Church report raises celibacy issue

[weller2]

And I also believe in the larger so called gay lobby, which I suspect played a role in protecting the abusers. I think it is somewhat naïve to look the other way on all that. Again, I DON’T see any evidence that celibacy is the issue here at all.

Limiting ordination to married men would eliminate homosexuals from piesthood. No more gay lobby.

 

[LongingSoul]

Yeah the report just says that “obligatory celibacy may also have contributed to abuse in some circumstances”, but then doesn’t explain how or why they came to that conclusion.

It’d be cases where unresolved issues result in a lack of affective maturity. Since Pope JPII’s time that type of formation has been emphasised in candidates for the Priesthood. Our modern day culture doesn’t prepare us for celibacy as an option in life.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Limiting ordination to married men would eliminate homosexuals from piesthood. No more gay lobby.

Christ was celibate. Paul was celibate. The saints were celibate. Agreed, secular culture has placed sexual activity on a pedestal as the one of the most critical, indispensable means of human fulfillment. But ironically there are more single people living celibate lives now. Perhaps that is because it’s not the primary means of human fulfillment. But that is another issue. Back to married clergy. I don’t have a problem with people wanting to devote their lives exclusively to God in the sacrifice of celibacy, as they have done for centuries. True, it is not for everyone, but I don’t think that means toss it out because we are irreligious and sexually obsessed these days. Or because homosexuals use it as a cover. (Back to secular culture - I feel a lot of people knowingly or unknowingly replace religion with sex in their lives. That is how important it is.) Many who are married commit adultery. Gays marry as a cover or genuine effort to transform or they are bisexual. I don’t think exclusively married clergy is the solution. That said, I am not adverse to married deacons or some other status perhaps, for allowing married clergy to practice in the Catholic Church. I do think it would perhaps change the culture a little bit in a good way, i.e., discourage the so called gay lobby.

 

[dmar198]

The saints were celibate.

Only some saints were celibate. Others were married with lots of children.

 

[Lion_IRC]

I heard a (live) interview with Francis Sullivan - church spokesperson on matters relating to this issue - and the whole tenor of the interview was that…the Church is finally realizing priestly vows of celibacy somehow cause pedophilia

And I’m afraid Mr Sullivan didn’t exactly ‘smackdown’ the interviewer’s snide and condescending generalizations against the Catholic Church.

I’m getting sick of Francis Sullivan’s ongoing mea culpa presented as if ordinary parishioners are the ones who owe an apology to victims, the parents of victims, the relatives of victims, the police, the courts, the secular mass media, the government, Wall Street…

No Mr Francis!!! I am NOT ashamed of my church!
No Mr Francis!!! I am NOT ashamed of my clergy.
No Mr Francis!!! I am NOT begging forgiveness for someone ELSE’S putrid godlessness.

And no Mr Francis, you cannot be a child rapist and a catholic priest at the same time!
…but you could perhaps be a closet atheist LIAR abusing the trust of honest and naive people.

Which interview was this, do you recall?

Yes. It was on ABC Radio National during Fran Kelly’s Breakfast show Friday 12th of December.

…What do you mean you cannot be a child rapist and a catholic priest at the same time??

Which part of that sentence dont you understand?
Can you be President of the United States AND the citizen of Russia at the same time? (The answer is no just in case you were wondering)
Can you be a married bachelor? No.
A bank robber can’t be a policeman - why? Because it’s kind of hard for a bank robber to place himself under arrest.
Can you be a celibate catholic priest AND rape children at the same time? No. And I shouldn’t have to explain why. Go read Colossians 3:5

…What did he say that makes you say he’s an Atheist?

I did NOT say Francis Sullivan was an atheist. Please read my post again.

…And that he is lying?

I did NOT say Francis Sullivan was lying.

…And what would being an Atheist, if he was, have to do with any of this anyway?!

There is ample evidence (gathered by the atheist community themselves) of large numbers of clergy who are closet atheists. Now - what duty would an atheist have to remain obedient to a vow of celibacy they took before God whom they think doesn’t even exist?

 

[FollowChrist34]

Only some saints were celibate. Others were married with lots of children.

Correct. I had in mind Augustine, Aquinas, John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, Thérèse of Lisieux, Catherine of Siena, etc., etc., etc. I know there are married saints; I just don’t think about them a lot.

 

[weller2]

Can you be a celibate catholic priest AND rape children at the same time? No. And I shouldn’t have to explain why. Go read Colossians 3:5

Unfortunately it is very much possible, simply because it has been done. I think you mean that it shouldn’t be allowed.

 

[weller2]

Christ was celibate.

Debatable.

Agreed, secular culture has placed sexual activity on a pedestal as the one of the most critical, indispensable means of human fulfillment.

And this, combined with celibacy, drives people with abnormal sexuality into the priesthood. They wrongly assume that clerical celibacy will remove their urges.

I don’t have a problem with people wanting to devote their lives exclusively to God in the sacrifice of celibacy, as they have done for centuries.

We have religious orders for that.

By the way, what about 1 Timothy, which explicitly says that bishops and deacons must be married?

 

[FollowChrist34]

Debatable.

And this, combined with celibacy, drives people with abnormal sexuality into the priesthood. They wrongly assume that clerical celibacy will remove their urges.

We have religious orders for that.

By the way, what about 1 Timothy, which explicitly says that bishops and deacons must be married?

“Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not receive many times as much at this time and in the age to come, eternal life.” Luke 18:29

I don’t want to play Scripture quote tit for tat. That can go on forever, getting us nowhere in the process. I personally am always amazed at how supportive of the celibate life the Gospel *actually * is. I don’t have a problem seeing a call to celibacy in the words of Christ and St. Paul and applying that to the priesthood. And, as stated earlier, I ALSO don’t have a problem with married clergy in some fashion in the Church. I do agree that the priesthood does attract homosexuals for whatever reason - I think there are a number of them, most rather obvious. I don’t think it is celibacy, far from it. But of course it also attracts those who are straight and who seek to devote their lives to Christ. I see no need to dispense with celibacy in the Church. I am not touching the part about how Christ wasn’t celibate. You’re on your own there.

 

[Tomdstone]

A bank robber can’t be a policeman

Not true. There have been cases of banks being robbed by policemen. In such a case you have a bank robber who is a policeman.

 

[cjforJesus]

Girls were also abused.

I don’t know what the findings have shown, but I’m assuming that all the priests who abused children in these cases did not initially go into the priesthood with a homosexual orientation or a pedophilia urge, or some combination of both.

And there are millions of adults who have same-sex attraction who do *not *harm children.

Why do you state with such certainty that there is “no connection” between celibacy and sex abuse?
Are you an expert in sexuality and psychology?

There are most likely many variables that lead to this kind of crime, and celibacy may be a part of it.
We have highly respected and educated doctors and psychologists studying this issue, some who are commenting here in these findings.

.

This is not the magisterium of the Church just individuals.

Celibacy has NOTHING to do with seeking genital contact with children of any age.

The Kinsey report did have a table documenting fondling of children and claiming such fondling lead to orgasm which in effect was erroneously claiming children enjoy sexual activity and have a right to it.This is absurd as well as pure evil though I cannot imagine the number of psychologically unstable people who actually fell for this supposed “scientific” view.

 

[dmar198]

Christ was celibate.

What do you mean by debatable? When I hear that word, one definition that comes to mind is: there are comparable levels of evidence on both sides. Is that what you mean? Because I think there is tons of evidence for Jesus’ celibacy and zero for the other side.

secular culture has placed sexual activity on a pedestal

And this, combined with celibacy, drives people with abnormal sexuality into the priesthood. They wrongly assume that clerical celibacy will remove their urges.

I think I may be misinterpreting you, because it seems as if there is a contradiction in your statement. In your first sentence you seem to say that celibacy drives people with abnormal sexuality into the priesthood, but then in your second sentence you seem to say that false assumptions about celibacy do this. I think there is a very big difference between the two. What do you think?

I don’t have a problem with people wanting to devote their lives exclusively to God in the sacrifice of celibacy

We have religious orders for that.

And the priesthood. Don’t forget that celibacy is required for most Catholic priests.

By the way, what about 1 Timothy, which explicitly says that bishops and deacons must be married?

That verse is often misinterpreted that way, but it doesn’t actually require anybody to be married. The meaning is clarified by another place in 1 Timothy where that phrase is used – 1 Timothy 5:9. This says, “Let a widow be enrolled [who is] not less than 60 years [old], being [the] wife of one husband.” (literally translated) A widow is quite obviously not the wife of any husband, no more than a bachelor is the husband of one wife. From this, we can gather that the phrase “wife of one husband” or “husband of one wife” does not have to refer to present spouses, but past ones, e.g. before the spouse died.

From this and other reasons we can infer that 1 Timothy 2 does not require bishops or deacons to be married, but merely that they should not have remarried after their first spouse. And that could be argued as a requirement for celibacy rather than the opposite, at least in the case of widowers.

Does that explanation make sense?

 

[Tomdstone]

What do you mean by debatable? When I hear that word, one definition that comes to mind is: there are comparable levels of evidence on both sides. Is that what you mean? Because I think there is tons of evidence for Jesus’ celibacy and zero for the other side. I think I may be misinterpreting you, because it seems as if there is a contradiction in your statement. In your first sentence you seem to say that celibacy drives people with abnormal sexuality into the priesthood, but then in your second sentence you seem to say that false assumptions about celibacy do this. I think there is a very big difference between the two. What do you think? And the priesthood. Don’t forget that celibacy is required for most Catholic priests. That verse is often misinterpreted that way, but it doesn’t actually require anybody to be married. The meaning is clarified by another place in 1 Timothy where that phrase is used – 1 Timothy 5:9. This says, “Let a widow be enrolled [who is] not less than 60 years [old], being [the] wife of one husband.” (literally translated) A widow is quite obviously not the wife of any husband, no more than a bachelor is the husband of one wife. From this, we can gather that the phrase “wife of one husband” or “husband of one wife” does not have to refer to present spouses, but past ones, e.g. before the spouse died.

From this and other reasons we can infer that 1 Timothy 2 does not require bishops or deacons to be married, but merely that they should not have remarried after their first spouse. And that could be argued as a requirement for celibacy rather than the opposite, at least in the case of widowers.

Does that explanation make sense?

The first pope was married and many others had either wives or mistresses.

 

[dmar198]

The first pope was married and many others had either wives or mistresses.

Somehow I get the impression that you are trying to contradict something in my post, but I’m not sure what. Was there something I said in the post you quoted that you think was wrong? Because I don’t think I denied that the first pope was married and that some others were too.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Lion IRC;12569848:

Can you be President of the United States AND a citizen of Russia at the same time? (The answer is no just in case you were wondering)
Can you be a married bachelor? No.
A bank robber can’t be a policeman - why? Because it’s kind of hard for a bank robber to place himself under arrest.

Not true. There have been cases of banks being robbed by policemen. In such a case you have a bank robber who is a policeman.

You are just gainsaying instead of reasoning. I explained WHY.
Can you address the logical contradiction issue that you snipped from my original post. (I put it back in now so you can’t miss it.)

Can you be a Russian citizen and US President?
Why doesn’t the bank robber place himself under arrest if he really IS a policeman?

 

[Lion_IRC]

Originally Posted by Lion IRC
Can you be a celibate catholic priest AND rape children at the same time? No. And I shouldn’t have to explain why. Go read Colossians 3:5

Unfortunately it is very much possible, simply because it has been done. I think you mean that it shouldn’t be allowed.

No. I mean you CANNOT be celibate and engage in sex acts.
By definition, having sex means you are not celibate.

 

[CarolNoel]

The report said “may have.” Dumb report…

 

[FollowChrist34]

The first pope was married and many others had either wives or mistresses.

My sense is that the development of the early Church has traditions of both celibate and married clergy. It is inaccurate to depict it without both. For me, the most responsible approach is to allow both in some way. I do believe some are called to the celibate life in the Church and I don’t think the married should be excluded on that grounds alone. But I would like to see the married clergy in a different category somehow were they to come into the Catholic Church. I think celibacy should be honored and protected, a greater sacrifice if you will. We’ve mentioned this point before on other threads, Orthodox and Protestant Churches are also having a tough time getting priests and clergy - so not sure how much allowing some married clergy would help in terms of the priest shortage. And the notion that the married are somehow less prone to sexual corruption is a bit wistful…

 

[Tomdstone]

You are just gainsaying instead of reasoning.

You can call it whatever you want but there have been situations where a bankrobber was a policeman.

 

[Tomdstone]

And the notion that the married are somehow less prone to sexual corruption is a bit wistful…

So you do not agree with the inspired Holy Word of God: “But if they can’t control themselves, they should go ahead and marry. It’s better to marry than to burn with lust.” 1 Corinthians 7:9