Ohio Priest Arrested on Sex Trafficking Charges

[AlNg]

Or are you saying that say Baptist pastors or other religious are not to be held to an equally high standard?

I would say so yes. The status of the Roman Catholic priest is much higher than that of a baptist pastor. The Roman Catholic priest has the power to call God down from heaven and make the Bread and Wine the precious body and Blood of Our divine Lord. A baptist pastor does not have that power. Further, a Roman Catholic priest has the power to absolve a person from his sins. A Baptist pastor does not have that power. For these and for other reasons a Roman Catholic priest is another Christ. A baptist pastor is not another Christ. If someone is another Christ he is worthy of the highest respect and is held to the highest possible standard because after all Our Lord Jesus Christ is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. The Baptist preacher or pastor is not another Christ, so the Baptist preacher is held to a high standard, yes, because of his position. But the position of a baptist preacher is not the position of another Christ. When someone holds the position of another Christ, he is to be held to a higher standard because of the enormous dignity and powers of his office.

 

[stpurl]

So are you saying that a Catholic priest (and your ‘calling down the power statement is not actual Catholic teaching) then, by virtue of his alter Christi status, means that ANY sin he engages in is, ipso facto, ‘worse’ than the sin of any other person?

How is that so? Is it by virtue of the person himself? Has he somehow by means of his ordination been given greater power? How can that power be given to him unless it were given from God? How could God allow a man to ‘call Him down from heaven” and yet to sin more greatly than any other ‘non priest?”

 

[AlNg]

How is that so?

your ‘calling down the power statement is not actual Catholic teaching

Maybe not but regardless the Roman Catholic priest, and as well those validly ordained priests in other
apostolic churches, has a higher status as he has powers that no Baptist preacher, and no lay teacher has. At the Consecration in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, by his prayers to God, the Bread and the Wine become the precious Body and Blood of Jesus. In virtue of his sacred and awesome powers, he is held in high esteem and respect.

 

[stpurl]

You still didn’t answer my question.

Besides, it is not ‘whataboutism’ here, it is about sin.

The sin of sexual abuse is across the board.

You choose to make it ‘more heinous’ in the case of a priest, incorrectly so, but the point is that it is not the priest’s ‘job’ that makes it sin, or makes it ‘worse’. Mortal sin is mortal sin objectively, whether people believe it or not.

The point is that the abuse exists, and what needs to be done to address the root cause.

Besides, it is incredibly disingenuous of a nonCatholic such as yourself to be suddenly ‘in awe of’ (and speaking incorrectly of) Catholic priests when you don’t believe that they even have The powers you claim for them.

If you did, you’d be running to the Catholic Church and asking to be received into it.

But since you don’t yourself believe in Catholic priests having that power, it’s your tactic to try to make them appear like demigods so that you can sneer at their feet of clay, or make the Church appear cultish AND stupid since their ‘gods’ are just ‘flawed human beings’.

Sorry, not gonna work here.

If you have some real insights into how people ‘across the board’ are choosing sexual sin, and ideas how to address that evil, fine.

But using the topic to try to denigrate one group of people beyond all others smacks of anti-Catholicism.

 

[Sarcelle]

We are not saying celibacy directly causes abuse. I am suggesting it is a factor to examine as something that attracts the wrong kind of candidate: the one who is either already an abuser, or hardwired to become one, or the one with an unbalanced or immature sexuality.

In what way is it a factor?

You are the one suggesting the theory that celibacy plays a factor in attracting a certain type of candidate.

Do you think sexual offenders are attracted to celibacy?

 

[AlNg]

But using the topic to try to denigrate one group of people beyond all others smacks of anti-Catholicism.

It is not a denigration because Jesus was the most perfect person who existed. Whether it be Aristotle, whether it be Socrates, whether it be Abraham Lincoln, whether it be George Washington, whether it be St. ignatius, whether it be Al Kwarizma, it does not matter as they are not as perfect as Our Divine Lord. So it is a great honor, and an indication that a man who is another Christ, alter Christus, such as a Catholic priest, is held in high esteem and accorded great respect, just as Christ is.

 

[stpurl]

Ah. Again, if you are so respectful of Catholic priests, why aren’t you joining the Catholic Church?

 

[AlNg]

if you are so respectful of Catholic priests,

I am pleased as punch that you finally realize that I am not denigrating anyone. I have only been pointing out the great honor and reverence that is due to anyone holding the position of another Christ. Thank you kindly for that comment.

 

[stpurl]

You mean with the conditional ‘if’? Why thank you so much that you are obviously claiming it is no longer conditional.

In that case, may the local Catholic priest be expecting you for RCIA?

 

[OraLabora]

In what way is it a factor?

I’m suggesting we study to see if it may be a factor.

As I said, finding the root cause requires that we leave no stone unturned, just like investigating a plane crash considers all possible factors, even those that are a long shot.

I also think, that like a plane crash, multiple factors will be found. It’s called the “Swiss cheese” model, where all the holes in the cheese line up. It may also be different factors for different individuals.

I can say that the priesthood is unattractive to me because of the celibacy requirement. I’m sure I’m not alone. So if it can be a factor that excludes certain candidates, it already is a factor in eliminating those who otherwise could be good candidates. What is the impact of reducing the pool of potential good candidates? Only a thorough analysis can say.

If we exclude this factor from our analysis, then it is not a study I’ll take seriously.

 

[stpurl]

Perhaps God does not look on this as ‘eliminating good candidates’ but rather on offering good candidates a free choice to sacrifice one good (marriage) in favor of another (celibacy).

It seems that we are so full of inflated self-esteem as a culture that we make the whole idea of sacrifice into something that is all about ‘denying us’ instead of ‘giving to God’.

So I question —and this is not an attack on any person—that the idea that a person who is discerning the priesthood, and decides that he prefers marriage, is somehow being ‘eliminated’ from the priesthood and that if ONLY the Church would smarten up and allow married priests that we would somehow then have this huge pool of wonderful men (and their wives and children of course) who would otherwise have been DENIED their RIGHT to be priests and priestly families etc etc.

As we DO know, the vast majority of sexual abusers are married men. What we would have, with an opening of the priesthood to married men, is a far greater ‘pool’ of potential abusers. We would have also the scandals of divorced priests. And for what? So that people (tellingly not GOD) would have the perception that the Catholic Church was not something ‘strange’ in asking for ‘sacrifice’, but that it was ‘just like the world’. We would be implying (and soon enough it would be ‘accepted fact) that the scandal in the priesthood was due to our refusal to let priests marry, instead of the TRUTH that a priest CHOSE to remain unmarried. And if indeed as time went on priests had the same problems as other married clergy, it would be jacked up and presented as holdovers from ‘clericalism’ for which the only CURE would be ‘female priests’ and a relaxation of marriage to allow divorce etc. etc.

50 years ago I was right in claiming both that legalizing abortion was legalizing murder, and that in time it would lead to euthanasia.

And I’m right in this, although I’m sure to be seen as Cassandra again. This whole call for trying to tie ‘celibacy’ as a factor of sexual abuse is geared at trying to change first celibate priests for married ones, then to change marriage to allow divorce and contraception, and finally to change the nature of the priesthood to allow women priests.

How far God will permit this to go we don’t know. The gates of hell will not prevail, but they might be holding us in for a lengthy period of time before they are knocked down. May God have mercy on us.

 

[AlNg]

why aren’t you joining the Catholic Church?

1. Marriage annulments. Are they Catholic divorces in a dishonest way?

Cardinal Kasper says: “But take the case of a couple who are ten years married and have children, in the first years they had a happy marriage, but for different reasons the marriage fell apart. This marriage was a reality, and to say it was canonically null and void does not make sense to me… It’s divorce in a Catholic way, in a dishonest way.”

1. The Orthodox liturgy has a striking reverential character.

 

[Sarcelle]

I can say that the priesthood is unattractive to me because of the celibacy requirement. I’m sure I’m not alone. So if it can be a factor that excludes certain candidates, it already is a factor in eliminating those who otherwise could be good candidates. What is the impact of reducing the pool of potential good candidates? Only a thorough analysis can say.

So only sexual predators are attracted to celibacy?

That doesn’t make sense.

It’s like saying overeaters are attracted to groups which requires lifelong fasting from its members.

 

[OraLabora]

So only sexual predators are attracted to celibacy?

Don’t put words in my mouth please. I did not say that. Not even close.

Perhaps God does not look on this as ‘eliminating good candidates’ but rather on offering good candidates a free choice to sacrifice one good (marriage) in favor of another (celibacy).

Or perhaps God expects us to be practical and thorough.

Why the fear of including priestly celibacy in a thorough examination? It’s like eliminating « did the pilot get a good night’s sleep before the crash? » from the crash investigation, or « was there alcohol in his/her system? » Heaven forbid that the culture of partying during layovers be questioned! An extreme example to be sure, but you get my point, I hope!

If it’s a factor, it will turn up. If it isn’t, it will be eliminated. There should be no fear. There should instead be the courage to ask the hard questions, to risk not liking the answer. Otherwise, the investigation will be a sham.

 

[Sarcelle]

Don’t put words in my mouth please. I did not say that. Not even close.

Notice that statement was in the form of a question. I am trying to make sense of what you said.

You asserted that good candidates are turned off by the celibacy requirement so this leaves bad candidates. Since the problem was sexual abuse, this means bad candidates who are also sexual abusers right?

 

[OraLabora]

You asserted that good candidates are turned off by the celibacy requirement so this leaves bad candidates.

I did not say it leaves only bad candidates. This is what I said:

« What is the impact of reducing the pool of potential good candidates? »

Reducing the pool does not equal « leaving bad candidates ».

 

[stpurl]

But again, let’s be sure before we ‘take the fence down’ that the fence wasn’t there for a good reason.

Suppose there is a beautiful park and there’s a fence around. “Oh no, somebody put up a fence. Now in order to get into the park people have to go through a GATE and not just where they choose. Animals in the park cannot get out and go where THEY choose. Wah. Let’s tear down the fence and let people and animals go where they want to.”

And then, when the fence is torn down, suddenly ‘everybody’ can get into the park. And of course they litter, and now the park is full of trash.

The animals can ‘go where they want to’, so they scatter into the nearby towns and become nuisances, roadkill, rabid, etc.

The rains and winds come and without the fences support, the ground erodes. Mudslides become common. Trees topple and lead to even more damage.

All because people were so SURE that the fence was there ‘to keep people from going where they wanted to go, and to keep animals trapped instead of free.”

All the people who want to ‘open up pools’ and make it easier for people to ‘do what they want’ are indeed forgetting to ask WHY God may have guided His church to this discipline in the first place.

They might ask just how well it has been going for the Catholic Church, and Christianity in general, over the last few decades as traditions, customs, and teachings have been tweaked and made ‘pastoral’ and how this has led to greater understanding of the faith, greater fervor and practice of the faith, greater attendance at Mass (prior to COVID) and greater practice of devotions including Bible studies, the rosary, devotions to the Sacred Heart, saints, etc.

OH WAIT. That hasn’t gone so well has it? Attempts to make things ‘simpler’ and more ‘convenient’ to practice the faith has in fact led to people rejecting it. In droves.

 

[stpurl]

That’s an excellent point. Since we know that most sexual predators are married males, it is more likely that any individual man who is attracted to or willing to practice sex —heterosexual or homosexual, as many homosexual men either consider themselves ‘bisexual’ or attempt to cover their inclination by appearing to be heterosexual—will be more inclined to sexual abuse.

With the concept of celibacy, it will appeal both to the man who wishes to ‘give his all to God’—a man who would have loved marriage and been a good husband and father, but who chooses to give that energy to the Church as a sacrifice and offering to God— and, it was thought, to those who would ‘use’ the ‘cover’ of appearing less ‘dangerous’ than a married male.

Again, do we find marriage as a ‘cause’ of sexual abuse when some men abuse their marriage vows? We don’t, do we? We don’t assume, even though the majority of sexual abusers are married men, that a man enters the state of matrimony in order to cover up his potential sexual abuse.

But —for some reason, some posters appear to think that choosing celibacy IS a ‘red flag’ for a potential sexual abuser.

I still state that such an attitude shows a lack of understanding of celibacy itself. . .

And I’m still waiting for the earlier poster to clue us in on the ‘clerical culture’ of which celibacy is a ‘part’ and which is conducive to abuse.

 

[OraLabora]

But again, let’s be sure before we ‘take the fence down’ that the fence wasn’t there for a good reason.

Again, nobody is suggesting we take the fence down. I’m suggesting we ask whether our gatekeeping is too strict (or not). Failure to study this, would be being derelict in duty. There will always be a fence, even though we may some day admit married men. It’s not that we take the fence down, it’s that we allow more men through the gate. There will always be a gate to filter admissions to seminary (at least I hope…). Widening the gate, or opening it more frequently, does not mean taking down the fence, as our Eastern brethren can attest.

Again, why the fear about examining this? Celibacy will either stand to scrutiny, or it won’t. The Church has the authority to bind and loose, and a thorough study may indicate that she must continue to bind on this matter, or it may indicate she should loose. I have no fear of the result either way if the subject is thoroughly analyzed. I do fear the result if the analysis is not serious or thorough enough or considers some subjects such as celibacy as being taboo.

That’s an excellent point. Since we know that most sexual predators are married males,

That’s a moot point, because virtually all the predators in the Church have been unmarried males. They’re the ones we want to keep out (the predators, not the good ones), so we have to figure out how they got in, in the first place.

 

[Feanor2]

Pedophilia is a mental disorder.

Celibacy doesn’t cause one to practice pedophilia.

The factor of celibacy may attract a certain sub-set of the population with an unhealthy view of sexuality and seminaries need to be attuned to candidates like this.

Celibates remain sexual beings and need training on how to live out a healthy sexuality in the context of a celibate life.

I personally believe the tradition of celibacy to be a gift of the Latin church, but as others have said- it is a discipline and could be changed.