I think I must be a broken human being, because I don't possess the bottomless reservoir of rage that other people apparently have about allegations of priests abusing children and hierarchs covering it up.
That is not to say I would defend any of those sins and crimes. They sicken me. It's just that I've reached the point of emotional exhaustion. These latest allegations don't fill me with an energizing rage. It's become an exercise in dumping more manure on top of a mountain of manure.
But the Pennsylvania Attorney General, Josh Shapiro, seems to be energized.
“Church officials routinely and purposely described the abuse as horseplay and wrestling and inappropriate contact. It was none of those things,” Mr. Shapiro said. “It was child sexual abuse, including rape, committed by grown men, priests, against children.”
He slammed bishops and other church leaders for thwarting inquiries, protecting priests and acting hostile toward victims.
“The cover-up was sophisticated. And all the while, shockingly, church leadership kept records of the abuse and the cover-up. These documents, from the dioceses’ own ‘Secret Archives,’ formed the backbone of this investigation,” Mr. Shapiro said at the news conference in Harrisburg.
“Above all else, they protected their institution, at all cost,” Mr. Shapiro said.Sigh. Yes, it's a very bad thing. It's all terrible. It's just that I've heard all this before. More than once. Mr. Attorney General, you may be shocked, but please forgive me if I'm not shocked. There is nothing new in any of this.
In fact, that last thought is true in a couple of ways: "there is nothing new" in the sense that we've heard all this before from many other dioceses; and "there is nothing new" in the sense that nearly all of the cases which the grand jury document reportedly rehashes in minute detail are cases from long ago:
The grand jury’s work might not result in justice for Catholics who say they were molested as children. While the nearly two-year probe has yielded charges against two clergymen—including a priest who has since pleaded guilty, and another who allegedly forced his accuser to say confession after each sex assault—the vast majority of priests already identified as perpetrators are either dead or are likely to avoid arrest because their alleged crimes are too old to prosecute under state law.One commentator noted that 1/3 of the 300 priests named in (or whose names are redacted from) the report are from the Pittsburgh diocese. A hundred abusive priests, even over 70 years, sounds like a lot for any diocese. That leaves 200 priests spread across five other dioceses - 40 priests per diocese over a 70 year period . That number seems like par for the course. That's the abuse scandal as it's been known to us for the last 20 years or so. It's not okay - in fact, it's the opposite of okay. I just can't get myself worked up into a lather over it. Whatever revulsion I feel is draining rather than energizing. When one is nauseous, the only energy one feels is to run to the bathroom.
Perhaps the aspect of the story that will have the most practical bite is that concerning the bishops of these dioceses. Some of them are still around, and at least one of them has moved on to another, bigger diocese: Cardinal Wuerl of Washington DC (Cardinal McCarrick's successor), who was bishop of Pittsburgh throughout the 1990s.
The grand jury and Shapiro make four recommendations:
The report recommends eliminating the criminal statute of limitations for sexually abusing children, creating a two-year window for victims of sexual abuse to file lawsuits, clarifying penalties for failing to report abuse and banning non-disclosure agreements regarding cooperation with law enforcement.I disagree with the recommendations to eliminate statutes of limitations, temporarily or permanently. The attorney general positions these measures as "helping victims". I am not sure what kind of practical help those measures would bring about; to me it reads like a quest for some sort of therapeutic benefit. If victims need therapy, then let's find them therapists, and by all means let the dioceses pay for it. But that is not the same as criminal and civil justice.
Please don't take the weary tone of this post as suggesting that what the grand jury did was a bad thing. It's necessary. These deeds done in the dark must be dragged into the light. It seems tolerably clear that the attorney general is positioning himself to run for his re-election as the crusader against abuse in the Catholic church. Part of that makes me grit my teeth, because I can't stand to see the church tarred in this way. But it's hard to argue that it's not deserved.
I think everybody has been numbed. You know what these things are going to say before they start; only the details seem to get worse. So we got up a pool on who's next in the men's group this morning. I have Indiana, but I suspect Deacon Marty will get the money; he has New Jersey. And so it goes.
ReplyDeleteTwo things are clearer:
1. Clergy can't police clergy any more than police can police police. It is going to require an outside force. One of the guys added "of non-Catholics." Maybe.
2. It is not a good sign that seminarians here and there are said to be buying birettas, practicing holding out their ring for kissing and referring to themselves as "alter Christus." The title has been popping up in print as well as among seminarians. I thought it was maybe dead after 2002 except as a technical, liturgical term. Its comeback should be roundly and soundly stomped on, even if offends a newly preening priest.
And, as a p.s. A world youth day with lots of youth and lots of priests is not exactly the picture a repentant church ought to be hanging up for the world in this day and age. It won't make people think of Jesus. Just talking PR here.
Finally, there should be no messing with statutes of limitation because they serve a legitimate legal and societal function. And if, against my advice, there is legislative messing around, it must include public schools as well as Catholic churches, which most of the bills don't seem to do.
Tom, I especially agree with your second point that we shouldn't be encouraging any God complexes in seminarians and they newly ordained (nor the longer ordained, either). A little illustration of that; recently my sister was telling about running into a college classmate whom she had been friends with. She is much younger than me and her college days aren't as far in the past. Anyway this guy is a priest, and rather high muckamuck these days. She said, "Oh hi, "John". Long time no see!" He said, " Oh, I'm Father John now." She said she felt put in her place. People shouldn't be encouraged to put themselves on a pedestal.
DeleteAbout World Youth Day, they have tons of parent sponsors. At least the ones who go from here do. So there are probably plenty of people to keep an eye on things. Not that I have ever been a sponsor, I would rather be shot.
I agree with you about the statute of limitations. More about that later.
This story is sort of like the daily Trumplethinskintinyhandserialadulterer's flatulations. After awhile one simply doesn't care.
DeleteI know that those of you who still hang on thinking that the Spirit will somehow kiss this and make it all better again are still upset.
The rest of us ……… nothing new here. Old stuff regurgitated. The Vatican is now promising a serious look at this situation. Yah, sure. Snorrrrrrrrrrrrre.
I am weary of Church spokesmen saying the same damn thing. Fr. Reese was on the NewsHour last night following the familiar script: it's terrible, awful, one abuse is one too many, but most of these cases are in the past, and I know of an abusive priest whom Bishop X went all the way to the Vatican to get defrocked.
ReplyDeleteI support changing the statute of limitations. What was done to these kids has lifelong reverberations. Decades later they have ptsd, marital problems, and need therapy. There is no statute of limitations on how long the effects of the abuse will last.
I also think the Church would do well to start dialing down its insistence on virginity and celibacy.
And, given the extended adolescence of Our Young People, set the age for ordination higher. At, say, 30.
"And, given the extended adolescence of Our Young People, set the age for ordination higher. At, say, 30"
DeleteThat's a great insight.
I can't claim deacons are scandal-free when it comes to abuse, but deacons are a tiny percentage of identified abusers, even though, these days, we're a pretty large percentage of the clergy - in many parishes there are more deacons than priests. But deacons come from a different stage of life. We're not even invited to consider becoming deacons until we've achieved a certain stability and maturity in our lives. Of course, in the vast majority of cases, that means: the deacon is married, is a parent and has shown he can hold a steady job. Those qualifications don't match up very well to what is expected of priests, but neither are they doctrinal stumbling blocks - if church law was revised to permit married priests, then mature, stable, married men could respond to calls to the priesthood.
"I am weary of Church spokesmen saying the same damn thing. Fr. Reese was on the NewsHour last night following the familiar script"
DeleteHere is the segment that Jean refers to. It's only about 10 minutes long, and is worth watching if you're interested in this story. The first half is the PA Attorney General, Josh Shapiro; the second half is Fr. Reese.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/secret-archives-detailed-priests-child-sex-abuse-and-cover-ups-pa-attorney-general-says
Shapiro is pretty camera-ready, and I'd have to say he's running for something. I don't mean that as an attack on Shapiro; when the church let's elected officials clean out its stables, that kind of political opportunism will come with the territory. That said, Shapiro annoyed me in the same way that most politicians annoy me. There could be a drinking game, Take a shot every time Shapiro says "secret archive".
Regarding Fr. Reese's segment: maybe this is nitpicky, but Reese isn't a church spokesman per se. He doesn't work for a diocese or the Vatican, and he's not speaking here on behalf of his religious order (he's a Jesuit). He's basically a subject matter expert who gets hired by news orgs for his expertise.
FWIW, in his own career, he's been treated pretty shabbily by the hierarchs.
And I don't think he was flacking for the Pennsylvania bishops in this segment. He comes across as pretty pissed off. I'm sure it's genuine. I think a lot of priests feel that way.
Nothing against Fr. Reese. We canceled our subscription to America when he was pressured out. But we've heard this before.
DeleteAnd, yeah, Shapiro is out to make a name for himself maybe, but a) better it be for victims than a bunch of rich people or coal companies and b) the Church handed him the ammo.
DeleteJean, I agree with you on dialing back the insistence about virginity and celibacy. I just listened to two cringe-worthy Assumption Day homilies yesterday and today. (No, my husband wasn't one of the guilty parties.)
DeleteAnd yes, given today's "extended adolescence" not ordaining until age 30 is a good idea. It seems like arrested adolescence is a common thread running though clergy who abuse.
I thought Reese might have done better. CBS had Wuerl and didn't ask him about his mentions in the report. But I guess it's got to be Reese or John Allen. Frankly, I would be more interested in what Judge Anne Burke has to say.
DeleteSince these things keep coming up, Holy Mother ought to have a couple of her media-savvy prelates on tap and primed for the media. (This one could be seen coming for months.) Where do Cardinal Dolan and Bishop Robert Barron hide when they are needed?
Hokey smokes! It is Assumption Day! Totally forgot. Have to hit the 6:30 Last Chance Mass, which totally screws up supper and news watching. And I think the Blessed Virgin would agree with me. I know St. Martha would. (I wonder if they knew each other ...)
DeleteJean, Not to worry. The Gospel is for the Visitation. That's because the Assumption isn't in the Gospels.
DeleteI believe in the Assimption. And I believe in the Immaculate Conception. But I am going to scream if I hear another homily based on the Protoevangelium of James. And I will scream again if I hear another one based on a literal interpretation of Genesis. The Protoevangelium isn't considered canonical scripture for good reason, even if one thinks the story is pretty. And I'm more inclined to think it's kind of toxic rather than pretty.
DeleteI have never heard a sermon on the Protoevangelium of James. Is that like a sermon on Fantasy Island? I've heard enough of those. Bahss, Bahss, de blane, de blane! See?
DeleteWell you probably haven't heard a sermon mentioning the Protoevangelium by name. But I'll bet you have heard the story about how Mary's parents were childless, and prayed for a child. And when their prayers were answered they promised her to God and left her at the temple at the age of three. And how early on she made a vow of virginity. The sermon last night was about the end of her life, How all the apostles came to Jerusalem to be there at her death. And when Jesus came to get her she got out of bed and knelt at his feet in adoration. One of my fellow choir members leaned over and whispered, "Where did that come from? I don't remember that." Wben you said Fantasy Island you weren't far off.
DeleteI never heard any of that stuff. All's we heard in RCIA was Mary good, holy, virgin, obedient, walking around heaven in corporeal form, i.e., nice for her, but not like anybody I know, nothing to do with me. Short mass last night, though, so time to catch last part of the news. I think I'm done with Assumption.
DeleteI had never heard that before, either, about the Protoevangelium of James and the tradition that Katherine recapped.
DeleteOur priest last night used as his starting point the word "hurried" (as in, Mary hurried, or went in haste, to Elizabeth) and talked about how his mother used to tell the kids the kids hurry when their grandmother needed them to run an errand in their town in Mexico. I'm sure there was more to it but as happens so often when I listen to a homily, he said something that started a train of thought that took me away from the rest of the homily.
What grabbed my attention last night (and probably had me spacing out when I should have been attentive to the homily) was the first reading. I hadn't recalled hearing it before; checking the USCCB website now, I see that what we heard was for the vigil mass of the Assumption (rather than the mass during the day). There is no mention of Mary, Elizabeth, Eve or any woman. It's from 1st Chronicles and is about the grand entry of the Ark of the Covenant into Jerusalem and its placement in the tent (the tent being the precursor to the Temple). My first thought was, "Why was this reading chosen for the Assumption?" Then it occurred to me that it's because the Ark is a type for Mary; just as the Ark bore God's word, Mary bore God's Word. That sort of allegory is very traditional in Christianity, although pretty out of fashion these days I suppose.
Jim, yeah, we had those vigil readings also Tuesday night. It's funny, neither of us remember them from the past, even though we have often attended the vigil Mass. The responsorial psalm caught the choir a bit by surprise since we hadn't had a chance to practice beforehand. So I wonder if they were just using the readings for the 15th previously.
DeleteThe homily was given by one of our deacons who is quite elderly. Maybe those apocryphal traditions were more of a thing in the past.
Yikes! All that stuff about virginity and Jesus coming for the dormition -- did they serve latkes? -- was news to me.
DeleteUnless they can provide documentable proof that they have sexual experience and know what its all about, no ordination. Phony baloney promises of virginity based on pie-in-the-sky notions are just that: phony baloney.
DeleteOne of the advantages of living in the DC area is parish access to Georgetown and CU. My former RC parish used to run Saturday a.m. talks by various people. One series of talks that lasted for 8 weeks/year (6 in spring, 6 in fall) were given by a Prof at Georgetown - on the bible. He was quite amazing. He also ran a book study at another parish, and undertook a multi-year study of Christianity - the First Three Thousand Years, by Diarmaid MacCulloch. Parishes in NYC and Chicago probably can attract similar speakers.
ReplyDeleteI went to see Fr. Reese one Saturday a.m., a couple of years after the Globe story broke. I don't remember how many years. But long enough that I was totally fed up by the fact that Rome had done NOTHING to hold any bishop accountable for protecting child molesters and clearly did not intend to do anything except for continue to cover up when and where they could. Not a single bishop other than Law had resigned, and he resigned for negative reasons, not to show remorse. Rome rewarded him once they managed to whisk him out of the country to the no-extradition Vatican State.
There weren't many people at the Saturday morning talks - usually about 15-20, including when Reese was there. He took questions and expounded at length UNTIL I asked a pointed question about the abuse and the role of the bishops and Rome in hiding it to protect priests and, in the case of Rome, to protect bishops. He mumbled something, packed up his things, and practically ran out of the room. It was very clear he did not want to talk about it.
I haven't looked at the video yet, but I'm not surprised to learn that he may have essentially mumbled and run out of the room.
Barron would not be a good choice, nor would Dolan. Dolan is a smiling and glib spokesman-politician, while Barron would be so much in the clerical corner, joining the circling of wagons, that I doubt he would say anything worth hearing.
Neither can be trusted to be truly honest and forthcoming; both would do their best to paint the church in a good light, perhaps even finding a clever way to twist things to make it seem that the church is the victim of a "witch-hunt" (without using those words of course, as both are too clever and glib to be that obvious)- to use a term that has become overly used in recent months.
Anne, I suggested Dolan or Barron not because they would be good choices but because they would be "official" in the way Reese (or Allen) can never be. They have clawed their way to media fame in situations where they are in full control. Having gotten where they tried to go, they ought to give some back. They may not be very good at facing a raging (joke!) Judy Woodruff, who doesn't have to call them "excellency." But the experience would be good for them.
DeleteOr the media could call on Laura Ingraham or Ray Arroyo. They are not official but think they should be. But those luminaries would be busy running back and forth between Fox and EWTN.
Jim, I agree with you that it's draining rather than energizing.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with you and Tom about not messing with the statute of limitation. As Tom points out, it serves a legitimate legal and societal purpose. As far as I know the only crimes not having statutes of limitation are ones such as murder, kidnapping, treason, and war crimes.
P.S. I too did not renew my subscription to America after Fr. Reese was fired. It has never been as nearly as good a journal as it was under his leadership. Yes, he was mistreated by the PTB - mainly by Benedict and his minions, who suppressed so many theologians, priests and women religious who dared offer opinions and possibilities that Benedict did not like.
ReplyDeleteBut, I was not impressed with how Reese handled (or did not handle) the questions I asked him that morning years ago in my former parish.
I would be interested in how you respond to his NewsHour appearance, Anne. A repeat of what you saw?
DeleteJean, I finally watched the segment. I felt that he simply mouthed the same platitudes they all come up with. It's terrible, it should not have happened, and now it's much safer for kids. Nothing about the lack of any clear definitions of what bishops must do nor of what the consequences will be if bishops fail to report.
DeleteI also found it interesting that Reese hadn't yet read the parts about Pittsburg, even though the news media had already picked up on the Wuerl story. I haven't read it either, so don't know what is there, but it seems that the priest that Wuerl tried to get rid of was not the only case that he was involved with - at least from what I have gleaned from the news. Also Reese, while strongly defending Wuerl, did not mention the fact that Wuerl never reported the priest to the police, as he could have done, and should have done. Judy Woodruff didn't pick up on that sin of omission either.
I well recall when Cardinal George of Chicago failed to remove a priest from ministry and failed to report him to the police a couple of years AFTER the Dallas meeting. Clearly it was business as usual. I also noted that the bishops elected him head of the bishops' conference shortly after it had come out that George had failed to act against another priest/abuser.
That told me everything I needed to know about the "leadership" of the RCC.
When I questioned Reese, he mumbled something about it being terrible and probably wouldn't happen much in the future. He did not respond to the question about the role of bishops in protecting child molesters and what should be done about their failures to protect kids. He picked up his things and quickly left the room.
Anne, thanks. I also thought it was a really inadequate response.
DeleteNearly 20 years ago, when these stories were coming out, our then-bishop sent every family in the diocese a letter and the number of the detective whom the diocese was working with (don't remember if it was the state cops or the Lansing City Police Department). He reiterated policies, procedures, and urged parents to believe their children. There was no circling the wagons or hushing things up.
Incidents from the past were uncovered and some new ones cropped up, but I admired how the bishop handled it.
Jean, I am totally amazed. Who was the bishop? I have never heard of a bishop who was forthcoming and proactive in giving the laity the information they needed.
DeleteWhen these stories were coming out after the Boston Globe broke them in a big way, the bishop of Washington DC was......McCarrick.
I'm still trying to research Wuerl's activities in Pittsburgh. There are accounts of his actions that seem somewhat contradictory. When he came to DC, people felt he had cleaner hands than most of the other bishops. I haven't yet decided - haven't read the source documents yet, only different spins on what they say - his hands are dirty or clean - depending on who is doing the spinning.
I am interested in the actual ststistics. I was an altar boy for eight years from around 1958 to 1966. I never experienced, saw or heard anything. What were the probabilities I could? I served for a priest with the DT's but that was about as scandalous as it got. There was certainly no personal relationship between myself and the priests or my family and the priests. I did my altar boy job and left.
ReplyDeleteStanley, same here - I was an altar boy from 3rd grade through 8th grade and never saw or experienced anything. We were both fortunate I guess.
DeleteI've seen a statistic that approx. 5% of priests have abused. But it may be that the PA dioceses in this grand jury report had higher percentages. But even that 5% (or whatever it is) didn't abuse every kid they came into contact with.
Stanley, There was certainly no personal relationship between myself and the priests or my family and the priests.
DeleteFrom what I have read over the last 20+ years (from when I became aware of the early stories in NCReporter), many victims were the children of families the priests had cultivated as "friends". They often had dinner at the homes of certain families, socialized with them in general, and the parents were often flattered by the attention. Of course the parents also encouraged their children to always look up to the priests and never to question them - obedience was all.
One of my brothers went into junior seminary in 9th grade. He left after a couple of months. I always assumed it was because he quickly realized he wasn't cut out to be a priest. I only learned the full story a few years ago, when he was already in his 60s. We did not have the ideal Norman Rockwell family. He went into the seminary to get away from the household. But the seminary was worse for him because one of the priest/teachers tried to seduce him. My brother was very big for his age, and strong, and literally pushed the teacher/priest away. He left the church as soon as he was out of the house and not forced to go to mass by our mother. He never looked back.
A friend of mine told me (shortly after the Boston story hit) that she was abused from age 10-13 by her parish priest. He was a very good friend of her father, frequently was at their home, and frequently did things with her father (such as play golf). Her father was emotionally and physically abusive to her, so she did not dare tell him what his good friend, "Father so and so" was doing to her. She said her father would not have believed her and would have punished her for saying such things about a holy priest.
She never reported it, even after a lot of victims came forward after the Boston Globe blew the story wide open. She did not want to have to go through it all even though so many years had passed. She said the priest was still alive, but was in a nursing home and could not threaten anyone else. She was highly trained in Catholic guilt, and even at 60ish, decades after the abuse occurred, she felt guilt - largely because she believed he had molested other girls, always pre-pubescent. She said maybe if she had said something, the other girls would have been spared. Not likely - not in those days. Either she would not have been believed, and she would have been punished for saying such terrible things about a priest.
Jim, using 1980 numbers as a reference, there were 3.9M Catholics in PA. A thousand molested Catholics comes out to one in 3,900. The report said there were many others. Let's say an order of magnitude more, 10,000. That's one out of 390. That would make it possible for the problem to exist without the vast majority encountering it. Also, 300 molesters has to be a lot less than the number of parishes so that it was impossible to staff every parish with a pedophile. But the bishops knowingly moved these people around so who knows how many were exposed to danger?
DeleteAnne, paradoxically, since most molestation occurs within families, it would seem to behoove molester priests to become part of one. My parents were separated so my father wasn't around much. But I can't say my childhood situation was dysfunctional or unstable. Predators can probably sense vulnerability and I don't think I was.
Delete"Predators can probably sense vulnerability"
DeleteI'm told (this comes from the Protecting God's Children training that everyone went through in our diocese) that that is exactly the predators' modus operandi - they look for the weak and vulnerable. "Predator" is exactly the right word: they're looking to pick off the vulnerable ones, just like the lion lurking on the edge of the herd of wildebeests is looking for the babies and the weak ones to attack.
In the first comment on this string, Tom Blackburn wrote, "Two things are clearer: 1. Clergy can't police clergy any more than police can police police. It is going to require an outside force . . .
ReplyDeleteThat reminded me of Albany Bishop Edward Scharfenberger's recent recommendation:
"We have reached a point where bishops alone investigating bishops is not the answer.
“To have credibility, a panel would have to be separated from any source of power whose trustworthiness might potentially be compromised . . .
“Our laypeople are not only willing to take on this much-needed role, but they are eager to help us make lasting reforms that will restore a level of trust that has been shattered yet again . . . In speaking with them, we all hear their passion for our universal Church, their devotion to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and their hunger for the truth. They are essential to the solution we seek.
"[The commission should be] led by well-respected, faithful lay leaders who are beyond reproach, people whose role on such a panel will not serve to benefit them financially, politically or personally. . .
“These will be people with a deep understanding of the Catholic faith, . . . but without an axe to grind or an agenda to push. It will not be easy, but it will be worth every ounce of effort, energy, and candor we can muster.”
https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2018/08/06/albany-bishop-says-laypeople-should-investigate-misconduct-us-bishops
Gene, many thanks for calling out Schargenberger's statement. Of all the ideas kicked around by bishops, his seems the best, and he seems to have the right motivation (i.e. what is best for the victims and the church as a whole).
DeleteMy personal observation is that, during my lifetime, a bishop from a third- or fourth-tier diocese would not get much traction in the conference; the cardinals and other big bosses (presumably working in the background with Rome) would dictate what the conference is going to do. Now, I do think that what I'm describing here is part of the culture that Francis is seeking to reform; that is why my cardinal archbishop, Blase Cupich, was a bishop somewhere in the Dakotas not that long ago and was promoted to Chicago. And Francis has been selecting cardinals worldwide in areas that historically have been considered marginal. But how any of that translates to reforms driven by the national conference is yet to be seen. McCarrick has been one of the big bosses. The big bosses can't be in business-as-usual mode on this one.
Scharfenberger's on the right track. But if it's an advice-only panel or a recommendation-to-Rome (through the USCCB) panel, forget about it. It shouldn't have an axe to grind, but it will need something sharp to cut through the purple wall.
DeleteI think a big problem is the sequestering of priest candidates. Does the evil of the world from which they should be isolated include family and friends? This setapartedness is the source of a lot of dysfunction. Maybe even seminaries need to be critiqued. It always struck me that J.K Rowling's Hogwarts was really a British boarding school, isolating kids from their parents for long periods of time. No wonder the wizarding world was so screwed up. Another boarding school masterpiece: trump.
ReplyDeleteI used to wonder, too, about the formation programs of some of the religious orders. For about five minutes as a very young teen I considered being a nun. I thought I could do poverty and chastity, but obedience was a bridge too far. A lot of the orders back in the old days didn't allow you to go home when you were a postulant or novice, and once you were professed you traveled in pairs. Censoring of mail was pretty common. Fortunately things are much different now, seems like that would be a perfect set-up for abuse of one sort and another.
DeleteKatherine, the obedience thing stopped me too. By then (high school) I knew enough monsignorial level priests, and while none of them was evil, so far as I know, none of them seemed smart enough to hand my brain over to.
Delete