Catholic Bishops can suck my ass

Here’s a cite. It seems to confirm my understanding of the situation.

https://slate.com/technology/2021/07/catholic-priest-grindr-data-privacy.html

A bit of follow-up on the case of the priest caught on Grindr:

I think my basic understanding of the facts was correct. He was outed by a publication put out by right-wing Catholics (not a publication of the Catholic Church) who engaged in a really creepy surveillance operation.

See the Washington Post. He became aware that he was going to be outed, and resigned his position with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The statement that “The Church is the one that officially censured him” is factually incorrect, since apparently there has been no “official censure” (whatever that means) of the man. And to say that the Church “did nothing to censure the group that found and revealed it,” well, doesn’t mean much, since the Church can no more censure this publication (it not being a publication of the Church) than it could the New York Times.

There has been criticism of this from other Catholic media organizations.

From National Catholic Reporter:

Even during a period when the bombs dropping on American Catholics fall with escalating and increasingly destructive frequency, the publication of an “investigation” of Msgr. Jeffrey Burrill, the now-former general secretary of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, blasts a crater worth crawling down into for a forensic examination.

There are reasons to think it heralds a new and even uglier era in American Catholicism.

So if a question raised in this thread is why I didn’t criticize the church for “actually censuring this guy over this leaked data,” the answer is “because the Church didn’t actually censure this guy.”

Anyway, it looks like my description of the situation is pretty accurate, despite my community college education.

As to GreenWyvern’s question:

I don’t know how she’s so sure. I think that he, like all Catholics, will be expected to refrain from presenting himself for Communion while he’s in a state of mortal sin. As to the state of his soul, I can’t know that, nor can anyone here.

Correction noted, but I’m not sure it really changes much. He resigned before he could get fired - or, at least, he resigned because people in his organization were sufficiently scandalized by the idea of an adult man having consensual sexual relations with another adult man that he would not be able to function in that position any more.

Of course, he knew he was joining a bigoted organization when he signed up, so my sympathy for him getting burned by the prejudices he implicitly supported is pretty limited. More so when he attacks Biden for “violating Catholic principles” in public, when he was doing the same in secret. But, to his credit, he still comes off better than the absolute shitbags who spend their spare time trying to find ways to ruin the lives of queer people. So at least he’s got that much going for him.

Basically, another story about the Catholic Church where absolutely nobody involved comes out looking good. Which is par for the course for that organization.

Who’s ‘she’? If you mean me, I’m male.

I’m not a Catholic, or even a Christian, so I don’t know the finer points about communion, and I’m probably wrong about that.

Undoubtedly worse from the Catholic perspective that it was male/male sex, but if someone had tracked him with Tinder and he had multiple female partners, he still would have resigned. Heck, even a long-term relationship would have probably caused his resignation.

Sorry, my mistake. I apologize. I was going by your avatar, which looked (as tiny as it is) like an image of a woman.

It’s an elf, so it’s hard to tell.

Seeing how priests also take on a vow of poverty, I have to assume whatever device he was using to connect to Grindr was issued by the church. I know on all devices that my employer provides, I have no expectation of privacy. If I used a company issued device to participate in activities that my employer did not approve of, I would be subject to discipline, up to and including termination.

Not generally. Priests in monastic organizations (such as Benedictines) may take a vow of poverty, but it is not a general requirement.

Most don’t, actually. Priests (and monks) in certain orders may, but your basic diocesan priest doesn’t, and is paid a salary, and can own property of his own.

So, no, he probably wasn’t using an employer-issued phone for his hookups, and will not be subject to discipline (for that, anyway).

ISTM one of the things we are seeing in this incident is something we have seen in other social conservative orgainzations/movements/communities: the far-hardliner wing showing they will go ahead and get nasty and play dirty to take down those they don’t like. The US Bishops may want to think again to what extent they want to, for the sake of reestablishing authority over an obedient flock, pander to those forces.

The long and short of it:

Priests are bunch of pukes in glass houses and should not be throwing any goddamned stones.

All of them?

That certainly hasn’t been my experience in 60+ years as a Catholic, through thirteen years of education in Catholic schools, through an adult life in which several priests are close friends, and several more are relatives.

Would any of the priests you know disobey his Bishop and turn in a fellow priest to the secular authorities who is abusing a child?

I was only a Catholic for 46 years, and I only have one priest as an uncle, one as a cousin and one as a cousin once removed (son of a first cousin) I have asked each of them this question, and none answered yes, but instead started explaining why they couldn’t.

To me that’s a problem with ALL priests. Protecting the brotherhood of the priesthood seems to be paramount, or second only to protecting the Church. Everything else be damned.

Disobey his bishop? The policy of my diocese requires that all allegations of abuse be reported to the secular authorities. To stonewall, to not report, that’s what would be disobeying the bishop.

I don’t care about what some written policy says. I have heard priest tell a victim of sexual abuse not to report it to the police. And then expelling the girl from school when she did.

What actually happens in practice is what matters.

Our diocesan school gave us a huge sheaf of documents on the “protection of children” when we took our kid there for an open house. When touring the school we found a priest alone with a child, something that was never supposed to happen according to the policy. The teacher providing the tour said “Oh, that’s just Fr. So & So.

And a year and a half later a different priest in the same parish was arrested and charged with “inappropriate physical contact with a minor”.

OK, fine. The priests I know personally would observe the policy and act accordingly. I can’t, obviously, speak for priests I don’t know, but I have no reason to assume they’d conceal anything.

I’m not criticizing you in any way, but for me, a priest being alone with a child (including my own children) wouldn’t particularly concern me any more than would a lay teacher being alone with a child, since I don’t assume that all priests, or most priests, are child molesters.

Believe me, I’m not saying it doesn’t happen.

Serious question, no gotcha: has this ever happened? That a Catholic priest reported a colleague for child abuse to the worldly authorities, like it’s supposed to be, without first reporting and referring to his diocese/bishop?

I don’t see how a priest reporting a brother priest to the authorities and also (and perhaps first) reporting it to the diocese is such a terrible thing. As long as the docese is reporting to and cooperating with the civil authorities, that’s how it should be.

“Also” is not the question, but “first”.