This is ridiculous. If a guy is a paedophile a wife will not make a difference. If a guy is homosexual a wife will not change that. Look at protestant clergy. Same problem although they can marry. Common sense and statistics can confirm this.First, the celibate priesthood has to end. Like our Eastern brethren, if called to celibacy, great. Otherwise, these men must be allowed to marry. Second, accountability to the laity. No Parish should ever be run by a priest. Parishes need to be run by nonprofit professionals. Pastors come and go, congregations stay.
You got that right. A pedophile is a pedophile is a pedophile. Doesn’t matter if they are married or single.This is ridiculous. If a guy is a paedophile a wife will not make a difference. If a guy is homosexual a wife will not change that. Look at protestant clergy. Same problem although they can marry. Common sense and statistics can confirm this.
And to give parents the heads-up that their children are actually a lot safer (statistically speaking) in Catholic Churches than they are at school, sports practice, or at their Scout meeting.Hokomai, we DO accept a higher standard. The point of our saying that teachers, or scout leaders, or Mormons are just as bad (or worse) is not to excuse Catholic abusers, it’s to counter the media’s implied lies that we are worse.
Children experience puberty long before they are adults. Abuse of a 15-year old is child abuse. It has nothing to do with homosexuality. Many abusers of youth prey on people of the opposite sex (mainly men abusing girls). Many statements on this issue by Church leaders, and posters on this forum, make much of the pre- and post-puberty distinction. It sounds to outsiders like a pointless excuse.“4. Stop distinguishing in any moral sense between the abuse of children before and after puberty. Children are children.”
Difficult to follow that one, Hokomai. How does the Church distinguish in any significant moral sense between the sexual abuse of children before puberty (generally, pedophilia) and after (generally, homosexuality)?
“7. Accept that if you say you are the mystical body of Christ, led by a man who represents God on earth, who is infallible on moral matters, and believe that celibacy is a higher state than being in a sexual relationship, and condemn homosexual sex as an abomination, you will be held to a higher standard than other human institutions. There is no point saying that teachers, or scout leaders, or Mormons are just as bad.”
Hokomai, we DO accept a higher standard. The point of our saying that teachers, or scout leaders, or Mormons are just as bad (or worse) is not to excuse Catholic abusers, it’s to counter the media’s implied lies that we are worse.
I am not sure we know that, although I am not saying it is not possible. I do not trust self-reporting by abusers who have been caught, and there may well be variations in reporting. I also think it likely that a man who has committed to celibacy and none-the-less seeks sex with children is probably not easy to classify on a hetero-homo scale. Confused sexuality would be closer to it. The fact of having had sex with boys does not mean that someone is predominately same-sex in orientation. If you will forgive the analogy, by which I mean no offence, men in prison often display behaviors which they would not in more normal surroundings. So too with the Church, where a complete prohibition on sex, including just wishing to have it, is combined with constant thought and discussion about it (just look at these forums!).“Abuse of a 15-year old is child abuse. It has nothing to do with homosexuality.”
It is true, Hokomai, that most homosexual priests are not molesters, but it’s also true that most of the molesters have been homosexual priests. To say that, nevertheless, the abuse crisis that won’t go away has “nothing to do with homosexuality”, actually is a major reason why it won’t go away.
It has a lot to do with homosexuality. An increasing number of gay activists demand lowering the age of consent, (for example to 14 years of age. Obviously, that implies that puberty is an important factor in how people determine when a child/young person is ‘ready’ to have sex.Abuse of a 15-year old is child abuse. It has nothing to do with homosexuality. Many abusers of youth prey on people of the opposite sex (mainly men abusing girls).
What you say the gay activists want would only bring the law into line with canon law. There is an urgent need for the Church to raise this age. You are quite right that many people think sex with a child who has reached puberty is ok. They are wrong. Adults should not have sex with children.It has a lot to do with homosexuality. An increasing number of gay activists demand lowering the age of consent, (for example to 14 years of age. Obviously, that implies that puberty is an important factor in how people determine when a child/young person is ‘ready’ to have sex.
To see homosexual abuse of minors for what it is would help us solve the problem, or at least get closer to that. Of course, girls have been abused as well, but the statistics have shown that more boys have been abused. We can’t ignore that just because it is a PC thing to do these days.
The teaching of the Church is that no one should have sex with anyone except his or her lawfully wedded spouse - who normally is someone close to the same age as himself or herself. During the Marriage Preparation process, the Church would look very carefully at any arrangement between parties who were not close in age, whether it’s a 25 year old man wanting to marry a 14 year old woman, or a 35 year old woman wanting to marry an 80 year old man.Adults should not have sex with children.
And none taken. It’s pleasure to have my words accepted as a real expression of what I think, instead of something duplicitous. There are two issues here. One is preventing the recruitment of people who will later abuse into the priesthood and religious life. This is the same sort of profiling that goes on at borders. It is not just to individuals, as many who fit the profile will not in fact go on to abuse, but it is effective. The question is: has the church got the profile right? I think that the emphasis on homosexuality is probably not helpful in creating an effective profile. The second issue is what to do when someone has shown themselves to be an abuser, or someone who does not understand the seriousness of abuse (for example by collecting images of child sexual abuse). The Church in the complexity of its thinking about sexual matters lost its commonsense. They could have asked any Catholic mother if it was right to move these abusers on and got the answer they needed. I also think it is commonsense not to reconcile abusers with the Church until they have reported themselves. I acknowledge I argue this for the protection of children, as a matter for society, and not from a religious perspective.Per Hokomai: “I do not trust self-reporting by abusers who have been caught, and there may well be variations in reporting. I also think it likely that a man who has committed to celibacy and none-the-less seeks sex with children is probably not easy to classify on a hetero-homo scale. Confused sexuality would be closer to it. The fact of having had sex with boys does not mean that someone is predominately same-sex in orientation. If you will forgive the analogy, by which I mean no offence, men in prison often display behaviors which they would not in more normal surroundings. So too with the Church, where a complete prohibition on sex, including just wishing to have it, is combined with constant thought and discussion about it (just look at these forums!).”
That, Hokomai, is extremely thin soup. While I believe you are sincere in crafting your argument, it is merely the type of pseudo-psychology from “experts” that gave our fearless shepherds their excuse to move “sexually confused” homosexual predators from one parish to another. It is type of argument that Rome finally had enough of: cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=7234
Again, no offense intended.
I’m wondering if you can provide a citation for such a canon law?What you say the gay activists want would only bring the law into line with canon law. There is an urgent need for the Church to raise this age. You are quite right that many people think sex with a child who has reached puberty is ok. They are wrong. Adults should not have sex with children.
Can. 1083 §1. A man before he has completed his sixteenth year of age and a woman before she has completed her fourteenth year of age cannot enter into a valid marriage.I’m wondering if you can provide a citation for such a canon law?
Canon 97 clearly defines anyone under 18 as a minor.
***Can. 96 By baptism one is incorporated into the Church of Christ and is constituted a person in it with the duties and rights which are proper to Christians in keeping with their condition, insofar as they are in ecclesiastical communion and unless a legitimately issued sanction stands in the way.
Can. 97 §1. A person who has completed the eighteenth year of age has reached majority; below this age, a person is a minor.
§2. A minor before the completion of the seventh year is called an infant and is considered not responsible for oneself (non sui compos). With the completion of the seventh year, however, a minor is presumed to have the use of reason.
Can. 98 §1. A person who has reached majority has the full exercise of his or her rights***
-Tim-
I had read this, and have just re-read it. I understood why homosexuals who were sexually active (along with heterosexuals) might be excluded, and at the risk of offending some gays I also get the point about the gay ‘culture’. But I am not entirely sure why the “deep-seated” desire to have sex with someone of the same sex should be more of a problem than a deep-seated desire to have sex with the opposite sex. In any case I quite accept that there is more to the ban on homosexuals entering the seminary than a desire to reduce abuse, but my impression is that it is widely seen as a part of that package. To the extent that it is, my comments in #33 would stand.Hokomai, your post #33 reflects confusion about the reason for the ban on homosexuals in seminaries. (BTW, the recently restated ban to which I linked in my post #32 is not new. If memory serves, there was a written ban around 1961, but it was not put forward with the vigor of the recent ban, so our fearless shepherds, in their wisdom, pretty much ignored it.)
The reasons for the ban most definitely are not just about the possibility of abuse, and that may be the cause of your bewilderment. Please consider reading this:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html