Posted on 06/14/2002 11:09:07 PM PDT by Polycarp
![]() |
||||||||||||
![]() |
In 1992 the Archdiocese of Chicago reviewed some 2,252 priest personnel files. They found that 40 priests 1.8 percent had been guilty of sexual misconduct at some point in their career. Of that 40, only one was a pedophile. Another study by Penn State Professor Philip Jenkins reveals that a mere .3 percent of priests are pedophiles. Married men abuse children in far greater numbers. Anywhere from 3 to 8 percent if you believe the studies. So statistically, children are far safer with the celibates. As the U.S. cardinals said in their report of April 24: "a link between celibacy and pedophilia cannot be scientifically maintained." "But if only these men had a spouse, a sexual outlet, they would not need to turn to kids" goes the conventional wisdom (and the screeds regularly littering the op-ed pages). Aside from reducing women to little more than child-protection devices, there are logical holes here. Putting aside the media fixation with the Catholic Church it is important to point out, as the Christian Science Monitor recently did, that the majority of sexual-abuse allegations in America occur in Protestant churches. There are 3,500 sex-abuse allegations a year roughly 70 a week in Protestant churches according to the Christian Ministry Resource Survey. Remember, these are churches where married clergy and volunteers predominate. If the objective is to stop the abuse before us, and prohibit its happening again- the Protestant statistics prove marriage is no insurance policy. Since the victims in 98 percent of the alleged Catholic abuse cases were teenage boys, allowing priests to marry (women) seems a pointless solution. There is just no correlation between the offense and the corrective. It's a little like offering the alcoholic priest the deed to a dairy and calling him cured. If you believe the folks on TV, celibacy was something "imposed on the priesthood" during the Middle Ages to keep the children of clerics from inheriting Church property. If I had a dime for every time I've heard this. Actually, the real history is far more interesting, and complex. To begin with, Christ himself was a celibate so it is no surprise that the early Church and the Scripture itself salutes and commends the practice. In Matthew's Gospel, Christ lauds those who "make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." In his first letter to the Corinthians St. Paul, another celibate, writes: "the unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord....but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided." From the time of Christ forward celibacy was the Catholic norm for priests married clergy were merely tolerated. Certainly by the 4th century there is little doubt where the Church stood on the matter. In 385, Pope Siricius issued the first papal decree on priestly celibacy. Five years later, the Council of Carthage announced: "Previous councils have decreed that bishops, priests, and deacons must be continent and perfectly chaste, as becomes ministers of God...as the Apostles taught." By the Council of Toledo in 633, a bishop's permission was needed for a priest to marry. Finally in 1139, Pope Gregory VII declared celibacy mandatory for all priests; formalizing in law what was already the general practice for centuries. And the canard that protecting Church land rights drove the papacy to the discipline of celibacy just isn't true. But there is a spiritual explanation. Starting in the third century married priests were required to abstain from sex the night before offering Mass. The notion being: Separate yourselves from the worldly and focus on the transcendent. As the demand for the sacraments increased, these men were abstaining from sex all the time. Thus, like all things in the Church, a practice rooted in tradition evolved over time and eventually was codified into law. At a time when the world is so transfixed by the deviant, where all mysteries are laid bare, these celibate men and women are a contradiction: a people set apart, people who have saved the most precious part of themselves for God alone. The world needs that example and purity today more than ever. In the final analysis we are right to condemn, and bring to justice those non-celibate clergymen guilty of these heinous crimes, but let us not strike out against those who faithfully observe their vows to God and continue to walk steadily down this holy and well-trodden path of sacrifice. Raymond Arroyo is news director and host of The World Over on EWTN, the world's largest religious network. He writes from New Orleans. |
![]() |
|
![]() |
||||||||
|
![]() |
||||
![]() |
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-arroyo051602.asp
|
...on FR, I'd be rich...
So the history channel was outright lying?
I seriously doubt they had the Catholic agenda at heart...lots of TV "historians" are lazy in their research for pop history programming, accepting the established WASP story line.
I do wish people would stop confusing celibacy with chastity, though. The vow of celibacy is a vow never to formally marry. The vow of chastity is the vow to behave themselves. In French the word "celibataire" simply means a bachelor, in accord with the Latin.
Pray to St. Peter Damian for reform.
As does the Latin root, I understand. In normal usage in present-day English, however, "celibate" means to be unmarried and refrain from sex. The only ones who use the word depending on its etymology are the gay priests and seminarians and their supporters; they're being disingenuous and they know it is, quite literally, "double-talk."
chastity (chàs´tî-tê) noun
1.The condition or quality of being pure or chaste.
2.a. Virginity. b. Virtuous character. c. Celibacy.
[Middle English chastite, from Old French chastete, from Latin castitâs, from castus, pure. See chaste.]
Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.
Indeed they were. I'll bet they didn't mention many of the following:
Clement of Alexandria (~150-220 AD) "Stromata" Book VII, Chapter XI
Canons XXVII and XXXIII of the Council of Elvira 295-302 AD
Council of Nicea 325 AD
Pope Siricius "Dicreta" 385 AD
Pope Siricius "Cum in unum" 386 AD
Synod of Rome 386 AD
Second Council of Carthage 390 AD
Codex canonum Ecclesiae Africanae 419 AD
catechesis of St. Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386 AD)
"Letter to Pammachius" St. Jerome (347-419 AD)
St. Jeromes' polemic with Vigilantius from Gaul 406 AD
"De conjugiis adulterinis" St. Augustine 419 AD
"Breviatio Ferrandi" ~550 AD
Third Council of Toledo 589 AD
councils held under St. Caesarius of Arles sixth century AD
Irish Penitentials sixth century AD
Poenitentiale Vinniani, no. 27, sixth century AD
Council of Metz 888 AD
Council of Mainz 888 AD
Council of Rheims 909 AD
Synod of Rome 1077 AD
First Lateran Council Canons III, XI 1123 AD
Second Lateran Council Canons VI, VII, XI 1139 AD
I don't want to start playing "duelling dictionaries" with you, but the 1913 Webster's Revised Unabridged gives the stricter definition, as does the OED, 2nd ed. (v. 2, p. 1020). In the 60s many dictionaries shifted from setting standards to following "common usage" (for both definitions and pronunciations). I tend to judge a dictionary by whether or not it contains the word "aborticide."
Is the Pope just making up these celibacy rules because of a power trip, or does he have Scriptural basis for them? What would give him the right to impose rules where the Bible doesn't authorize him?
The broad outline of the last fifty years of celibacy scholarship shows that something has occurred that not infrequently causes misunderstandings in historical research: a one-sided formulation of the question has produced one-sided answers. Scholars took the present discipline of celibacy in the Roman Catholic Church as their point of departure and searched for a pattern of clerics in the unmarried state in the first centuries. This, however, they did not find -- at any rate, not for all clerics. The question that they should have asked is whether the early Church perhaps knew a different discipline of continence. This was the approach of the older German scholarship in the nineteenth century. But that was though to have been refuted scientifically, and so these contributions were consigned to oblivion. Actually, if this deficit has not become evident already, it ought to when on looks at the Church's legislation. That is to say, according to canon law an exclusively unmarried clergy, as we know it today, existed at all only after the Council of Trent (1521-1545). Even the above-mentioned Second Lateran Council, which is repeatedly cited as the beginning of the history of celibacy, did not intend to exclude married men from holy orders; it merely declared marriages contracted after the reception of orders to be invalid (canon 7). [Emphasis added.]
"I give you the keys to the Kingdom. What you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven."
I'm obedient to Church authority. Celibacy is a discipline. It can be changed. The Holy Spirit has not moved the Church to do so. Therefore, I'm not worried about it.
If they change the discipline tomorrow, which could indeed be done by the simple stroke of a pen, I have no problem with that.
Until they do, I will defend the prudence of the current discipline.
If they do change it in my lifetime, I would have to discern whether I have a vocation simply to the Permanent Diaconate (I do) or whether God is calling me to more than that. Until then, I simply cannot campaign for a change that I honestly believe would be terribly imprudent at the present juncture.
....these men were abstaining from sex all the time. ..... GUESS NOT!!!! But it would have been a GOOD IDEA if they had!
Prove it.
The reason Catholic cases are in the media is because lawyers see deep pockets in the organizational structure of the RCC, and only after lawyers take cases, in most incidences, do these cases become public.
There are just as many protestant cases, if not more, but because of deep rooted, institutionalized anti-Catholicism in the mainstream media, it serves their agenda to only report Catholic cases.
If you ever examined actual research on this issue, not just pop culture headlines, you would realize just how very wrong you are.
Clergy Scandal Is Widespread Miami Herald | April 13,2002 | Donna Gelrke-White
Posted on 6/11/02 11:29 PM Eastern by Lady In Blue
She says he gave her counseling -- and that led to sex.
When she complained to his bishop, he told her she was to blame.
Now as plaintiff Jane Doe, she has a sexual misconduct civil lawsuit that last month the state Supreme Court said her denomination -- the Episcopal Diocese of Southeast Florida -- must answer.
While headlines are breaking almost daily about Catholic priests, other religions are facing the same problem : What to do when their clergy are accused of sexual misconduct? From coast to coast, Protestant and Jewish leaders have been charged with sexual abuse -- some in high-profile cases.
In the last three months, local police have arrested two ministers -- both non-Catholic -- for sex crimes.
It's a false impression to think only Roman Catholic priests are involved with sexual abuse, says Dr. Gary Schoener, a Minnesota clinical psychologist and national expert on sex abuse by clergy members. In fact, he estimates two-thirds of the 2,000 cases he worked on during the past three decades involved Protestant ministers. Most involved religious leaders abusing women or teenage girls. The same is true for Catholics, except for the high-profile cases in the Boston Archdiocese and other dioceses where a few priests molested scores of boys.
''But Protestant cases are tougher to bring,'' says Schoener, who runs the Walk-In Counseling Center in Minneapolis. ``With the exception of the United Methodists, you can't charge a diocese, synod or bishop with failure to supervise or negligent retention of an offending minister because they don't employ the pastor -- the congregation does.''
Nonetheless, many religious organizations are requiring background checks and setting up procedures on how to handle abuse cases.
''This is something that all churches are having to deal with -- and we haven't in the past,'' says Mary Cox, communications director for Southeast Florida's Episcopal Diocese.
While she says she can't comment on the ongoing case -- church leaders haven't decided yet whether to appeal the state Supreme Court ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court -- Cox notes the alleged incidents happened before the Episcopal church installed new policies.
''We were once very blind that this could all happen,'' she says.
That changed when a jury awarded a Colorado woman $1.2 million in a sexual misconduct judgment against the Episcopal Diocese of Colorado.
Now, Episcopal Life, the denomination's monthly newspaper, reports that background checks are encouraged for all clergy and church volunteers, and that dioceses adopt sexual misconduct policies and follow procedure manuals, which the Diocese of Southeast Florida now has in place.
All religious groups have certain responsibilities -- and can be held accountable in civil courts, says Yale law professor Peter Schuck. ''They do have an obligation to hire and supervise people with care,'' he says.
In the 1980s, the New Jersey Supreme Court found a house of worship could be held liable for negligent hiring or retention, noting the danger of ``exposing members of the public to a potentially dangerous individual.''
''I think the time has come when society needs to recognize that simply to be ordained is not a license to prey,'' says West Palm Beach attorney Gary Roberts, who represents Jane Doe in Lake Worth.
He added that he is handling another case involving an Episcopal priest in Central Florida accused of molesting a boy at a party.
Religious groups are beginning to conduct their own investigations when sexual allegations surface.
An internal investigation by the Orthodox Union of rabbis, for example, found ''profound errors of judgment'' in its handling of allegations against New Jersey Rabbi Baruch Lanner, who is scheduled to go on trial Monday on charges of criminal sexual contact with two teenage girls.
And many religious groups have installed safeguards -- even without allegations arising in their own congregations.
Since the mid-1990s, Kendall United Methodist Church has required two teachers to be in each Sunday school class for children, said Mary Susan Ward, the congregation's minister of Christian education.
Background screenings are conducted for all paid staff and many volunteers, she said.
Despite measures like this, clergy abuse cases continue to surface.
A Southern Baptist minister, Fernando Garcia, made 26 videotapes of himself abusing numerous children before an 8-year-old boy came forward in Greenwood, S.C., two years ago. He recently began a 60-year prison sentence for sexually abusing 23 children.
Closer to home, Boca Raton Rabbi Jerrold Levy was sentenced to 6 ½ years in prison for having sex with a 14-year-old boy he met over the Internet.
The United Methodists have a case before the Florida Supreme Court to resolve whether the denomination can be held accountable for a volunteer at a Pensacola church who allegedly sexually harassed a female staffer.
And just recently, police in South Florida accused two non-Catholic Christian leaders of sexual misconduct.
Last month, Miami police arrested the Rev. Misael Castillo, 41, the pastor of Iglesia Bautista Jerusalen in Allapattah, after officers said they found him naked inside a parked van having sex with a 17-year-old boy. He was charged with having unlawful sexual acts with a minor and released on a $15,000 bond. Castillo will be arraigned May 6.
Castillo has resigned from the church, said the Rev. David Cleeland, executive director of the Miami Baptist Association, a 280-church organization to which Iglesia Bautista Jerusalen belongs.
In January, youth pastor Monte Vaughn Benjamin of the nondenominational A Place Called Hope was charged with molesting two boys, 17 and 14. He has pleaded not guilty and a trial date is set for May 13.
Benjamin has told church leaders he is innocent. He has been relieved of duties until court proceedings and the police investigation are final, according to a church statement.
For their own protection, religious leaders must institute rules -- for example, not meet alone with children or adults -- to avoid any appearance of wrongdoing, said Fort Lauderdale attorney J. David Bogenschultz, who has represented some pastors.
''It's a shame,'' he said. ``It's the cost of doing business. You are in harm's way -- you have to protect yourself.''
The Herald wire services also contributed to this report.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.