Church report raises celibacy issue

[weller2]

Catholic seminaries installing a deep fear of women?

This is the conclusion I came to after researching the training regime at my local seminar. The rules effectively prohibit any contact with females. E.g. you are not allowed to talk to women on staff and you are not allowed to go outside alone (only in groups).

I was considering priesthood at the time and this was something that has thrown me off.

 

[weller2]

Also when I attended technical training in the military, members of the opposite sex were required to NOT be in one’s room after hours. Wait, scratch that, having a member of the opposite sex in your room at all hours was frowned upon and could be the cause of disciplinary action.

Anti-fraternization rules.

But, if you are allowed to go out then your commander care does not care what you are doing and with whom, as long as you report back on time. Also, you can brag about what happened and it’s not going to cause you any trouble.

Not the case in seminary (at least where I live).

 

[sps49]

This is the conclusion I came to after researching the training regime at my local seminar. The rules effectively prohibit any contact with females. E.g. you are not allowed to talk to women on staff and you are not allowed to go outside alone (only in groups).

I was considering priesthood at the time and this was something that has thrown me off.

weller2, I need some help with the “deep fear of women” claim. I too have visited seminaries, spoke with seminarians, priests and bishops about the process. I never got the impression that any kind of fear was being instilled about women.

As an aside, I attended a boarding school, and performed military service, and did observe occasions such as what you described, but it was not the rule, nor was it in the curriculum or training I received.

 

[weller2]

Well, I kind of agree with this a little bit. I have noticed this trend of depicting women as dangerous, but, they are dangerous in this situation. That is the way I have interpreted it. It’s a way of emphasizing the sin of fornication, the problem of temptation. I don’t take it personally. If you are trying to avoid something you don’t have it around, right? If you are trying to lose weight, you don’t stack the cupboard with Doritos and cupcakes. Not to trivialize the issue here.

Oh sure. But the problem I have with this approach is that isolation in the seminary prevents the cleric from learning how to manage temptation. The idea behind isolation is to eliminate temptation, but after you graduate you are put onto a parish with a lot of women – and then a real trouble starts, because you have never learned how to deal with that.

Also, there is ample evidence for homosexual behaviors (even exhibited by heteronormative men) in other environments where men are clustered together (i.e. prisons, military, boarding schools). So homosexuality in seminars is not exactly surprising. What is disturbing is apparent inability or unwillingness to fix the problem.
Cases like this demonstrate that homosexual activity in seminars can be going on for years. It is difficult to fathom why nobody would notice until the things got really bad – unless it is the case of wilful blindness.

What is even more disturbing is that there is research which suggest that heterosexual men forced into homosexual behavior in prison can become homosexuals themselves. If that’s the case, then seminars may in fact be turning heterosexual men into homosexuals. Cf. the case of a bishop raping clerics.

This is why my view is:

1. Abolish “closed” seminary formation so there is no ground for homosexual activity
2. Limit ordination to married men to ensure heterosexual orientation

 

[weller2]

weller2, I need some help with the “deep fear of women” claim. I too have visited seminaries, spoke with seminarians, priests and bishops about the process. I never got the impression that any kind of fear was being instilled about women.

“Fear” may be bad word here. What I meant is: why have the rules which prohibit contact with women, unless women are somehow considered to be dangerous?

 

[Sarcelle]

Oh sure. But the problem I have with this approach is that isolation in the seminary prevents the cleric from learning how to manage temptation. The idea behind isolation is to eliminate temptation, but after you graduate you are put onto a parish with a lot of women – and then a real trouble starts, because you have never learned how to deal with that.

Also, there is ample evidence for homosexual behaviors (even exhibited by heteronormative men) in other environments where men are clustered together (i.e. prisons, military, boarding schools). So homosexuality in seminars is not exactly surprising. What is disturbing is apparent inability or unwillingness to fix the problem.
Cases like this demonstrate that homosexual activity in seminars can be going on for years. It is difficult to fathom why nobody would notice until the things got really bad – unless it is the case of wilful blindness.

What is even more disturbing is that there is research which suggest that heterosexual men forced into homosexual behavior in prison can become homosexuals themselves. If that’s the case, then seminars may in fact be turning heterosexual men into homosexuals. Cf. the case of a bishop raping clerics.

This is why my view is:

1. Abolish “closed” seminary formation so there is no ground for homosexual activity
2. Limit ordination to married men to ensure heterosexual orientation

Your first proposition has validity.

Your second proposition may limit the possibilities of sex scandals involving homosexual men, but may open up another can of worms. Married heterosexual men are no more immune to sexual sin than unmarried men, gay or straight.

Instead of young boys and men as the victims, it may be young girls and women.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Oh sure. But the problem I have with this approach is that isolation in the seminary prevents the cleric from learning how to manage temptation. The idea behind isolation is to eliminate temptation, but after you graduate you are put onto a parish with a lot of women – and then a real trouble starts, because you have never learned how to deal with that.

Also, there is ample evidence for homosexual behaviors (even exhibited by heteronormative men) in other environments where men are clustered together (i.e. prisons, military, boarding schools). So homosexuality in seminars is not exactly surprising. What is disturbing is apparent inability or unwillingness to fix the problem.
Cases like this demonstrate that homosexual activity in seminars can be going on for years. It is difficult to fathom why nobody would notice until the things got really bad – unless it is the case of wilful blindness.

What is even more disturbing is that there is research which suggest that heterosexual men forced into homosexual behavior in prison can become homosexuals themselves. If that’s the case, then seminars may in fact be turning heterosexual men into homosexuals. Cf. the case of a bishop raping clerics.

This is why my view is:

1. Abolish “closed” seminary formation so there is no ground for homosexual activity
2. Limit ordination to married men to ensure heterosexual orientation

While I share some of your concerns and believe some of this is true, I think you are too extreme in your conclusions. For starters, I don’t think anybody’s sexuality can ever change. You are what you are. That is why I am skeptical of arguments that gays can become straight. Straights don’t become gay unless they are already gay. I don’t rule out people engaging in gay behavior and simply realizing it’s not for them (or vice versa). But I would say this is just experimentation or desperation, not a true inner switch. I personally think most people know their sexual orientation at about 5 years old. Who did you have a crush on in the 1st grade? John or Jane. Not much more complicated than that.

But I share your concern about homosexuality in monastic life. I think it is equally present, frankly, in women’s orders too. Like you say, prison is a good example. I think gays are drawn to same sex structured life. And I agree the Church pushes this under the rug, just because it is so embarrassing and awkward. Also, because it’s entrenched to a certain degree; to eradicate it would leave big holes. But I think straight people in religious life are pushing back and that the situation is improving. Just the fact that this is open to discussion is good, the whole gay lobby thing. I think most people in religious life, as everywhere, are straight. To me, that is just a numerical reality. How they deal with temptation is anybody’s guess. I think probably the same way we all do, either single people in chastity or married people trying to avoid adultery. Are you married? Do you look at the waitress if she’s cute with your wife sitting right there? Do you know how many times that happens everyday all over the world (and how annoying it is )? Doesn’t mean you have an affair. We have to be careful not to push concern out to irrational paranoia here.

 

[weller2]

Your second proposition may limit the possibilities of sex scandals involving homosexual men, but may open up another can of worms. Married heterosexual men are no more immune to sexual sin than unmarried men, gay or straight.

Of course I recognize that.

I posit however that the scandal and damage caused by a priest going to a brothel or having an affair is considerably smaller than the scandal caused by a supposedly chaste priest being involved in a homosexual ring. The former is a sin; the latter is a grave sin and hypocrisy.

Possibility of child abuse cannot be entirely eliminated (sadly). That said, the problem was never that there was a lot of abusers in the Church; rather a small group of abusers was allowed to act with impunity of years – possibly due to protection offered by membership in homosexual rings (cf. Maciel).

 

[weller2]

While I share some of your concerns and believe some of this is true, I think you are too extreme in your conclusions.

That’s fine, I recognize that myself

For starters, I don’t think anybody’s sexuality can ever change.

Under normal circumstances, yes. But it is documented that it can change if one is repeatedly abused (see the paper I linked on prison rape). Cf. a lot of pedophiles were themselves abused during childhood.

Another point – people are usually not 100% hetero or 100% gay, but somewhere in between. So those who are closer to being bisexual can be swayed towards homosexuality when they are put in an environment where homosexual stimuli are prevalent.

We have to be careful not to push concern out to irrational paranoia here.

No, but some issues should be finally openly discussed and resolved. THE reason why the abuse scandal reached the monstrous proportions was that the initial reaction was to try to hush things, and the present strategy revolves around protecting diocesian assets from litigation. Little has been done to address the underlying causes, which is why we may see a repeat in 20-30 years.

 

[Sarcelle]

That’s fine, I recognize that myself

Under normal circumstances, yes. But it is documented that it can change if one is repeatedly abused (see the paper I linked on prison rape). Cf. a lot of pedophiles were themselves abused during childhood.

Another point – people are usually not 100% hetero or 100% gay, but somewhere in between. So those who are closer to being bisexual can be swayed towards homosexuality when they are put in an environment where homosexual stimuli are prevalent.

No, but some issues should be finally openly discussed and resolved. THE reason why the abuse scandal reached the monstrous proportions was that the initial reaction was to try to hush things, and the present strategy revolves around protecting diocesian assets from litigation. Little has been done to address the underlying causes, which is why we may see a repeat in 20-30 years.

In general, in the past, in society as a whole, child sexual abuse in the family, in school, or in the church, was usually kept under wraps and the victims often the ones being blamed while the perpetrator goes free.

 

[dmar198]

1 Tim 3:5 says, paraphrased, “If you have no experience managing a family, you have no qualification for managing a church”. It logically follows that those who have never been married should not be bishops. In this aspect, the present practice is clearly un-scriptural.

I don’t think so, because I don’t know of any law in the Church that says you can’t be ordained if you have kids. It is my understanding that some widowers who have children do follow a “late” call to the priesthood and become ordained. If that is so, what would prevent them from becoming a bishop? I’m not aware of anything, so I don’t think what you say here is correct.

I also think we may disagree on the definition of the term “unscriptural.” I think Scripture mentions both the doctrines and the disciplines of the early Church, and I think the doctrines in Scripture are not changeable, but the disciplines in Scripture are. What do you think?

The interpretation that “man of one woman” means “a widower with children” is possible, but not very logical – it would narrow the possible pool of candidates too much.

I basically agree, except I was just saying that the phrase does include widowers and it does forbid them to remarry. I think that’s a point in favor of celibacy. (I know that if you read that at the surface level, it may not sound like agreement. What I’m saying is, I don’t think the verse in question excludes married bishops, just that it also forbids widowed bishops from remarrying.)

Another problem with this intepretation is this – why write “a man of one woman” and risk a misunderstanding, when you can simply write “a widower”?

He uses the same phrase later in the text to refer to a widow, and no one seems to have misunderstood. Therefore, it may have been an understood circumlocution, and bore no serious risk of being misunderstood. Also, he may have wished to use a word that can refer to both widowed bishops and currently married ones, in order to catch 'em all. (Except celibate ones.)

Further, if celibacy was indeed regarded as a preferred status, why doesn’t the text simply say “the candidate should be preferrably unmarried”, instead of saying that the candidate should be “a man of one woman”, “keeping his children in submission”?

Perhaps because he was giving rules based on who was available, and unmarried men who fit the other qualifications were rare. I don’t think we can really know the circumstances of the time, we just have to go with the evidence in the text.

Also, we should remember that early churches operated in a society where both divorce and polygamy were common. In such cultural context, “man of one woman” has a pretty obvious meaning – “married once (to one woman)”.

I’m not sure if this is what you are suggesting, but I’ve heard some people argue that polygamy was tolerated in early Christianity, and they cite this verse as proof. The argument is, he wouldn’t need to tell Timothy to exclude polygamists from the bishopric if there were no polygamists to exclude. When you say that this verse is about polygamy, rather than widowers remarrying, I think that breeds this confusion. Am I making sense?

Finally – the formal requirement for episcopal celibacy does not emerge until 7th century, and the requirement for clerical celibacy does not appear until 11th century.

Where are you getting your information? Because it is my understanding that the Council of Elvira required priests to be celibate in the 300s, long before the 11th century. Perhaps you mean a universal requirement? Because I don’t even think the Catholic Church has a universal celibacy requirement today – there are some married priests in the Latin rite and in the Eastern rites.

If celibacy is required by the scripture, this means that the Church was not following the scripture for the first 700 (1100) years.

I don’t think the verse requires celibacy, except in the sense that it forbids widowed bishops from remarrying.

This would contradict the experience, which shows that the Church tends to diverge from the scripture more and more as the time goes.

If the Church diverges from Scripture as time goes on, how is the Scripture true that says the Holy Spirit “will guide you into all truth”?

 

[Sarcelle]

I don’t think so, because I don’t know of any law in the Church that says you can’t be ordained if you have kids. It is my understanding that some widowers who have children do follow a “late” call to the priesthood and become ordained. If that is so, what would prevent them from becoming a bishop? I’m not aware of anything, so I don’t think what you say here is correct.

I also think we may disagree on the definition of the term “unscriptural.” I think Scripture mentions both the doctrines and the disciplines of the early Church, and I think the doctrines in Scripture are not changeable, but the disciplines in Scripture are. What do you think? I basically agree, except I was just saying that the phrase does include widowers and it does forbid them to remarry. I think that’s a point in favor of celibacy. (I know that if you read that at the surface level, it may not sound like agreement. What I’m saying is, I don’t think the verse in question excludes married bishops, just that it also forbids widowed bishops from remarrying.) He uses the same phrase later in the text to refer to a widow, and no one seems to have misunderstood. Therefore, it may have been an understood circumlocution, and bore no serious risk of being misunderstood. Also, he may have wished to use a word that can refer to both widowed bishops and currently married ones, in order to catch 'em all. (Except celibate ones.) Perhaps because he was giving rules based on who was available, and unmarried men who fit the other qualifications were rare. I don’t think we can really know the circumstances of the time, we just have to go with the evidence in the text. I’m not sure if this is what you are suggesting, but I’ve heard some people argue that polygamy was tolerated in early Christianity, and they cite this verse as proof. The argument is, he wouldn’t need to tell Timothy to exclude polygamists from the bishopric if there were no polygamists to exclude. When you say that this verse is about polygamy, rather than widowers remarrying, I think that breeds this confusion. Am I making sense? Where are you getting your information? Because it is my understanding that the Council of Elvira required priests to be celibate in the 300s, long before the 11th century. Perhaps you mean a universal requirement? Because I don’t even think the Catholic Church has a universal celibacy requirement today – there are some married priests in the Latin rite and in the Eastern rites. I don’t think the verse requires celibacy, except in the sense that it forbids widowed bishops from remarrying. If the Church diverges from Scripture as time goes on, how is the Scripture true that says the Holy Spirit “will guide you into all truth”?

We are skating on dangerously thin ice here, especially when talking about the Church diverging from scripture. Isn’t this the same charge that Protestant denominations have time and time leveled against the Catholic church?