Posted on 06/03/2014 8:24:27 AM PDT by Dr. Thorne
ST. LOUIS (AP) - A Catholic priest from St. Louis is facing a court hearing on charges that he had sexual contact with a 14-year-old boy.
The Rev. Joseph Jiang faces two counts of statutory sodomy. Jiang worked at the Cathedral Basilica and is accused of sexually abusing a student at St. Louis Cathedral School. His lawyer has said Jiang denies the allegations.
(Excerpt) Read more at stltoday.com ...
I believe the scandal erupted when homosexual priests were admitted. That policy led to the scandal.
I don’t think the Church consciously or deliberately admitted homosexual priests.
No doubt that at one time they seemed to have some sort of don’t ask, don’t tell policy in place.
I’ll have to check. Seems I recall a change where the Church said homosexuals can serve because they would be priests and therefore would not engage in homosexual activity, and therefore not commit the sin of homosexuality.
Seems I recall something like that.
The teaching of the Church (the Catechism) basically teaches that a person (could be anyone-—priest or otherwise) who might have an orientation or inclination in a certain direction in and of itself is not a sin. It’s when you ACT or ENGAGE in such behavior that it becomes a sin. If one assumes that only homosexuals were interested in serving as priests, then the policy of mandatory clerical celibacy makes perfect sense. In fact, given the deadly nature of STDs associated with homosexual acts, ALL individuals with such an orientation should practice celibacy IMHO.
"By Catholic doctrine protestants are NOT really Christian so they cannot be held to the same standard."
Where in the world do you get this nonsense? I'm serious: do you just make stuff up as you go along? Or should I conclude you must be getting misinformation from somebody who retails stupid falsehoods in print or online?
It is absolutely untrue that Catholic doctrine says that Protestants are not really Christian --- and you should have fact-checked this with the Catholic Catechism before you destroyed your own credibility by repeating this rubbish.
From the Catechism, writing about "separated brethren," i.e. non-Catholic Christians:
"The Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements. Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, and are in themselves calls to Catholic unity."
Look it up yourself (LINK), and the more context you take in, the better.
The rest of your argument is similarly wrong-headed, deriving from similar false assumptions. You assume that Catholics consider themselves defect-free, or nearly so, because we use adjectives like 'holy' ('Holy Father, 'Holy Catholic Church.) This is not so. the Catholic Church consists entirely of sinners, and we know it: every one of us acknowledges ourselves as sinners at every Mass, and every Catholic is urged to avail himself of the Sacrament of Confession, including the Pope. No practicing Catholic could maintain the illusion that we are without sin.
I will appreciate your attention to these points in future postings. It's good to chat with you. I learn new stuff every day.
Do not play games with me. I have live with Catholic in-laws for nearly 40 years and I am NOT saved because I am NOT Catholic. I don't do the rituals nor the dance thus I am relegated out in Luther's domain for my falling short. Oh I am not Luthern, however, in the world of Catholics I have survived I might as well have been. Whitewashing reality of Catholic doctrine will NOT undue what I have lived!!!!!
And you've lived with these ignoramuses for 40 years? That would explain a lot.
You can ignore the history of the Catholic Church protecting child rapists by transferring them to other churches instead of having them arrested, but I can’t.
The real numbers are something we cannot know, because the overwhelming majority went unreported. They get reported far more often in other circles.
Admittedly, the problem may have gotten better now, because of so many cases having been brought to the public’s attention.
None of this has anything to do with a vow of celibacy, which is not based on anything religious, but rather on protecting the money and holdings of the Church.
It is unnatural to deny biology and force people to abstain from sex. Some will be able to handle it. Some won’t, and those who can’t control it will continue to be an ongoing concern to society.
Nobody is forced to be a priest.
It is my understanding that it wasn’t actual “admittance” but a less stringent vetting of future priests (which of course is really....admittance).
If you find anything, please post.
But I agree with you 100%. This isn’t about celibacy; this is about perversion and the modernists of the post Vatican II Church is completely at fault.
Neither of these states, celibate or monogamous, is necessarily perceived as "natural" for a man. I think most men can be aroused by a large number of women, and if aroused, could have intercourse almost any time: that is, if he were to do what seems to come "naturally."
Some men-- acting at a level above their instincts and appetites -- have a capacity for life-long celibacy, as Jesus and Paul both said, and all the rest for life-long monogamy. The Western Church chooses priests from the ranks of the celibate.
Nobody is "forcing" anything. USCCB guidelines require approximately 8 years of education, training and discernment to become a priest: four years of undergraduate study of philosophy and four years of graduate study in theology (for men coming directly from high school). During those whole 8 years they are getting a very good idea of whether they're cut out for lifelong celibacy, or not. You'd maybe agree that if a man could be more or less serenely celibate between the ages of 18 and 26, he probably has a vocation to celibacy.
Lots of young men leave seminary without being ordained, because they experience a strong desire for marriage and family. The percentage of seminarians who drop out without being ordained varies (different places, different years) but I've read that on a rough overall average about 50% of seminarians do not go on to become priests.
So men who are celibate are given every possible opportunity over a number of years to discern whether they have a vocation to lifelong celibacy.
If married men feel they have a call to Holy Orders, they can become deacons, which is an ordained clerical vocation just like the priesthood is.
There's no force or coercion here at all. If anything, the lengthy years of preparation --- during which they can leave at any time --- tend to thin the ranks down to the ones who really have a celibate vocation.
“The real numbers are something we cannot know, because the overwhelming majority went unreported”
I think it would be better stated if you said: “The real numbers are something we cannot know.”
The part where you say “the overwhelming majority went unreported” is unprovable.
Is it possible there were more abuses than we know of?
Yes, possible.
However, it is speculation not fact to say “the overwhelming majority went unreported” because. . .well. . .it is unreported and we have no facts to say how many were unreported.
You can say you think such a thing but you can’t argue that as a fact.
IMHO.
So, nobody is forced to be a priest. What does this have to do with the unnaturalness of celibacy?
So, by extension nobody is forced to be celibate, unless you think there is some sort of "right" to the priesthood? Which would lead me to ask if there some sort of "right" to marriage or parenthood or all these things in life what we would understand as callings?
Following that, if someone does not have a calling to marital or parental life are they, by definition, unnatural?
You can train people for 50 years and it won’t change the fact that human beings are programmed biologically to want to have sex. This is indisputable.
There is nothing religious about celibacy.
For its first 300 years priests married and had children. Popes begat Popes.
God made man and woman to desire sex. When you create a situation where you cannot have it, you will have problems.
Until the Catholic Church reverses this rule, the numbers of Catholic priests will continue to shrink at its current alarming rate.
You are correct. I cannot state it as a fact.
Didn't seem to hamper homosexuals who are attracted to teenage boys.
Worldwide, the total number of priests in 1970 was 419,728. In 2013, there were a total of 412,236 priests. True, that's a loss: the number of priests has been slowly shrinking in the USA since late 60's, BUT does that short time-span foretell the future? Interestingly, we just turned a corner on that this year, when we have the highest number of young men in seminary since 1970.
And the number of married deacons (15,000) exceeds the number of priests in religious orders, like the Jesuits and the Fransciscans (14,000) in the USA alone. So there are still many men who are called to Holy Orders, and will be. Myself, I have very much welcomed the growing diaconate, so I appreciate both the celibate and the married clergy.
To say there is "nothing religious abut celibacy" is as silly as to say there is "nothing religious about marriage." Jesus recommended celibacy, and St. Paul as well, while at the same time honoring marriage.
Think of the fact that when Jesus said that there should be no divorce: anyone who divorces and remarries, is committing adultery. When he said this, the disciples were shocked. They said to Him, "If that is the case, it would be better never to marry." In other words, both faithful lifelong marriage and faithful lifelong celibacy go beyond what is purely appetite-driven and natural. In Christian life, they are both Sacraments and both based on supernatural virtue.
Marriage certainly doesn't do much to restrain vice, if vice is what a man wants. The PSU pervert coach Sandusky, the pervert sexologist Kinsey, the pervert playwright Oscar Wilde, and the pervert Episcopalian bishop Vicky Gene Robinson all were married (to women) and had children. That has been the most common mode of homosexuality, pedophilia and pederasty through history: married men engaging in vice with other men.
Well, spoken like a pure Catholic, I have been exposed to for nearly 40 years!!!
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.