To the St Paul/Minneapolis Catholic archdiocese, with special regards to Rev. Kevin McDonough:

The BBQ Pit
61

Lots of priests, throughout the ages, have failed to live up to their vows of celibacy. Thousands upon thousands. When they are all consenting adults, what the church wants to do about it is none of my concern, just as it’s none of my concern if a priest does anything else that I consider morally neutral.

What you seem to be doing is saying that if the church has standard X the rest of us should be outraged if the church doesn’t enforce that standard to our satisfaction, if there’s any way that not enforcing that standard could ever, likely or not, bleed over into breaking law Y. But because you’re using hindsight, you are making a connection between things that are not necessarily related.

If he had been found fondling bins of women’s underpants in Target, something that is weird and offputting but not (as far as I know) a crime, and someone complained to the church and the church didn’t announce to the entire congregation that their priest was an underpants fondler, then later that priest molested boys, would you be making the argument that his underpants fondling was an obvious sign that he should have “had someone with him”? How about if he drank three beers instead of two at the pub? How about if he liked to sing karaoke to gangsta rap? How about if he wore a t-shirt to bed that said “Kiss me, I’m Irish”? How about if he loves foie gras and veal? All of these things might raise some eyebrows, and I’m sure some people would use them as evidence he was unfit to be a priest, but would you be trying so hard to connect the dots if it turned out he molested children?

This is where the disconnect lies. You are explicitly tying his past actions (hitting on young men) with a fear of his being a pedophile, but hitting on young men, whether you’re a priest or not, does not appear to the rest of us to be a good clue that you are a pedophile-in-waiting. The two lack any connection for those of us who are arguing against you. They are not connected simply because they are both about sex. They do not become magically connected simply because he is a priest. They do not become magically connected simply because the RCC is a bunch of hopeless bigoted idiots who conspired to hide evidence of child molestation in other cases.

Not revealing someone has sexual urges toward young men is not the same thing as not revealing someone has molested young children. They are not equivalent acts in any way, shape, or form.

62

Well said, Steophan and jsgoddess.

The way I see it is this. Hitting people up for sex may be unacceptable or aberrant behavior for a priest, but it’s not by its nature. Molesting children IS unacceptable and aberrant by its nature, and is in fact a crime. So you’re saying that if he goes against his vow as a priest (which is far higher a standard than most of us have to live up to), that means he’s likely to go out and commit terrible crimes against children. That seems like a rather big leap, don’t you think?

63

Yes, of course, hateful and ignorant and moron, etc. Good thing we have you here to tell me what I think.

Now go back and read what I actually said.

I specifically said that I didn’t care if he was gay or not. That would be because I don’t, as far as I’m concerned this has nothing to do with him being gay, it has to do with him being a priest. How would this story be any different if you substituted female in for male? It still would involve him going out and trolling for sex and the archdiocese ignoring the complaints that came from the parish and doing nothing about them until it was too late.

I also specifically said that the church should simply have kept an eye on him, rather than throwing him in the looney bin or telling everyone, and should have actually stepped up the minute they started getting complaints about him rather than sitting on their ass.

I also specifically said that I don’t think gay = pedo. This is about the church watching a priest they know has tried to break his vow of celibacy before, which as I said is aberrant behavior for a priest. I don’t care who he wants to fuck, I don’t care that he wants to fuck (normal), it’s that he’s going out and trying to fuck (not normal for a priest).

Now, please point out where I said that gay = pedophile. Anyone. Cuz I can point out several places where I specifically said that I didn’t agree with that.

You should probably start at post 8, that would be first time I said it.

Then you can look at post 12, where I agreed that the church was probably on him cuz he was gay, and also that I hadn’t even thought about him being gay until someone else brought it up.

How the hell many times do I have to answer the same questions worded slightly differently? I’m repeating what the article talked about, exactly what it said. Have any of you written to the author and given them the same ration of shit for obviously being a gay hater? I even corrected myself and agreed with Bricker when he told me I was wrong about him being a known pedophile before this. Seriously people, what the fuck?

64

A hypothetical question, for anyone who wishes to answer:

You have a 45-year-old neighbor, whose history, in the last five years, includes the following:

[ul]He propositioned two young women, strangers to him, age 19 and 20, in a bookstore, asking them, “Are you fucking horny right now?”[/ul][ul]He cruised a local park, in a sufficiently suspicious manner to attract police attention, where young women of indeterminate age hang out, looking for casual sex hookups.[/ul][ul]He was arrested after driving drunk to a local gas station to pick up teenage girls.[/ul]Would you trust this neighbor alone with your 14-year-old daughter?

65

To do what and why? (Which is exactly the same question I’d ask if the neighbor hadn’t done anything you list.)

66

To receive spiritual guidance and counseling, and generally to just hang out with a trusted adult.

67

Why is he a trusted adult?

I’m an atheist, so there’s no draw for spiritual anything.

Why are you asking just about daughters, by the way?

68

To remove the element of homosexuality from the situation.

The details of why he wants/needs to be with your daughter are unimportant. Maybe he’s her sports coach, maybe he’s her mentor in a volunteer program. The point is, would this man’s background affect your trust in him to be alone with her?

69

The details are incredibly important. And no, like I already said. I’m going to ask the same question whether he’s done anything on your list or not. I’m going to ask the same question whether it’s a daughter or a son.

You said he was trusted. Why is he a “trusted adult”?

70

Never mind. I can’t force you to answer the question if you don’t want to.

I don’t have a daughter, but if I did, I think very much that I would not want her hanging out with my hypotehtical neighbor, as priest (if I were Catholic), guidance counselor, coach, or anything else. His history of behavior toward young-women-a-little-older-than-18 would not lead me to trust him around young-women-a-little-younger-than-18.

Which leads me to conclude that maybe, just possibly, the priest’s behavior was inappropriate for a person whose job involves working with teenage boys, and should not have been covered up.

71

How am I not answering the question? You asked if the list matters and I said no, that it’s the context of the interaction. That’s answering the fucking question.

72

Isn’t this backwards?

I mean one may consider propositioning adults for sex immoral while others may not. But if the man is a Priest, and in the context of his job (which is 24/7, 365) he ain’t supposed to be doing that by Church rules and by his own vows…doesn’t that *make it *unethical?

73

No, I don’t think so. While technically he’s on the clock 24/7, he’s not doing these acts within his role as someone’s spiritual adviser or in any other professional capacity.

I mean, I don’t really think he’s any more obligated not to have sex than any non-married Catholic. People hold priests up to a very high standard, but they are people after all and I’m sure a lot of them have sex. Shouldn’t have any more bearing on their job than my sex life does on mine. As I mentioned upthread, his obligation is like that of a doctor or therapist…not to use professional relationships as a means to take advantage of people. What he does in a park when he’s not wearing a collar is between him and God (and his confessor, I suppose).

74

Totally get your point, FtP. Having been raised Catholic, I get the OP. As a kid indoctrinated into Catholicism, one is led to believe that priests are the most ethical, pious, gold hearted, perfect men on the planet. We should all strive and pray to be as awesome as they are.

As a kid/teen, I would have been shocked to learn that any priest I had ever known would have broken his vows with the church (even if he just stole something from a store, but especially if he broke the vows of celibacy… since I was lectured constantly throughout my formative yrs by clergy about the evils of non-marital sex–esp for girls :rolleyes:).

I’m an athiest now, but back in the day I would have been horrified to learn that TPTB allowed a priest who broke his vows to remain in the church, given how judgmental they are of everyone else (including gays, which is another reason I defected).

FTR as a recovering Catholic, I don’t think the priest did anything unethical, until he preyed on minors.

75

This is debate in and of itself. To me, ethics are situational, and morals are personal. In other words, whether an act is moral depends on your personal beliefs and intents, both of which are subjective. Whether an act is ethical depends on context, but can be more objectively defined. Giving a gift to a stranger you wish to do business with, even if it intended to influence their decisions, if it is not against your personal moral code. But no matter what your moral code, giving a procurement officer a gift is may always be unethical.

The ethics of a given case can also be different depending on perspective. A priest who cruises for sex, without his collar, can be behaving ethically towards his sex partners, even though he is violating his ethics towards his church.

76

I am a cradle Catholic, and was never taught this. I was always taught correctly: that priests are men, and just like the vast majority of other human beings with respect to sin: they seek to avoid it, but are not always successful.

John Paul II went to confession daily. He was the Pope. What lesson can be drawn from that?

I was taught we should strive to be as awesome as Christ was. I was never taught we should strive me be as awesome as our priests are. They are, to be sure, men who have voluntarily shouldered an awesome load, and deserve our respect for that reason, but never was this blind adulation you describe a part of my religious inculcation.

77

Wait, he was a crossdresser too?

:smiley:

78

Well clearly then, people have different experiences with the RCC. I am not defending what I was taught–I think it is unhealthy and wrong. I’m just providing a my perspective.

I distinctly remember a sign on the wall in high school that said “God intended sex is for RE-CREATION, NOT recreation” :rolleyes:

79

Well, for high-schoolers, I suppose it’s not an completely misplaced sentiment – but on its face, it’s untrue, and the RCC Catechism explicitly says that sex has a strong purpose outside of reproduction: it’s fun for husband and wife, and draws them closer together. By no means does the Church teach that sex is only for procreation.

Given the paucity of married couples in the high school student population, though, I understand what might have motivated the lie.

80

He’s more obligated than other non-married Catholics because he voluntarily took a pretty serious vow not to have sex. Period. A vow does impose an obligation.