Archbishop links priestly celibacy and Catholic sex abuse scandals

[sidbrown]

I think you need to reread that yourself. It never says they have wives. And that doesn’t mean I don’t believe NECESSARILY didn’t have wives.

I’ve heard this from both sides. Personally, I would prefer to have a mix. 20% of Catholic priests are married. Besides, its not our choice to decide if a priest can have a wife or not. I accept, but not blindly, that the Majesterium of the Church has the authority to say yay or nay. The Keys were handed to Peter and the bishops in union with Peter. When its all said and done, this is why we actually accept this long standing tradition.

The quote obviously says that Cephas had a wife. Further eleven of he twelve apostles were married. I don’t see any reason to go against the Tradition set down by Our Divine Lord and Savior as He chose married men as the first bishops in the Catholic Church.

 

[sidbrown]

All the abuse must be exposed but have you noticed that when it is Catholic the media goes wild - what about the other abuse???

Let’s take a look. A teacher was recently convicted of abusing one boy in her class and she can face up to eighteen years in prison. A Catholic priest is known to have abused 200 deaf boys and he was left scot free - no jail time at all.

 

[The_Geographer]

The quote obviously says that Cephas had a wife. Further eleven of he twelve apostles were married. I don’t see any reason to go against the Tradition set down by Our Divine Lord and Savior as He chose married men as the first bishops in the Catholic Church.

So are you’re saying that it’s now acceptable to interpret scripture outside of the following 3 principals:

1.    Read scripture as a totality

2.    Read written word of God in the light of Sacred Tradition

3.    Apply the analogy of the faith

Ex. Eliminate heresies like there is another extra book or 11 commandments

 

[sidbrown]

So are you’re saying that it’s now acceptable to interpret scripture outside of the following 3 principals:

1.    Read scripture as a totality

2.    Read written word of God in the light of Sacred Tradition

3.    Apply the analogy of the faith

Ex. Eliminate heresies like there is another extra book or 11 commandments

This has nothing to do with the well known fact that eleven of the twelve apostles chosen by Our Divine Lord were married.

 

[otjm]

Your comment made me think of something. Some people are arguing that lifting the tradition of celibacy would fix the problem. Unfortunately, there seems to be a logical contradiction. The sex scandals were caused by religious who were actively not being celibate.

Just a passing thought… it’s not an argument for or against anything.

Yes, and that goes to the relativism that entered Moral Theology some 30 or 40 years ago. I would like to blame it on the Anglican priest who came up with Situational Ethics (his name escapes me at the moment), but when reasonably intelligent people buy into an arguement that makes no sense, one looking for the reason must give some credit to our carnal nature and to concupicense. In short, if you are a homosexual adult and don’t have a firm lid on your sexual libido, it is not too hard to use Situational Ethics to come up with a phony argument that celibacy does not mean chastity; it only means “not being married”. And that is the gist of at least some of the thinking that has been passed off for reasoning. Or as my brother would put it, thinking with the one-eyed monster.

Which is not to say that we suddenly had an influx of homosexual men into the seminary right after Vatican 2; when we have had actively homosexual bishops resign, those folks by and large were ordained before Vatican 2. But the thinking in Moral Theology went into the toilet and someone flushed long ago. It is not for no reason that at least one seminary back East had the nickname the Purple Palace.

In truth it cannot be said that all seminaries fell off the edge of the earth; but certainly a significant number of them strayed seriously from the truth.

We sadly have had some of the best and the brightest in the Church go through ordination and get lost in their perceived brilliance, isolated from the unwashed masses who simply are not sophisticated enough to understand. They lost connection to the real world, became more and more isolated and more and more feeding off one another’s ego, solipsism, effete snobbery and psuedo sophisitication, and slipped farther and farther down the slippery slope of sexual license. Nattering nabobs of hedonism, with apologies to a lousy Vice President.

And just one more form of clericalism.

 

[The_Geographer]

This has nothing to do with the well known fact that eleven of the twelve apostles chosen by Our Divine Lord were married.

The point I’m trying to make has nothing to do with what I posted but to see if you will accept the Authority of the Pope, who maintains that a celibate priesthood is not only valid but required by Rome. You have elevated yourself above the Papacy and declared Rome invalid by all of your statements. I know very good priests. They are like brothers to me. I take offense to many of your statements that you believe “ALL PRIESTS SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO MARRY”. If my wife dies I have already told her that I will seek the priesthood. I have not problem with married priests, friend. But please stop making all of the foolish analogies outside of your pay grade. You make a mockery of the Church and all of those fine men that have given their lives to serve us.

I rather think that the salient question here should be why the Roman catholic Church should insist on celibacy for all clergy, when the ancient Church did not?

I do appreciate that there is some advantage in this rule - but it is abundantly clear that the disadvantages of it are harming the Church, and turning many away from the Church in modern times… Surely, celibacy should be the decision of the individual - and should not preclude anyone from Priestly office.

The Catholic Church - allow married Priests within many Rites. Why not for all?

I have to say I agree with much of what this man said on one of your threads that you started. however, you stated “ALL” and “REQUIRED”. That is the part that makes it difficult for me to accept based on the principal that I know good men that sacrificed marriage to work out their faith with fear and trembling in the one vocation. Marriage does not predetermine the path men will take. I know married deacons guilty of the same thing, one of whom I had a major crush on his daughter. She’s divorced and living in sin, as he even on his death bed. The SOB that molested me is no longer a practicing priest. Fortunately there are changes in the seminaries that have changed, but there is much to clean up still.

 

[sidbrown]

The point I’m trying to make has nothing to do with what I posted but to see if you will accept the Authority of the Pope, who maintains that a celibate priesthood is not only valid but required by Rome. You have elevated yourself above the Papacy and declared Rome invalid by all of your statements. I know very good priests. They are like brothers to me. I take offense to many of your statements that you believe “ALL PRIESTS SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO MARRY”. If my wife dies I have already told her that I will seek the priesthood. I have not problem with married priests, friend. But please stop making all of the foolish analogies outside of your pay grade. You make a mockery of the Church and all of those fine men that have given their lives to serve us.

I have to say I agree with much of what this man said on one of your threads that you started. however, you stated “ALL” and “REQUIRED”. That is the part that makes it difficult for me to accept based on the principal that I know good men that sacrificed marriage to work out their faith with fear and trembling in the one vocation. Marriage does not predetermine the path men will take. I know married deacons guilty of the same thing, one of whom I had a major crush on his daughter. She’s divorced and living in sin, as he even on his death bed. The SOB that molested me is no longer a practicing priest. Fortunately there are changes in the seminaries that have changed, but there is much to clean up still.

You are stretching.
The fact is that Simon Peter, the first Pope chosen by Our Divine Lord was married. And the fact is that eleven of the twelve apostles were married. These were all chosen by Our Divine Lord. This has nothing at all to do with anyone’s pay grade. It is a simple fact. And you said that there is no where in Scripture which indicates that Simon Peter was married. I have already given you the quote which explicitly shows that he was married, and this is well accepted.
The question of my pay grade is an ad hominem argument that has nothing to do with the Scriptural reference quoted or the well accepted facts of eleven married apostles. And these were the first bishops of the Catholic Church.

 

[The_Geographer]

You are stretching.
The fact is that Simon Peter, the first Pope chosen by Our Divine Lord was married. And the fact is that eleven of the twelve apostles were married. These were all chosen by Our Divine Lord. This has nothing at all to do with anyone’s pay grade. It is a simple fact. And you said that there is no where in Scripture which indicates that Simon Peter was married. I have already given you the quote which explicitly shows that he was married, and this is well accepted.
The question of my pay grade is an ad hominem argument that has nothing to do with the Scriptural reference quoted or the well accepted facts of eleven married apostles. And these were the first bishops of the Catholic Church.

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=489266&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2006&Author=&Keyword=apostles+were+married&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=1&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

Let’s restate this maybe a bit more clear from what I may have stated. I’ll have to go back and read what I wrote. But this will be easier. What I am trying to say is that there is not mention of Peter’s wife, but only his mother in law. The passage you provided only mentions they have a right. It does not mention their names. I also found something form EWTN that drives home at least parts of what I am repeating.

In my previous faith, elders, who are considered bishops, are required to be elderly men with believing children, following scriptural guidelines in a legalistic manner. That means they have to have had children and those children had to be believers. The qualifications for deacons was that they had to be married and fathers. But when you go back and read the scriptures associated with their rule I found other congregations interpreting it in various ways that were often quite inconsistent. You’re making claims that “ALL PRIEST SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO MARRY”. Tell us, how would you propose to do this?

And as far as claiming my remarks are ad hominem is a red herring to the fact that you are in fact speaking out of place as a practicing Catholic, which I presume you are by the annotate fields within your profile. Or are you another Nancy Pelosi, a reckless dissenter? I’m trying to point to the spec in your eye. And you have yet to even acknowledge the fact that I left the Church because of this same issue and somehow had serious conversion experience that helped me by the grace of God to overcome my anger and fears. At one time I actually did believe like you. But after realizing the depth of my False Pride I submitted to the Church Authority, rather than doing what you are trying to do to me… Pulling fallacies of logic to hide behind and misguide others is quite offensive. I’ve stated something to you that is clearly part of our Catholic heritage that you are required to accept, whether you agree with it or not. You have chosen to be in dissent, rather than to even acknowledge the possibility that you could be wrong. This is equal to on of the deadly sins, False Pride. You’re ignoring what I’m saying because deep down inside you know I’m right.

 

[Cinette]

Let’s take a look. A teacher was recently convicted of abusing one boy in her class and she can face up to eighteen years in prison. A Catholic priest is known to have abused 200 deaf boys and he was left scot free - no jail time at all.

That is not the norm!

1 Corinthians 11
27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

The priest, on the other hand has to face God and his sin is all the greater. I do believe that priests should also face jail sentences.

 

[sidbrown]

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=489266&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2006&Author=&Keyword=apostles+were+married&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=1&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

Let’s restate this maybe a bit more clear from what I may have stated. I’ll have to go back and read what I wrote. But this will be easier. What I am trying to say is that there is not mention of Peter’s wife, but only his mother in law. The passage you provided only mentions they have a right. It does not mention their names. I also found something form EWTN that drives home at least parts of what I am repeating.

In my previous faith, elders, who are considered bishops, are required to be elderly men with believing children, following scriptural guidelines in a legalistic manner. That means they have to have had children and those children had to be believers. The qualifications for deacons was that they had to be married and fathers. But when you go back and read the scriptures associated with their rule I found other congregations interpreting it in various ways that were often quite inconsistent. You’re making claims that “ALL PRIEST SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO MARRY”. Tell us, how would you propose to do this?

And as far as claiming my remarks are ad hominem is a red herring to the fact that you are in fact speaking out of place as a practicing Catholic, which I presume you are by the annotate fields within your profile. Or are you another Nancy Pelosi, a reckless dissenter? I’m trying to point to the spec in your eye. And you have yet to even acknowlege the fact that I left the Church because of this same issue and somehow had serious conversion experience that helped me by the grace of God to overcome my anger and fears. At one time I actually did believe like you. But after realizing the depth of my False Pride I submitted to the Church Authority, rather than doing what you are trying to do to me…

Obviously, this is another ad hominem argument to call me a Nancy Pelosi. Nancy Pelosi has nothing whatsoever to do wth the fact that eleven of the twelve apostles were married. And this is verified exactly in the link you provided. So your ad hominem arguments attempting to ridicule my pay grade or call me a Nancy Pelosi have absolutely nothing at all to do with the fact that as verified by the link that you yourself have provided, eleven of the twelve apostles were married. This occurred well before the time of Nancy Pelosi and Nancy Pelosi had nothing at all to do with the choice made by Our Divine Lord. Our Divine Lord chose St. Peter as the first Pope and he was married as were eleven of the twelve apostles. And there have been more than thirty Popes who were married. The fact that you would think that this has anything to do with Nancy Pelosi indicates that there is a huge problem with your reasoning. I don’t see how anyone can take you seriously when you speak about Nancy Pelosi in this context.
And to call someone a reckless dissenter is also an ad hominem argument which proves nothing except that you have no argument at all except to hurl personal insults and call people names.

 

[sidbrown]

That is not the norm!

1 Corinthians 11
27Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.

The priest, on the other hand has to face God and his sin is all the greater. I do believe that priests should also face jail sentences.

Well, that is my point that every citizen should face the same civil penalty for the same crime. Why is a schoolteacher facing up to eighteen years in prison for involvement with one boy, whereas according to the NYTimes a priest who had involvement with 200 deaf boys did not face any civil penalty?

 

[Felix_Il_Gatto]

Cardinal Schonborn argues that priestly celibacy has a lot to do with paedophilia.

guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/11/priestly-celibacy-catholic-sex-scandals

I absolutely disagree with this. If the pedophilia exhibited by some Catholic priests only had to do with their sexual urges, then they wouldn’t sexually abuse children. If these priests were merely looking for sexual gratification, they would purchase prostitutes or something like that… or they’d just leave the priesthood and get married. People often seem to forget that that IS a very valid option and that married persons can still consecrate themselves to God without being ordained.
Pedophilia is NOT driven sexual desire. It is driven solely by a disgusting, selfish want for power. It is abuse and it will be exhibited by someone with those predispositions regardless of their sex life (or lack thereof). This is clearly evidenced by the fact that there are many married men who are pedophiles.
Celibacy in the Church is NOT the cause of the pedophilia scandal. Mental illness is.
Married or not, pedophiles will always be pedophiles.

 

[The_Geographer]

Obviously, this is another ad hominem argument to call me a Nancy Pelosi.

We’ve already gone way off topic and for that I owe many apologies to all. God sent his Son, Jesus, who taught the Apostles and disciples. He handed the keys to Peter. He gave them authority to bind and loose. They can and do bind us by Church Law. Read
Psychology Today

 

[Cinette]

I believe that society has to take strong measures to do a proper clean up - spiritual and mental. The family is all important and we should spare our children of exposure to all the filth that is in our face!

Magazines, Billboards, Movies, Songs all promoting sex are in our FACE 24/7.

There are millions today who have never been exposed to God. The secular world is strong and god-less. They mock those who are God-centered. They believe in their power - money and all that is material give them power.

The other day I was listening to a TV interview about women who occupy high-powered positions. That is great. However, I asked myself “Do these women have children? Do they not know the importance of family? Are they not aware that we need to populate this world with mentally and spiritually healthy people? Do they not know that this begins in the home?”

My daughter has four children and she and her husband work from home - they have a craft business and manufacture jewellery which they export as well as sell locally. The children always have their parents nearby. My son-in-law is an alcholic and has been to rehab three times. However he loves his children and the last time he came out of rehab they had only two children - he has not touched a drink since. I told him of a conversation I heard between the two older ones “P why is our Dad in that hospital?” - “Because he drinks too much beer and wine,” came the answer. His love for his children has motivated him never to touch a drink again. They are such a happy and vibrant family - it is wonderful being around them.

All the single parent families do not breed healthy children - women have had this burden for so long and they struggle and often fail. They need support. We need communities everywhere. We should reach out to others and do our little big for families and a healthy society.

 

[sidbrown]

We’ve already gone way off topic and for that I owe many apologies to all. God sent his Son, Jesus, who taught the Apostles and disciples. He handed the keys to Peter. He gave them authority to bind and loose. They can and do bind us by Church Law. Read
Psychology Today

Ok. Obviously, there is going to be disagreement on some of these issues, and things can get heated, but I hope that we will not take anything personally. Thanks for your side of the discussion.

 

[sidbrown]

All the single parent families do not breed healthy children - women have had this burden for so long and they struggle and often fail. They need support. We need communities everywhere. We should reach out to others and do our little big for families and a healthy society.

I know a lady who was a widow at a young age, and yet she raised four wonderful children., Her husband had a heart attack at a young age.

 

[The_Geographer]

Ok. Obviously, there is going to be disagreement on some of these issues, and things can get heated, but I hope that we will not take anything personally. Thanks for your side of the discussion.

No problem. It’s just way past my bedtime and the more tired I get the more ornery and incoherent I become. Good night.

 

[pnewton]

The quote obviously says that Cephas had a wife. Further eleven of he twelve apostles were married. I don’t see any reason to go against the Tradition set down by Our Divine Lord and Savior as He chose married men as the first bishops in the Catholic Church.

The error in this thinking (antiquarianism) is that the Catholic Church is not a sola scriptura, nor do we return to the first century in all things. Jesus choose these men as apostles. There are no more apostles in the Church on Earth. Our structure is on in which authority is passed on. We believe the Holy Spirit actively lead His Church, as opposed to giving us a book and spinning us like a top one time. No, divine leadership is continuous. That is why I oppose both the idea that we can never reinstate celibacy and the idea that we ought to do it because that is the way Jesus did it.

 

[pnewton]

Let’s take a look. A teacher was recently convicted of abusing one boy in her class and she can face up to eighteen years in prison. A Catholic priest is known to have abused 200 deaf boys and he was left scot free - no jail time at all.

As in all matters of law, it takes evidence. The boy in the class spoke up in a timely manner so that the crime could be prosecuted. No, it is not fair, but neither is convicting people with out evidence fair. I think if one is falsely accused of something grave once in their life, they will gain a new perspective on this.

 

[whatevergirl]

As in all matters of law, it takes evidence. The boy in the class spoke up in a timely manner so that the crime could be prosecuted. No, it is not fair, but neither is convicting people with out evidence fair. I think if one is falsely accused of something grave once in their life, they will gain a new perspective on this.

*I agree, but how does that relate to the case where the Pope is being dragged in? The priest admitted I thought, albeit when he was ill, that he did these things, and confessed them to another priest…? So, he wasn’t falsely accused, he admitted the wrong doing. The question becomes…when did he confess, who knew, and when. I don’t believe for a minute, that 200 deaf kids being abused came to light in the 90’s when this priest was on his death bed. That’s the problem, not that it didn’t happen…but when, and why wasn’t anything done BACK THEN??? *