Thread: Purgatory: Clerical Celibacy Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001031

Posted by The Coot (# 220) on :
 
Well, I'm afraid I'm starting this topic a bit 'Purgatory-lite'.

For clerical and episcopal celibacy, I have only this: [Overused]

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] (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 ]
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
Presumably you also want leaders without haemorrhoids, back ache, indigestion, addictions, etc. Embodied beings are inferior.
 
Posted by HangarQueen (# 6914) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
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?! [Biased] (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 [Big Grin] ?
 
Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :
 
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? [Big Grin] (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.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Flubb (# 918) on :
 
As part of the Sanhedrin, he'd have to be married.

(Or so I remember hazily)
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
If so we deduce he was divorced or widowered. Chaste and faithful either way.
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by anglicanrascal (# 3412) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
You don't have to look far to find them, AR. They're everywhere!
 
Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
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]

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.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
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" [Biased] . (Meaning: there should be two different types of priests, a celibate "mission" one, and a non-celibate "parish" on.)
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
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)
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
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...
 
Posted by chrysalis (# 9166) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Basselope (# 9175) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Basselope (# 9175) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by radcliffe hall (# 4560) on :
 
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
 
Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Basselope (# 9175) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by ChristinaMarie (# 1013) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
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 [Biased] !) 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.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Sienna (# 5574) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
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
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by chrysalis (# 9166) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
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 ]
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on :
 
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. [Overused]

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.
 
Posted by chrysalis (# 9166) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :
 
Question: is there any possibility that the ordained RC priests who were laicised in order to marry could return to active ministry?
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chrysalis:
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.

To be sure, a lot of priests don't go in for counselling, and aren't very good at it. Indeed, the best RC counsellor (or even pratcitioner) that I know isn't ordained. But what, I may ask, do you then look for in a priest/minister? I expect them from priests because they've trained extensively in theology, and generally have to train in counselling at some point.
 
Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :
 
quote:
GoAnneGo wrote: 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.
Not so, according to studies reported by Penn State Professor Philip Jenkins (a non-Catholic, by the way) and the annual survey by Christian Ministry Resources, a tax/law/insurance think thank that studies legal issues facing churches. The CMR study suggests that sex abuse occurs at roughly the same rate across all denominations and that clergy aren't the major offenders. According to the CMR's 1999 data, 42% of alleged child sex abusers are volunteers. About 25% were paid staff members (a figure lumping together ordained clergy, youth ministers, music ministers, etc.). And another 25% appear to be violent or predatory children abusing younger kids.

The priest sex abuse scandal is abhorrent and the Roman Catholic Church's response to it has been an abomination. But it doesn't appear to be a problem that is disproportionately Catholic.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Newman's Own:
Question: is there any possibility that the ordained RC priests who were laicised in order to marry could return to active ministry?

Whilst I think that we might well see a move in my lifetime (I'm not quite 40) to the Eastern discipline of allowing married men to be ordained to the priesthood, I think it unlikely that priests would be allowed to marry. I suspect that there isn't a snow ball's chance in Hell of laicised priests being allowed to come back into active ministry (broken promises and all that sort of thing).
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:


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

Ahem, since apparently John doens't read the news:
In the Boston (USA) diocese:
$80million for 500 civil suits against RCC clergy.
Dallas (USA): $151 million, 15 more charges.
Ireland: 20 RCC priests, brothers and nuns convicted of molestation.
Hong Kong: seven RC priests accused of child abuse
Austria, Australia, Malta, France, Poland, South Africa, Poland, Mexico: Summaries and links to full stories found here. Including how the Cardinal for Vienna had to step down for being a pedophile. But it doesn't mention how the man in charge of training new priests in Austria had to step down for being a child pornographer and pedophile.

There's my evidence on the RCC, all of which you seem to have missed. If you have evidence that other churches are just as bad or worse, let's hear it. But I daresay you don't have any.

[ 06. April 2005, 20:44: Message edited by: Go Anne Go ]
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
And of course: The Boston Globe's Spotlight Report.

Presleyterian - your report cites a lot of nonministerial people. As for clergy themselves, is there more or less in the RCC church than in other religions? It is certainly better publicized there.
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Newman's Own:
Question: is there any possibility that the ordained RC priests who were laicised in order to marry could return to active ministry?

Whilst I think that we might well see a move in my lifetime (I'm not quite 40) to the Eastern discipline of allowing married men to be ordained to the priesthood, I think it unlikely that priests would be allowed to marry. I suspect that there isn't a snow ball's chance in Hell of laicised priests being allowed to come back into active ministry (broken promises and all that sort of thing).
What I don't understand is that they'll let married Episcopal priests become RCC priests and stay married, but they won't let RCC priests who leave to marry come back. Somehow this doesn't add up to me. Your broken promise seems to make sense as an explanation, but since the RCC also allows married deaconates, somewhere this seems disproportionate punishment.

[fixed code]

[ 07. April 2005, 01:05: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
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. 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. THE RCC HAS A MUCH HIGHER RATE OF PAYOUT AND ARRESTS OF ITS PRIESTS FOR PEDOPHILIA THAN ANY OTHER CURRENT RELIGION.

Without some hard facts and figures, I must dismiss this as nothing but urban myth. The people who would know best, of course, are insurance companies and their actuaries. If the rate of payout is higher for the RCC, then the premiums would soon be higher. To my knowledge (based on statements from expert guests on radio and TV programs) they are not. Premiums are exactly the same across the denominational spectrum. But then, I don't have the figures ready to hand, either.

Allegations against Roman Catholic clergy make the hottest press for several reasons. Everyone has heard of The Roman Catholic Church. Few have heard of Main Street Christian. The division between clergy (especially being celibate) and laity is more clear-cut. And a diocese contains hundreds of employees, whereas a local chapel has only a few. But none of this has nothing to do with the actual rate of occurrence of the problem.

I would regret the loss of clerical celibacy in the RCC for purely cultural and emotional reasons. Set against the alleged misogyny resulting from the status quo (although Leon Podles in The Church Impotent quite ably denies that it has resulted) we have the monochromatic, self-congratulating bourgeoisie of many protestant congregations, in which anyone who isn't married with 2.4 kids is marginalized. The Catholic Church is more inclusive in theory, and probably always in practice as well. When the western world is full of occupations in which married men enjoy an advantage, can't there be one line of work partial to bachelors? [Tear]

But if there aren't enough new candidates to fill the ranks, something will need to change. The clergy shortage is critical and worsening. If I were RC, I would rather see a married priest than some of the alternatives, such as lay celebration.
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
As for clergy themselves, is there more or less in the RCC church than in other religions? It is certainly better publicized there.

The thing is, GAG, in a one-off congregational-type church, there are no multi-million dollar lawsuits involving a dozen or more clergy, because the church doesn't have millions of dollars, and it only has one pastor. So those cases don't make the news.

I had a good friend in college who had been molested, as a little girl, by their independent fundamentalist minister. When parents got suspicious, and were going to have a congregational meeting to decide what to do about it, he left town. And that was that. If, 20 years later, one of his victims wanted to find him and press charges, how could they? And if they wanted to sue, who would they sue?

I think that is the reason for the widespread perception that the RCC has a bigger problem with pedophile clergy than do other churches, and not because RCC clergy are more likely to be abusive than any other clergy.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
What I don't understand is that they'll let married Episcopal priests become RCC priests and stay married, but they won't let RCC priests who leave to marry come back. Somehow this doesn't add up to me. Your broken promise seems to make sense as an explanation, but since the RCC also allows married deaconates, somewhere this seems disproportionate punishment.

The issue of former anglicans is best answered by looking at what was done as (i) naked opportunism (Basil Hume seems to have believed it would cause a flood); and (ii) a controlled experiment.

The point about permanent deacons is that when the idea was reintroduced it was explicitly done on the basis of married men being allowed. Remember, however, that a permanent deacon is not permitted to marry. This means that if a married deacon is widowed, it's celibacy from then on in.
 
Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :
 
quote:
GoAnneGo wrote: Presleyterian - your report cites a lot of nonministerial people. As for clergy themselves, is there more or less in the RCC church than in other religions? It is certainly better publicized there.
Certainly a valid question, but one that raises an apples-to-oranges problem because so many churches don't have ordained ministers. Is Skip the Worship Leader at the Community Praise 'n' Family Fun Center a member of the clergy? Who knows. That's why CMR -- concerned as it is with coverage issues -- makes the paid employee vs. volunteer distinction.

I don't think John Holding or anyone else is denying the the Roman Catholic Church has a terrible problem. No anecdotal links were necessary to establish that. But the question remains whether the Catholic Church has a problem disproportionately more serious than other denominations. And I have yet to see data that establishes that.
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
This may sound intentionally naive, but I swear to you this is a heart felt question -
are there really churches without ordained clergy?????? I've just never heard of this phenomonon, except for the Quakers/Society of Friends, where no one is in charge, you just speak as the Spirit moves you.

All other denoms in my experience have some kind of clergy, ordained by that church. Requirements vary.
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
This may sound intentionally naive, but I swear to you this is a heart felt question -
are there really churches without ordained clergy?????? I've just never heard of this phenomonon, except for the Quakers/Society of Friends, where no one is in charge, you just speak as the Spirit moves you.

All other denoms in my experience have some kind of clergy, ordained by that church. Requirements vary.

The Brethren,. Upon which we had a long thread recently, but I can't find it.

It also depends on what you mean by "ordained". If you simply mean "set apart" I agree with you, if you actually mean "ordained" then most Free Evangelical churches don't have "clergy".
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
As for clergy themselves, is there more or less in the RCC church than in other religions? It is certainly better publicized there.

The thing is, GAG, in a one-off congregational-type church, there are no multi-million dollar lawsuits involving a dozen or more clergy, because the church doesn't have millions of dollars, and it only has one pastor. So those cases don't make the news.

I had a good friend in college who had been molested, as a little girl, by their independent fundamentalist minister. When parents got suspicious, and were going to have a congregational meeting to decide what to do about it, he left town. And that was that. If, 20 years later, one of his victims wanted to find him and press charges, how could they? And if they wanted to sue, who would they sue?

I think that is the reason for the widespread perception that the RCC has a bigger problem with pedophile clergy than do other churches, and not because RCC clergy are more likely to be abusive than any other clergy.

josephine,
First off, there are ways this guy could be found, PM me if you want access to resources (and no I don't mean guys who break kneecaps as a primary source of income)for your friend. The 20 years on thing then becomes an issue of statutes of limitations.

I'm not saying abuse doesn't or hasn't happened in other churches, but the issue in the Catholic church is so globally widespread, I don't know anything else that can compare. It could well be that it is higher in the RCC because there are more RCC priests than in other religions, but it isn't just million dollar settlements that make the news, it is arrests even without civil litigation.
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
That's more or less the deal in Orthodoxy, too, Trisagion. A man has to make up his mind before he's ordained to the diaconate, and he (and his wife too) are permitted to marry only that one time. If either wife or priest dies, the one left behind (ooooohhhhh) may not remarry.

Bishops must always be celibate. We used to get our bishops from monasteries (easiest place to find somebody who could read and write, but that's another thread).

Leetle M.
Interested in seeing how the controlled experiment turns out over a longer period of time. Some parishes are not able to afford to support married clergy with families, and in the Orthodox Church, many married clergy have to work at secular jobs because their parishes cannot provide a salary sufficient to feed a family, even with "car allowance", "Health Insurance", "Pension plan", and "Free Housing" (drafty rectory with faulty plumbing, bad drains and leaky roof). I'd say it won't do much good here in Philadelphia, where all the old "changing neighborhood" parishes are going under because the congos can't afford to keep up cathedral-sized churches "built on the pennies of Irish washerwomen". The problem is that the grandchildren of the washerwomen live in the suburbs and make big salaries, so they start new parishes with hideous architecture out in the 'burbs and forget the grand old buildings with the exquisite stained glass...sigh. Abject apologies--that too is another thread, but it's too depressing to start another thread on the high cost of married clergy.
 
Posted by angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
That's more or less the deal in Orthodoxy, too, Trisagion. A man has to make up his mind before he's ordained to the diaconate, and he (and his wife too) are permitted to marry only that one time. If either wife or priest dies, the one left behind (ooooohhhhh) may not remarry.

I just can't understand that. What is the theological or other justification for denying the sacrament of matrimony to priests or deacons, if there is no objection per se to married priests or deacons? It's clearly a long tradition (with the Orthodox at least) so somebody must have thought it out.
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Angloid muses:

quote:
I just can't understand that. What is the theological or other justification for denying the sacrament of matrimony to priests or deacons, if there is no objection per se to married priests or deacons? It's clearly a long tradition (with the Orthodox at least) so somebody must have thought it out.
I should have explained, Angloid, that the vocation to marriage and family, if there is such a vocation for a man, comes prior to the vocation of priesthood. As the Bible says, "A Bishop (priest or deacon in the Orthodox case) must be the husband of one wife." That means, if you want to be a deacon or priest and you decide to get married, you need to get married before you are ordained, and you must stick with that one wife. When she dies, you are more or less, Monk-priest Paphnutios or whatever they name you at your ordination.

It is by no means a "perfect system", obviously. Some priests get tired of their wives and are "stuck" with them. Some wives get tired of having to work outside the home to help support their families, or they get tired of parish nitwits who "inspect" their housekeeping in said drafty rectory, or they just get burned out and fed up generally, and they want to leave their priest-husbands. I am Orthodox, but I can certainly see why it's easier all-round to have a celibate clergy. You would see little piggies flying in the sky before I would think of marrying any man who wanted to be a deacon or priest in the Orthodox Church.

Then again, you'd see pigs fly before I'd marry anybody, but that's another thread.

Leetle M.
Professional Old Maid and Proud of It
 
Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
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.

For me, that is nearly an argument in favour of celibacy! It is looked on as strange to choose not abstain from sex -- somehow you're not a 'proper person' if you're not having sex. I think that's wrong. Maybe previous ages have over glorified virginity but these days we seem to have turned that on its head -- virginity is almost seen as something to be despised in our culture today. I think that's wrong and the example of celibates (priests, monks, nuns) can challenge that.

I'm not sure what I think about compulsory clerical celibacy, but I certainly wouldn't want to see no celibate clergy. The call to celibacy is a vocation and I think an important one, perhaps especially because it is so despised in our culture.

Carys
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
What I really can't get my head around for the Orthodox is:
married priest, ok.
married bishop, not ok.
Why the distinction?
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Because the bishops were already monks, recruited from monasteries. Recruited is a sweet word--sometimes, in the days of persecution such as the Turkish occupation, the monks who were to be bishops were more or less kidnapped.... but that's not important right now.

There's a footnote to this that I'd have added if I were fast enough with that edit button. You remember St. Peter, how his mother-in-law was healed by Christ and was able to get up and serve food to the disciples? It is generally thought that by the time St. Peter became a disciple, his wife must have been dead. Thus, he was eligible to be a bishop. I meant to say in my post to Angloid that the "silver lining" (if you can call it that!) for a widower-priest is that he then is eligible to be an Orthodox bishop.

Most just retire, though.

Hope this helps. If it doesn't, over to you, Fr. Gregory!
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
But that's a history thing, not a theological thing. Surely in the orthodox tradition there must be a theological justification?
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Well, Anne, I suppose marriage/family vocation being prior to priestly vocation falls under the category of "Natural Law"--marriage, see, is the "natural" outcome for most folks, long before they think of being priests. For further info on "Natural Law", I defer to the excellent canonist Trisagion.

It's the best we can do, see. We try to do what God wants, and then if He wants more, we try to do that too. Pray for the clergy: mileage varies.

Leetle M.
 
Posted by fisher (# 9080) on :
 
Quick point to GAG, without wanting to flog a dead horse. There's a big gap between the following statements:

- There is a higher rate of molestation amongst celibate than non-celibate clergy.
- There is currently a higher rate of successful prosecution against RC clergy than those of other denominations.

For example,:
- The manifestly inadequate mechanisms used previously by the RC Church to deal with abusers probably led to more cases of abuse happening for each abusive priest than in other denominations.
- The hushing up of the issue over many years has led to an effect akin to the bursting of a dam. Very few cases were recorded before the 90s. The first batch of stories that came out justifiably gained a great deal of coverage. Suddenly, instances that had been silenced for many years all came to court over a short period. This is still happening.

Child abuse has been, and is, a grave problem in parts of the RCC. But that doesn't mean celibacy is the problem.
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
I don't think celibacy is the problem as much as the screenign process is the problem. The reasons why some people choose celibacy are noble and a true calling. Others just want to make sure they don't act on their urges. I said all this before.
 
Posted by fisher (# 9080) on :
 
A few points in favour of celibacy:

- It frees priests from conflicting interests. If they're called to minister in a dangerous part of the world, they don't have the legitimate worry of their family's safety.
- It marks priesthood out very clearly as being completely different from any other career. It requires a massive commitment.
- It leaves priests with a complete dedication to the church - the single dominant thing in their life.

Of course the latter two can often be true of married clergy as well. It's also worth noting that these are as much about being outside a family as they are about abstaining from sex.

Ken, I largely agree with you about people's perception. However, that's tied to a male-only priesthood with mandatory celibacy. I'd much sooner admit women priests than ditch celibacy. Also, your analysis leaves one loose end: how is it that a church with mandatory celibacy has become the largest religious movement in history? I'm not taking the mick; it genuinely puzzles me. If most ordinary people think Catholic priests must be weird, why hasn't Catholicism become one of the innumerable strange sects that litter history books? Answers on a postcard please!
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
I think for a long time (particularly pre-Pill/Sexual Revolution) celibacy wasn't seen as truly so weird. Much more of a calling. There was also an almost tradition of second sons, etc heading to the church, particularly since they wouldn't inherit under primogeniture.

Of course, back in those days it was much more accepted whether religiously motivated or not that you'd be a virgin pretty much til you got married. In the days of less reliable contraception, it was too easy to get caught out if you didn't.

Then the culture around the church and the world changed. Contraception and better treatments for diseases suddenly freed people up to have sex with whomever they wanted, feeling quite less risk. But the church line was still celibacy for priests, and no contraception for anyone else. But suddenly when the rest of the world is engaged in such a sexual revolution, the same line of the church caused (slowly) celibacy to seem quite weird.

Additionally, more was understood about sexuality generally as an organic emotion/ function. Women got to enjoy it too, as it were! It wasn't just something relegated to hush hush discussions, it was part of the common vernacular. So now everyone was in on the deal, and the people saw it was good and sex was good. But the celibate priests said it was bad except in very limited circumstances. Thus the perception of weirdness.
 
Posted by fisher (# 9080) on :
 
Maybe. But, biologically, celibacy is weird and was weird even pre-60s. And Chaucer also illustrates the natural tendency to make fun of it. Sure, it looks even odder now. But there must be a good reason why it spread. Was it because populations needed to be able to find a way of keeping second sons occupied if they couldn't inherit?
 
Posted by Emma. (# 3571) on :
 
Lots of free churches dont have ordained clergy. In fact I thought only established denominations (CE RC Baptists, Methodists..) did have ordained clergy...

Many community churches, NFI, pioneer, vineyard etc wouldnt have,,,
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
Also, don't forget, one celibate priest can minister to a whole lotta peoples. So maybe they didn't need as many priests per capita as they do now with smaller parish sizes? I have no idea. But also, if I recall my Euro politic history, adoption of RCC or rejection of it was often a political thing on the part of the King. With state religion, if you feel called to God, and the state religion is Catholic, then celibacy is your thing.

Except historically, wasn't there a long while where celibacy was not quite optional but hardly enforced? Popes with kids and all that? Which is why popular legend has it that celibacy was brought in to stop sons inheriting churhc property?
 
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :
 
Well GAG, it goes like this:

You made the assertion. So it's up to you to prove it.

Instead you've proved something that wasn't in dispute -- that there are abusers among RC clergy. Thats news?

Now how about providing some evidence for your statement that there are more abusers among RC clergy than among clergy of any other religion or denomination.

You chose to make a comparative statement -- if you can't back it up with comparative data, it's worthless.

John
 
Posted by Bonaventura (# 5561) on :
 
GAG:

Can you cite any evidence for your assertions?

[ 07. April 2005, 05:34: Message edited by: Bonaventura ]
 
Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
Lots of free churches dont have ordained clergy. In fact I thought only established denominations (CE RC Baptists, Methodists..) did have ordained clergy...

Where are the Methodists the established church? I missed that memo.
 
Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Is it Tonga that has a Methodist King? And ... er...

Lights fuse... Stands well back...{/I]

I have read the statement that the United Methodists were the unofficial Established Church in the USA until well into the C20...

[I]Hands on ears...

 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
Angloid muses:

quote:
I just can't understand that. What is the theological or other justification for denying the sacrament of matrimony to priests or deacons, if there is no objection per se to married priests or deacons? It's clearly a long tradition (with the Orthodox at least) so somebody must have thought it out.
I should have explained, Angloid, that the vocation to marriage and family, if there is such a vocation for a man, comes prior to the vocation of priesthood. As the Bible says, "A Bishop (priest or deacon in the Orthodox case) must be the husband of one wife." That means, if you want to be a deacon or priest and you decide to get married, you need to get married before you are ordained.
I don't see that in the scripture at all. I read it as an instruction that if a bishop/overseer/presbyter is to be a married man he should only have one wife - as you say stick with her, no divorce. Nothing about when that wife should be married to him, or if he gets ordained that's it, his chance his up for marriage. It actually could be read as 'he who is a bishop (as in someone who is now ordained) is only permitted to marry one wife', something that would obviously have to happen after ordination.

Your explanation seems to twist it the other way to be interpreted as 'he who thinks he's going to be a bishop should get married first, before he's ordained,' which seems to be saying something a bit different.

I can't see what the problem is with re-marriage after being widowed, either, unless it's believed that death of a spouse doesn't dissolve marriage. He was the husband to his first wife, but now she is dead, they are no longer husband and wife. So in being married to a 'second' wife, he's still only married to the one wife, because the previous relationship was dissolved by death.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I can't see what the problem is with re-marriage after being widowed, either, unless it's believed that death of a spouse doesn't dissolve marriage. He was the husband to his first wife, but now she is dead, they are no longer husband and wife. So in being married to a 'second' wife, he's still only married to the one wife, because the previous relationship was dissolved by death.

Is it some kind of realised eschatology?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fisher:
Also, your analysis leaves one loose end: how is it that a church with mandatory celibacy has become the largest religious movement in history? I'm not taking the mick; it genuinely puzzles me. If most ordinary people think Catholic priests must be weird, why hasn't Catholicism become one of the innumerable strange sects that litter history books? Answers on a postcard please!

I was specifically trying to talk about northern European cultures - British, German, Scandinavian and so on. These things may be read differently in different cultural backgrounds.

The fear of sex and glorification of virginity was a characteristic of aristocratic society in the later Roman Empire. Not just Christian society - pagans & Manichees & neo-Platonists & so on did it as well. (or rather they didn't do it...)

The idea that sexual urges - or any animal motivations - are somehow irrational, uncontrollable, and morally inferior to intellectual motivations seems to go all through the writings of the period. Including many (but not all) oif the Church Fathers, as well as many non-Christians. And some of the Church Fathers wrote many nasty things about sex, reproduction, and women.

Societies construe these things differently. Maybe what seemed noble and rational to the Greeks or Romans of the early middle ages seemed rather silly to the Egyptians and Arabs and downright perverted to the British or English.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
It also depends on what you mean by "ordained". If you simply mean "set apart" I agree with you, if you actually mean "ordained" then most Free Evangelical churches don't have "clergy".

Yes, its really quite common. And lots of independent churches (Evangelical Free Churches, Pentecostals, Baptists, "New" Churches, whatever) simply don't have the resources for a full-time minister even if they wanted one.

Even if they have one or more people set aside as leaders (or in other roles), they will be people from the congreagation with no special training and no externally recognised ordination - even if there is some ceremony it is just that that congregation gives that role to that member.

A lot of these places start out as a few friends meeting in someone's house. Or end up as a tiny and elderly congregation that has inherited an overlarge tin tabernacle from their grandparent's generation. If they get bigger or richer they might find they have the money to pay someone full-time. And if they are a member of a wider connexion (many churches aren't) they might be assigned a trained person from another church to lead or help out in other ways.

Also in many churches from that sort of background the minister is seen as a teaching and preaching role, rather than a leadership one. The eldership of such places (even if they aren't called elders) might be respected members of the congreagation and the minister is someone they pay to do a job for them, and who they can dismiss if they fall out. So eldership and "priesthood" not a word they are likely to use) is separated from preaching the word & from ordination.

And yes there are such places where an ordained minister, or a visiting preacher, will preach; but another member of the congregation will lead the service or preside over Communion.
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I can't see what the problem is with re-marriage after being widowed, either, unless it's believed that death of a spouse doesn't dissolve marriage. He was the husband to his first wife, but now she is dead, they are no longer husband and wife. So in being married to a 'second' wife, he's still only married to the one wife, because the previous relationship was dissolved by death.

Except that, in the Orthodox church, we don't believe that marriage is dissolved by death.
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:
Your explanation seems to twist it the other way to be interpreted as 'he who thinks he's going to be a bishop should get married first, before he's ordained,' which seems to be saying something a bit different.
Au contraire. It's more like, "he who thinks he should get married should go ahead and get married, and if God has other plans for him, God will advise him of those plans so that he doesn't do anything to get in God's way."

The whole process is one of prayer, discernment, guidance from the Holy Spirit and from the earthly spiritual father, and in short, it's accomplished "with fear and trembling".

The "order of doing these things" occurs, probably, only because the various apostles, who became the first bishops, were initially married--before they became apostles. Before Jesus called them, the apostles were ordinary married working-men. It's just order , Anselmina. It gets confusing among protestants because often protestant ministers are ordained right out of seminary and then, when the right girl comes along, "the rector" can marry her if he wishes. In the Orthodox system, the prospective ordinand graduates from seminary and thinks long and hard about what to do next. Some seminarians go directly into monasteries, but in the US at least, that's rare. Most seminarians in the US, who hope to be priests some day, first test that vocation by dating normally as any college guy might do, and as far as ordination is concerned, they go no farther than sub-deacon until they are absolutely sure what God wants of them. The advantage to this system is a practical one:

a) No one can say that a man "had no choice" and was forced to be a celibate priest.

b) A man has to think long and hard about whether he wants to be a married priest or a monk. You will often see, in the Orthodox Church, ordinations of men who have taken plenty of time to choose a wife, have married and maybe even have several children before they ever become deacons. It's not unusual at all to see a grey-headed deacon being ordained at the age of "over 40".

c) Another practical point about Orthodox ordination is that we don't need to classify some clergy as "Permanent Deacons". Some deacons choose to stop right there, and nobody bats an eyelash--the diaconate is a different ministry, rather than a stepping-stone to the priesthood, just as the priesthood is a ministry in its own right, rather than a stepping-stone to the episcopate.

I hope this helps. Remember, that in Orthodoxy, Holy Tradition carries weight too. Orthodoxy is not limited to "what is contained in Scripture", but of course, Scripture has a weight more or less equal to the Holy Tradition (the tradition handed down by the apostles, the Fathers of the Church and the Seven Ecumenical Councils).
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fisher:
How is it that a church with mandatory celibacy has become the largest religious movement in history? I'm not taking the mick; it genuinely puzzles me. If most ordinary people think Catholic priests must be weird, why hasn't Catholicism become one of the innumerable strange sects that litter history books? Answers on a postcard please!

One might worry, however, that centuries and centuries of, in effect, selecting many of the smartest people in a society (not just clergy but monastics) and then keeping them from reproducing is a sort of anti-eugenics, depressing the average intelligence of the population.

In Judaism, by contrast, not only have the rabbis been expected to be family men, but in troubled times congregations would make a special effort to protect the rabbi and his entire family.

Is it any wonder that given this long tradition, while rather the opposite was happening in Christendom during the same period, our Jewish neighbors often excel in any endeavor that requires brains? (I observe this in all admiration).
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bonaventura:
GAG:

Can you cite any evidence for your assertions?

I believe I did. Arrests, convictions, payments, the lot. Now if only John would dare to provide some sort of evidence for his assertion that it isn't true, we can be done.

I note John hasn't taken any exception to my reformulated statement that the RCC has more CONVICTED molesters and higher payouts than any other church. Of course, that is because I'm really picking up on his sense that because a) he doesn't believe reporters, and b) he thinks I'm anti Catholic, he hasn't bothered to read anything I've linked to or read.
 
Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Newman's Own:
Question: is there any possibility that the ordained RC priests who were laicised in order to marry could return to active ministry?

An RC priest's widow told me that if she had died, he could have asked to be reinstated. Now, the priest in question was J.P. Audet OP, OC*, a theologian of some repute. But no one cited chapter and verse of canon law.

* OC being Order of Canada
 
Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by fisher:
...how is it that a church with mandatory celibacy has become the largest religious movement in history? ...If most ordinary people think Catholic priests must be weird, why hasn't Catholicism become one of the innumerable strange sects that litter history books? ...

...
The fear of sex and glorification of virginity was a characteristic of aristocratic society in the later Roman Empire. ...

To comment on ken's point - at the time, the priests of the Magna Mater qualified for the job by self-castration. There's a serious commitment for you!

And to address fisher's point: Most ordinary people today find celibacy weird. That's not been historically the case, see "maiden aunt" in a big dictionary. A greater percentage of people marry today than in most times and places. As for the history books ... they haven't all been written yet!
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
quote:
Originally posted by Newman's Own:
Question: is there any possibility that the ordained RC priests who were laicised in order to marry could return to active ministry?

An RC priest's widow told me that if she had died, he could have asked to be reinstated. Now, the priest in question was J.P. Audet OP, OC*, a theologian of some repute. But no one cited chapter and verse of canon law.

* OC being Order of Canada

What I've always wondered, in addition to the actual canon law question on this issue, is why they would want to return?

Who wants to return to an organization that forced you to choose between being with them or getting married and seems to hold the two are mutually exclusive. Unless, of course, you started out Episcopalian?? Or wanted to be a Deacon? Or your wife died? As in, there are exceptions to the rule, which in this case only seem to me to show the original rule as unfair.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
quote:
Originally posted by Bonaventura:
GAG:

Can you cite any evidence for your assertions?

I believe I did. Arrests, convictions, payments, the lot. Now if only John would dare to provide some sort of evidence for his assertion that it isn't true, we can be done.

I note John hasn't taken any exception to my reformulated statement that the RCC has more CONVICTED molesters and higher payouts than any other church. Of course, that is because I'm really picking up on his sense that because a) he doesn't believe reporters, and b) he thinks I'm anti Catholic, he hasn't bothered to read anything I've linked to or read.

GAG, I'm sorry to say that you haven't provided evidence to support your assertion. The assertion was that one was greater than the other. You have asserted that there is evidence that one is very high. You have provided no evidence about the other. You made a comparison and have not provided the evidence necessary to back it up. We await your evidence with eager anticipation (but not holding our breath).
 
Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :
 
As I recall (and I know there are other Ship mates who could explain the details), when RC priests requested laicisation (whether to marry or not, often the former), the actual request had aspects other than "I wish to be released to (able to) marry." I believe there were elements of saying that they had not (to keep it non-technical) known what they were doing when they were ordained in the first place.

Naturally, there were priests who left to marry who later regretted the decision. However, I have known priests who married who were deeply pained at being separated from their active ministry. I could see their returning to the active ministry (even if after the non-stipendiary model not uncommon in the C of E) if that were possible.

Trisagion has a point about broken promises, though one could be repentant for those. I know that, today, it is more common for people to believe that priests should be married - or to feel compassion for those who could not live the celibacy - but it was quite devastating when many priests left the active ministry in the 1960s and 1970s. I believe this impacted the readiness of the young to pursue priesthood and, in my experience, was very upsetting to the married, who were trying to show their children an example of permanent commitment when priests and nuns were leaving in droves.

Though I believe that married men should be able to become RC priests, I am inclined to doubt that it would have a large impact on the numbers entering the priesthood. I should like to see a greater respect for the priesthood in itself - and believe there are factors, mostly unrelated to celibacy, which are very influential. I shall refrain from discussing those unrelated to celibacy here.
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
quote:
Originally posted by Bonaventura:
GAG:

Can you cite any evidence for your assertions?

I believe I did. Arrests, convictions, payments, the lot. Now if only John would dare to provide some sort of evidence for his assertion that it isn't true, we can be done.

I note John hasn't taken any exception to my reformulated statement that the RCC has more CONVICTED molesters and higher payouts than any other church. Of course, that is because I'm really picking up on his sense that because a) he doesn't believe reporters, and b) he thinks I'm anti Catholic, he hasn't bothered to read anything I've linked to or read.

GAG, I'm sorry to say that you haven't provided evidence to support your assertion. The assertion was that one was greater than the other. You have asserted that there is evidence that one is very high. You have provided no evidence about the other. You made a comparison and have not provided the evidence necessary to back it up. We await your evidence with eager anticipation (but not holding our breath).
Fine, let John win. All the research indicates that basically NO ONE is keeping comparative statistics. The only close survey I could find related to sexual contact with parishoners, which includes adults. Indeed, the article seemed to feel it was mostly adults who were so victimised.

Unless, of course, you count this. Which states that 95% of RCC dioceses and 60% of RCC religious communities were affected. Of 195 dioceses reporting, all but seven have reported allegations of sexual abuse against youth under age 18. All regions averaged between 3% and 6% of incardinated priests, and 2.7% of those in religious community (ie, monks)

Given the oft cited three percent statistic, surely this is higher?

Interestingly, going back and looking at Presleyterians post, it doesn't actually give any rates for any denomination, just says that most of the abuse doesn't happen at the hands of ministers/priests.

[ 07. April 2005, 20:53: Message edited by: Go Anne Go ]
 
Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
Josephine:
quote:
Except that, in the Orthodox church, we don't believe that marriage is dissolved by death.
I am getting confused here. Would this mean that an Orthodox wife, whose husband died, could not remarry because she would be commiting bigamy? [Confused]
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
Thanks, Josephine. That clarifies things.

quote:
Originally posted by Leetle Masha:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:
Your explanation seems to twist it the other way to be interpreted as 'he who thinks he's going to be a bishop should get married first, before he's ordained,' which seems to be saying something a bit different.
Au contraire. It's more like, "he who thinks he should get married should go ahead and get married, and if God has other plans for him, God will advise him of those plans so that he doesn't do anything to get in God's way."

The whole process is one of prayer, discernment, guidance from the Holy Spirit and from the earthly spiritual father, and in short, it's accomplished "with fear and trembling".

The "order of doing these things" occurs, probably, only because the various apostles, who became the first bishops, were initially married--before they became apostles. Before Jesus called them, the apostles were ordinary married working-men. It's just order , Anselmina. It gets confusing among protestants because often protestant ministers are ordained right out of seminary and then, when the right girl comes along, "the rector" can marry her if he wishes. In the Orthodox system, the prospective ordinand graduates from seminary and thinks long and hard about what to do next. Some seminarians go directly into monasteries, but in the US at least, that's rare. Most seminarians in the US, who hope to be priests some day, first test that vocation by dating normally as any college guy might do, and as far as ordination is concerned, they go no farther than sub-deacon until they are absolutely sure what God wants of them. The advantage to this system is a practical one:

a) No one can say that a man "had no choice" and was forced to be a celibate priest.

b) A man has to think long and hard about whether he wants to be a married priest or a monk. You will often see, in the Orthodox Church, ordinations of men who have taken plenty of time to choose a wife, have married and maybe even have several children before they ever become deacons. It's not unusual at all to see a grey-headed deacon being ordained at the age of "over 40".

c) Another practical point about Orthodox ordination is that we don't need to classify some clergy as "Permanent Deacons". Some deacons choose to stop right there, and nobody bats an eyelash--the diaconate is a different ministry, rather than a stepping-stone to the priesthood, just as the priesthood is a ministry in its own right, rather than a stepping-stone to the episcopate.

I hope this helps. Remember, that in Orthodoxy, Holy Tradition carries weight too. Orthodoxy is not limited to "what is contained in Scripture", but of course, Scripture has a weight more or less equal to the Holy Tradition (the tradition handed down by the apostles, the Fathers of the Church and the Seven Ecumenical Councils).

Yes, it helps very much, so thank you for the explanation. I still don't see how the scripture explicitly aids the theology of the 'ordering', as it does seem to apply to 'bishops/presbyters/overseers' in particular who are ordained. But I understand, from what you're saying, that Church order in Orthodoxy carries canonical weight and that other things, therefore, are equally to be considered. So I think I can at least see where you're coming from and why my argument is probably not relevant from the Orthodox perspective.
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
I am getting confused here. Would this mean that an Orthodox wife, whose husband died, could not remarry because she would be commiting bigamy?

We consider remarriage after death to be no different than remarriage after divorce. The marriage shouldn't have ended, but because of the weakness of one or both of the partners, it has. It wasn't meant to be so, but that's one of the things that can happen when sinners marry other sinners.

So, when a marriage has ended, either because of divorce, or because one of the partners has died and the other partner hasn't the strength to keep the marriage alive, the church may grant permission to remarry. It's not an automatic thing -- it's a pastoral concession to the realities of life. The service for a second wedding is penitential. Because we view marriage as a calling, a place to work out your salvation in fear and trembling, the church recognizes that some people need to be married. And for them, if the first marriage ends, the grace of a second marriage is permitted.

For most of the first millenium, a second marriage couldn't be done in the church at all. Someone getting married a second time just had a civil marriage, and they were excommunicate as adulterers for a period of several years. At the end of the penance, they were readmitted to the Eucharist, and their marriage was at that point considered a Christian marriage.

It was under the Ottomans that the church became more liberal on second marriages, and the rite of second marriage began to be used, and that excommunication following a second marriage was no longer imposed.
 
Posted by Leetle Masha (# 8209) on :
 
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
my argument is probably not relevant from the Orthodox perspective.
Oh, please don't think that! For one thing, it helps me to try harder to be a bit less obtuse! It is very good for us (Orthodoxen) to be prompted to think things through, so you did us all a favor, and me a big favor!

I am so glad Josephine is here--she has a much clearer understanding of all these matters than I do!

It's good we can discuss these things together, so that we can have a better idea of what our clergy have to think about. So often, I'm afraid we don't even imagine how much goes into the decision to enter Holy Orders. Some people think it's a "cushy job" where you sit all day in a book-lined study, dressed in comfortable tweeds, smoking a pipe and listening to people's troubles from behind a desk....

But it is a calling, and a calling to a life that "Lord, You know it ain't easy...."
 
Posted by Presleyterian (# 1915) on :
 
In Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis, Professor Jenkins cites a pedophilia rate of somewhere between .2% to 1.7% among Catholic priests and a slightly higher rate among "Protestant clergy." Obviously I can't vouch for the accuracy of his data, but Professor Jenkins is a well-regarded historian and sociologist. And as an ex-Catholic who joined the ECUSA, he certainly no Roman Catholic apologist.

Has the reporting of the Catholic scandal been greater? Yes. As others have suggested, the Catholic Church makes a much more newsworthy target in some circles than, say, the Seventh Day Adventists, who have weathered some shocking sex abuse scandals themselves. And the Bishops' despicable cover-up tactics made this story an investigative reporter's dream.

Have the pay-outs been greater to victims? Yes, because when compared to its Protestant counterparts, especially of the non-denominational variety, the Catholic Church is substantially richer and better insured. The victims have also been supported by a well-organized cadre of sympathetic lay people and attorneys who quite understandably -- and thank goodness -- aren't about to let this rest.

Which I guess puts us right back where we started: waiting for evidence to support GoAnneGo's thesis that:
quote:
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.

 
Posted by Ginga (# 1899) on :
 
For what it's worth, I used to work in child protection, which basically covered sex abuse, neglect and violence (or a combination thereof). In about 99% the sex abuse cases, the (sometimes potential or alleged) offender was the father. We had exactly no - count them, none - cases involving priests, ministers, pastors or other religious figures in the time that I was there. Not that they don't happen, but they make up a small percentage of the whole from what I can tell.

This was a tertiary referral centre - it got the very worst cases from all over the UK (mostly London though, for practical reasons. There's other centres throughout the country). Some of the histories made me feel physically ill. Of every case that was open while I was there, only two made local or national media. One was not a sexual abuse case, and the other was an incest story that you wouldn't believe. None of the others did.

If sex abuse, real or alleged, is to hit the papers, one party has to be famous. Michael Jackson is famous, the Catholic Church is famous. Joe Bloggs' dad is not.

I have no stats to back this up, it's just anecdotal, but I wanted to weigh in on the side of "news reports about RCC scandals do not a statistical argument make".
 
Posted by Henry Troup (# 3722) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
... Now, the priest in question was J.P. Audet OP, OC*, a theologian of some repute. But no one cited chapter and verse of canon law.

What I've always wondered, in addition to the actual canon law question on this issue, is why they would want to return?

Who wants to return to an organization that forced you to choose between being with them or getting married and seems to hold the two are mutually exclusive. ...

The theologian in question, according to his wife, had at some point in his forties reached a conclusion about the proper role of marriage in his life, went to his superior and reported that he had decided that it was time for him to be released from the vow of celibacy. He was duly suspended -- as a theologian and university professor, he wasn't a parish priest -- and some years later, met the woman he married and had children with. This might not be the usual story.

And I suspect it was downright terrifying for the superior (bishop, I presume) in question, to have a serious and respected theologian come with this issue. Essentially, he had concluded that it was in no way an impairment of his priestly function to marry. He seems to have written a book on it: Structures of Christian priesthood: home, marriage, and celibacy in the pastoral service of the Church, 1967.

Amazon lists only two of his 350 books (in two languages.) I just purchased (seconds ago) the used English copy of the book on celibacy. It's in print in French.

I had a very tiny role in the reprint of Jesus and the Gospel Project as I found the English translation that was misfiled in his library. The About the Author is a nice capsule biography. (Although the accented e's have been lost.)
 
Posted by Go Anne Go (# 3519) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
In Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis, Professor Jenkins cites a pedophilia rate of somewhere between .2% to 1.7% among Catholic priests and a slightly higher rate among "Protestant clergy." Obviously I can't vouch for the accuracy of his data, but Professor Jenkins is a well-regarded historian and sociologist. And as an ex-Catholic who joined the ECUSA, he certainly no Roman Catholic apologist.

Has the reporting of the Catholic scandal been greater? Yes. As others have suggested, the Catholic Church makes a much more newsworthy target in some circles than, say, the Seventh Day Adventists, who have weathered some shocking sex abuse scandals themselves. And the Bishops' despicable cover-up tactics made this story an investigative reporter's dream.

Have the pay-outs been greater to victims? Yes, because when compared to its Protestant counterparts, especially of the non-denominational variety, the Catholic Church is substantially richer and better insured. The victims have also been supported by a well-organized cadre of sympathetic lay people and attorneys who quite understandably -- and thank goodness -- aren't about to let this rest.

Which I guess puts us right back where we started: waiting for evidence to support GoAnneGo's thesis that:
quote:
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.

Philip Jenkins is an ex-Catholic, and is generally regarding (denomination of current worship aside) as a Catholic apologist. He has studied the history, not done any actual studies or surveys within the RCC. His figures regarind the supposed higher rate amongst protestant clergy relate to adults, not children, thus not pedophiles. The study I showed, citing the 3-6% figure:
1) Is cited to by the RCC council of Bishops. They're Catholic, they're clergy, and citing the higher figure, which certainly isn't apologetic.
2) Pertain solely to molestation of children, not adults.
3) Was conducted by actual survey of dioceses, not theories of history.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Joe Bloggs dad can will only bugger Joe Bloggs and not even other siblings necessarily. Clergymen and care-home workers can bugger hundreds - each. And have. Are we not to expect more of and judge 'shepherds' more harshly? God does. The 1975 vintage English speaking seminarians yielded a 5% paedophile rate.
 
Posted by Ginga (# 1899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Joe Bloggs dad can will only bugger Joe Bloggs and not even other siblings necessarily.

Whether or not that's true (and it's a dangerous assumption), it has no bearing on the fact that news coverage is no indicator of who is statistically more likely to be a danger to Joe, which was all I was talking about.

If his dad abuses him, no-one hears about it; if his priest abuses him (whether he also abuses others or not), it'll make the news. Maybe this is right and proper, I wouldn't like to say, but that's not the point. The point is that just because we hear more about priests, it doesn't mean they do it more often.

I'm not trying to make any exciting new observation, just back up an old one using some first-hand (anecdotal) evidence.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0