Add to that the fact that there are priests in the West (and elsewhere,presumably) who are loyal to Rome and have wives and children (most,I suspect,being converts from the Church of England) it doesn't shock me to the core of my being to hear of priests with children.
Yes,my views are unlike the views of some.
Is this supposed to remind people of the “crisis” of 2002?
[[How do these speculative numbers and percentages compare with Protestant, Jewish or Muslim clergy illegitimately fathering children, then neglecting or abandoning them? We don’t know, because Rezendes and the Globe show no inclination to investigate any clergy other than Catholic priests. To do so might undermine what is clearly part of the agenda here: to attack the Catholic Church’s rule on priestly celibacy. Neglected children of priests, Rezendes writes, “are the unfortunate victims of a church that has, for nearly 900 years, forbidden priests to marry….”
And what of our secular culture? Citing the U.S. Census Bureau, the National Fatherhood Initiative reported recently that “24 million children, 1 out of 3, live without their biological father in the home.” And “millions more,” notes the National Center for Fathering, “have dads who are physically present, but emotionally absent.”]]
Wow ! Is this trying to justify bad behavior by saying someone else does it ? I wonder if the person who wrote this even begins to realize just how bad this sounds
So let me get this straight - the tens of children of Priests is a problem worth writing about in a major newspaper, but the tens of millions of ordinary fatherless children in America is not worth any ink. Right?
This article reminds me of the anti-Catholic stories I heard in my youth in the 1950s and 60s. The Boston Globe is just giving those anti-Catholic attacks a new spin. And I give them no credence.