Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Esther Harber's avatar

I pray this bill makes some movement and more states follow suit. It is desperately needed.

Expand full comment
Father Adam McMillan's avatar

The Church does not know where the boundaries are in boundary violations, nor what to do with a priest who has crossed those boundaries. Of course, all violations of chastity are boundary violations, but where is the "you can no longer do any kind of ministry" boundary. And what should be done with those priests who cross the boundary of chastity but not the laicization boundary?

Obviously the two boundaries cannot be coterminus. We cannot be saying that if a priest looks at a woman with lust in his heart, and has therefore crossed the boundary of chastity, then he should be laicized. But there is also a line which, even if crossed once, there is no coming back to ministry from.

This sort of sexual contact during "spiritual direction" does seem to cross the ultimate line and such a law would make that clearer. But what qualifies as spiritual direction? The Church has always drawn a clear line around the confessional, but every priest is the spiritual father of every Catholic, so from another side it is all spiritual direction.

The bishops of the 70s and 80s who spoke of forgiveness and second chances for child abusers were definitely wrong. There is forgiveness of course, but not a second chance to represent the Church as a priest. Some lines, once crossed, cannot be forgotten. But the cancel culture of the 10s and 20s also has its problems. In the end, if every sin is disqualifying, only hypocrites will be left.

We should make clearer where we as the Church put those lines, and what is the consequence of moral failure that does not cross the final line. On the one hand, it is hard to respect a priest whom we know was guilty of serious moral failure. On the other hand, some people do repent.

Though it is sad that most priests are not saints it should not surprise us. Priests are supposed to represent the holy. The only way to do this without hypocrisy is either to be a saint (though they always speak of their sinfulness too) or to constantly proclaim "To us, also, your servants, who, though sinners, hope in your abundant mercies".

The question is similar to the question of how much adultery justifies a wife abandoning her husband. Obviously even looking at another woman is too much, but some marriages have survived and even thrived after a husband has committed adultery and repented. Some parishes would be grateful to have a priest, even knowing the details of a chastity violation in his past, just as some marriages stay together for the sake of the children, but after egregious violations other marriages break up for the sake of the children.

There are several priests in my diocese with public records of fornication, adultery, pornography usage, and sodomy. Though I would prefer that such things never happened, I believe that they have done useful ministry in the decades since and I know that there are people who are grateful for their continued ministry. I certainly am grateful for absolution from them when I have gone to Confession, and there are people who would not have access to the Mass without them.

Somehow a distinction should be made between those who regret their sins and want to continue because they love Jesus and his people versus those who just find it easier to keep going in the easiest job they are qualified to hold. I think simple punitive penalties would do that. Fines. Limitations on travel. Half-pay for life.

Expand full comment
31 more comments...
Latest

No posts