No such thing as consensual sex for a priest

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maximian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, of course. This is part of a seminarian’s normal course of formation.

Sometimes easier said than done.
 
Last edited:
If I read the OP’s initial post accurately, I believe he is asking if it’s sexual harassment in the work place on the part of a cleric who approaches/entices/seduces another priest given that the priest has promised to be celibate.

It a moral sense it certainly would be sinful and possibly worthy of response by a superior but “sexual harassment in the workplace” is an issue in civil law and I doubt that it could come into play in the situation envisioned.
 
I disagree. If what you suggested was true then it would mean that every priest is sinless except by manipulations of others. In truth the Priests, while holding an essential role in the Church, are still mortal humans. When Saint Peter the Apostle denied Jesus three times it was not because he was forced but because in that moment he chose himself over God.
 
Is that in response to my post? If so, I believe you misunderstand. I am saying it is very doubtful that the situation described by the OP would be deemed “sexual harassment in the workplace,” a legal term for an offense subject to prosecution under civil law.
 
Even if true, do you not think that the Church should be a leader in the field of best practice?

I can’t believe you think it’s ok to let a man who is a harasser be a priest.
 
No…

First, chastity and not celibacy are required of all priests (as well as Deacons btw) when they are ordained. There are plenty of married priests, especially in the eastern rite. These priests remain chaste even when having relationships with their wife.

Second, it almost sounds saying that when a priest is not chaste, it never is his fault. The other person should have known better. IMHO this is nonsense!
 
StudentMI said:
I came across an article on the National Catholic Register when the McCarrick thing was still breaking which put forth the idea that because of the prestige and power in the priestly status, consensual sex with an adult was pretty much impossible. It always involves a degree of coercion, which is not the same thing as force.
Click to expand...
Different context where priests can be married but Hophni and Phinehas in 1 Samuel were abusing their priestly statuses by stealing and having sex with women who were at the temple. And God cursed them or something along those lines. It wasn’t a good ending for those two.
 
Last edited:
Therese20 said:
I would think any sin against any of the vows they take should merit the same consequence.
Click to expand...
A minor point: diocesan priests do not make a vow of celibacy; they make a promise of it. According to Canon law, a vow is more serious, and being relieved of vows is more complex and difficult than being relieved of promises.

Having said that, a blanket condemnation or “punishment” is the jurisdiction of the bishop - not me.
 
Maximian said:
Even if true, do you not think that the Church should be a leader in the field of best practice?
Click to expand...
“Even if true”? It is true. The major part of the world does not recognize the laws you refer to. Guess why? And what the church decide to do or not do is not any of my business.
I can’t believe you think it’s ok to let a man who is a harasser be a priest.
Click to expand...
Is that what I said? Where, when?
 
So is it ok for priests to have consensual sex since it’s just a promise and not a vow? I’m confused.
 
Maximian said:
Its an aspect that I haven’t seen raised before: that sexual harassment means propositioning a person who has said no. In the context of the clergy all priests have said no. So any claim that “consensual” sex between priests is not abuse is false.
Click to expand...
That’s not what it is. Otherwise, it would always be sexual harassment to proposition a married person. Actually, in the context of Catholic theology, it would be sexual harassment to propose extra-marital sex to any of the baptized at all, because of all of the baptized it can be said: “freed from sin, you have become slaves of righteousness.” (Rom 6:18).

What is definitely sexual harassment is when a person in power (say, a bishop or someone at a seminary who has the future of the seminarian in their hands) pressures a seminarian or a priest under their jurisdiction to commit unchastity. This is why, for instance, most workplaces would consider the relationship between Clinton and Lewinsky to be sexual harassment by Clinton alone. Sexual harassment in the workplace implies that for some reason the victim is not in a position to unilaterally stop the unwanted advance without the hazard of repercussions.
Maximian said:
It is harassment at the workplace which is a criminal offense.
Click to expand...
Sexual harassment is a civil violation under federal law. Some actions which constitute sexual harassment are also crimes, but that doesn’t apply to everything. Propositioning the wrong person is not a crime under civil law.
Nigel7 said:
Purge sodomites from the clergy. Problem solved.
Click to expand...
The OP didn’t identify the person doing the harassing as male or female. For instance, a woman in power at the chancery office or a seminary could presumably be in the position proposed.
RolandThompsonGunner said:
Not quite. He says “I promise I will say no.” He can break that promise and consent later. He shouldn’t, but he can.
Click to expand...
This. We all retain the capacity to break vows we have made to God, and unfortunately that does happen.
felsguy said:
If I read the OP’s initial post accurately, I believe he is asking if it’s sexual harassment in the work place on the part of a cleric who approaches/entices/seduces another priest given that the priest has promised to be celibate.
Click to expand...
The post says “by anyone at all of either sex…”
Maximian said:
Even if true, do you not think that the Church should be a leader in the field of best practice?

I can’t believe you think it’s ok to let a man who is a harasser be a priest.
Click to expand...
The Church is the leader in the field of best practice. No one is “allowed” to tempt anyone else into any unchaste behavior at all. No one is “allowed” to use a position of power to indulge their lust. We all know the story in Daniel about the false accusation against Susanna. (Now THAT was criminal sexual harassment, using our modern term, because they threatened her with a death sentence on false charges if she didn’t comply.)
 
Not when he joins the seminary, but when he is ordained to the diaconate.
 
I said no such thing.

People constantly say “priests take vows”. They don’t; they make a promise, as in Canon Law a promise is of lesser degree than a vow- considered more solemn.

A priest engaging in sexual contact whether it is consensual or not is a mortal sin. Please do not read into a comment something that is not said.
 
Maximian said:
When a man joins a seminary he says “No” to sex, in advance. If he is ordained he says “No” to sex forever in advance.
Click to expand...
Yes, but he must be completely eliminating the possibility of saying “yes” at every moment in his life from that point on. Such a person who takes the vow of celibacy doesn’t just say “no” once and lose the possibility of later on saying “yes”. As we already know, many people who make these vows break them, and they would very much say that their acts were consensual (if they are being honest and don’t seek to excuse their behavior). If a person who once said “yes” could then say “no”, and they were not coerced into being vowed, then they can similarly change their mind after the fact.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top