same old things that interest them while secretly feeling superior) could be employed here too; there might be other tactics that would work too (the advantage of being a spiritual director is that the person would have willingly revealed their weak points, e.g. the SD would know that I, the directee, suffer from vanity and from an obsession with "what everyone else is thinking or saying about me" and this could be used to manipulate quite easily). As a prospective abusive spiritual director, I would want to get a sense of whether the woman goes running to the man about every little thing *before* I begin a serious campaign, and (if so) encourage her not to do that, but instead to stand on her own two feet; he does not need to be bothered with trivia, etc., in a mature marriage surely the parties trust one another (see how I have redefined "trust" to mean "keeping secrets from each other about serious matters of marital fidelity"!) This is a dreadful hat and I am taking it off again.
I agree that a person should be talking over "this person did this thing and ... something about it is just so *odd* and it bothers me but I can't put my finger on why" with someone receptive ("well if it feels odd then it is odd, so what should you do about that" type of problem-solving would be fine), and a married person should be able to do this talking-over with their spouse. The early red flags are something that a person's intuition would be uncomfortable with but intuition is terrible at explaining itself (by its nature) and so it's very easy for rationalization (and vanity) to trample it flat.
Yes, I've experienced this exact dynamic (not as the groomed person but as someone in the person's support network). Something that feels odd or off, trying to figure out how to articulate why and generally failing. The problem is that grooming often extends to the people the person directly being groomed would normally turn to (note the priest having phoned the husband to "get his permission" for their relationship, telling him only half the story and therefore making it harder for her to tell the whole story), and so it becomes an exercise in group-self-gaslighting.
Women spiritual directors have also abused and manipulated women. It's a tough call.
That's a good point which I was also aware of, although I'd be curious about the comparative statistical likelihood.
It's about sexual abuse, not gender.
How about some guidelines for spiritual direction? For example:
1. Meet in a way that allows you to speak confidentially but prevents physical contact. If the spiritual director is a priest, consider using a confessional.
2. Use a third party to set up/change/cancel appointments or to communicate otherwise: no direct texting or phone calls.
Concrete policies like these would make it harder for predators to ensnare their prey. It would also help prevent innocent spiritual directors from being unjustly accused of predatory behavior.
I have had the cell numbers of all but one of my Spiritual Directors. It has been very simple to communicate, and an absolute gift to text prayer requests in the moment. To the contrary, I do think if I had been given the cell number of the one priest, grave moral evils and criminal behavior would not have gone unpunished. Please pray for the poor priest who was not my Spiritual Director who in hindsight probably also wishes I had been given the director's cell number.
I don't know that direct communication is necessarily a problem. How often is that really abused? It would be interesting to know. I've seen first hand how not having it can manipulate and exploit 3 people in a situation... How often is it helpful?
I set up times with my spiritual director but that’s the extend of my communication. Never personal emails and he does not have my phone number (I don’t think he even has a cellphone.)
He comes off cold sometimes but I can greatly appreciate that now after reading so many of these stories.
There are guidelines and a code of ethics taught at Divine Mercy University’s program for their spiritual direction certificate.
Probably a very peripheral connection, but the canon lawyer Bishop celebrates Masses for Feast of Saint Josemaria Escriva. So turning a deaf ear to this poor woman doesn’t necessarily surprise me.
https://opusdei.org/en-us/article/masses-for-feast-of-saint-josemaria-2019/
North Carolina
Raleigh
Holy Name of Jesus Cathedral
715 Nazareth St, Raleigh, NC
Thursday, June 20, at 6:30 p.m.
Main celebrant: Bishop Luis Rafael Zarama, J.C.L., Bishop of Raleigh
I have no idea why that would be relevant.
Selective sympathy
What does this have to do with anything in this article?!
I'm not sure what you're implying Joe.
Selective sympathy
Provide other possibilities why a bishop would turn a deaf ear to a victim of predatory behavior. I’m listening. What would possibly influence an active prelate to be so deaf to this hideous behavior of one of his priests? Possibilities based on the Church’s actual history of protecting predators? I merely started a list of possibilities rooted in history.
“The Diocese of Raleigh, for its part, has not yet responded to numerous interview requests from The Pillar .” Silent Bishop (again)
“Zarama, for his part, did not agree.
In a brief October 10 letter to the psychologist, he told her that “your summary includes statements … about which we disagree.””
On what basis, your Excellency?”
I guess I just don't see how the Opus Dei Mass connection is relevant, or at least see it as a stretch. Still, obviously the bishop is very wrong in this case.
https://open.substack.com/pub/garethgore/p/sorrynot-sorry?r=wflz8&utm_medium=ios
I can not give those who venerate Escriva (by celebrating Mass on his “feast day”) then ignore victims of predatory behavior - under the guise of spiritual assistance! - the benefit of MY doubt.
Regarding the link - I have not seen any substantive refutations of Gore’s book, specifically his account of the “saintly” life of Escriva. Provide me one and I will gladly provide the benefit of my doubt to any Bishop who reveres Escriva like this one.
Protecting predators, including by sins of omission and ignorance, MUST STOP.
> "feast day"
> any Bishop who reveres
We are talking about a canonized saint, right? Is the primary objection that it is a canonized saint who is not currently on the liturgical calendar? As an enthusiastic follower of rules, I can understand that kind of objection. I don't pay a whole lot of attention to saints who are not already favorites in my household but maybe you should ask this one to pray for the situation.
Yes, St. Josemaria was canonized by Pope St. John Paul II and he is a beloved intercessor for all manner of intentions. Good advice, Bridget!
Offered without comment; feel free to read and make of it what you will. https://opusdei.org/en/article/opus-gareth-gore-fact-check-clarifications/
I read it the day it was published. Death by nuance. Than you for sharing.
"Provide other possibilities why a bishop would turn a deaf ear to a victim of predatory behavior."
I can think of quite a few besides "he celebrates Masses on a Saint's feast day."
Perhaps he learned a few tricks from Opus Dei
Their own and others close to them behaviour?
1) Canon law only requires action if the victim is a minor and he is a legalist.
2)The diocese is suffering from a priest shortage and needs all the men they can get.
3) The bishop is friends with the perpetrator and not the victim.
Perhaps other people can come up with some other reasonable suggestions. I don't think the diocese has too much money and is hoping to be sued after the priest commits similar indiscretions again is reasonable, however likely this result may be.
I suspect they are still amortizing the cost of Holy Name Cathedral. Groundbreaking for the cathedral took place on January 3, 2015. The construction of the cathedral cost $46 million.[3] The cathedral was dedicated on July 26, 2017.
> Costello would make analogies between their friendship and the mysticism of St. Theresa of Avila
Since he has allegedly brought up the subject of her (for his own purposes): St Teresa of Avila had a vision of hell and did not want anyone to go there, and so I am going to ask her to pray for this man.
Thank you Bridget.
From Marcelle Auclair's biography of Teresa of Avila (summarized/excerpted):
Teresa's confessor in Becedas was living in sin. He was attracted to Teresa and they had plenty of time to talk because Teresa's confessions were brief. "She spoke of God when the priest would have liked to talk with her of themselves... one evening, the confessor told his penitent that he was living in sin." He was having relations with a woman in the village for at least seven years and the whole while continued to say Mass. People knew about it, but no one dared challenge the priest. He even wore a necklace of charms she had given him, as a way of proving his love to her. They continued to meet and Teresa continued to talk entirely and only of God. Eventually the priest broke off the affair, tore off the necklace, and repented. Teresa threw the necklace in the river. She returned to Avila. The priest died one year later, to the day.
I have a sneaking suspicion that this would have gone differently, had the priest tried to touch St. Teresa.
St. Teresa had also done quite a bit of study herself. How much are we expecting the woman here to have done? I think she believed the priest and trusted him, which is what makes this so wrong.
I'm not trying to Monday morning quarterback, I don't know nearly enough about her or her capabilities or what she went through to have any specific expectations.
But I am trying to think through the problem, as it is something that isn't limited to this particular priest, or this particular woman. I've met at least a couple priests who did similar things, so trust shouldn't be automatic. I'm thinking that touching would have put a stop to conversion efforts for St. Teresa. I think that most peoples' boundary should be considerably earlier than that, as there aren't many with her level of sanctity, or, based on half her autobiography, her level of distrust of self. I'm also pretty sure this priest wasn't her spiritual director. St. Teresa had enough experience with bad spiritual direction early on to avoid taking advice from or trusting that sort of priest. Basically, if a priest is trying anything sexual with anyone, even if only verbal, there is no further reason to trust him or believe anything he says. He is oriented wrong, and he is willing to break his solemn promise of chastity. The chances that he is lying to the directee are sky-high, as are the chances that he believes his own lies.
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/life-of-st-teresa-of-avila-5208 search for "river" to find her description of the story and you'll find that (rather than being holy enough and smart enough to pull it off) she says she was young and foolish and didn't understand what God considers good (vs what the world considers good) and that in hindsight it would have been a virtue to break off a friendship like that, and that while her intent in reforming him was good, her actions were not (spending more time with him, even though she spent it talking about God). So yeah her line by the time she writes about it would have been way earlier, NOT her younger self's flirt to convert.
I don't think I'd describe what she did as "flirt to convert", but it's good to know that she wouldn't suggest spending time with a priest like that at any stage.
My family member goes to St. Paul's. The first time I heard her talk about Fr. Costello was with excitement that she finally had a priest who seemed warm and was a better homilist than prior priests at the parish. I can only imagine the great scandal this will cause to that community...........and I hope it doesn't destroy the faith of my relative.
That area of NC isn't very Catholic, and this will certainly be scandalous in a very Protestant area, not to mention for the parishioners themselves. I pray my relative will stay strong in faith after this... The next closest Catholic church is like an hour away from New Bern.
I had thought about mentioning his mysterious removal to The Pillar, but I didn't know any details as to why and thought maybe it was under control of the diocese. Next time, I'll just tell them. I hope the diocese of Raleigh does the right thing.
Give the new priest arriving a chance. Fr John de Guzman was a parochial vicar at my parish and we were very sad to hear he was leaving. He's a young priest, and this will be his first time being the main pastor. It'll be a trial by fire, but anyone at his previous parish will vouch for his character. If your relatives give him a chance, they won't be disappointed.
The irony is, Catholicism is growing in NC, but having just left the diocese of Raleigh, under Zarama’s leadership they are totally fumbling the opportunity of an increasing number of faithful younger Catholics. My own experience is that the diocese is very reluctant to address the concerns of the laity. I thought maybe it was just the way the diocese behaved in the area of Catholic education, but the behavior pattern described in this particular, very grave matter was recognizable to me.
Onky if exposed by the secular press.
Consensual or not, I fail to see how it's appropriate to return a priest to a parish after an incident such as this. Is there some sort of protocol for situations like this? Do we always return a priest to a parish after he has had a physical affair?
It's absolutely horrendous. I am angry for his current parishioners who don't have another parish in town that they can just hop on over to instead while all of this occurs. He's still on the parish website, so given that it's Thursday, I wonder how quickly (or not) the diocese will scramble to remove him.
I've heard of laicization after affairs, either because the priest wanted to marry, or because the affairs were plural and serial in nature. A priest who had an affair and stayed in ministry was mentioned earlier in the comments, though that was in St. Teresa's time.
They are not affairs. They are abuse of power. My perpetrator is laicised. Whether he had multiple abuses only his Order knows.
While priests can certainly abuse power in that way, having authority over someone does not automatically mean the subordinate can have no free will, or that their free will is necessarily impeded. Taking that as a principle would imply that no wife can ever freely consent to have marital relations with her husband, since he is head of house.
There is no legal basis for claiming a husband has authority over his wife. That is a red herring. There is thus no comparison between a husband and a priest who does have authority (and thus the ability to misuse it as power) over his congregation / parishioners in the parish or oratory for which he has been granted faculties by the residing Archbishop. This is based on canonical fact.
It's not legal, it's scriptural. "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything." Ephesians 5. Canon law is far more easily changed than that.
The priest's sphere of authority is considerably more circumscribed than the husband's, as the priest has no business in nearly all of the affairs of the household. Becoming a spiritual director widens that sphere, but that authority is gone pretty much as soon as the directee decides it is, which is not the case with the husband.
So many husbands have abused their authority, and usurped the role of the wife (and also of God), treating their wives like children or slaves rather than as persons of equal dignity, over whom they hold a superior office, not superior humanity or superior rights. But if abuse of an office meant that that office is removed from existence, we would no longer have either supervisors at work or priests in churches, or any other kind of hierarchy with humans in it.
Firstly, at no time did I advocate for removal of a priest's office, rightly called faculties, and secondly if you want to interpret the writer of Ephesians literally, that is your right. It doesn't make it " right". I'm not continuing this debate with you any further.
Priests definitely do return to ministry sometimes after they've had affairs (or were caught soliciting prostitutes, to name a specific example where I used to live).
And maybe this is an unpopular opinion here but I think that's... okay? Or at least it can be okay, (when the affair was truly consensual, when the priest has taken a long period of prayer and penance and affirmed that he still wants to be a priest, when he can be brought back as a vicar under a prudent and discerning pastor). It seems like the sort of thing that would have to be decided case by case rather than by a blanket protocol.
You need to do some psych study of psych power abuse
Long period of prayer and penance... now that, I've never heard of in modern times.
The part I would be concerned about would be accurately discerning whether the priest is a manipulator or not. If he is, he will be manipulating whoever is trying to discern if he is a manipulator. That aspect seems like it ought to have some protocols attached, rather than leaving it to the judgement of the authority that's being manipulated.
It can never be consual when there is such a power based on authority balance
I am somehow still shocked by this, that the bishop didn’t see that the power differential between a priest as spiritual director and the woman means that there cannot truly be consent. The manipulation involved to get her to the point of thinking that this is appropriate and sanctioned by God means she wasn’t truly giving her consent.
This was a side note in the story, but her comments about her program at Divine Mercy University also make me wonder — what kind of program needs to break people down first? That doesn’t sound healthy.
Good point.
Power differentials don't necessarily mean there isn't consent (deliberate seduction of powerful men was a KGB tactic). The manipulation is more to the point.
My college's computer science program had the tough classes in the junior year, and the physics and biology programs separated the "men from the boys" in the sophomore year. I expect it's a common pattern. You have the first year to get the fundamentals, and to let non-majors fill requirements, the second year to get the people who shouldn't be there to change their major, and the remaining years can then be done at a reasonable pace without slowing things down for someone who doesn't have what's needed. If the program is for a master's/PhD, I'd expect them to skip the easy year. I don't know of any programs that'll kick you out for taking less then a full load though, they'll just charge you for the extra year you'll need to graduate.
I think the power differential in the particular relationship of spiritual direction does diminish the directee’s ability to consent freely, or to give full consent. Especially when couched in religious terms, the manipulation inherent in the situation I think puts such a weight on the directee that any consent given is to some degree coerced. It’s the power that the director has over that particular person that is the issue, not how powerful the person is perceived to be by other people or by society.
It certainly can diminish it. Depending on the level of manipulation and the person's susceptibility to that manipulation, it could reduce freedom to consent to nothing. But if a person were to seek out a priest spiritual director with the intention of seducing the priest, I think we can agree that that would involve full consent. Having someone in authority over you tell you something does not always and necessarily remove your capacity for full consent, or at least that was what the Nuremberg trials concluded. I agree completely with that last sentence, "It’s the power that the director has over that particular person that is the issue, not how powerful the person is perceived to be by other people or by society."
I completely agree with you about a person seeking spiritual direction as a means of seducing a priest having full freedom to consent; I was not thinking of that dynamic but of this woman’s situation. I think you have convinced me that it’s possible for a directee to be able to fully and freely consent. I think that is somewhat rare, though, given how the director is most likely either manipulating or spiritually abusing the person (or both) to break down the person’s boundaries enough to get any kind of consent, as it seems this priest did.
I agree with you for this woman's situation, based on the evidence presented.
But I'm going to withhold judgement regarding what is most likely. I've never seen any statistics on the subject, and I'm quite sure that I haven't heard nearly enough to have a balanced assessment.
No need for directorship. The fact of priest and lay woman establishes hierarchical power imbalance.
Your second paragraph seems to interpret the "breaking" language as referring to the academic rigor of the program. In context, I didn't get the sense she was discussing academic rigor, but something that involved the spiritual life of the students in the program. But maybe I am misreading it.
That was my understanding too, Clare, related to having to dredge up past wounds and memories that were difficult, which the priest then used to manipulate her later in spiritual direction. Academic rigor is one thing; this sounded different to me. I wonder what kind of program it was; if it was a master’s in counseling, that might be appropriate, but it definitely raised a red flag for me.
Academic rigor and spiritual growth. One must do a lot of spiritual work, often accompanied by counseling if desired, to understand personal wounds which become blocks to your relationship with God and others. It is very hard work and could be described as’ break’ IMHO. And by understanding your own ‘stuff’ it creates awareness in professional relationships to combat countertransference.
I can see that interpretation too. I have heard of the Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius referred to as breaking a person down in order to build them back up. Working on deep wounds and their related predominant faults can be a rough experience even when approached gently and appropriately, and necessarily involves vulnerability.
I expect it's worth it, done right, but I wouldn't want to do it without significant distance between me and any manipulative people.
I know the word break was introduced above. To be clear, the goal of St Ignatius was always for spiritual liberty, not control or collapse. It is purely about freedom from illusion and sin. It is about seeing your disordered attachments and defenses you build up over time. This permits a deeper intimacy with Christ. If one wants to use the word break, it would be only in the context of breaking our human pride and self-reliance to see how our very existence relies on God. That means to live a joy filled life in Christ, we freely choose to allow him into our deepest wounds as we examine the lies along with the defenses we have acquired for self-protection. God cannot heal what we do not permit him to touch.
That is why one should be sure, for example, one works with a certified spiritual director. No one is immune to sin and falls from grace, but training matters. Absolutely! —-there is a higher standard for people called to the ministry into the sacred ground of work with souls!!
Who among us, however, has not been betrayed by those we absolutely thought we could trust through anything life threw at us? If humans are involved, there will always be horrible falls and people are hurt. This is life in a fallen world. What can we do? Please - Pray very hard for all priests, religious, catholic counselors and spiritual directors, etc.
I also wondered about that. I wasn't quite sure if she meant to be making a comment about that program specifically, or about grad programs in general. Because I've heard people say something like what she said, but saying it about 'grad school' taken in the abstract.
It did not seem like a normal generalization of grad school to me but my sample population is a bunch of nerds in tech fields.
Right I think it's different in STEM. I was thinking specifically of someone with a Phil Ph.D who told me the only two ways people can make it through grad school are to have such a solid, unshakeable sense of purpose that you shape the program to your goals or else "to let the program completely break you"
In CS what was required was to be too dumb to quit (perhaps this is the same as a solid, unshakeable sense of purpose).
Spot on.
It is for this that I read the pillar, yet I could barely get through this. The Church does not need priests like this. Bishops who cannot handle these cases should go. There does seem to be one man of God who is true to his vocation in this narrative, her husband.
I'm astonished at the husbands reaction. He went to the proper authorities, pushed the case, and supported his wife.
I would be VERY tempted to drive to the parish and beat the stuffing out of the offender. God save me from any situation where that would be a possibility.
@JD Flynn can we follow this up with an interview of the husband? That man rocks. It would be helpful to hear the perspective of someone immediately adjacent because it would give to perspective of spotting + confronting spiritual abuse in the lives of those close to us.
It sounds like they desired to withhold their identities.
Seriously?
Well, I didn't notice their names ever mentioned in this article, so that was my impression.
I think that would be bordering on the voyeuristic. Pray for him. Pray for all of them. And pray for the Church.
The husband here failed spectacularly to protect his wife and abetted her affair. He’s primarily a victim but he’s also not an example of virtue.
How so? He didn't know, and the wife admits to hiding it. I think he responded appropriately when he was first confronted with it, especially because she didn't recognize it as the abuse it was.
Such things remind me often of what I once read from one of the Doctors of the Church:
"One ought to be aware that falls of devout persons are not at first even understood by themselves, and so ought especially to be feared. For one at first feels that speaking with the other is of some benefit to one's soul, and so, trusting in this, they converse more frequently, and thus a love is engendered in their hearts that makes them its captive. For they begin to feel pain when they do not encounter each other and feel rest from the company and speech of the other. Only after this do they begin to understand the love they have for each other. Afterwards, their speech is not so spiritual as it was at first, they speak longer and longer with each other, and little by little that conversation that at first seemed such balm to their souls they feel holds them captive, by making them see each other many times, through the care and desire they possess of seeing each other often, even to the sending of gifts, greetings, and cards. These, and similar things, St. Jerome reminds us "holy love does not possess." And from these links from the one to the other come such ends that one discovers much to one's cost that even the beginning and means of such conversations, that at first seemed to be of God, and in which one felt no wrong, were none other than false deceits of the wily enemy, who first lulls and assuages so as to then better take one in the trap that he has hidden. Thus, through such falls, one learns that "man and woman are nothing but fire and friction." For the devil works hard to join them, and, once joined, blow them upon them with a thousand tricks and arts, so that he might light a fire in their flesh, and thus lead them ultimately to hell.
So, daughter, flee from familiarity with all men, and keep to the end of your life the good custom you have already taken, of never being alone with any man, save your confessor - and him, only when you go to confession, and even there say briefly what you have to confess, adding nothing more, nor speaking of other things, keeping in mind that you shall have to render account one day of what you speak or hear to the Just Judge. And even more is this to be avoided in the sacrament of confession, for it exists to quit us of our sins, not to add to them. Not to make us sick, but to be our medicine. And thus a spouse of Christ, especially if she is young, ought not to choose her confessor lightly, but seeking a good one, of proven life and of good reputation and mature age. And in this way your conscience will be clear before God, and your reputation clear and spotless before others..."
(St. John of Avila, Audi Filia, Chapter 8)
This is, much more articulately, what I was clumsily trying to express in my comment above.
That's huge. And culturally driven.
Say it with me, folks: VOS ESTIS! VOS ESTIS!
Being a convert who knows very little Latin, I asked for a translation via Google. It said "You are"....Can you explain better, and realize many other people do not know Latin? Thanks
Vos estis lex mundi (You are the light of the world) is a motu proprio by Pope Francis that requires that bishops are held accountable for their actions regarding cases of sexual abuse.
Now, knowing the whole phrase, it makes sense.Thanks, Michelle!
"While the priest insisted there was a 'context' to those admissions which was not being understood, he also conceded that their engagement was 'wrong,'"
The context being the years of grooming. Basically, "well when you put it that way you make me sound like a creep."
Wondering if The Pillar could do an investigation of what these “treatment programs” for abusive priests look like and entail exactly. Are they real life locations and businesses with licensed psychologists? Is it something where the priest moves in with another priest and takes an online safe environment course? I really have no idea.
They’ve been a thing for decades. There was one in the Baltimore/DC area that (I believe the name was St. Luke’s) that was one of the standard places to send priests who had issues back in the 70s and 80s. I’m not sure the track record indicated they were very effective, based on the number of alums of the program (including guys who’d gone there several times) who went on to commit further crimes.
Is this the same St Luke's that we have in Manchester, England? In 2018 Father David Marsden noted how St Luke's in Manchester did psychological assessments of Catholic seminarians. And the Manchester branch were definitely part of the seminarians' sexual problems, not of any solution.
https://www.corrispondenzaromana.it/international-news/an-open-letter-to-the-bishops-of-england-wales-and-scotland/
A different one.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Luke_Institute
https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/unhappy-leadership-history-st-lukes-institute/
It depends on the diocese, Order, and Country.
So what if it is consensual? A priest who breaks his vow of chastity should be sentenced to a life of penance and prayer in a monastery. He could do a lot of good praying for victims of predatory priests.
Are there enough such monastaries in the world for the many times I've heard that suggestion for errant behavior?
I don’t know.
Congregation of the Servants of the Paraclete??
Power differential is never consensual.
Forgive my french, but this priest needs an ass kicking. We need to normalize physical consequences for abusive and coercive behavior.
How very sad. More so that it is not the first time I've heard of a Legionary of Christ having an inappropriate relationship with one of his directees.
I do not understand how or why the Legion has not been shut down (or whatever the proper ecclesiastical term is). I’m sure there are some good and holy LC priests, but the order at its core seems rotten since it was designed to protect a predator.
You’re looking for “suppressed.”
And yes - confounding that the Sodalits were suppressed but LC go on.
Follow the money. The LC's gave large sums to the Vatican, quite apart from the sums spent to wine and dine prelates. (Remember those $1000 Iberico hams?) The Order's whole system was designed to manipulate both its members and its donors. I wrote for the NC Register and Twin Circle back when the Legionaries owned both papers and thus developed a deep loathing for the Order.
The NC Register was connected to them? That’s not good for its credibility.
The LCs bought the Register and Twin Circle from the Frawley family late in the last century and moved the offices from LA to CT. Twin Circle was briefly turned into a magazine under a different name. This didn't last long. They were dreadful people to work for--I could tell stories but will not. So I washed my hands of them, despite having been on the masthead at both papers. EWTN bought the Register years ago. It's clean & good now.
Thanks for the explanation Sandra!
Seconded. The good LC priests can do what many good LC priests have done before- incardinate into a diocese or another religious community, and continue their good work no longer propping up an indefensible institution
Sorry to say, but a red flag went up when I read this priest's Order.