http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=31395

Kay - it must be hard to share a story like this, but it shows what strength of character you have and a loving supportive family.

Helen

P.P.L.
Patrick Wrote’
I would say that the sacraments administered by him were quite valid; we cannot rely on the priest's dispositions especiaslly when we do not know him.#####
Thanks for your reply Patrick but when people go to mass they are entitled to believe in the integrity of the the priest they are paying homage with. Especially when George refused to let Gays in Sydney take communion, I believe the statement was “those who live outside the churches teaching are not welcome at the lords supper.” P.P.L. is demonstrated here. The only message I conveyed to the priest in my Parish was just that the parishioners were entitled to know who they had been asked to make welcome in their homes and pay homage with especially when there is a definite push within my parish St Brigids Healesville to minimize the churches responsibility with a code of ethics that says parents are ultimately responsible for child safety and that unless they know the child is a relative of the priest they need no tbe as wary this is absolutely dangerous for children because David Daniel was convicted of pedo charges against his nephews and niececes/niece in our presbytery This is stuff we as victims would have pointed out if we had been Consulted as we asked to be in the Tomlinson Letter, Just another example of P.P.L. this Sodomite( thanks for that word Patrick) should never have been put in the position he was more P.P.L.
I know the Priest up here agrees with me on most of what I say here because He Pulled the Mass inspite of the fact I told him we would not be organizing a protest, more P.P.L.
My sons abuser was
Secreted up here despite the fact he had been reported to the hierarchs for sexual mis conduct two years earlier.More P.P.L.
Valid sacraments?In The eyes of the church maybe, but this make an absolute mockery of the unnatural Lifestyle All vocations are forced to live. And I am talking specifically about the complete exclusion of women not just the sex side of life More P.P.L. valid or not I would certainly liked to have known my 7day old daughter wasbeing baptised by a sodomite child abuser more P.P.L.Ignorance and arrogance.
Another great Thursday in the Yarra Valley Patrick I gotta go 60 k tandem ride screaming at me Thanks for your reply mate.
Cheers Ian Lawther.

PS. P.P.L.= Piss. Poor. Leadership.

OK, the original thread material has gone to condoms so I might give it another tangent; that "ol' CSA scandal" again.

I don't want to for a second play down the absolute suffering of those who have had to undergo the horrors of war crimes but I wonder if Frank Brennan (and Michael Kelly) would be willing to do something at home in regards to reconciliation within the context of the Australian Catholic church and the horrors and destruction of the CSA scandal/victims. Why does he, our top Catholic and not too 'conservative' legal eagle, never talk about that but talks about almost every other injustice or have I missed it? Is it perhaps too much of a challenge?

Interesting.

But I suppose I'd really love to know, though, whether AIDS has increased with the advent of the condom. If what Chris says in his post.....

But surprisingly many local NGO health workers on the ground supported the Pope on this. The evidence seems to suggest that condoms encourage promiscuity and exacerbate AIDs in cultures that are traditionally inclined to be modest and rather puritanical.

..... is true then we must accept that, surely. So, yes or no, is it true? Anyone know? Seems to be that way according to those 'on the ground', the NGOs. Who are we in our comfy safe lives to question them?

Seriously, I'd really like to know. I'm sure a simple graph would show something.

But that article is 2 years old and looks suspiciously like pre- book launch publicity...

Sue

Yes, Angela and Barry, you are right, but 'roomies' can also be a state of mind!!!!!!

but in another way it is totally symptomatic of the whole hypocrisy of the way the church handles clerical abuse and its victims.

I just read the Broken Rites account you referred us to, Ian and saw there a little comment which might go unnoticed:

In between all the heart-wrenching and disgusting stuff was this:

Polly typed the resignation letter but she did not know that Daniel was a child-abuser or that her son was a victim. She presumed that Daniel's departure was because of financial misappropriation, not bad health.

It made me think about my case again and why I am still really angry at how it all ended:

In an extract from the newsletter of my abuser's parish it was noted that Fr ...., who hadn't long arrived there, was taking time off due to ill health (this was after I made him come clean to his superior and my case was taken up by Towards Healing.

So, according to his parish he was ill and needed time to recover and according to my parishioners here (I had stopped going and people were 'discussing' why based on what the priest had said), I stopped coming to church because I had a breakdown and was 'not well'. And, then, according to my previous employers I was 'not well' in a personality fault kind of way and therefore shouldn't be working (for them).

But gee I wish in all accounts the following was published:

Stephen has left his parish and had a breakdown which has made it impossible to work because of the effects of sexual abuse with the church. Fr ..... has been taken out of ministry because he was one of the perpetrators in Stephen's life and finally, and I quote, "came clean about his past", unquote, when forced to. Stephen has been given a generic apology and a payout (and will now have to fend for himself), but we will look after our 'brother priest' until he dies.

Now wouldn't that be the more honest thing to do. Instead, I am 'an unstable man' but no one knows why, and Fr ....is some one we need to pray for because, poor thing, he is sick, (and again no one knows why) probably from too much ministry.

As my heading says, in one way it's a little thing, but in another way it has become a psychological trap that I cannot seem to get out of: I have been forced to take on this roll and the resulting perceptions of others as well as myself and this is also one reason that I cannot get the kind of employment I want again. Meanwhile, again, my perpetrator is 'safe' for the rest of his life.

He's had it all, including sex and will continue to have it all. I must say, though, last time I spoke to him he sounded a broken and frightened man, but only after he knew it was me on the other end of the phone: Up until then he sounded rather official and arrogant even.

There's something deeply wrong in all this. The temple tables need to be upturned (and one of his 'roomies' would fully get this I am sure - well I hope so, that is, assuming he knows, which he must), but I hear nothing from him on this matter - clerical abuse - and one would think that he would be deeply involved in it somehow, given his choice/area of expertise - so I deeply wonder about him and anything he has to say about justice. See, now I wish I could have freedom of speech, then you'd all know who I am talking about and would probably be deeply shocked.

Ooops, sour grapes again? Sorry. But I do wish that truth would reign when reporting the outcomes of Towards Healing cases. And isn't this what the Victorian Inquiry will hopefully bring about more: As in so many cases the perpetrators escaped police and legal investigation and are still roaming the streets, blessed by their church because that church didn't admit the truth but said rather that Fr so and so has taken time off due to health issues. Yeah, right. When ever I hear that now I translate it as , 'due to the fact that he has been caught with his pants down'. (Apologies to those who truly are sick).

Judith, I was just about to make the same post when I came onto the computer to find you beat me to it.

I agree100%. Most priests in the Sydney Archdiocese will be pleased to see him moved on.

Personally I do not think he will return to Australia in the near future, thank God.

BarryS

Perhaps the spirit of the law rather than the law that one needs to discern in a lot of cases?!
Just a thought.
georgeh

He knew he could not remain in Australia because he would be called up to give evidence in the Victorian Parliamentry enquiry on Priest sex abuse.

BarryS

Roomies??

When he has his own apartment at DOMU$...

Angela

Hmm, Judith, I was about to write: Wonder if Princes Pell and Law will become 'roomies' - they certainly seem to have much in common and will have a great deal of self-defensive justifications to comfort each other with.

Could this be another "Cardinal Law" case where someone is moved to Rome to avoid facing the law in their own country over handling of abuse cases?

Ian, thank you for your comments - I totally agree with you. And I am very sympathetic with your feelings about the sodomite priest at your Easter ceremonies.

I would say that the sacraments administered by him were quite valid; we cannot rely on the priest's dispositions especiaslly when we do not know him.

On a technical, point, I am reminded when I once wrote a paper on grace and the sacraments - ex opere operato or ex opere operantis

I gave as my opinion that for recipients of the sacrament, both apply. The first is more of less automatic. The second can apply as well, depending on one's own participation, which could well be influenced by the way it was administered by the priest. e.g. if the priest was slovenly. [I had seen just that]. My ideas were approved by the priest examiner who gave a tick to the paragraph.

In your position with this unworthy priest my reaction would be to just walk out - I could not participate in such a situation. Like many years ago, a less grave thing - I was in Sydney and went to St |Mary's for 11 am Mass the day after the \opera \house was opened. Numerous filipino people were waiting to greet Imelda Marcos who was to attend. at 12 noon she arrived with a police escort and came in by a side door. I was in no humour to attend and left immediately. Later a priest I spoke to said he would have done the same.

Thank you Brian.

A frontal attack and even an ambush would be unsuccessful. And as you say a withdrawal is just not in the cards. The difficulty with confrontation is that B16 and his cohorts sincerely believe that they are right and that God is on their side. Truly an insurmountable combination. If a vast majority could be convinced that the present group are flat out wrong, then we might be able to change for the better.

I keep carping about this and my friends think I am nuts and too simplistic. However, the real heart of the problem is that the clerics and hierarchs think and act as if they were God. The sex scandal took caare of a lot of that posturing but the core belief that they are right remains. Every priest is called "Father" in every language under the sun and the Pope (Papa) is called the Holy Father. In 23 Matthew Jesus commanded us to call no one on earth father - Jesus taught that the word father meant God and in ;the prayer He taught us the first thing we do is tell the Father that the name Father is blessed or hallowed.

If there were a movement to enforce Jesus' commandment and everyone was shown the command in 23 Matthew and it was proven that "they" are not right and "they" have ursurped God's name as well as place, it would mark the beginning of the crumbling of the present structure. I have asked every priest and bishop that I have met to explain this obvious violation of Jesus' command and so far no one can explain it. Maybe if there was a movement eyes would finally be opened and the non-persons would bercome persons just like us.

Thanks. Brian and Joe. I know there is no hope of change from the top of the Church, but there is a groundswell of desire for change in many of us and this is reaching critical mass, so we will see change, though maybe not in our lifetimes.

Because of the unstinting support of my family, I was able to choose my baby, but get the instigator out of my life permanently...
Local police refused to let me file charges of marital rape...
Lucky that I lived in an "irreconcilable differences" state.
Being considered as a mere chattel in the relationship was irreconcilable with my conscience & safety for myself & the children...

Chris,

I don’t despise Benedict. Since his pastoral letter to the Irish people after the Murphy Commissions, I have a low opinion of his honesty. But that is another issue.

I don’t have any argument with the claim that there are Catholic agencies in Africa and elsewhere doing a fine job for AIDS victims. But what is the point of helping AIDS victims once they have the disease when the Church preaches a policy that for spurious logical reasons bans a piece of rubber that prevents its spread?

The most encouraging thing about Catholic agencies is that we are starting to hear more and more about people at the coalface of AIDS assistance simply ignoring the ban on condoms. But it is not just at the coalface. Even bishops and at least one Cardinal are dissenting, with perhaps the most outspoken is Bishop Januário Torgal Ferreira of Portugal who stated that

“from a medical point of view, I have no doubt that there are obviously circumstances where prohibiting condoms is to consent to the death of many people.” .

see http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/topics/hivaids/bishopssupportcondoms.asp

And if you want to see how Church leaders tie themselves up into all sorts of knots over this issue, this is a quote fom Bishop Anthony Fisher at the URL above.

Bishop Anthony Fisher supported Pope Benedict’s remarks on condoms in a statement that left room for condom use by gay couples: “Pastors have long recognized that in cases such as homosexual intercourse, conception and marital acts are not at issue. Using a condom in this situation is clearly not contraception. It is clear that even here the goal must be to move the individual to living a truly ‘humane,’ that is a chaste and loving, sexual life.”

Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney, “Statement by Bishop Anthony Fisher OP,” November 22, 2010.

Then compare that with what he wrote at

“HIV and Condoms Within Marriage” (http://www.communio-icr.com/articles/PDF/fisher36-2.pdf

. “Ejaculating into a condom would always be non-marital and sometimes be contraceptive, but it would also be perverse, a misuse of the reproductive faculty.”

In other words contraception really has nothing to do with it. It is still a "perverse" "non marital" act even when used by infertile couples, couples beyond the age of child bearing and even during the woman's "safe" period. If contraception were only the issue then paragraph 15 of Humanae Vitae would apply to permit their use even by fertile couples because there is a legitmate medical purpose involved.

I’m quite happy to ditch any item of what you term, “liberal orthodoxy”, provided that it is supported by some empirical evidence. It may well be true that in some cultures, handing out condoms does more harm than good, but Benedict’s ban is across the board, is not supported by empirical evidece, and applies as much to a very loyal couple where one is infected because of a needle stick injury.

Judith,

I understand the disheartening situation you are experiencing.

This following may not be the entire answer to the problems and issues you face, but perhaps a staring point for dialogue. It is from my previous post on another string:

#102834

It is we the People of God who need to continually make this statement each time a Catholic/Christian group gathers. We need to stand up and speak clearly, without fear, but with great sincerity

We as Catholic/Christians need to rethink what we believe in. Learn from where the concepts actually came from and how it was formed as belief! We will no longer accept everything blindly and without question!

God gave each one of us a brain. We are called by God to use it, with all the gifts we have been given, to become fully human as God envisions.

God gave us the ability to ask questions. To get truth filled answers. Not just a lot of religious mumbo-jumbo contrived by ordained male celibate hierarchs, who do not live in the real world, but a fantasy world all their own.

We need to stop allowing the hierarchy to tell us, the laity what to do. We have a right to demand that they be the servant priests they were called to be for the larger community. They have not been given "magical powers" to hold sway over people. They must listen to the People of God and not just the Purple Culture they swagger about with in their Roman garb. They need to be followers of Jesus, and not the mighty land owners they view themselves as, being dispenser's of God's graces at their leisure and pleasure.

Joe