|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Clerical Celibacy
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
Well, I'm afraid I'm starting this topic a bit 'Purgatory-lite'.
For clerical and episcopal celibacy, I have only this: ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Celibacy itself I think, is intensely liberating, but one needs to arrive at the appreciation of same (eg. a bit wasted on hormonal teenagers longing for intimacy). I also think it is undervalued - and that this is sad. Especially when it is undervalued by people who should be championing it ie. those that take a... 'high view of scripture'. St Paul thought it was the ducks nuts!
I think drawing the church leaders who are higher up the food chain from the monastic tradition or from celibates is fantastic - and I have always wondered how married Bishops manage to do the episcopal things while juggling a partner, family, mortgage etc.
I'm wondering if it's a measure of how Bishops have come to be adminstrators rather than like Bishops of old, that they can have both a full secular and clerical life.
I would want someone who is defending and interpreting doctrine to be given to a life of prayer and contemplation and generally cultivating holiness! And free from the stresses of secular life!
I mean, I wouldn't want someone sitting down to decide on how the Church is going to respond to a particular situation while feeling ratty because the partner didn't put out; or because the kids are shitty because they want iPods and there's no money; or even how the Hell am i going to retire when all I have is this poxy stipend and no house?
How do I know I'm going to get them at their Godliest?! ![[Biased]](wink.gif) (Who knows, Lambeth might have affirmed homosexual practice if all those Bishops had got some the night before! "I didn't get any so those pooves can't have any").
[ 18. October 2005, 18:46: Message edited by: Belisarius ]
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Phos Hilaron
Shipmate
# 6914
|
Posted
I'd certainly agree with you that celibacy can be a great advantage, if it's what the Bishop / Priest in mind is cut out for. To not have to worry about family matters must free up more time to worry about ecclesiastical matters! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 1684 | From: Choson | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Another point is that you speak of bishops and other clergy 'higher up the food chain' (an interesting interpretation of the Body) as those who decide the doctrine and stance of the Church.
You see, I would say that Christian leaders are there to enable the whole Church to determine its doctrine and decide its actions. They don't do it for all the rest of us, but enable us all to do it together. So they need to be like everyone else, not special and superior.
Incarnation is the ideal.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Coot:
I think drawing the church leaders who are higher up the food chain from the monastic tradition or from celibates is fantastic - and I have always wondered how married Bishops manage to do the episcopal things while juggling a partner, family, mortgage etc.
As many married bishops will tell you they are able to concentrate on their episcopal role because they have a partner who deals mostly with the house, family aspects of life, dog, finance, holiday planning etc. Quite a few married bishops I know work virtually as a couple to get through both his work and the private life stuff. I wouldn't mind a wife like that, myself!
quote:
I'm wondering if it's a measure of how Bishops have come to be adminstrators rather than like Bishops of old, that they can have both a full secular and clerical life.
You say that like it's a bad thing! And how are you distinguishing between secular and clerical? The Bishop is being secular when he goes out to buy toothpaste, visits the loo, spends time with his children, goes to the theatre; but he's being clerical when he's reading his office, thinking holy thoughts, or listening to clergy pastoral problems? Is this a useful distinction? And why should married Bishops be considered more 'secular' than unmarried? Have you fallen into the trap of imagining that unmarried clergy are more free of the situation of living in the world than married clergy?
quote:
I would want someone who is defending and interpreting doctrine to be given to a life of prayer and contemplation and generally cultivating holiness! And free from the stresses of secular life!
I mean, I wouldn't want someone sitting down to decide on how the Church is going to respond to a particular situation while feeling ratty because the partner didn't put out; or because the kids are shitty because they want iPods and there's no money; or even how the Hell am i going to retire when all I have is this poxy stipend and no house?
It's one thing to want to provide the environment most likely to produce the best results from such people. But it's another to suggest that 'cultivating holiness' is something better done outside marriage. Some bishops, I'm sure, don't always cope well with marrying their peculiar church role with their role of husband, father etc. But equally for many, if not most, I'm sure it could act as a valuable contributor to what they can offer to ministry.
quote:
How do I know I'm going to get them at their Godliest?! (Who knows, Lambeth might have affirmed homosexual practice if all those Bishops had got some the night before! "I didn't get any so those pooves can't have any").
Come on, Coot. You haven't really thought this through, have you ?
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Coot:
... married Bishops ...
One could argue that 1 Timothy requires bishops to be married -- "the husband of one wife". However, that would likely be an illegitimate argument. As someone said, Jewish men were married, as a rule, to the point of it not being mentioned until it was specially relevant. For example, Peter's wife is never mentioned, but his mother-in-law is.
So Timothy could best be read to describe someone with a stable homelife.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Newman's Own
Shipmate
# 420
|
Posted
I myself am a vowed celibate, and would be the last to deny that it can be very enriching in one's religious life. However, for secular RC priests, the approach to celibacy can vary. For some, especially those who are very ascetic and love monastic practises, the celibacy can be incorporated very fruitfully into a life much centred on prayer. (And this does not mean I think others are not dedicated to prayer! But, in all states of life, some people find that their work is central, others their prayer life in itself.) For others, the involvement in certain ministries is such a total focus that they do not seem to devote time to anything else. Yet I have the impression (and this from knowing hundreds of Roman priests) that many of them did not embrace celibacy in the manner of a monastic professing a vow of chastity, but accepted it as a discipline which was part of becoming a priest.
There is a difference. One who is dedicated to consecrated life (monastic, or similar vows lived outside of a monastery) has vowed chastity as a part of one's entire religious commitment. A parish priest who accepted that his ordination would mean celibacy would not have his essential vocation affected if he were to marry - even if, in living with the obligation, he had managed to integrate this well.
The rule of celibacy for the Latin Rite (Roman priests of other rites may marry) was related to property originally. The history is interesting and sometimes dreadful (as when it first was imposed, and married priests had to see their wives reduced to concubine status).
There are difficulties I could see if the RC Church no longer imposed celibacy on its secular clergy. For example, RC churches have not had to deal with providing salaries sufficient to maintain families. (In some cases, when Anglican priests were incardinated into RC dioceses, the problem of providing sufficient housing alone - since some of them had large families at incardination, or several children born afterward - was difficult. Many celibate parish priests had no funds for an assistant, or retired priests had inadequate housing, and suddenly a diocese would need to buy a large house for a transplanted Anglican with five children.)
I see no reason why secular priests should not marry, of course. Yet I do see a dilemma now which perhaps has never existed, at least not to this extent. The sex abuse scandals are a disgrace, and the 'covering up' appalling, but the media has made it appear that paedophilia is an epidemic amongst the clergy. Reports of who instituted law suits make no allowance for that accusations often are false.
If anyone is a paedophile, a marriage is no 'cure' - all it would give him were children of his own to molest, and a wife over whom to exercise the perverse, pathological cruel power which is characteristic of those in this category. (Celibacy does not cause paedophilia - most paedophiles have quite a diversity of sexual experience...) Were the idea to grow that RC priests should be allowed to marry because they otherwise would be raping the kids, it would be a highly twisted view of marriage.
Roman priests would have dilemmas unique to their sister church. With having to promote the official line (no contraception, for example), some might be forced to live a lie.
I shall be very interested to see how RCs comment on this thread.
--------------------
Cheers,
Elizabeth
“History as Revelation is seldom very revealing, and histories of holiness are full of holes.” - Dermot Quinn
Posts: 6740 | From: Library or pub | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
The early church Fathers mostly interpreted the requirement that the bishop be a "one-woman man" (literal translation!) as meaning that they should not remarry after being widowed or divorced. I think the Orthodox still use that rule.
Most Protestants seem to think it means that they should not be polygamous or promiscuous. Though I have once or twice heard it seriously argued that it means that they must be married.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Married as a rule, yes. Particularly and perhaps especially and mandatorily for an elder of a parish. And with teenage kids. A bit of tent-making on the side too, unless pastoral social work fills that niche.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Newman's Own
Shipmate
# 420
|
Posted
Martin, you are being much too restrictive... teenage kids are mandatory? Should those with babies be sent to stock SPCK stores (baby in hand, not on shelf), and those whose children are grown go off to dusty, quiet university libraries? (Lord have mercy, is that last perfection.... )
Referring to Ken's post - I have heard (and disliked) the idea that clergy must be married at times. Though I believe that the majority of the population would do best to be married, it is unfortunate if the possibility that one could be called to celibacy is discounted completely.
--------------------
Cheers,
Elizabeth
“History as Revelation is seldom very revealing, and histories of holiness are full of holes.” - Dermot Quinn
Posts: 6740 | From: Library or pub | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
In a local pastoral capacity in a broad age spectrum congregation, I'd put it at 80%. Celibate Paul puts it higher, n'est ce pas?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
We don't know that Paul was celibate. Just that he was not married at the time in which the Acts of the Apostles is set.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Flubb
Shipmate
# 918
|
Posted
As part of the Sanhedrin, he'd have to be married.
(Or so I remember hazily)
--------------------
In cyberspace everyone can hear your spleen...
Posts: 234 | From: St. Androos | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
If so we deduce he was divorced or widowered. Chaste and faithful either way.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
I do think that there is an overlap between the higher incidences of pedophilia in the celibate clergy. Not that the celibacy makes them pedophiles, but rather I think there are two things which happen:
1) Men who have such urges enter a celibate devotion in an effort to keep them at bay, rather than seek help (a sort of "self-medicating" if you will), but becuase the issue continues not to be addressed, and there is no interaction which may teach appropriate sexual interaction with adults, actions with children wind up happening or
2) Frequently, men who opt for the celibate life as clergy start from a rather inexperienced state. It is less that they have chosen to be celibate than they have chosen to be a priest and have remained quite immature in this area. It is quite possible to acheive maturity in relationships while not having sex! I was touched, and rather impressed to find out that even JP2 had been in love with a woman when he was young. He then chose what was right for him, but it was making a knowing rejection of sexual relations, not just blindly going into it. This immaturity then can wind up coming out not with these men having sexual urges for young children, but rather that is the opportunity that presents itself and they take it.
If celibacy for clergy is desired, these two instances have to find a way to be screened for to prevent issues.
But personally, Paul or no Paul, I have strong objections to men who've never experienced sex or relations of love deepened and strengthened with sex as a part of it telling me how to live my sex life. Or even my love life. It just seems so hypocritical to me.
I think there's also some conclusions to be drawn from the number of people (most GLEs, but some not) who waited til marriage and then regretted that they'd ever done so, or now that their marriage is over, can't believe they'd ever held sex in such a fearsome place in the first place. As none other than my grandma says "True, there's only one first time. But there's only one third time and only one 1845 time, and so on. the trick is to make them ALL special." Its about the only thing my Gran ever said that made sense.
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
I think there's also some conclusions to be drawn from the number of people (most GLEs, but some not) who waited til marriage and then regretted that they'd ever done so, or now that their marriage is over, can't believe they'd ever held sex in such a fearsome place in the first place.
Who are these strange tribe of people?
Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
You don't have to look far to find them, AR. They're everywhere!
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The early church Fathers mostly interpreted the requirement that the bishop be a "one-woman man" (literal translation!) as meaning that they should not remarry after being widowed or divorced. I think the Orthodox still use that rule.
Most Protestants seem to think it means that they should not be polygamous or promiscuous. Though I have once or twice heard it seriously argued that it means that they must be married.
And many Prots who don't argue that still act as if that is the case. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
For a Christian to choose a single life (or at least make the most of their singleness) to focus on ministry is quite Biblical. (See I Corinth 7.) But for the church to require singleness or celebacy is quite another matter. Paul, in the aformentioned Timothy passage required that bishops be one woman men, not single.
I do strongly object to blaming the recent scandals on celebacy. Frankly, that is too close to being a slur on life-long or even long-term singles. But I think the shortage of priests can be largely blamed on celebacy. Most men, even those committed to ministry, are not going to give up the possibility of marriage. And I don't think the church should ask them to.
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
I do think that there is an overlap between the higher incidences of pedophilia in the celibate clergy.
Is there any meaningful statistics proving that there is a higher incidence among celibate clergy? Obviously, any such case becomes highly publicised, but that doesn't prove that there are more or less cases than among non-celibate clergy or other men in general. My personal bet would be that the highest incidence occurs within families, just as for adult rape.
I think the important point about celibacy is that it has to come as a calling, not be forced by circumstance. Then it can be a blessing, otherwise it may easily become a curse. Whether this calling should be implied by the calling to priesthood is an interesting question. I've posted elsewhere that I think the answer is "yes and no" . (Meaning: there should be two different types of priests, a celibate "mission" one, and a non-celibate "parish" on.)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
My understanding is there is a higher rate of molestation among celibate clergy than there is amongst non-celibate clergy. At least in the USA. And we're certainly on top of the reporting of these things at the moment, courtesy of our here in Boston abuse scandal.
It does happen in other religions, etc, but there seems to have been a much higher rate here in the RCC (whcih are the only celibate clergy I know of)
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
My understanding is there is a higher rate of molestation among celibate clergy than there is amongst non-celibate clergy.
Says who based on what?
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
At least in the USA. And we're certainly on top of the reporting of these things at the moment, courtesy of our here in Boston abuse scandal.
1) I respect the average reporter about as much as the average politican. 2) A media frenzy can distort reality severly. Most sexual crimes of any kind stay unreported. If suddenly a larger percentage is reported in one group, because of media attention, then it may just appear as if there's more crime in that group. 3) A pedophile celibate priest is an even better story than a pedophile non-celibate priest, and far better than just a "normal" pedophile - just because of the celibacy (and priesthood). There's an automatic bias both in the reporting and in the public perception.
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
It does happen in other religions, etc, but there seems to have been a much higher rate here in the RCC (whcih are the only celibate clergy I know of)
"Much higher", is it? Says who based on what?
I'm all for driving out this evil, and for giving the RCC a strong wakeup call on the issue of sexual abuse. But I also believe the public is trying to re-gain an illusion of security by assuming that these things happen mainly with sex-starved clergy. Avoid them, and your kids will be fine. Not so, I'm afraid...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chrysalis
Apprentice
# 9166
|
Posted
Going back to the original post, I too can see practical advantages to celibate clergy.
1.It makes life easier if moving parishes/churches isn't clouded by concerns over different GCSE syllabuses and the availabilty of quality taekwondo classes etc for the kids.
2.Celibacy also means your simpler life style choice is just a choice for you and you don't have the to worry about either indoctrinating your offspring or scarring them for life with church fall-out.
3. The dilemmas like - am I working now? or is this time off? am I in role or am I just me at the moment? are probably less of an issue.
However the problem is that potential clergy sometimes fall in love - they may decide to turn their back on married life - but some would say that were rather selfish - does the partner's happiness not enter into the equation?
I am in love with a clergyman and I'm glad he's not celibate. I don't know whether he would be a better 'priest' if single - I like to think he would not be so whole.
Celibacy has practical advantages and if we're in the culturally popular game of achieving measurable targets I'd probably vote for it.
Married clergy is messier, the church doesn't really know what to do with people like me - other than hope they can become unpaid PAs and housekeepers - but what if they have a vocation too? (I'm talking medicine or education). Messier, more complicated is probably more like my sepia view of the Kingdom of God. So, despite thinking full time Christian ministry is pretty lousy for clergy families, I think allowing clergy long term partners is a good thing. If your view of the Kingdom of God is more black and white with a certainty of what it's all about, then you'll probably opt for celibacy.
Posts: 6 | From: West Yorkshire | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
My understanding is there is a higher rate of molestation among celibate clergy than there is amongst non-celibate clergy.
Says who based on what?
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
At least in the USA. And we're certainly on top of the reporting of these things at the moment, courtesy of our here in Boston abuse scandal.
1) I respect the average reporter about as much as the average politican. 2) A media frenzy can distort reality severly. Most sexual crimes of any kind stay unreported. If suddenly a larger percentage is reported in one group, because of media attention, then it may just appear as if there's more crime in that group. 3) A pedophile celibate priest is an even better story than a pedophile non-celibate priest, and far better than just a "normal" pedophile - just because of the celibacy (and priesthood). There's an automatic bias both in the reporting and in the public perception.
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
It does happen in other religions, etc, but there seems to have been a much higher rate here in the RCC (whcih are the only celibate clergy I know of)
"Much higher", is it? Says who based on what?
I'm all for driving out this evil, and for giving the RCC a strong wakeup call on the issue of sexual abuse. But I also believe the public is trying to re-gain an illusion of security by assuming that these things happen mainly with sex-starved clergy. Avoid them, and your kids will be fine. Not so, I'm afraid...
Well, it is nice to know that since you don't trust journalists (even the entire team of Pulitzer prize winners who uncovered teh scandal of transferring molesting priests from parish to parish), that you obviously don't then trust the Catholic Church either, who a) had a cardinal resign on this issue, b) has settled numerous claims (up to 530 people at a time) and paid out millions of dollars to victims, and c) even today 1) had had a defrocked priest charged on new charges, 2) had a current priest ordered to undergo evaluation for being accused of soliciting a mother and daughter for oral sex in a public restaurant.
Here, at least, we're on the lookout for such things. There have been reports of other things happening in other churches, but not to such scale and nowhere near the frequency. And the reporters you don't trust seem to go out of their way to say that they don't think it is the celibacy that is causing the pedophilia, but rather it is the reasons I alluded to earlier.
The real story for the public is of course the hypocrisy. The RCC claims to hold the moral high ground and dictate sexual mores for their members, with particular reference to no out of wedlock sex, and their view that homosexuality is a sin. They're hardly quiet about it. But they were very quiet about the men espousing these views having sex out of wedlock (and having made public vows of chastity) and with not just children, but most frequently with boys.
The thing is, you can't provide any studies that shows your views are any more correct, if what you say that it does indeed remain untalked about. So I say "this many RCC priests in various countries have been charged" and you say "well it is all hidden". In a nutshell, particularly because you've decided not to trust the people who are reporting it, you've just decided you're not going to believe anything anyway, so frankly I give your views pretty damn short shrift.
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The early church Fathers mostly interpreted the requirement that the bishop be a "one-woman man" (literal translation!) as meaning that they should not remarry after being widowed or divorced. I think the Orthodox still use that rule.
In Orthodoxy, a married man may become a priest, but not a bishop. And he can become a priest only if it's his first marriage, and his wife's first marriage as well.
A priest cannot marry. If he's single when he becomes a priest, then he can never marry. If he's married when he becomes a priest, he can't remarry if his wife dies or if they divorce.
In general, in Orthodoxy, parish priests are married. Priests who don't marry are most often monastics.
It works for us.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175
|
Posted
quote:
The real story for the public is of course the hypocrisy. The RCC claims to hold the moral high ground and dictate sexual mores for their members, with particular reference to no out of wedlock sex, and their view that homosexuality is a sin. They're hardly quiet about it. But they were very quiet about the men espousing these views having sex out of wedlock (and having made public vows of chastity) and with not just children, but most frequently with boys.
This is a oft-repeated non-sensical statement. It simply does not follow that, by stating that certain sexual acts are sinful, the Catholic Church is thereby obligated to publically denounce her members - clergy or lay - when the authorities discover that they have violate these same moral standards. That is because it is wrong to disclose the true faults, sins, defects, etc. of a person to a third party who does not know the faults, unless that person has a need to know. There are times when others - or even the public at large - has the need to know someone's evil acts, but the public "need to know" in most sex abuse cases is far, far less than is widely believed or asserted.
Frankly, unless absolutely necessary, I would prefer that bishops not rat on their pedophile or pederast clergy to the authorities or to the public for the same reason that I would not want bishops to rat on the randy ways of a parish leader here or there. Secrecy - or discretion - is fine by me, so long as the priest or lay person is not placed back into a pastoral role that entails serious risk of that person using his position for abusive purposes, i.e., the bishop should place a pedophile priest who has undergone treatment as a nursing home chaplain or prison chaplain and not in a parish where there are ready-made temptations. That, in my mind, was precisely where too many bishops failed.
--------------------
"Had the Dean's daughter worn a bra that afternoon, Norman Shotover might never have found out about the Church of England; still less about how to fly"
A.N. Wilson
Posts: 3788 | From: Your Disquieted Conscience | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175
|
Posted
And, I forgot to add, celibacy has nothing to do with the so-called "hypocrisy" argument. The Anglican Church where celibacy is not required has often reacted the same way to sexual abusers as the Catholic Church. The Australian Anglican Church is the best example, but it is far from the only one.
--------------------
"Had the Dean's daughter worn a bra that afternoon, Norman Shotover might never have found out about the Church of England; still less about how to fly"
A.N. Wilson
Posts: 3788 | From: Your Disquieted Conscience | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Basselope:
Frankly, unless absolutely necessary, I would prefer that bishops not rat on their pedophile or pederast clergy to the authorities or to the public
You might prefer it, but that sort of thinking is likely to lead to the almost complete disappearance of the Roman Catholic Church in some parts of North America. (Not that I mind much - they can all come and join us Protestants as far as I'm concerned)
quote:
Secrecy - or discretion - is fine by me, so long as the priest or lay person is not placed back into a pastoral role that entails serious risk
But they were put back into such roles, so now no-one believes the bishops when they say they aren't, so the only way that credibility can be re-established is by doing everything in public.
quote:
the bishop should place a pedophile priest who has undergone treatment as a nursing home chaplain or prison chaplain
In Britain, if such a person were to become a prison chaplain it is very likely that they would be murdered if it were to become known. In fact almost certain. Prisoners accused of sexual abuse have to be locked up separately for their own pretection. A chaplain would be almost universally regarded as a dangerous hypocrite by the prisoners, and possibly by many of the staff as well.
And if you think that a prison is not a place where vulnerable young people are at risk of abuse, you must have a very rosy idea of prison.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
radclyffe hall
Shipmate
# 4560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Basselope:
I would prefer that bishops not rat on their pedophile or pederast clergy to the authorities or to the public
Frankly I am amazed at this sentiment. The difficulties the RCC and other churches are in at present are because they swept the matter under the carpet and protected the perpetrators of these crimes. Paedophiles and pederasts think they have lovers but in fact they have victims, and these victims need closure, healing and justice not another cover up
--------------------
I have the blues badder than a blind, bald, one-legged man sitting alone on a Mississippi veranda nursing a three-string guitar, an empty bottle of Jack Daniel's and a grudge
Posts: 247 | From: the mysterious east | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Basselope:
Frankly, unless absolutely necessary, I would prefer that bishops not rat on their pedophile or pederast clergy to the authorities or to the public for the same reason that I would not want bishops to rat on the randy ways of a parish leader here or there. Secrecy - or discretion - is fine by me, so long as the priest or lay person is not placed back into a pastoral role that entails serious risk of that person using his position for abusive purposes, i.e., the bishop should place a pedophile priest who has undergone treatment as a nursing home chaplain or prison chaplain and not in a parish where there are ready-made temptations. That, in my mind, was precisely where too many bishops failed.
Okay. So Christians who are in a same-sex committed relationship are not allowed Communion in an RC Church.
Transsexual people are not allowed in religious orders, or to be Priests (if F2M) because the RC Church says they are unstable.
BUT, if a Priest has abused a young boy or girl, it should not be spoken of, and the Priest should be placed somewhere where there are no children?
1. Can you not see the gross hypocrisy of this?
2. Are you seriously defending that a pederast should be defended from their accusers? ie young boy or girl says they've been abused, and the Bishop calls them liars!
3. Do you seriously believe that the only threat to children of a pedeophile Priest is if they are working in a place where there are none? Excuse me, but I've seen men and women in dog collars in the town centre and in a supermarket. A person in a dog-collar should be a person the public can trust. A pedophile Priest could easily be approached by a child outside of work, for reasons of seeking counsel, not knowing they are talking to a pedophile.
IMO, the Roman Catholic Church, or any other Church cannot take the stance you advocate and be taken seriously by the Christian public, let alone the non-Christians, even if they said nothing about sex outside of marriage, contraception, homosexuality or transsexuality.
The public as a whole, see certain certain sexual matters that the Church says are sinful with a 'if it don't harm anyone, why is it bad?' approach. If there is one thing that almost everyone sees as bad, evil, corrupt and loathsome, it is the sexual abuse of children. The RC Church should risk should abuse, in your eyes?
As far as I am aware, what you have advocated is not the approach of the RC church. If the RC church is doing what you advocate, I would be shocked.
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
I've just read the whole of this thread and wonder quite seriously about the reasoning being displayed.
Go-Ann-Go, there is no evidence to suggest that Catholic Clergy are any more likely to be abusers than any other group in society. In the UK the oft quoted figure is that 3% of men are pederastic abusers. Bearing in mind how public this matter now is, and taking advantage of my day job, I took the trouble of phoning COPCA (the Catholic agency set up in response to the Nolan report) to ask how many individual priests and religious brothers (reported not only convicted) they were aware of. The figure is a terrible 103 over forty years (the number of victims is much higher). During that time, there have been nearly 12,000 priests and 2000 religious brothers working in the UK. The figures would suggest, therefore, that this behaviour is certainly not more likely amongst priests than in the wider population. I am told that the situation in the US is similar.
Secondly, I am told by the Thames Valley Police, that Catholic clergy are by no means more prone to this kind of behaviour than clergy from Protestant. Since a very large proportion of abuse takes place "within the family" it is much less likely to come to light than extra-familial cases. Nonetheless, of the seven live clergy cases in Thames Valley in 2004, one is a Catholic priest, the others are not.
Basselope, I know what you are saying but I cannot agree. I think it is perfectly reasonable that because the Church proclaims a stricter sexual morality than many other religious bodies, she is judged much more harshly when her representatives fall short of those standards. I recognise that priests (like any others) are entitled to the presumption of innocence and due process, but once it become clear that they have beeninvolved in this sort of thing, then I think it is a moral imperative that they be excluded from the exercise of their priestly functions. To do otherwise is a grave scandal. As for bishops and others who have been complicit in cover-ups, I guess that we have to pay up (in compensation) and look big (or at least not too small). Moving people on and hoping it wouldn't happen again was once routine and to force bishops out because this is what they did is sometimes pointless and tokenistic, but it also sometimes necessary if the Church is to be able to proclaim the Good News with any credibility.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
Would you hold the same views on other crimes? Namely that the priests shouldn't be reported or prosecuted? I think that's a big issue here. these people committed crimes, and the Catholic church not only didn't report these crimes, but paid off victims and required THEM not to report these crimes either. And then put the cat right back among the pigeons, not only not telling anyone, but in fact often lying to the new parish that there hadn't been any problems.
If a priest beat parishoners,or stole their money, would you still advocate this be kept secret? If not, why is a crime that depends on secrecy for it to happen so special?
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175
|
Posted
quote:
Okay. So Christians who are in a same-sex committed relationship are not allowed Communion in an RC Church.
Transsexual people are not allowed in religious orders, or to be Priests (if F2M) because the RC Church says they are unstable.
BUT, if a Priest has abused a young boy or girl, it should not be spoken of, and the Priest should be placed somewhere where there are no children?
1. Can you not see the gross hypocrisy of this?
There is no inherent inconsistency. A person who openly practices pedophilia and is unrepentant should be denied communion. Neither, should known fixated pedophiles be permitted entrance into the priesthood, though that that did happen in the ugly Kos case. And, in fact, transexuals have been permitted to enter into the religious life. There was a recent case in the La Crosse Diocese where then Bishop Raymond Burke - with the consent of Rome - allowed a transexual to live as a woman in a small religious order despite scathing criticism from various quarters. However, Rome rightly bars transexuals from entering the priesthood.
--------------------
"Had the Dean's daughter worn a bra that afternoon, Norman Shotover might never have found out about the Church of England; still less about how to fly"
A.N. Wilson
Posts: 3788 | From: Your Disquieted Conscience | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
In the UK the oft quoted figure is that 3% of men are pederastic abusers.
I think that is an unbelievably high number.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChristinaMarie
Shipmate
# 1013
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Basselope:
And, in fact, transexuals have been permitted to enter into the religious life. There was a recent case in the La Crosse Diocese where then Bishop Raymond Burke - with the consent of Rome - allowed a transexual to live as a woman in a small religious order despite scathing criticism from various quarters. However, Rome rightly bars transexuals from entering the priesthood.
It is true that there are transsexual men and women in religious orders, but that was before the statement banning them was made.
Christina
Posts: 2333 | From: Oldham | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
In the UK the oft quoted figure is that 3% of men are pederastic abusers.
I think that is an unbelievably high number.
Because?
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
In the UK the oft quoted figure is that 3% of men are pederastic abusers.
I think that is an unbelievably high number.
If you include such relationships of the incestuous variety I would be amazed that it could be as low as 3%.
If any aspect of child abuse, or sexual offence in general, is still under-reported then I would suggest this is the one.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
Impressive first post, chrysalis and welcome!
quote:
Originally posted by chrysalis:
Going back to the original post, I too can see practical advantages to celibate clergy.
1.It makes life easier if moving parishes/churches isn't clouded by concerns over different GCSE syllabuses and the availabilty of quality taekwondo classes etc for the kids.
Certainly unmarried clergy (and childless clergy for that matter) generally don't have to consider the educational needs of children. But there are other things that occupy people's lives apart from partner or child-related issues. A single clergyperson may well have their choice of where to move dictated by, say, having to move closer to an ageing parent; particularly if, as the unmarried child of their parent, they are expected to be 'free' to offer support.
Also, without being flippant maybe it's important for the clergyperson to find a good taekwondo class, too? There may be many reasons why a single clergyperson may be equally as unavailable to go just anywhere, as a parent looking for a good school, or a job for the spouse. Just because there are arguably fewer people's needs to be considered doesn't mean that those which are to be considered are less important.
quote:
2.Celibacy also means your simpler life style choice is just a choice for you...<snip>
Does celibacy mean 'simpler life style'?
quote:
3. The dilemmas like - am I working now? or is this time off? am I in role or am I just me at the moment? are probably less of an issue.
Once again, I'd suggest that just because fewer people may be involved with the issue of 'am I working now' doesn't mean it's less of an issue for a single person. Indeed, without family around to remind you to get out of the study sometimes, or without the healthy pressure to spend recreational time with family members, it can be a very serious issue, in terms of health etc, for those who only have themselves to consider.
quote:
Married clergy is messier, the church doesn't really know what to do with people like me - other than hope they can become unpaid PAs and housekeepers - but what if they have a vocation too? (I'm talking medicine or education).
Things might be a little better than you anticipate. Some churches may be old-fashioned enough to expect a clergy spouse to be the unpaid curate and PA, but most parishes I know of generally accept that the partner has a life and probably a career of their own. Certainly with most married clergy I know of my own generation, 30s/40s, it's the norm.
quote:
If your view of the Kingdom of God is more black and white with a certainty of what it's all about, then you'll probably opt for celibacy.
I wonder why you think this? Why should being a celibate mean having a less complex or subtle understanding of the kingdom of God. (Have you read the Early Church Fathers !) Celibates may not be married people, but they're still people, which means their views and experiences (many of which are likely to be sexual) are going to be just as humanly complicated as anyone else's. And this, undoubtedly, includes their theology.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Because?
Because I think that if one man in 30 of my friends and relations and neighbours was fucking little children we'd be seeing a lot more of them found out.
[fixed code]
[ 06. April 2005, 19:00: Message edited by: John Holding ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siena
Ship's Bluestocking
# 5574
|
Posted
From Basselope:
quote:
Frankly, unless absolutely necessary, I would prefer that bishops not rat on their pedophile or pederast clergy to the authorities or to the public for the same reason that I would not want bishops to rat on the randy ways of a parish leader here or there.
I find this sentiment appalling. Why on earth should clergy or parish leaders be above criminal law? Because what they are doing is a CRIME, and child molestation is a far cry from "randy" conduct. Unless the bishop learns about the conduct in confession, he should be absolutely bound to report illegal activity to the proper authorities.
What, in your view, would make it "absolutely necessary" to report them to the authorities? That a child's been assaulted and traumatized and will bear the scars for life? Because that is what has happened in each and every case. What sort of conduct would it take to reach your bar?
--------------------
The lives of Christ's poor people are starved and stunted; their wages are low; their houses often bad and insanitary and their minds full of darkness and despair. These are the real disorders of the Church. Charles Marson
Posts: 709 | From: San Diego, California, USA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
Arguments from statistics on moral issues are usually smoke-and-mirrors -- not because of the accuracy of the statistics, but because these are moral issues, and quantitative arguments are irrelevant.
What are the positive goods attained from clerical celibacy? Most of the thread has focused on the "negative goods", that is the good outcomes from not needing certain things, or potentially preventing bad things. What things that are good in themselves are brought about by clerical celibacy?
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
GAG -
I confess I'm left breathless.
You alleged, citing no statistics or information, that RC clergy show a higher rate o pederasts and child abusers than any other clergy.
You were asked to back-up your (quite offensive) accusations with some evidence.
Instead of doing so, you accused the person who asked of denying that some RC priests have been abusers.
Excuse me?
Was there supposed to be a discussion going on? Was there supposed to be some logic in the debate? Because it sure doesn't show in what you've written.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
I recognise that priests (like any others) are entitled to the presumption of innocence and due process, but once it become clear that they have beeninvolved in this sort of thing, then I think it is a moral imperative that they be excluded from the exercise of their priestly functions.
Absolutely. Rather than being assigned to a chaplain position somewhere, they should be assigned a nice cell in a secluded monastery, where they can spend the rest of their life in repentance.
That's after they have served their time in prison, of course.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
Offensive? You call the sexual abuse scandal and bringing attention to it offensive? Here's the simple fact - there are stories and stories and national scandals in Ireland, in the USA, in Australia on RCC priests. Compared to any other stories about molestation in other churches put together I've heard (and have yet to see anyone else offer) of anything like the level of molestation going on in the RCC church. They've been forced to clean house. That's good for everyone. The victims can get help. The pedophiles can get help. The church realizes that it needs to over see potential priests more carefully in their screening.
Any basic (or even beyond basic) search will show you that the rate of molestation in the RCC church has been higher (at least that's been brought to anyone's attention) than in any other church/religion/organized group. Their hypocracy is certainly not alone - take a look at the "we don't admit gay people" Boy Scouts, whose leader just got arrested on child porn charges. But do you or anyone else have any proof that there are such molestation scandals going on in other churches? When there's two alone in my paper today, they're both RCC, and there aren't any others of other religions, that starts to indicate that just maybe there's a problem. What's so offensive about citing widely reported stories? Or maybe I should change my allegation to this:
THE RCC HAS A MUCH HIGHER RATE OF PAYOUT AND ARRESTS OF ITS PRIESTS FOR PEDOPHILIA THAN ANY OTHER CURRENT RELIGION. Does that make you feel better?
[ 06. April 2005, 19:22: Message edited by: Go Anne Go ]
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chrysalis
Apprentice
# 9166
|
Posted
Anselmina - Thank you for replying, even though I seem to have lost the thread!
In response - the 'celibate clergy life being simpler', issue was really about expecting priests to be 'different from me', which I think lies behind the celibacy debate.
The issues of worldly worries, family, time etc I would by no means limit only to married clergy with families - far from it - my point is that, for me, the Kingdom of God is precisely to be found in the complicated messy reality of human life (thus including married, single, gay,female etc) not in an artificially asexual parallel universe. If one can only be close to God by removing oneself from those things then that's not the incarnate God I know. It is because celibate clergy (like any human being)have practical worldly concerns that they can never be 'different from me' and so it seems strange to single out sexual activity as the deciding factor. Those who want celibate priests are, I sometimes feel, in danger of wanting non humans. I am conscious that others have a less liberal view and see it is fundamental to have boundaries and rules for the Kingdom, or at least for 'the Church' and would want to make a case for holiness and sacredness - for them celibacy is the obvious choice.
If for you, like me, incarnation is central, then is finding God in the ordinary, not the exceptional, that counts.
By the way I do not think that the the only role for a clergy wife is unpaid PA or housekeeper - merely that ecclesiologically (?) the church finds the role awkward and no satisfactory solutions are offered, it is just left up to individuals. I have carved out a satisfactory role for myself regardless of any expectations congregations may have had, and it has evolved over the last 24 years.
Posts: 6 | From: West Yorkshire | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
There was a thread almost exactly like this, lo, these many years ago. And I said what I really thought about compulsory clerical celibacy. I've been refraining from repeating myself but I've never been very good at self-restraint so here goes:
The combination of compulsory clerical celibacy, an all-male priesthood, and leadership in the church being entirely in the hands of priests, is a clear message to many people that the church regards women as inferior and corrupt, and sex as dirty and inherently defiling.
That is not what the church believes, but unfortunately it is what the church says to millions of people.
The RC church uses symbols (celibacy and all that) that the vast majority of people in our culture interpret in a way that is not consonant with Christian theology.
In other words, it is speaking a language "not understanded of the people".
The messages the church puts out by its behaviour and its practice are misinterpreted by the dirty little minds of the English who hear celibacy and the glorification of virginity and so on as messages that mean that all sex is wrong. Hence the popular confusion between original sin and sexual intimacy between Adam and Eve - which no informed theologian would fall for, but lies behind a hundred thousand jokes and cartoons. FWIW some of the church fathers DID think that all sex was always sinful, but there was debate about it. Augustine was one of those who thought that Adam and Eve would have had sex in their unfallen state. Jerome IIRC believed they would not have.
This whole glorification of virginity and celibacy wasn't inherent in Christianity but imported from Manicheism and the Gnostics. It doesn't fit in well with our theology but it does fit in with theirs, with its loathing of physicality, the material world, bodies, and reproduction.
Anyway, back to the point. Most of the English (& for that matter Germans & north Europeans in general - also much the same goes for many parts of Africa & it has been exported to north America) didn't understand it when clerical celibacy was brought here, it was never successfully enforced here before the Reformation (5 minutes with a copy of Chaucer will convince anyone of that!) & as we had the Reformation we let the priests marry. I suspect most Protestant Christians today don't know whether Mary was always a virgin or not, and don't much care. It's not mentioned in the Bible, and it doesn't seem to add or detract to the honour given to Jesus Christ. Similarly, I would guess that even those Protestants who are quite happy with the idea of celibacy, as long as it's a matter of personal choice, don't see why anyone should regard it as neccesary to the work of a Christian minister.
It is widely assumed that an apparently celibate man must be at least one of gay, perverted (in those cultures where that is distinguished from gay), a pathetic loser, or secretly having it off on the side somewhere. Those ideas may be wrong but they are undeniably the prejudices of the majority in our society, and always have been. Which is why the Roman Catholic hierarchy in the USA and Canada is imploding right now. There is (probably) no real evidence that celibate RC priests are any more likely to be sex criminals than married Protestant ministers, but suspicion of them - mainly due to their celibacy and their celebration of virginity - is so strong that millions assume they are.
That is plainly obvious. Read any tabloid newspaper. Talk to people in any ordinary pub. Most people in our society assume that celibacy isn't an option for a normal man or woman and that someone who practices it must be in some way inadequare. And that those who say they prectice it very often - perhaps even usually - fail to sustain it.
OK, that is bad enough, but it is not disasterous. The church can live with its priests being seen as weak and fallible. Or even as poor and helpless. What is worse is the way that these practices symbolically encode and transmit a view that women are inferior.
The Roman Catholic Church (like almost all others) is run by men rather than women. That is inevitable because it is run by people in holdy orders and those orders are denied to women. Add to that compulsory celibacy, and not only are no (or very, very, few) women in positions of power in that church, but the men that are have to avoid intimacy with women, as a source of temptation or scandal. So it is inevitable that women come to be seen as the source of temptation, evil, and corruption. Sex comes to be viewed as bad. And women are associated with sex. The system lends itself to the split between a masculinity that is defined rational, mental, cool, spiritual, and clean; and a threatening femininity that is constructed as irrational, physical, hysterical, dirty, and sexual. It gets even worse were the priests popularly assumed to be homosexual in orientation because then you'd end up with a structure in which the powerful men entirely disengaged from even the desire or the neccessity of contact with women, promoted to a higher spiritual plane, almost a new species of spiritual man, reproducing themselves corporately by means of sacraments rather than sex.
The honour given to Mary enhances this message, particularly when such stress is laid on her perpetual virginity. If the best woman of all time is a virgin, surely that must mean that sex is bad? It doesn't help that those few women who have generally acknowledged positions of authority or influence in the Roman church are almost all celibate nuns.
I'm not saying that this is the doctrine or teaching of the Roman Church. I know it isn't. But I am saying that that is how the practices of that church are interpreted by most people - often quite unconsciously. For people who are members of that church it must at least tend to reproduce the social structures that lead to the continued subjection of women. For those who are not members of that church, or are no longer members, it goes some way to explaining the often quite irrational distaste and dislike that a large minority feel towards it.
It is almost a language problem. The symbolic system of compulsory celibacy and the superiority of virginity is a language that is as unintelligible to most people in our society as Church Latin is. As long as the teachings of the church are uttered in that language, they will continue to be widely misinterpreted.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
Offensive? You call the sexual abuse scandal and bringing attention to it offensive? Here's the simple fact - there are stories and stories and national scandals in Ireland, in the USA, in Australia on RCC priests. Compared to any other stories about molestation in other churches put together I've heard (and have yet to see anyone else offer) of anything like the level of molestation going on in the RCC church. They've been forced to clean house. That's good for everyone. The victims can get help. The pedophiles can get help. The church realizes that it needs to over see potential priests more carefully in their screening.
Any basic (or even beyond basic) search will show you that the rate of molestation in the RCC church has been higher (at least that's been brought to anyone's attention) than in any other church/religion/organized group. Their hypocracy is certainly not alone - take a look at the "we don't admit gay people" Boy Scouts, whose leader just got arrested on child porn charges. But do you or anyone else have any proof that there are such molestation scandals going on in other churches? When there's two alone in my paper today, they're both RCC, and there aren't any others of other religions, that starts to indicate that just maybe there's a problem. What's so offensive about citing widely reported stories? Or maybe I should change my allegation to this:
THE RCC HAS A MUCH HIGHER RATE OF PAYOUT AND ARRESTS OF ITS PRIESTS FOR PEDOPHILIA THAN ANY OTHER CURRENT RELIGION. Does that make you feel better?
There is a saying about "common sense" -- that it is not common and rarely makes sense. That came to mind when you suggested, essentially, that the evidence is so wide and well known that it would be beneath you to cite it or even suggest where it might be found.
Repeatedly making an allegation without providing any back-up evidence is worthless logically and barren intellectually.
Can you not not get it through your head that nobody -- NOBODY -- is saying there are not RC pederasts and abuserss, and nobody -- NOBODY -- is trying to say that abuse is not offensive.
But to say, without providing a shred of evidence, that there are more abusers in the RC church than in others, and to refuse point blank to provide any evidence to back up your allegations suggests that YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE. And that you are not seriously engaging with the discussion. And that you should probably fill your spare time in on some other thread.
John
[ 06. April 2005, 19:47: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
Do you really need a priest to be "different from me"? I'm not going to them for difference, I'm going to them for spiritual guidance, something which I think resonates more when tempered with actual life experience, whether sexual, or how to pay the bills, or coming in second at that third grade spelling bee. It all adds up. I don't expect my priests to be any more different than me except having had them commit more to a life with Christ and some deeper theological/counselling training.
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracious rebel
Rainbow warrior
# 3523
|
Posted
Ken, I must have missed the earlier version of that post (or perhaps it was before my time on the Ship) so I am very grateful that you took the trouble to repeat the explanation.
You are absolutely right of course, in describing how these things are perceived (even subconsciously) by people in general, and the effect this has on how people view the Catholic Church. I'd never thought of it quite like that before, and your post has certainly crystallised some ideas together in my mind.
--------------------
Fancy a break beside the sea in Suffolk? Visit my website
Posts: 4413 | From: Suffolk UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chrysalis
Apprentice
# 9166
|
Posted
quote:
I don't expect my priests to be any more different than me except having had them commit more to a life with Christ and some deeper theological/counselling training.
Many people have committed more to a life with Christ that me, they are not all priests.
Others have had more theological training or be gifted with and/or qualified in counselling. Some priests have lousy counselling skills - they can't all be good at everything.
I am not saying that priests do not have these things, it just seems strange to expect them from someone simply because they have been ordained and celibate and not to look for them in any fellow Christian, or even may I suggest in a non Christian.
Maybe I'm just too much of a congregationalist for my own good.
Posts: 6 | From: West Yorkshire | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Newman's Own
Shipmate
# 420
|
Posted
Question: is there any possibility that the ordained RC priests who were laicised in order to marry could return to active ministry?
--------------------
Cheers,
Elizabeth
“History as Revelation is seldom very revealing, and histories of holiness are full of holes.” - Dermot Quinn
Posts: 6740 | From: Library or pub | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
