Pope Reportedly Promises "Solutions" to Priestly Celibacy

Channel News Asia ^ | 7/13/14 | AFP

[marshmallow]

Pope Francis promised "solutions" to the issue of priestly celibacy in an interview on Sunday that raised the possibility the Catholic Church could eventually lift a ban on married priests, but was quickly refuted by the Vatican

VATICAN CITY: Pope Francis promised "solutions" to the issue of priestly celibacy in an interview on Sunday that raised the possibility the Catholic Church could eventually lift a ban on married priests, but was quickly refuted by the Vatican.

Interviewed by Italy's La Repubblica daily, Francis also condemned child sex abuse as a "leprosy" in the Church and cited his aides as saying that "the level of paedophilia in the Church is at two per cent".

"That two per cent includes priests and even bishops and cardinals," the pope was quoted as saying.

Asked whether priests might one day be allowed to marry, Francis pointed out that celibacy was instituted "900 years after Our Lord's death" and that clerics can marry in some Eastern Churches under Vatican tutelage.

[metmom]

It will never contradict other Scripture.

It will always glorify God.

It will NEVER lead me into sin.

There is the additional fact of having God confirm something He showed me by having it come from another source or two, that are completely unrelated to the reading I was doing or to each other.

I never depend on just one *feeling* or *impression*.

Just as an example. One day I was reading Judges 3 and the first two verses of the chapter stood out and I saw that this could have a parallel to us spiritually. That God doesn’t always deliver us from every situation because we need to learn spiritual warfare.

Now, I didn’t say a word to anyone about this, but later that night in Bible study, the Bible study leader just in passing, while discussing another topic, quoted those exact two verses and came to the same conclusion about them.

I thought that was confirmation that what I felt God had showed me was Him, and not my imagination.

There are lots of situations like that. God knows and understands that we don’t always hear his voice clearly and so I’ve found that He confirms stuff like that all the time.

I’d daresay that others here have had the same experiences and could provide examples of their own.

This is much more rare, but stuff like this does happen....

Another time, I was driving with my kids and saw a car with some college age kids in it and as we were pulling up to the stoplight, I had a *vision* so to speak, of pulling up next to the car, them rolling their window down, and saying something very inappropriate that I would not have wanted my children to hear. So I rolled up my window and told the kids to not pay attention to the car next to us if they said something.

As I pulled up next to them, it played out EXACTLY as I *saw* it. They rolled their window down and tried to say something to us.

I believe that God protected my kids from hearing something that they didn’t need to know at that age.

[metmom]

It chastity and virginity are so highly valued, then it by default denigrates marriage.

Marriage then becomes the second choice, the second best for someone who’s not good enough, or holy enough, or has enough self-control to remain chaste.

If not good to be alone simply meant other human companionship, the God would not have created Eve only, blessed their marriage, all aspects of it, given humankind a sex drive and then commanded them to be fruitful and multiply.

God’s intent is for man to be married. There are exceptions, of course, and what Jesus is doing here is validating them as acceptable for that individual called to it, not recommending it as a preferred lifestyle.

[metmom]

I won't lie and say there isn't from time to time. I am human after all. But I don't see a reason to go with your methodology until and unless I can be convinced it has a reasonable possibility (real possibility) of being free from the error I've described (my own personal opinion contaminating the study).

Likewise that applies to your decision as well, to follow and accept the teachings of the Catholic church.

On what basis do you determine that they are reliable, they have correct interpretation, and that they are safe to follow to keep you from error?

Do you agree it's all too easy for every single person who has ever lived to fool themselves into believing they are "right", when objectively they are not? Do you agree that's a danger for every person?

That is true, but again, it also applies to the one who searches Scripture out themselves, or who take the who package of someone who has done the work for them as with the RCC.

I was just reading something that said that if you think you can't be deceived, you already are.

Everyone of us is in that danger. That's why it's important to have an anchor, some sure, solid source of Truth to which they can go back and examine what they believe and why they believe it.

God gave us a mind for a reason and it needs to be renewed and conformed to His thinking and that is through His word.

[metmom]

FWIW, I don't believe that God truly expects perfection from us. He knows we can't do it.

Everything we do and everything we are is stained and corrupted by sin. We see through a glass darkly. He knows that we being finite, mortal beings, cannot possibly grasp the infinite and immortal.

There are certain basics that are necessary for salvation. Repentance, confession, believing, but beyond that, there is wide latitude and there are matters which are not critical to ones salvation, that if someone is wrong about them, they will not be not saved.

I'm of the opinion that God would rather work out His character in us to show Christ to a lost and dying world, than to have our theology *perfect*, with all the i's dotted and t's crossed, and miss what's really important in live.

Just like the Pharisees.

1 Corinthians 13:2 comes to mind. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"If chastity and virginity are so highly valued, then it by default denigrates marriage."

That's your opinion, but in practice, it turns out not to be true. You yourself said "It's a society which values marriage that would value chastity and virginity." which logically indicates that they're both being valued together.

Nothing here "denigrates" marriage. Marriage is, after all, a Sacrament! Celibacy, or even Consecrated virginity, is not. Maybe you didn't know that.

"Marriage then becomes the second choice, the second best for someone who’s not good enough, or holy enough, or has enough self-control to remain chaste."

You'll find people who, like you, express this opinion, and you'll find people who say the opposite. However, it's not a matter of "ranking," because it's all a matter of calling, and of intention.

If a person were to decide on celibacy because they had a distaste for physical intimacy, or an aversion to the opposite sex, or didn't want the hassles of a couple of decades of raising kids, or denied the holiness of the state of marriage, that would be a very serious distortion. Likewise if a person married for the sake of sexual gratification, or economic/prestige advantage, or to conform to mere social expectation. Those intentions have often distorted the marriage choice.

Rather, it's a matter of calling. If this is what God is calling you to, it's a matter of devotion and obedience, not some kind of spiritual status-seeking. Whichever it is, it's best for you if God has called you to it.

"And there are those who live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can."
Matthew 19:12

"If not good to be alone simply meant other human companionship, the God would not have created Eve only, blessed their marriage, all aspects of it, given humankind a sex drive and then commanded them to be fruitful and multiply."

All this is good, but my point was that "not good to be alone" doesn't mean "not good to be without sexual gratification" or "not good to be without a spouse." It means just what it say: ALONE. It indicates a need for society.

And what is the first, most fundamental, most indispensible society? The conjugal family. From that comes all of society.

"Another man" would have been a very suitable companion for Adam, if were just a matter of building a shelter, going fishing, exploring the mountain crags, running foot-races or whatever they wanted to do. "A sterile woman" would have been a good companion too, if it were a matter of sexual satisfaction. But the earth needed to be populated, so for most people, the fundamental companionship is going to be marriage --- a sacred, faithful, fruitful union --- and family life, which is the source of all earthly society.

"God’s intent is for man to be married. There are exceptions, of course, and what Jesus is doing here is validating them as acceptable for that individual called to it, not recommending it as a preferred lifestyle."

Once again, it's preferred if that's what God is calling you to. Paul was a genius (let me say, inspired!) for recognizing the unique value of that.

And you can't just flick off Revelation like a piece of irrelevance, I think. Those 144,000 celibate men "have been redeemed from among mankind as first-fruits to God and to the Lamb."

A pretty high honor, I would say. But what do you think it means?

[Iscool]

No surprising that the same stuff pops up in a Church spread across the 6 inhabited continents with a flock of 1.2 billion. What IS surprising, perhaps, is that it is quite a bit less prevalent in the Catholic Church than elsewhere.

I don't believe that...I not seen a bit of evidence to suggest that...Even your pope Francis says there is a gay lobby at the vatican...

[Mrs. Don-o]

Well, iscool, I've posted many times on other threads, the evidence that child abuse is not especially prevalent in the Catholic Church (compared to other churches, or other groups). Salvation, want to share your resources and links with Iscool?

I don't have time to repeat every bit of it here and now, but here's something for you to look at:

• List of Non-Catholic clergy sex abuse incidents by denomination, at http://www.reformation.com/

• Insurers have been professionally assessing the risks since they began offering riders on liability policies in the 1980s.Two of the largest insurers report no higher risks in covering Catholic churches or abuse liability claims, than Protestant denominations .

• Wisconsin-based Church Mutual Insurance Co. has 100,000 client churches and has seen a steady filing of about five sexual molestation cases a week for more than a decade, even though its client base has grown.

  “It would be incorrect to call it a Catholic problem,” said Church Mutual’s risk control manager, Rick Schaber. “We do not see one denomination above another. It’s equal. It’s also equal among large metropolitan churches and small rural churches.”

• Iowa-based Guide One Center for Risk Management, which insures more than 40,000 congregations, also said Catholic churches are not considered a greater risk or charged higher premiums. “Our claims experience shows this happens evenly across denominations,” said spokeswoman Melanie Stonewall.

• Philip Jenkins, the Distinguished Professor of History at Baylor, (not a Catholic)and author of Pedophiles and Priests,, in a comprehensive study of more than 20 years of data on clerical abuse, found no evidence that Catholic or other celibate clergy are any more likely to be involved in misconduct or abuse than clergy of any other denomination."

  IN fact, clergy in general had lower abuse rates than many other professions (teachers, hotel-motel-restaurant workers, athletes, social workers!)

• National Center for Missing and Exploited Children President Ernie Allen said his organization has received more than 825,000 reports of child abuse and does not see any statistical indication the Catholic Church has a greater prevalence of cases than any other setting — after accounting for the size of the church, the largest Christian denomination in the U.S. and the world.

  “There is a common denominator among those who abuse children,” Allen said. “They seek out situations where they have easy access and cover. It should surprise nobody that an abuser is a teacher, coach, youth leader, pediatrician, minister, priest or rabbi.”

This should get you started on a large volume of evidence. Google will be useful.

If you have any other questions, please let me know.

[Salvation]

With your permission I would like to copy your research. Excellent post.

[Salvation]

Non-Catholic Clergy Abuse & Crimes

[Salvation]

These are old links.

Sexual Abuse of Children by Protestant Ministers

Report: Protestant Church Insurers Handle 260 Sex Abuse Cases a Year

Abuse by Protestant Ministers of Every Denomination

Child Sexual Molestation by Various Protestant Clergy

Baptist Predators website

"Yeshiva" of Brooklyn also Guilty of Child Abuse

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Teacher's Advocacy of Pedophilia Raises Legal Questions

Teachers and Pedophilia - In YOUR Backyard

Washington Post -- D.C. school officials reported 220 abuse allegations against teachers

Sex Abuse by Teachers Said Worse Than Catholic Church

WHEN BOYS ARE MOLESTED BY TEACHERS AND OTHERS IN POSITIONS OF AUTHORITY

 

Former Manassas teacher to get 25-year term in child-porn case

Forgotten Study: Abuse in School 100 Times Worse than by Priests

 

[Mrs. Don-o]

My dear, you absolutely have my permission to spread it far and wide.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I’ll use yours too! Thank you so much!

[Salvation]

Most abusers are someone who knows the child intimately, for example:

A parent
A teacher
A coach
A minister

Priests are way down on the list.

So I’ve always said to watch the parent who is also a teacher at a mid high or highschool, who also coaches a girl’s softball team or boys little league team and is also the youth minister in charge of Sunday School at your church.........then your child is in big trouble.

Get it? Parent>Teacher>Coach>Sunday School connection.....when a male or female meets all four of these you may have a pedophile to watch. It’s the combination. I’m not picking on any one group of people.

[PLMerite]

“Pope Reportedly Promises “Solutions” to Priestly Celibacy”

What, is he going to start by allowing them to date? Instead of the 14 Stations of the Cross it’ll be the 4 bases?

[Stand back, I hear thunder...]

[metmom]

1 Corinthians 5:1-13 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.

For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people—not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

Lots of excuses about how the Catholic church is not so bad.. As if that justifies their behavior.

Instead of outright condemning it and following the directives of the Apostle Paul in dealing with sexual immorality within the church. After all, it is in the very Bible Catholics like to claim their church wrote, but then again, some Catholics are just incapable of criticizing in the least their beloved church as if admitting it is wrong here forces them to admit that they might be wrong somewhere else.

Better just to point fingers in other directions and ignore it.

[RichInOC]

Rich’s Undeniable Truth of the Day: It’s dangerous to make judgments based on the memory of a ninety-year-old journalist. (It’s hazardous enough to take the word of the younger ones.)

[FourtySeven]

It’s been my experience that it’s impossible to avoid all error all the time, individually. That is, every person at one point in their life commits error. Admitting this to oneself is a big first step. You seem to agree with this anyway.

So the real problem in approaching our relationship with the infinite is, how can we limit the error in our lives.

It’s also my experience that I avoid more error when I consult with others for knowledge and guidance. I think another poster on this thread even pointed out that God said it is not good for man to be alone. And this is just another example. We aren’t created to go at things alone.

We also are carnal beings that is, we aren’t pure spirit and we aren’t pure animal. We are a human being which is a spirit-body composite. Neither fully one or the other. So both states (if you will) must be acknowledged for what they require.

It’s thus unreasonable, at least IMO, to believe God would have us approach him, desire to want to know him, without recognizing our bodily needs. In other words he’s not going to say to us, “ignore your human nature and only come to me spiritually”. That would be just as erroneous as attempting to dialog with him on a purely carnal basis. Because again, we are a spirit-body composite. That’s what it means to be human. That’s why we are separate from both animals and angels.

So with all that said, that we aren’t to be alone and also must be a human being with all our humanity in play when we seek to know God, it seems unreasonable to me that God, who is not lax in his promise to always be with us, would send his Holy Spirit to teach us BOTH spiritually AND bodily.

This is the reason I “trust” the Church, because the Church offers both avenues for the Holy Spirit to enter my life.

However if I’m just “reading the Bible for myself” I have closed off one avenue for the Holy Spirit to teach me, namely through the body. And thus, this seems to me, to lead to greater error.

[FourtySeven]

Correction: “ it seems unreasonable to me that God, who is not lax in his promise to always be with us, would send his Holy Spirit to teach us BOTH spiritually AND bodily.”

Should be...

” it DOESN’T seem unreasonable to me that God, who is not lax in his promise to always be with us, would send his Holy Spirit to teach us BOTH spiritually AND bodily.”

Emphasis added to the word “doesn’t” to emphasize the correction.

[metmom]

Of course we can’t avoid error.

We’re human.

And yes, the body and other believers can be a tremendous help in spiritual growth. But a church is no surefire way to avoid error as well. Think Jim Jones, just for one. It takes both, although if I had to say, I’d put more weight on Scripture than the church. Scripture is Truth, the God breathed, Holy Spirit inspired word of God.

That’s why it behooves the individual to keep on their toes themselves. Nobody is going to be able to blame-shift on Judgment Day or when believers stand before Christ.

[metmom]

However if I’m just “reading the Bible for myself” I have closed off one avenue for the Holy Spirit to teach me, namely through the body. And thus, this seems to me, to lead to greater error.

I think the advantage of the body is that it accelerates the learning curve.

You can be taught things much quicker than if you had to find it all out on your own.

The danger with that, however, is becoming dependent on it and not reading the Word yourself.