Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

Oh nonsense.

A married priest in Lincoln, Mass, was convicted of several hundred counts
of child sexual abuse.

Most sexual abusers are married.

/john

    Good Lord! :-)
    
    			I find myself in the awkward position of agreeing
    with Mr. Covert on this one.   Abuse is a state of mind and the
    political commentary pointing to celibacy as the reason is one of pure
    nonsense...IMHO of course.  A very simplistic answer to say the least.
    I believe God can call men *AND* women to service and provide the means
    to overcome any natural (or unnatural) urges that might crop up.  I
    think we limit God by believing that we are in control.  
    
    
    Dave

    It appears to be yet an other case of "Blame the system. Don't hold
    people accountable for their actions."
    
    			Alfred

    
    Makes sense to me!
    
    Dorian

I would expect it to make sense to those who reject Christianity.

    Accepting or rejecting the legitimacy of a proposed correlation should
    not have anything to do with whether or not you accept or reject
    Christianity.  Either the correlation exists, or it doesn't--period. 
    Religious dogma, or the absence thereof, doesn't change that--unless
    one's outlook is so rigid and close minded that the truth is less
    important than making sure that you conform to religious dogma.
    
    -- Mike

    
    Thanks, Mike...
    
    Dorian

    Well, I really don't have an opinion at this time, as I can see both
    sides. I think that having a celibrate life could cause some harm in
    people. I know that I would have a very very hard time!
    Surpressing a natural feeling has to cause some harm. I don't know
    if I'm ready to accept the leap to child abuse, though.
    
    I do know that there are many reported cases of child abuse committed
    by priests lately. That is very, very disturbing.
    
    Marc H.

    I think there is an element of truth in the conclusion, but certainly not
    in all cases, as the article points out.
    
    Richard
    

>    I do know that there are many reported cases of child abuse committed
>    by priests lately. That is very, very disturbing.

And there are many more reported cases of child abuse by non-priests lately.

This is also very, very disturbing.

It is especially disturbing when performed by someone in a position of
responsibility and trust, such as a priest, teacher, scout leader, or
day care worker.

Cases involving celibate Roman Catholic priests are getting more attention
in the press than equally disturbing cases involving married Episcopal
priests.  I wonder why.

/john

    The cases with the RC priests are getting more attention, due to the
    past "father porter" story. Its a method that the media uses, good or
    bad, to keep the story connected.
    
    
    By the way, *I* am constantly finding a similar problem defending
    gun owners from the continued association with "wacos" like the
    man who killed all the people in the McDonalds with the evil
    assualt rifle. *I* am now quiltly by association. The same
    type of thing happens with child molestors/RC Priests.
    
    It's not right, but....welcome to the power of the media.
    
    Note: This will not become a gun control note...I promise.
    
    Marc H.

re Note 649.0 "Study claims celibacy drives some priests to abuse":

        The Apostle Paul did write in I Corinthians 7:

        7:8  I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good
             for them if they abide even as I.
        7:9  But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is
             better to marry than to burn.

        Paul recognized that, for some, celibacy would be a very
        great burden that the individual would not be able to handle.

        Does this mean that celibacy causes child abuse?  I don't
        think so.  Does this mean that celibacy contributes towards
        an inclination to child abuse?  In some cases, I believe it
        does.

        Bob

    RE: .10

    > Cases involving celibate Roman Catholic priests are getting more
    > attention in the press than equally disturbing cases involving married
    > Episcopal priests.  I wonder why.

    It may well be true, but are you suggesting that there is an equal
    amount of abuse perpetrated by clerics in the Episcopal church?

    The message that I get regarding the RC priests is that not only was
    the evil done, and in my mind it is a more heinous act when committed by
    a "man of God", but that the institution of the RC church covered up
    the incidents, or at the very least did not face the problems in a
    constructive, healing and forthright manner.

    My feeling is that as the church has eschewed and even feared
    sexuality it has never developed the skills to deal with these issues
    when they arise.  Sort of like being afraid of the dark: rather than
    trying to understand it, they just pull the covers over their head.
    
    
    	Eric

    re: .13
    
    Are you suggesting there is a proportional less amount of child sex
    abuse by married clergy than unmarried clergy?
    
    The greatest identified source of child sex abuse is by foster parents. 
    What generalization can one make about foster parents just on this
    data?
    
    The reluctantance by the Roman Catholic Church is an institutional
    reaction, well-publicized, and now reforms and procedures that I've
    written into this conference are in place.
    
    Less publicized are the cases of child abuse committed by employees of
    city and state agencies.  Even the most basic statistical information
    has been denied to the press regarding these cases.
    
    Less publicized is the good work done by priests throughout the world.

    re: .14

    I was suggesting nothing.  Someone cried foul with regard to the media
    exposure of abusive Roman Catholic priests versus Anglican priests.  I
    just wanted to know if there was indeed an equality in the incidents
    of child molestation among the two groups.  

    I'm not trying to cast aspersions upon the priesthood.  Priests are
    just men and as a lot are no more or less virtuous than other men.  I
    hope you don't take offense, because none is meant.  I would consider
    *forced* celibacy deviant behavior, just as I would consider suppression
    of any natural emotion unhealthy. I'm not ready to say the result of
    this suppression is pedophilia.  On the surface the linking of the two
    (forced celibacy/child molestation) *seems* at least worthy of
    examination.  If it's poppycock then fine, but let's not be too
    cavalier in our dismissal.

    > The reluctantance by the Roman Catholic Church is an institutional
    > reaction, well-publicized, and now reforms and procedures that I've
    > written into this conference are in place.

    Which is what I see as the main problem.  Reluctance for years
    (decades, centuries?) in acknowledging the problem, albeit small
    perhaps.  Then only after intense media exposure the church is dragged,
    kicking and screaming, to instituting reforms.


    Eric

    (I don't want to go down the rat hole of all that's wrong with
    government agencies in this conference.  I'd like to solve one of the
    worlds problems at a time :^) )

    Are you suggesting that there are men who are priests against their
    will?  A Roman Catholic priest can make the choice to no longer perform
    the sacramental functions of a  priest and seek a release from their
    obligation to celibacy and vows if they have made vows.

    If you want to gloat that the Roman Catholic Church has had a problem
    with sexual abuse by priests for years, then go ahead.  The fascination
    and horror of it make it a well-publicized story in contrast to other
    less-publicized and more widespread and more ordinary incidents of
    sexual abuse.

Note 649.14

>    Less publicized is the good work done by priests throughout the world.
    
    So, start publicizing it.  See note 650.
    
Richard

    re .16

    > If you want to gloat that the Roman Catholic Church has had a problem

    Gloat!? Gloat!?  What a pathetic comment... If you only knew the
    sadness and frustration that I feel over the institutional foot
    dragging and denial in this issue.  I find NO joy in this.  Do you
    think everyone who thinks the RCC has room for improvement is
    snickering behind your back?  Don't try to cast yourself as the martyr;
    at least no on my account.  I feel the frustration that you as a
    professed devout Catholic should feel, in my opinion.  We're not
    talking about public drunkenness here, this is child molestation!


    > Are you suggesting that there are men who are priests against their
    > will?  A Roman Catholic priest can make the choice to no longer perform
    > the sacramental functions of a  priest and seek a release from their
    > obligation to celibacy and vows if they have made vows.

    I think you trivialize the commitment some priest have for their
    vocation.  If a priest wishes to continue in the vocation that he loves
    he is indeed *forced* to remain celibate.  I NEVER said that anyone was
    forced to be a priest.  Your twisting my words, intentionally or not. 
    I also NEVER said that it did indeed lead to child molestation.  Maybe
    I'm confusing the note by talking about two issues at once (celibacy
    and institutional blindness).  I, personally, am not trying to link the
    two.

    I find it truly sad that you continue to bring up atrocities within
    government agencies, foster homes, and media sensationalism as if it in
    some way lessened the seriousness of this problem, no matter how
    infrequent the occurrence.   

	This topic is quiet, but far from dead.

	Until fairly recently, I was willing to bet that, by the end of
	the century, the Roman Catholic Church would have revised its
	stand on celibacy in the priesthood, allowing priests to marry
	and actively encouraging married people to take the cloth. (I
	would have expected the ordination of the first female priests
	to follow shortly on the heels of this change of stance).

	Now, I'm not so sure. The Pope recently named 30 priests who, in
	the near future, will be elevated to Cardinalship. In the BBC
	religious affairs programme, a Catholic Priest says that 28 of
	those named can be identified as being "conservative to very
	conservative".  Since the Cardinals elect the Pope, it is
	reasonable to assume that the Pope, by these appointments, is
	securing a continuation -- maybe even a deepening -- of his own
	line far into the next century. If this is so, I assume that the
	requirements for a celibate prieshood will not be relaxed.

	Already, more than 40% of parishes world-wide are without priests
	and the faithful have no access to the Eucharist. The numbers of
	priests leaving the priesthood is increasing alarmingly. More than
	100000 world-wide in the last 20 years. The recruiting of new
	priests is also in the doldrums and less than 10% of losses are
	being made good. 
	
	Several studies have identified compulsory celibacy and being the
	primary root cause for this exodus. In many countries, societies/
	clubs/groups have been formed by ex-priests  -- or ex-clerics, as
	they prefer to be called - and, in many cases, their wives. Since
	the mid-80's, these groups have formed a loose world association
	and hold a regular (I think annual) congress. They are appealing
	for changes in church structure including the rules on celibacy.
	(Many of these ex-clerics are actually ministering to the, other-
	wise neglected, faithful; often with the tacit agreement of their
	Bishops.

	David Rice, himself once a Priest who left in 1977 to marry, in
	a recent book (Shattered Vows, Penguin, 1990) provided most of
	the above information after interviewing hundreds of priests
	(celibate and non-celibate) around the world, and studying the
	works of some of the national groups mentioned. He also points
	out that the Second Vatican Council, in "Gaudium et Spes", by 
    	proclaiming the sacredness of the marriage bond, and, specifically:
    	"the actions within marriage, by which the couple are united
    	intimately and chastely, are noble and wothy ones" (�49) effectively
    	pulled the rug out from under any of the traditionl arguments for the
	continuance of compulsory celibacy.

	Such compulsory celibacy has a rather strange historical pedigree.
	Bearing in mind the dangers of oversimplification, a brief review
	of the history of celibacy seems appropriate.

	To begin with, neither Jesus (who chose married men) nor the
	scriptures which followed him, required celibacy although it was
	seen as apt for the soon-expected end of the world (more important
	concerns!). Paul, though apparently regarding celibacy as superior,
	left it as a free choice and pointed out that he had no guidance
	from God on the matter. (1 Cor.,25:40).

	In the following 3 centuries, the theme was a non-issue and both
	married and single priests ministered. Clement of Alexandria wrote
	"Really also the husband of one wife is accepted by the Church, be
	he priest, deacon or layman, as long as he uses marriage without
	blame."

	In the fourth century, at a time when the Church was levering its
	way into the pagan life of Clementine, the pagan notions of ritual
	purity were adapted to Church use. (see also "The Church with a
	Human Face" by Edward Schillabeeckx). There came a law that forbade
	a married priest from having sexual intercourse the night before
	celebrating the Eucharist. When the Western Church began to
	celebrate daily, this abstinence became, de jure, a permanent
	condition for married priests. St. Jerome, expressing the ideas of
	both pagans and Christians at the time wrote: "All sexual inter-
	course is impure."

	This situation held until 1139 when the Second Lateran Council
	took the final step and forbade altogether the marriage of priests
	and declared all such marriages as null and void. The desire for
	abstinence had become a law of celibacy.

	What many possibly do not realize: most priests do not take a vow
	of celibacy (nor of poverty, or silence, etc), only those entering
	certain Orders do so. They do take an oath of alliegance to the
	Church and swear obedience to their Bishop. It is from these vows
	that a priest needing to leave the clerus requests dispensation.

	Greetings, Derek.
                                 

.19
> 	Until fairly recently, I was willing to bet that, by the end of
> 	the century, the Roman Catholic Church would have revised its
> 	stand on celibacy in the priesthood, allowing priests to marry
> 	and actively encouraging married people to take the cloth. (I
> 	would have expected the ordination of the first female priests
> 	to follow shortly on the heels of this change of stance).

Maybe it has come sooner than you think.

Married priests have always been permitted to some degree or another in the
Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church, and are not discouraged in those Rites.
Not only that, but many married priest-converts from the Anglican church have
been ordained in the Catholic Church as priests and permitted to exercise their
priesthood while remaining married and non-celibate.

However, the ordination of women will never happen until the end of time, since
Pope John Paul II infallibly declared this to be impossible in his recent
letter, _Ordinatio Sacerdotalis_.

> 	Already, more than 40% of parishes world-wide are without priests
> 	and the faithful have no access to the Eucharist. The numbers of
> 	priests leaving the priesthood is increasing alarmingly. More than
> 	100000 world-wide in the last 20 years. The recruiting of new
> 	priests is also in the doldrums and less than 10% of losses are
> 	being made good. 

Interestingly enough, this lack of priests exists most strongly in dioceses
which are liberal -- pushing the causes for example that you are pushing -- and
the most strongly conservative dioceses have men beating down their doors to
enter the seminary.  Seminaries in liberal dioceses like Los Angeles are empty,
while seminaries in conservative dioceses like Peoria are full. Doesn't exactly
fit well with your theory.

Not only that, but in some countries -- for example, Africa, just to name one
-- vocations are booming, probably because those countries are not as
preoccupied with sex and materialism as countries like the United States are.

Given how long the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church has had a celibate
priesthood, it would surprise me if the source of this lack of priests was
merely the imposition of celibacy, and not also or even primarily a consequence
of a rise in materialism and a degeneration of the culture.  If the celibate
priesthood survived for 1,000 years and even longer, surely human nature can
handle it?

But I might add -- when you are in charge of a parish with 5,000 to 10,000
parishoners, sometimes as their only priest, do you have time to devote to 
a wife and family?  Even Protestant churches, which have a considerably higher
minister-to-member ratio, the rate of divorce and adultery is high because of
the stress of trying to handle a family and pastor a church.  Talk to a priest
and ask him how much free time he has, much less how much time he would have
to devote to raising a family!  I don't think anyone could bear such stress.

Let's not even mention that parishoners today are not inclined to give very
much money and parishes have very little money.  Priests get paid $500 a month
or so -- in order to support a family, you would have to pay them at least
five, six, or seven times as much.

Finally, I might point out in the Eastern Orthodox church, which has a
priesthood similar to the Catholic Church but without mandatory celibacy, they
are having just as bad a vocations crisis, and to make matters worse, their
priests' average age is higher.

Basically, the vocations crisis is not caused by the imposition of celibacy,
but by a lack of spiritual values and I daresay a culture too addicted to and
enslaved to sexual pleasure, who make fun of and denegrate those who choose
to live celibately.  You are simply foolish to suggest that if these poor
priests were able to get laid, all the church's vocations problems would be
solved.  It just ain't true.

> 	To begin with, neither Jesus (who chose married men) 

How do you know, other than Peter, since Scripture mentions his mother in law?
Don't you think it strange that other than that, Scripture does not mention
a single wife of any of the Apostles?

Eric Ewanco

    "other than Peter"  we don't know that there were married priests.
    
    A mighty big exception considering many Catholics consider Peter the
    first Patriarch of the Catholic Church.
    
    So we have an infallible Pope decreeing something different than what
    was instituted by Jesus.
    
    By the way, Paul also mentions that other apostles are married.
    
                                       Patricia
    
    

>    A mighty big exception considering many Catholics consider Peter the
>    first Patriarch of the Catholic Church.
    
>    So we have an infallible Pope decreeing something different than what
>    was instituted by Jesus.
    
Don't mock what you obviously don't comprehend.

The celibate priesthood is a discipline, not a doctrine, as I have already
proven, because there have always been married priests in the Catholic Church.
The Pope is always clear to point out that the celibate priesthood is only a
discipline and is subject to change.  Hence it has absolutely nothing to do
with doctrine, or infallibility, or institution by Jesus, unlike the all-male
priesthood, which is an infallible, divinely-revealed truth never subject to
change.

Many of the early Popes were married, and it does not undermine the current
discipline in any way to admit that universal celibacy in the Latin Rite
was not implemented until at the earliest the 7th or 8th century.

Eric

    >Hence it has absolutely nothing to do with doctrine, or infallibility, or 
    >institution by Jesus, unlike the all-male priesthood, which is an
    >infallible, divinely-revealed truth never subject to change.
    
    
    Sexism in all its forms is EVIL especially when practiced by a body
    at least partially responsible for universal collective morality.
    
    Calling Sexism a divinely revealed truth is a hideous lie.
    
    It ignores all the Women witnesses to the ressurections, Prisca, Phoebe
    and many other named and unnamed women apostles.
    
    Calling Sexism "Divinely Ordained" gives lots of men a "divine
    ordained" excuse to practice it in their secular lifes.
    
    "Separate but Equal"  has been proven to be a fallacy and a lie.
    
    Patricia
    
    
    

	Re: .20 Eric Ewanco

	Hello Eric. Thanks for your comments.

	> Maybe it will come sooner than you think.

	Sure, I knew about the practices of the Eastern Church but was
	referring to the Western Church -- which maybe was not sufficiently
	clear from my opening.

	My note was referring to a general policy rather than allowing for
	the exceptions. The ordination of married priests who have left the
	(mostly) Anglican church is a typical exception. Their ordination
	into the HRC&AC has, of course, a strategic undertone: These priests
	are leaving their mother church mostly because they object to that
	church's stance on women being ordained. The Catholic church sees the
	advantage of getting these people into their ranks to water down the
	rising tide of internal demand for the ordination of women.

	Most of these converted priests are shunted into backwater jobs like
	jail or hospital ministries (by which I do not mean to devalue the
	need for these ministries) with little or no exposure to everyday
	parish work. They are denied teaching posts completely, and only
	very few get to work on any of the thousands of publishing ventures
	of the Church.

	> However, the ordination of women will never happen until the end
	> of time.

	I simply cannot believe this. The history of the Church is one of
	continuous change. Celibacy is one example; the changes in attitude
	to human rights, suffrage and a host of others could be cited. I am
	confident that, sooner or later, the Catholic Church will remember
	that Jesus is their founding father. And the attitude of Jesus toward
	women needs no expansion here, I assume. No, Eric, there is reason
	to hope, despite Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

	If nothing else, the fear of loss of market share will add fuel to 
	the forces for change.

	> Interestingly enough, this lack of priests exists most strongly
	> in dioceses which are liberal ...

	This is, as you probably know, a crass oversimplification of a very
	complex question. Let me try to explain. Most Latin-American dioceses
	would, today, be counted as liberal (although it is not a million
	years ago that this was different). In most of the parishes, a single
	priest is an outsider and many priests have taken a woman (not always
	in wedlock) simply to gain acceptance, in order to perform his
	ministry to the best of his ability. As a result, these priests have
	been, in some cases, excommunicated, in other cases, laitised (sp?).
	This means that they are forbidden to officiate at Mass and to
	offer certain blessings. (Many do so, with the tacit agreement of
	their Bishops but they do not, of course, appear in the official 
	statistics). As a result, one (chaste/celibate) priest may have a
	parish of some 15000 souls even though he may have 3, 4 or more
	"unofficial" assistants).

	That the seminaries are full is also true in Austria (which is a
	very conservative country). But the numbers of students who are
	finally ordained is very small.  And it lays in the nature of 
	things, that people who genuinely feel drawn to the priesthood
	naturally tend towards centres where they will feel at home. It
	it called the "ghetto mentality".

	Also, the practice -- as is common in some countries -- of taking
	very young boys (13 or even younger) into seminaries, and virtually
	shutting them off from the rest of the world until they are ordained
	also leads to a statistical balance in favour of the conservative
	pole. It does nothing, however, to suppress the forces of nature
	which, usually too late, emerge and cause the young priest a life
	of distress battling against the "sins of the flesh".

	> ... because those countries are not so preoccupied with sex and
	> materialism as countries like the United States are.

	On preoccupation with sex, I can only refer the Church to the proverb
    	that those who live in glass-houses...

	And with regard to materialism: one of the prime movers underlying
	the laws of celibacy was the fear that church property could be
	inherited by the children (sons of course) of priests. Plenty of room
	for glass-houses on church land!

	The body of the church, your neighbors and mine, want answers to 
	questions about loneliness, AIDS, refugees, drug-dependancy, jobless-
	ness, alcohol abuse, wife-beating and much more. They do not need
	never-ending replays of advice on bedroom practices or uterus
    	operations.

	[I'll continue in the next note: as a mod, I must be wary of over-
	 stepping the 100-lines rule].

	drb.

	Continued from -1

	Permitting the ordination of married priests would at a blow solve
	many of the major problems of the HRC&AC.

	- reduce the incidence of priests who secretly have affairs. This
	  is fair to both the priest and the woman so used
	
	- reduce the numbers of priest leaving the church

	- give the priests fuller access to the people to whom he is 
	  ministering

	- reduce the incidene of (oh so abhorrant) homosexuality

	- allow priest to look their Bishop and ther parishoners squarely
	  in the eye

	- priests who marry before ordination will be more likely to have a
	  wife who, knowing what she was letting herself into, would be 
	  more of a support than a burden to her husbands ministry

	- the married, father priest would be more able to identify with
	  the problems of his parishoners

	- etc etc etc

	The church is, IMO, committing the greatest sin in its burdoning
	these dedicated people with feelings of guilt. And if you come with
	the standard "everyone is responsible for his own feelings", I 
	will puke.

	The evidence from the Evangelical Church and others show that there
	is no need to fear divorce. Divorce rates in the priesthood are one
	tenth and less of the local norms.

	Contrary to your information on the Eastern Orthodox Church, mine
	says that they are suffering nothing like the crises which are facing
	the Western Church. Concerning average age, foe example, my source
	gives 42.6 years in Western and 44.2 in Eastern Churches. And a 
	little superscript 1 point to the fact that the Eastern numbers only
	include ordained priests, not seminarists. Hardly a cause for
	concern.

	> How do you know, other than Peter...?

	Isn't that enough. After all, the (monumental) church in Rome is
	named after him.  Have you been to Rome?  There's this marvellous
	road leading up to the welcoming, widely spreading arms of the church
    	(the semicircular rows of columns do give an embracing impression). 
	Then, you get close up and there are these great thick walls
	surrounding the Vatican, strong enough to keep out all comers.
	Mother church and Father state.

	Greetings, Derek.