Pope Benedict denounces 'absurd' speculations about his resignation [CWN]

[RPRPsych]

Ah, you’re unfamiliar with propaganda technique. Rewind back to early 1930’s era Germany. Bigotry against Jews in Germany LONG pre-existed Hitler and the Nazis, but they obviously supercharged it. How? By stoking the prejudices people already had with anecdotes and stories about Jewish cabals and conspiracies. Jews, like anybody else, are imperfect and fallen human beings. You really CAN find Jews that are greedy, conniving, and self-serving. The Nazis frequently utilized anecdotes and stories about real wrongdoing by Jews to create a phony image of Jews as a whole for the people to hate and scapegoat.

Nobody here denies that there were abuser priests. Nobody here denies that there were even bishops who cared more about protecting their image than protecting children. But it’s a HUGE leap from finding particular cases in a church of a billion people to asserting that it is a systemic problem coming from the top and innate to the system. That’s the leap evil propagandists like to make. Look closer and you’ll see the leap. There’s zero evidence at ALL that B16 did anything less than his best to combat abuse of children by priests. On the contrary, he drastically improved measures and safeguards against abuse and reactions when it did occur. (JPII can be reasonably criticized for not doing enough, but not through malfeasance. He came from a culture where the idea that a man would be a priest for anything less than holy reasons was unthinkable. Who would subject themselves to kidnap and torture by secret police just to have access to abuse victims? Be a teacher instead. Much easier. Somebody like Fr. Marcel Maciel was completely beyond JPII’s comprehension or experience.)

You’re falling for the propaganda and failing to see the unsupported leap in logic because of your pre-existing prejudice. I don’t say that lightly. Your disdain for Catholicism is painted all over your post history. Look past the propaganda and your own prejudice and see what’s really going on.

The abuse crisis happened (largely past tense) because Catholicism went through a period of identity crisis and chaos leading up to and after Vatican II. The abuse was largely committed by men who fundamentally didn’t believe in catholic sexual morality. Believe it or not, we went through a time in the seminaries when it was winked at to dissent from catholic sexual teaching. Yeah, that dissent was originally in a context of marriage and priestly celibacy, but sin DOES beget sin. Somehow the avante garde managed to forget that and we got the abuse crisis from it. Have some crimes been committed and will be committed by priests at any point in history? Yes. They’re all humans. Sin is a rather universal issue. Which is why sexual abuse of children is rampant all across our culture today, a fact the news media is strangely less enthused about publicizing.

Excellent post. Couldn’t have said it better.

 

[LittleDavid]

Ah, you’re unfamiliar with propaganda technique. Rewind back to early 1930’s era Germany. Bigotry against Jews in Germany LONG pre-existed Hitler and the Nazis, but they obviously supercharged it. How? By stoking the prejudices people already had with anecdotes and stories about Jewish cabals and conspiracies. Jews, like anybody else, are imperfect and fallen human beings. You really CAN find Jews that are greedy, conniving, and self-serving. The Nazis frequently utilized anecdotes and stories about real wrongdoing by Jews to create a phony image of Jews as a whole for the people to hate and scapegoat.

Nobody here denies that there were abuser priests. Nobody here denies that there were even bishops who cared more about protecting their image than protecting children. But it’s a HUGE leap from finding particular cases in a church of a billion people to asserting that it is a systemic problem coming from the top and innate to the system. That’s the leap evil propagandists like to make. Look closer and you’ll see the leap. There’s zero evidence at ALL that B16 did anything less than his best to combat abuse of children by priests. On the contrary, he drastically improved measures and safeguards against abuse and reactions when it did occur. (JPII can be reasonably criticized for not doing enough, but not through malfeasance. He came from a culture where the idea that a man would be a priest for anything less than holy reasons was unthinkable. Who would subject themselves to kidnap and torture by secret police just to have access to abuse victims? Be a teacher instead. Much easier. Somebody like Fr. Marcel Maciel was completely beyond JPII’s comprehension or experience.)

You’re falling for the propaganda and failing to see the unsupported leap in logic because of your pre-existing prejudice. I don’t say that lightly. Your disdain for Catholicism is painted all over your post history. Look past the propaganda and your own prejudice and see what’s really going on.

The abuse crisis happened (largely past tense) because Catholicism went through a period of identity crisis and chaos leading up to and after Vatican II. The abuse was largely committed by men who fundamentally didn’t believe in catholic sexual morality. Believe it or not, we went through a time in the seminaries when it was winked at to dissent from catholic sexual teaching. Yeah, that dissent was originally in a context of marriage and priestly celibacy, but sin DOES beget sin. Somehow the avante garde managed to forget that and we got the abuse crisis from it. Have some crimes been committed and will be committed by priests at any point in history? Yes. They’re all humans. Sin is a rather universal issue. Which is why sexual abuse of children is rampant all across our culture today, a fact the news media is strangely less enthused about publicizing.

Saying that PBS is using Nazi propaganda techniques is a bit of a stretch for me. All the while Catholic World News(CWN)(the Original Post) is unbiased. I do appreciate your honesty that you admit that it happend, and I hope it IS in the past…time will tell. I thought it was interesting that homosexual priests focus on post pubescent boys, while heterosexual priests focus on pre pubescent girls. I live in a small town and the town next to me had a priest that took pictures of pre pubescent girls and is now in jail. Many of us wonder, why doesn’t the Catholic Church end celebacy for priests. Priests were allowed to marry at one time, correct? Why not go back to that? Peter was married. Let priests decide for themselves. Plus, you’d get all the people that quote that scripture about “in the last days they will forbid men to marry” off your back!

 

[CrossofChrist]

And…well…what “absurd speculations” is he denouncing?
What good is a news story that says someone is denouncing something if it doesn’t say *what *he or she is denouncing???

.

An Italian journalist said that H.H Benedict XVI was forced to resign by an opposition group in the Curia, which means that his resignation wouldn’t be valid.

That’s what he is denying.

telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/10662503/Former-pope-Benedict-denies-he-was-forced-to-resign-in-rare-statement.html

 

[CrossofChrist]

Are you serious?
Rumor, gossip, and innuendo?

I’ll remember that the next time the grown, illegitimate son of a a high-ranking priest cries in front of millions of people when he tells how his “Father”-father sexually abused him and his brother repeatedly.

.

I think he was addressing his comment at the suggestion often implied in stories like these (I didn’t see what PBS showed so I can’t comment on this one in particular) that Benedict is somehow responsible for pedophilia and scandal within the Church, when in fact the evidence supports the exact opposite view.

 

[LittleDavid]

I think he was addressing his comment at the suggestion often implied in stories like these (I didn’t see what PBS showed so I can’t comment on this one in particular) that Benedict is somehow responsible for pedophilia and scandal within the Church, when in fact the evidence supports the exact opposite view.

You can watch the PBS report, by going to www.pbs.org, then type in “secrets of the vatican”. Is “the evidence” that supports the exact opposite view on Catholic World News?

 

[RPRPsych]

I thought it was interesting that homosexual priests focus on post pubescent boys, while heterosexual priests focus on pre pubescent girls.

Pedophilia is pedophilia. Let’s not bring orientation into this sterile debate.

I live in a small town and the town next to me had a priest that took pictures of pre pubescent girls and is now in jail.

Serves him right.

Many of us wonder, why doesn’t the Catholic Church end celebacy for priests. Priests were allowed to marry at one time, correct? Why not go back to that? Peter was married. Let priests decide for themselves. Plus, you’d get all the people that quote that scripture about “in the last days they will forbid men to marry” off your back!

Peter also “left everything he had, and followed Jesus”.

Besides, considering that his mother-in-law (not his wife) was keeping house, he was probably a widower.

 

[Lapey]

You call the people who broke down during the interview because years ago they were abused by their priest, “Rumor, gossip and innuendo”, I pity you, I really do. Is it “Rumor, gossip and innuendo” that the Catholic church allowed boys to be castrated years ago( as late as the 19th century) so they could sing in the choirs, because women weren’t allowed to sing?

And…well…what “absurd speculations” is he denouncing?
What good is a news story that says someone is denouncing something if it doesn’t say *what *he or she is denouncing???

.

Are you serious?
Rumor, gossip, and innuendo?

I’ll remember that the next time the grown, illegitimate son of a a high-ranking priest cries in front of millions of people when he tells how his “Father”-father sexually abused him and his brother repeatedly.

.

The subject at hand is what is relevant. everything you are ranting about and what you pity me for missing is yesterdays story and not what is being discussed on this thread. Please try to stay relevant. Or remain in your blissful ignorance. Its your choice.

 

[Lapey]

You call the people who broke down during the interview because years ago they were abused by their priest, “Rumor, gossip and innuendo”, I pity you, I really do. Is it “Rumor, gossip and innuendo” that the Catholic church allowed boys to be castrated years ago( as late as the 19th century) so they could sing in the choirs, because women weren’t allowed to sing?

Ok Mr. David, now I have time to respond properly. Your knee jerk reaction to my post shows your bias against Mother Church. No one here, especially me a member of the clergy, has said or implied anything about the sex scandals of recent history are not real or didn’t happen. None of my comments in any way shape or form demean any victim of any person in the Church. The topic of this thread if you care to understand this, is in fact the rumors, innuendo, and gossip surrounding Pope B16’s resignation. Period.

The hit piece which sadly was done with an agenda to smear Pope B16 proved nothing in any way that was either new nor does change history in the why and how Pope B16 resigned. It is also sad that the modern day media is involved in a crusade to bring down the Church’s teachings and the Truth of Jesus in the Gospels through this effort; even to the point of placing Pope B16 against Pope Francis.

As to your “castrated choir boys” goes, I think you need to venture into reading material which is not geared towards Catholic hatred. Castration has been against Church teaching as early as the first council of Nicea. This was and is punishable by excommunication. There is historical proof of castration in cultures, especially the Asian cultures. But not in the Church no matter what you have been convinced of. Castration in the Church can be found in the early days, voluntary castration inspired by bible verses like Matthew 19:12;

“Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage* for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.””

One other simple point, notice the name of the choir mostly in question, “Vienna BOYS Choir”. Maybe, just maybe, their voices were those of pre-pubescent boys because the choir was and is made up of PRE-PUBESCENT BOYS!

Now if you care to continue to talk here on a Catholic forum with misinformation, or to try to imply the Church hasn’t and an isn’t currently taking steps to weed out bad clerics and laity and take care of the victims, then we will see your motives. Good day little one.

 

[Lapey]

And…well…what “absurd speculations” is he denouncing?
What good is a news story that says someone is denouncing something if it doesn’t say *what *he or she is denouncing???

Come on DaddyGirl, do your homework here. He is denouncing the rumors and innuendo and gossip of his resignation. The imaginary stories stating that he resigned because he was forced to; which would make his resignation invalid and thus we would have two popes. He is renouncing the stories circulating that he was forced out because of the sex scandals, vati-leak scandals and the like.

 

[Lapey]

Are you serious?
Rumor, gossip, and innuendo?

I’ll remember that the next time the grown, illegitimate son of a a high-ranking priest cries in front of millions of people when he tells how his “Father”-father sexually abused him and his brother repeatedly.

.

See my response to LittleDavid, I think that will cover your post here. You folks are quick to point out the speck in my eye, sad; how is that plank in yours?

 

[Lapey]

Saying that PBS is using Nazi propaganda techniques is a bit of a stretch for me. All the while Catholic World News(CWN)(the Original Post) is unbiased. I do appreciate your honesty that you admit that it happened, and I hope it IS in the past…time will tell.

Many “news organizations” are used for agendas of others. Enemies of the Church use every avenue available. I ask you, who of the body of leaders in the Church have denied these happenings and atrocious behaviors of members of the clergy? Have you evidence of a Catholic news source denying the sex scandals? I haven’t seen any, please share them.

I thought it was interesting that homosexual priests focus on post pubescent boys, while heterosexual priests focus on pre-pubescent girls.

Change the word “priests” to “adults”. This is not a problem brought on by being a priest, this is/was a problem of allowing sick individuals access to our children, no matter what walk of life they are from. School teachers, principals, Protestant ministers (yes even Methodist ministers), police officers, and etc. can and have held these types of predators. Our biggest problem as a society is 30 years ago we didn’t understand the nature of the problem, the psychological problem. This was once, not too many years ago, thought to be something that a person can “get an injection” to fix (yes that is hyperbole). It has only been in recent decades that the truth of these type mental issues has been understood.

I live in a small town and the town next to me had a priest that took pictures of pre-pubescent girls and is now in jail.

He belongs in jail, as do all the adults who abuse children. Do you know of anyone who disagrees? If not, what’s the point of bringing it up?

Many of us wonder, why doesn’t the Catholic Church end celibacy for priests. Priests were allowed to marry at one time, correct? Why not go back to that? Peter was married. Let priests decide for themselves. Plus, you’d get all the people that quote that scripture about “in the last days they will forbid men to marry” off your back!

Please do the research. Celibacy has nothing to do with mental illness. If you care to see the truth, you will find in research that there are higher numbers of abusers who are married than who live celibate lives. Marriage has nothing to do with being a pervert. Celibacy has its place in the Church’s clergy and outside of ordained life. Many people are called to single life, no one is called to take advantage of children.

douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/09/does-celibacy-increase-sex-abuse/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

Check out this blog and the articles which it links. I’ll give you the last paragraph which spells out in a simple way what the stats show;

“There’s a valid debate to have about whether the drawbacks of clerical celibacy for Catholicism outweigh its benefits. In the developed world, the celibacy requirement has clearly reduced the supply of men willing to contemplate entering the priesthood. In the developing world, it’s honored more in the breach than in the observance, creating widespread scandal. But there is no evidence that I’ve seen anywhere indicating that men who take vows of celibacy are more likely to abuse children. And a fair-minded media would make that point more often.”

A valid argument against celibacy of the priesthood is that many who would consider becoming a priest don’t. An invalid argument against priestly celibacy is that it brings higher risk to sexual abuse of minors; because the data just does not show this to be true. Actually it shows just the opposite. With a simple search I found that the percentage of priest who have been accused, not convicted but only accused, is 4% as a whole.

The general population of males who are accused of the same is 10%. Are you sure you want to keep this line of arguing against celibacy?

 

[manualman]

Saying that PBS is using Nazi propaganda techniques is a bit of a stretch for me. All the while Catholic World News(CWN)(the Original Post) is unbiased. I do appreciate your honesty that you admit that it happend, and I hope it IS in the past…time will tell. I thought it was interesting that homosexual priests focus on post pubescent boys, while heterosexual priests focus on pre pubescent girls. I live in a small town and the town next to me had a priest that took pictures of pre pubescent girls and is now in jail. Many of us wonder, why doesn’t the Catholic Church end celebacy for priests. Priests were allowed to marry at one time, correct? Why not go back to that? Peter was married. Let priests decide for themselves. Plus, you’d get all the people that quote that scripture about “in the last days they will forbid men to marry” off your back!

The more you post, the more you reveal about yourself and the anti-Catholic influences that have shaped you. Everybody is biased. PBS and CWN. It’s part of the human condition, which is why you need to hear multiple sources. Don’t misquote me. As long as there are human beings in the church, there will be sinners, including sexual sinners. Don’t kid yourself, this includes YOUR flavor of Christian community as well.

Those who wonder why Catholicism doesn’t end priestly celibacy due to the sex abuse crisis aren’t really paying attention to the world around them. Child sex abusers in the general population usually ARE married. Child sexual abuse isn’t an outcome of the normal and healthy human sex drive. It’s the outcome of a long term perverted sexual worldview that isn’t remotely suppressed by the proximity of a spouse.

Posts like yours always suggest that priests are people who got kidnapped at one point, forced to be ordained and are now kept under lock and key. Silliness. Priests CHOOSE to become priests knowing about the celibacy standard. Furthermore, priests not infrequently do leave the priesthood if they later determine that they cannot live a life of celibacy (frowned on, of course, but possible). Yes, Peter was married. But Paul wasn’t. And Paul says quite clearly that for the sort of ministry he was called to, celibacy is the better way. Look it up (you got a bible, right?).

 

[CrossofChrist]

You can watch the PBS report, by going to www.pbs.org, then type in “secrets of the vatican”. Is “the evidence” that supports the exact opposite view on Catholic World News?

I don’t remember ever looking on CWN for this. If you want to get to the core on issues like these, you can’t just read an article or two from a random news source. But in general to me it seems so far that the evidence from those who say Ratzinger is personally responsible for a massive coverup conspiracy in the Catholic Church has amounted to at best that he should’ve tried harder (not only extremely vague but also packed with assumptions) and at worst ad hominem attacks, and both largely based off of emotions.

I don’t have time to watch the video right now, but even just reading the description I can tell you that it wouldn’t be unbiased with regards to Benedict XVI. I mean, come on? I’m supposed to believe phrases like “* forces that helped destroy Benedict’s papacy*” and “the current battle to set the church on a new path under Francis” don’t suggest a biased news story focused more on speculation rather than giving me the facts?

 

[LittleDavid]

RPRPsych- That was interesting about Peter leaving everything, even his wife. Maybe, but, in 1 Corinthians 9:5 Paul contrasts his situation with that of the other apostles, including Peter, who were accompanied by believing wives. Paul was very likely married at one time, because he voted to stone Stephen, and to do so he would have had to have been a member of the Sanhedrin. To be a member of the Sanhedrin, one had to be married.

Lapey- The example of castration for the Catholic church I was thinking of was Alessandro Moreschi. You can actually go on YouTube and hear him sing, because it hasn’t been that long ago that this happend. I enjoyed the NY Times article, I did not know the 4 percent priest abuse rate, vs. 10 percent general population rate. Thank you. Here is also an article from the exact same source as yours, the NY Times: nytimes.com/2013/02/26/opinion/bruni-the-wages-of-celibacy.html?_r=0

Manualman: I really have nothing to hide or reveal, I come on here to find out more about the Catholic Church, and honestly enjoy the discussion, and learn something each time. I don’t really feel I am “hostile” toward the “Mother Church”. If it comes off that way…my appologies. One question no one answered that I’d like to know. Were priests ever allowed to marry in the Catholic Church’s history? If so, when did it stop?

 

[Lapey]

RPRPsych- That was interesting about Peter leaving everything, even his wife. Maybe, but, in 1 Corinthians 9:5 Paul contrasts his situation with that of the other apostles, including Peter, who were accompanied by believing wives. Paul was very likely married at one time, because he voted to stone Stephen, and to do so he would have had to have been a member of the Sanhedrin. To be a member of the Sanhedrin, one had to be married.

Your recollection of scriptural figures is quite off. Peter is said to have “left everything”. Tradition supports this very biblical gesture as true to mean he left his entire life behind. Tradition also speculates, or leads us to speculate the he either left his wife as well or was in fact a widower. I would tend to agree with the latter because the Church has always taught marriage is indissoluble.

Secondly, Paul was neither married nor can a consensus be found that he was a member of the Sanhedrin. There is some possibility that he could have once been married, but there is nothing definitive on that in any writings I am aware of; however, neither are there writings which state he wasn’t ever married. He was in fact a single man who was also a Pharisee, he was a celibate biblical scholar who was both a Jew and a Roman citizen. Saul seemed to be from sources available an enforcer of the Sanhedrin’s mandates but not a member. He was too young, as this “elite” group of men were very influential, connected, and educated. Neither did he simply “vote” for Stephen’s stoning, scripture is a little vague on this subject; but Tradition tells us he MAY have been the “arresting officer”, so to speak. What Scripture does say is that “Saul was consenting to his, Stephen’s, execution; Acts 8:1. But there is no mention of a vote.

Paul speaks vividly about celibacy in scripture, Tradition backs up this teaching from the beginning of the Church until today. Has it always been a mandate to Latin Rite Catholicism? No, but celibacy has always been a part of the Church’s teaching.

Check this link out from Catholic Answers.

catholic.com/tracts/celibacy-and-the-priesthood

 

[Lapey]

 Lapey- The example of castration for the Catholic church I was thinking of was Alessandro Moreschi.  You can actually go on YouTube and hear him sing, because it hasn't been that long ago that this happened.  I enjoyed the NY Times article, I did not know the 4 percent priest abuse rate, vs. 10 percent general population rate.  Thank you.  Here is also an article from the exact same source as yours, the NY Times: [nytimes.com/2013/02/26/opinion/bruni-the-wages-of-celibacy.html?_r=0](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/opinion/bruni-the-wages-of-celibacy.html?_r=0)

What I find on this person is very much in line with what I wrote in my post, there is nothing that shows this was mandated by the Church; which is what you said. The Church as an institution has not since the first Nicene Council practiced forced castration. The first paragraph on Wiki about this man speculates that he was castrated because of an inguinal hernia; which at that time castration was thought to be the cure.

As to “my source”, The NYT is hardly “my source”; it was simply a source I provided that was completely secular and more left leaning. The article you linked is an example of its left leaning tendencies. But okay, let’s go with it. The first paragraph paints the picture quite well of truth.

“But before we range across that sadly familiar terrain, let’s give a moment’s thought to loneliness. And longing. And this: the pledge of celibacy that the church requires of its servants is an often cruel and corrosive thing. It runs counter to human nature. It asks too much.”

What stands out to you? I would bet it is the statement that the “pledge…of celibacy…cruel and corrosive…counter to human nature…asks too much.” Right?

What did Paul have to say about this in first Corinthians Chapter 7, Paul actually endorses celibacy for those capable of it: “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion” (7:8-9).

Paul is very clear this is only for those who are strong enough to persevere and not for all. Those who are not called to celibacy should be married. It is not a right to be a priest, it is a calling which includes a calling to the celibate life for most, not all are celibate within the priesthood of the Latin Rite Church. This priest who the article speaks of obviously was not called to live the celibate life, so why did he choose to become a priest? I am a deacon who is married. If my wife dies, God forbid, I too am obliged to live a celibate life. I knew that going in, I know it now and if this ever happens I will live my life as a celibate Deacon for the Kingdom of God!

 

[Lapey]

 Manualman: I really have nothing to hide or reveal, I come on here to find out more about the Catholic Church, and honestly enjoy the discussion, and learn something each time.  I don't really feel I am "hostile" toward the "Mother Church".  If it comes off that way...my appologies.  One question no one answered that I'd like to know.  Were priests ever allowed to marry in the Catholic Church's history?  If so, when did it stop?

You coming here and trying to “teach” us Catholics and especially some who are clergy, comes off as arrogant and possibly hostile. This is probably not your intent but this is what it appears when a Methodist or any other denomination come and tries to correct us Catholics. One cannot teach nor correct what one is not part of or is not knowledgeable in. I know my words sound harsh but you are on a Catholic board, so learn by asking questions, not by giving answers. By the way, as far as I’m concerned, apology accepted even though it was not in response to me.

As to your question, yes married men were and still are accepted into the priesthood of the Catholic Church. Clerical celibacy is more a Roman Catholic discipline. Many other Rites of the Catholic Church still allow married men to enter the priesthood. There are also married men being ordained into the Roman Catholic Church too, those who are previously ordained in other faiths such as Anglican. Remember this is a discipline and could be changed, but hopefully it will remain just like it is (my opinion). Celibacy has been a part of the Roman Catholic Church since it’s institution at Pentecost. Hope this helps.

 

[LittleDavid]

In reguards to your post: “married men were and still are accepted into the priesthood of the Catholic Church. Clerical celibacy is more a Roman Catholic discipline. Many other Rites of the Catholic Church still allow married men to enter the priesthood. There are also married men being ordained into the Roman Catholic Church too, those who are previously ordained in other faiths such as Anglican. Remember this is a discipline and could be changed, but hopefully it will remain just like it is (my opinion).”

So, am I understanding correctly, that married men are accepted into the priesthood, but all sexual relations with their wife, of any kind, are forbidden once they are ordained?

 

[Lapey]

In reguards to your post: “married men were and still are accepted into the priesthood of the Catholic Church. Clerical celibacy is more a Roman Catholic discipline. Many other Rites of the Catholic Church still allow married men to enter the priesthood. There are also married men being ordained into the Roman Catholic Church too, those who are previously ordained in other faiths such as Anglican. Remember this is a discipline and could be changed, but hopefully it will remain just like it is (my opinion).”

So, am I understanding correctly, that married men are accepted into the priesthood, but all sexual relations with their wife, of any kind, are forbidden once they are ordained?

Yes in certain circumstances married men are accepted and ordained to the priesthood; and like myself, many are ordained to be deacons who are married. However, the requirement of perfect and perpetual continence, abstaining from marital relations, is not required to those clerics who are not celibate (remember, celibate means unmarried). Sex in the marriage is a normal part of the married life, the Church does not mandate that the cleric who is married abstain. But many choose to live in PPC voluntarily. My wife and I have had that very discussion many times, I would choose to make that commitment but she is not ready for that step. Me and the Church recognize that responsibility and honors that part of my marriage commitment. One day soon we will make that commitment which I believe will make our relationship even more close and holy than it is now.

Voluntarily is the key word when talking about clerical celibacy. The article you linked about the priest who was suffering so much because of celibacy, volunteered for something he was not capable of. How is that the fault of the Church’s discipline? It isn’t. Celibacy is quite beautiful and praiseworthy. Hopefully it will always be a part of the Church. This would be like me volunteering for the army and once I get into battle saying the killing was too hard so let’s not use guns.

 

[LittleDavid]

Well, from another post on celebacy on CAF it says, “Those clerics whose marriages were recognized by the Church, and they were many, were expected to abstain from conjugal union after ordination.” Am I wrong in understanding that this says, they “were expected to abstain from conjugal union after ordination?”