Posted on 04/10/2002 7:40:42 AM PDT by Radioheart
|
Why The Left Rails Against Priestly Celibacy |
|
There’s an unmistakable glee among leftists, both within and without the Catholic Church, about the ongoing scandal of pedophile priests. continue... |
I wish this message would be like a mortar barrage fired from the Catholic Church's leadership, from the Pope on down.
The decision to take a vow of celibacy is easier for someone who doesn't have much interest in heterosexual relations anyway and/or already has incentive to hide their attractions . "Loneliness" doesn't cause this kind of stuff to happen. As Dice Clay said (albeit rather more crudely), you either do or do not have homosexual attractions. Therefore, from the time of the sexual revolution among heterosexuals, the "costs" of becoming a priest have definitely been lower for gay men than straight men. So the decision was easier, and indeed had the fringe benefit of not having to make excuses for not being interested in women.
Father Cozzens, the rector of Saint Mary's seminar in Cleveland (ironically, the seminary that produced the late John Cardinal Krol, a staunch defender of celibacy) speaks on this quite a bit, though he speaks more about the gay subculture that has sprung up in some seminaries. Ironically, the increasing openness of gays will diminish the incentive of closeted gays to become priests, lessening the issue. Of course, that means even less priests.
Having some knowledge of the history, structure, and politics of the church (though not a believer), I expect that within five years of the ascension to the Papacy of the first Pope born after about 1935, there will be non-celibate orders of priests. Not so much because of the "gay" issue, but because of the shortage.
-Eric
I am a believing Catholic, and I am increasingly convinced that the vocations shortage is artificial. It is created by the quisling pro-homosexual, pro-priestess faction that controls many diocesan chanceries, vocations offices, and seminaries. This faction actively discourages vocations among orthodox Catholic men loyal to Catholic teaching, to Rome, and to the Church, because those men will not advance their agenda. Their ultimate goal is to present to Rome a priestless American church as a fait accompli, with the subtext being, "If you want priests again, ordain women."
I am a believing Catholic, and I am increasingly convinced that the vocations shortage is artificial. It is created by the quisling pro-homosexual, pro-priestess faction that controls many diocesan chanceries, vocations offices, and seminaries. This faction actively discourages vocations among orthodox Catholic men loyal to Catholic teaching, to Rome, and to the Church, because those men will not advance their agenda. Their ultimate goal is to present to Rome a priestless American church as a fait accompli, with the subtext being, "If you want priests again, ordain women."There's something to that, but the fact is that there aren't that many young men like that, and those that are likely to face family issues, as the tend to be very family-oriented as well. While celibacy means no sex, it also means no children. So the disincentive only increases...especially if his parents are hoping for grandchildren, as most do.
As for the pay issue, an old friend of mine is a "youth minister" (I think his title is) at a large Catholic Church. He's married and has a little girl. He costs them as much as a married priest would.
Another factor in holding onto celibacy is the "we did it, why shouldn't they" factor, that no longstanding organization is immune to.
-Eric
Then I think those guys don't fully appreciate the charism of the priesthood. It's our fault for not telling them.
It is unconscionable that a single young man is discouraged from the priesthood because he is "too Catholic". Good priests lead to more vocations, which lead to more good priests. Cut off the good priests at the source, and you kill the plant at the root. And that's exactly the plan!
As for the pay issue, an old friend of mine is a "youth minister" (I think his title is) at a large Catholic Church. He's married and has a little girl. He costs them as much as a married priest would.
A few large churches in rich neighborhoods can afford that. Small ones, or ones in poorer communities, cannot.
Don't you think it's kind of ironic to quote Nietzsche in this context? ;-)
This is my assessment as well, but I can speak only as an observer, being non-Catholic, myself. During the same period, I would say, the "costs" of taking a vow of celibacy went up for heterosexual Catholic males due to the "sexual revolution".
I am doubtful that simply cleaning up the homosexual infiltration of the Priesthood (if it's even possible at this point) will be enough to refill the seminaries with heterosexual males. The creation of an order of parish priests who were allowed to marry would bring in a surprising number of young Catholic men to seminaries, IMHO. Of course, I was raised in a Protestant tradition and am comfortable with a married clergy.
But as a practicing Catholic, I cannot in good conscience support celibacy for priests in this modern age. I really do think that married priests would indeed make for a stronger and better Church. Married priests would be able to relate better to their clergy. When I had marital problems several years ago, I saw one priest who was previously married (his wife sadly died of cancer at a young age). I can't even begin to tell you the help he gave me, if for no other reason than the fact that he KNEW what he was talking about through his previous lifes' experience. Would I have received the same counsel from a priest who's never had experience in being in a relationship with a woman? I can't say no for certain, but I'm highly doubtful that I would have.
To me, the entire celibacy issue is one that should have vanished years ago. It serves no place in the modern world. What it's done in fact, is create the climate the Church is facing now.
But like I said, I do really think the Church would be vastly improved if priests were given the option to marry and have families, if they so wish.
Just my humble opinion..........
A further point is the linkage between the sexual revolution and modern materialism. Materialism teaches that it is good for people to react on their impulses not just sexually but to buy things that make them feel better. The Church's teaching on sexuality is dangerous to modern materialism because if people can exercise free will to restrain the fundamental human desire for sex in obedience to a higher principle, they can surely resist the impulse to buy a new car or a resort vacation.
Which is why so many wealthy business persons who are country club Republican on most issues proclaim themselves liberal on "social issues" i.e. supportive of the sexual revolution - they got rich off modern materialism.
I don't want to be an alarmist but the consequences of who wins or loses this battle are monumental. If the Amchurchians and their cobbled cabal win we can say good-bye to Christianity and Western Civilization.
The message we will have sent to God and the world is "Sorry God,we cannot find even one half of a per-centage point of your male creation to imitate Christ and dedicate their all to You,for the sake of the kingdom.Marx was right."
Doesn't it strike you as somewhat amusing that the same people who loudly proclaim that they are pro-choice desire nothing more than to eliminate a "choice" for someone to renounce all and publicly proclaim "I have freely chosen to renounce all worldly things and follow in the footsteps of Christ"?
But I believe this is NOT your typical "evil leftist" vs. "right wing intolerant" political rant. No, this goes much deeper than that. I maintain that the Church would be better served backing off on an archaic law. It has nothing to do with "leftist agendas". It has to do with providing for a better Church. A Church that is in touch with the people.......but maybe I ask for too much.
Really? Guess I need to start dating more liberal women.
Richard W.
The vocations shortage is artificial. It is created by the quisling pro-homosexual, pro-priestess faction that controls many diocesan chanceries, vocations offices, and seminaries. This faction actively discourages vocations among orthodox Catholic men loyal to Catholic teaching, to Rome, and to the Church, because those men will not advance their agenda. Their ultimate goal is to present to Rome a priestless American church...
Nonsense. There are married Orthodox priests, there are married Protestant convert priests, there are married deacons. And the Church, and Western Civilization, are stil standing.
BTW, the Catholic Church has been ordaining married men as deacons for twenty-five years. There are several thousand of them throughout the United States. They do everything priests do except celebrate the Eucharist and the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
Has anyone heard of ONE INSTANCE of pederasty or pedophilia among them?
Yes, I have heard of one. And of very many among other married men.
The "deacons" have not been around for long enough and they are NOT what the liberals have a problem with, you see. The "real" Catholic clergy -- priests, bishops, and the Pope -- is the target.
There are some good points in that article.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.