Posted on 03/14/2010 2:18:46 PM PDT by NYer
Rome is using this day of rest to stir a debate that never seems to rest:
The Vatican on Sunday denied that its celibacy requirement for priests was the root cause of the clerical sex abuse scandal convulsing the church in Europe and again defended the pope's handling of the crisis.Continue at the link.
Suggestions that the celibacy rule was in part responsible for the ''deviant behavior'' of sexually abusive priests have swirled in recent days, with opinion pieces in German newspapers blaming it for fueling abuse and even Italian commentators questioning the rule.
Much of the furor was spurred by comments from one of the pope's closest advisers, Vienna archbishop Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, who called this week for an honest examination of issues like celibacy and priestly education to root out the origins of sex abuse.
''Part of it is the question of celibacy, as well as the subject of character development. And part of it is a large portion of honesty, in the church but also in society,'' he wrote in the online edition of his diocesan newsletter.
His office quickly stressed that Schoenborn wasn't calling into question priestly celibacy, which Pope Benedict XVI reaffirmed as recently as Friday as an ''expression of the gift of oneself to God and others.''
But Schoenborn has in the past shown himself receptive to arguments that a celibate priesthood is increasingly problematic for the church, primarily because it limits the number of men who seek ordination.
Last June, Schoenborn personally presented the Vatican with a lay initiative signed by prominent Austrian Catholics calling for the celibacy rule to be abolished and for married men to be allowed to become priests.
In the days following Schoenborn's editorial this week, several prominent prelates in Germany and at the Vatican shot down any suggestion that the celibacy rule had anything to do with the scandal, a point echoed Sunday by the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano.
''It's been established that there's no link,'' said the article by Bishop Giuseppe Versaldi, an emeritus professor of canon law and psychology at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome.
''First off, it's known that sexual abuse of minors is more widespread among lay people and those who are married than in the celibate priesthood,'' he wrote. ''Secondly, research has shown that priests guilty of abuse had long before stopped observing celibacy.''
The only thing we know for certain about St. Peter is that he had a mother in law. We do not know if his wife was still alive. We also do not know if any other of the disciples were married.
Well, if you read the whole instruction, which can be found here: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/John23/j23religios.htm ,
there are many things to look for in weeding out bad priestly candidates.
Priests are not called to be “normal”, but to a level of perfection that seems odd to the world. The grain of wheat that falls to the ground and dies...to yield a hundred fold.
Normal fatherhood is all consuming, not sure where the time and energy would come from to address the needs of the flock? Obviously the ideal is celibacy.
But it is interesting how gays delight in blaming celibacy for the things they have caused.
We know Peter was married (due to the existence of a mother-in-law), and have no reason to believe his marriage was discontinued for any reason. The only indications regarding Peter are that he was married. Postulating that his wife was deceased is nothing more than a guess, and smacks of making up facts to support a pre-concieved outcome.
Nothing was mentioned about the marial status of the other disciples — but I’ve seen no justification for assuming all of them were unmarried/ celibate. If they were, in fact, uniformly celibate, I would think that would’ve been mentioned.
So, for the two disciples whose marital status was mentioned ... we’ve got one married, and one celibate. I fail to see how this is an argument for mandated clerical celibacy. It seems to indicate to me that the marital status of disciples wasn’t even important enough to mention.
SnakeDoc
You wrote:
“I guess if marriage would be the norm for Catholic priests, than the homosexuals would go elsewhere for their cover....the military?”
I think that’s already done.
You should start with Christ. He had no earthly wife.
I think the real problem is that with such a shortage of priests, candidates are not being properly vetted to weed out those who have the mental problems that lead to abuse.
So? Marriage is not a sin — it was created and ordained by the Almighty.
Christ’s martial status was not actually mentioned in the Bible either. This is not to say that I believe He was married ... I don’t. I, like most everyone else, assume He was unmarried (mostly because I figure His wife would’ve been mentioned had she existed). But His unmarriedness, like that of any disciples other than Paul, was not pivotal enough to warrant a mention.
The question is not whether Christ was married. It is whether celibacy should be a mandate for priests — Peter’s apostleship seems to suggest it should not.
SnakeDoc
You wrote:
“So? Marriage is not a sin — it was created and ordained by the Almighty.”
Yes, it was created by God. So was chastity. And the use of a chaste life - without marriage - for the service of God is praised by Christ in scripture.
“Christ’s martial status was not actually mentioned in the Bible either.”
Yes, it was. Christ’s only bride is the Church herself. He can have no other.
“This is not to say that I believe He was married ... I don’t. I, like most everyone else, assume He was unmarried (mostly because I figure His wife would’ve been mentioned had she existed). But His unmarriedness, like that of any disciples other than Paul, was not pivotal enough to warrant a mention.”
It was - he was married only to the Church. He had no merely earthly bride.
“The question is not whether Christ was married. It is whether celibacy should be a mandate for priests — Peter’s apostleship seems to suggest it should not.”
Actually the one has nothing to do with the other. First of all, there is no mandated celibacy for priests. It is not forced on priests. Seminarians VOLUNTARILY choose it. They know it is part and parcel of the process. If they do not want to be priests, they do not choose it. The choice is entirely theirs. Second, whether or not Peter was married would have nothing to do with married priests even just a few years later. Peter married most likely many years before he met Christ. Would he have married AFTER being made an Apostle? Would he have married after being made pope? Most likely not - especially since he what was going to happen to him.
You wrote:
“I think the real problem is that with such a shortage of priests, candidates are not being properly vetted to weed out those who have the mental problems that lead to abuse.”
The priests, however, who were the worst abusers were ordained in the 1960s and 1970s. There wasn’t a shortage then. Also, at least some seminaries were taken over by the velvet mafia at that time and they DELIBERATELY recruited homosexuals. So, maybe some losers got in in the 80s because of a shortage but most of the abusers were already in the priesthood by that time.
Most of the abuse cases were homosexual in nature. Then when the Vatican announced (under PBXVI) that homosexuals must be screened out of the seminaries henceforth, the liberals all cried “Foul”!
There is no way liberals will ever be satisfied. That is because nothing the Church or in fact any traditional Christian denomination does is ever enough for these atheistic God-haters.
Where is the shame, the repentance? The conscience?
Seems like this discussion comes up several times a month on this forum. All the comments pro and con get tossed out and we start all over again like nothing was ever resolved. Could this be a sign it never really will and that celibacy for men of God is not the ideal anymore?
If according to your logic of Paul's statement, which he, by the way, said he was speaking of his own feelings at that time in which the believers found themselves under great persecution, then the Christian faith would have died out nearly two thousand years ago. If Paul was saying this was a commandment from God - which would have contradicted his earlier edicts to be fruitful and multiply - then the believers would have be obedient and stopped getting married, both men and women. Can you understand why the concept of celibacy is not expedient anymore?
Is this yet another example of the Catholic Church being unwilling to overrule itself no matter how incorrect it's dogma so as not to appear fallible?
Secondly, nobody has ever said that sexual perversion doesn't exist across all areas of society. We are a sinful, perverse, depraved and rebellious creation outside of the transformational power of the Holy Spirit of God. We are all sinners and I have not heard or read of anyone saying sexual molestation of children is ever acceptable regardless of role. Besides, it is a CRIMINAL offense.
Lastly, this "probable pedophiles" list is based on what evidence? According to whom? And, to repeat, none of the list outside of Roman Catholic priests takes a VOW before God and men to abstain from all sex, do they?
Because of the parish to which I belong, and, by virtue of this, the choir, I know a lot of seminarians. The majority of them say that they begin to feel the call to the priesthood in their teens. This is contrary to our modern understanding of personality development. They are answering a call, one that's very strong. Do I believe any of these guys are gay - NO. Not even. Not a one. This year, six more will join them as priests, although this class has a lot of men who have come to the priesthood in midlife. These guys see this as a marriage.
There are eight, nine, ten times more honest, good priests than those who abuse the young and give in to temptation of the sexual sort. Most of the latter aren't really socially savvy. An old family friend knew one who was accused recently and said this guy really wasn't socially with it at all. Even if he wasn't a priest, what he did might have occurred. I could see that with at least one other abuser who was laicized.
Celibacy is considered to be a sacrifice in and of itself. Not only that, there are many people called to the single life and not the religious who are celibate, so I have my doubts that that is the problem. Weakness and giving into temptation - that's something else. It takes a certain strength to be a priest and sometimes there are chinks in the armor. Sad, but it's always been this way. I doubt this argument will ever die, either, but there is something to be admired about a man who gives up what the world considers "normal" for the life of a priest. This is why I pray for them daily. The challenges are different, but the life isn't easy.
**First of all, none of the “titles” you mention take a vow of celibacy except the Catholic priest you mention**
There are other churches that take a vow of celebacy. For example in the orthodox church, a priest may marry, but if he marries, he may not be a bishop.
NYer, Kolo isn’t around anymore. Who do I ping for the orthodox caucus?
In other words, you got bored with the New Testament after the first four books. You'd be suprised how often this happens. And most priests are not considered "vicars" in the original Christian faith. You're confusing Catholicism with Anglican/Episcopalianism. They're similiar, but Catholicism decided not openly embrace homosexuality.
And I believe that celibacy is at least indirectly responsible for the sex abuse stuff because it largely closes off the priesthood to “normal” men who,being normal,wouldn’t want to spend their whole life without the companionship of a woman.
In other words, you've missed the point or priesthood entirely. This, too, happens all the time. What part of "Catholic Priests are less likely than the male population in general to abuse someone" are you having trouble with? This whole "scandal" has been trumped up for years by a liberal media that hates the Church for being at the forefront of most socially conservative causes. BTW, pedophilia/perversion rates are also no higher (and generally a lot lower) than among the clergy of any other religion you can think of. The world is full of twisted married men.
If you were a Catholic, you would know the answer to this. If you're not Catholic, you're really not entitled to an opinion. Actually, this being America, you ARE entitled to an opinion. But it won't mean much to anybody that matters in the debate.
I'm always confused by what people like you are doing on an thread like this, but if you're truely interested, the Catholic Encyclopedia is a wonderful web source for answers to questions exactly like this. You would be wasting both of our time if you responded to this post without doing the sligtest bit of research at the source I helpfully provided to you.
People who do that, and put it in writing, often regret it.
Oh right: Sexual deviants never get married. Your test is idiotic.
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.