Posted on 03/12/2015 12:31:53 PM PDT by Legatus
1. Many lifelong, multiple molesters are married men (e.g. Alfred Kinsey, Jerry Sandusky);
2. The Catholic clergy are no more likely to be molesters, than the clergy of any other church.
The total amount of pedophilia + ephebophilia in the Catholic Clergy amounts to less than 2 percent — comparable to the rate among married men. This was the research finding of Pennsylvania State University Prof. Philip Jenkins, eminent religion and history scholar, and a non-Catholic who’s studied the church’s abuse problems for 20 years.
Jenkins said there has been no formal study comparing denominations for rates of child abuse. However, insurers have been 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 than Protestant denominations (Jenkins, Pedophiles and Priests).
The idea that celibacy results in sexual abuse, has been debunked time and time again.
It may, however, explain some people's motivation in tirelessly trumpeting every allegation, proven or unproven, made about Catholic clergy, while maintaining a tight-lipped silence about every other category of clergy offender.
Married men are allowed to become Orthodox priests.
There's a difference. ONce a man is ordained a priest, he cannot marry. If he was already married before ordination, he can remain married, but if his wife dies, he cannot re-marry.
Married ---> priest, yes
Priest ---> married, no.
True --- and the Cathoilic Church agrees with that. That's why priestly celibacy in the Latin Church is a discipline (a changeable rule), not a dogma.
Says the man using a computer, and the internet.
That's never been true and the research has backed up that celibacy is not a factor.
In a comprehensive study of more than 20 years of data on clerical abuse, Philip Jenkins, the Distinguished Professor of History at Baylor, and author of Pedophiles and Priests, 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!).
Wisconsin-based Church Mutual Insurance Co. has 100,000 client churches of various denominations, 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.
Keep reading. If Peters does not deal directly with the doctrinal issue, he refers to people who do.
Discipline is always based on doctrine. Discipline that is not necessitated by doctrine is a mere imposition. (And the Church is vigilant not to impose disciplines on the faithful that are not logically necessitated by doctrine.)
https://www.google.com/search?q=catholic+church+grew+in+africa&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
There’s no need. I’m sure you are thoroughly familiar with St. Paul.
They do. Sheesh. Who else do you think makes the decision?
Look, metmom my friend, candidates for the priesthood go through YEARS of discernment before THEY decide to take vows of celibacy. They get far more preparation for celibacy than most of us get for matrimony.
Arthur, I don’t think you’d want us to conclude that the 21 other Churches in communion with Rome (Melkite, Maronite, etc.) which to not require clerical celibacy, are doctrinally deficient. Do you have an answer which would take them into consideration?
I am familiar with Paul. He did write quite a bit. I also do not know which passage you have in mind.
Ergo... Post a reference or the passage, or we may be talking past each other.
I didn’t know they referred to themselves as “Catholic”; I know that they had been one Church initially.
It is rare that a monk becomes a priest. If a bishop directs a monk to the priesthood, it is usually only temporary until a priest can be brought into a community with a family. The priest’s wife ‘Matushka’ is not just a wife to the priest but the Mother to the entire parish. Thus, a priest with Matushka is integral to an Orthodox community.
What you are talking about is the rare occurrence when an Orthodox monk is sent out to serve as a priest to start a new Orthodox Church. Monks actually build Orthodox Churches in a carefully prescribed way. One or two of them will stay behind to start the Orthodox schedule, liturgies, vespers, feasts. But they will be replaced by a priest with family.
You are right in the sense that in certain cases a priest not married cannot marry. That is because such priests are Monks that were sent out to be priests on temporary assignment. Sometimes that assignment can be a very long time. But the priest’s family and wife are integral to Orthodox transitions. So the monks usually rejoin or return to the monastery after a suitable priest is brought in.
Other cases involve a priest who has never been a monk. If they are not married, it is possible they may be allowed to marry only if they have permission from the bishop. But if they marry they will never be allowed to be a monk. Again I stress how important Matushka is to the Orthodox community, therefore a priest is expected to be married. An unmarried priest who is not a monk is rare because a parish never usually approves a priest unless there is a Matushka. Again I stress Matushka is very very important in the Church life. But a parish may accept a priest who is not married with the understanding that a priest with family will be found for later appointment. Or the hierarchy will send a monk to serve as priest until the parish finds a more permanent priest.
It is important to realize there are at least two worlds to the Orthodox Churches. There is the world of the parish and there is the world of the hierarchy. They are separate worlds that come together for special events.
Orthodox personnel decision making is not driven so much by legalism except in regards to monastics. Most personnel decisions are driven by the needs of the parish as ruled by the Church hierarchy. What is strict is the divine liturgy. That never changes. So there is flexibility within the Orthodox Church as it pertains to people, but never as it pertains to spiritual practice. Each decision case is different and each bishop is different. This is why I say that Orthodox Christians are often frustrated with people in the Church and sometimes in the hierarchy but very rarely are they dissatisfied with the traditions, prayers, liturgies. The Orthodox Church customs carry on unchanged and unchallenged. The people as persons though can be changed on the drop of a dime. A parish can meet and decide the priest has to leave immediately, including his family. They must petition the bishop but almost always the bishop will agree because the parish is its own world. But a parish has no authority over monks and bishops. But they can seek to change their patriarchate association but it does not mean they will find one or be accepted, And without formal acceptance of a patriarchate a parish cannot
be recognized as an Orthodox community.
The Orthodox church is more loosely confederated. The rules are not always the same as to personnel decisions. A priest may come under a different patriarchate that has a different policy with respect to divorce. marriage, personnel. But the Church liturgy is unchanging forever.
That is the clear thing: a married priest can never be a monk. An unmarried priest is almost always already a monk and if he is not a monk, he may petition to be married and in fact he is expected to have a family. If he is without a wife, the parish is without a Matushka and that leaves a vacuum. Such priests without wives and families will usually move up in the hierarchy until they are monks or bishops.
It is interesting that the Orthodox traditions and liturgy never change; never. But the perspectives on how to treat the Orthodox Christian with respect to marriage, education, child rearing, divorce, sin, homosexuality are hardly ever made into a general doctrine. Most everything is case by case. Complex decisions are moved up the hierarchy but even then a bishop can return several options or paths to take depending on the persons and parish involved.
Rules of how to treat worshippers in the Orthodox Church are thus generally more flexible. For example, divorce ***may be*** allowed but not in all cases, and it is always frowned on but with sympathy for the souls involved. The Orthodoxy recognizes people will sin but it insists they try to do better. They must take steps to lead better lives. They will not be allowed to continue living in sin.
With Roman Catholicism it is a different story. The rules are usually much more strict or they can appear to be. Thus, criticisms are levied at the Church in general rather than to a local priests, bishops or other Church persons. Both Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches expect more from people but the RCC seems to ‘require’ more from people.
In any event, I hope the Roman and Eastern Catholic Churches will continue to build towards unity. They were once the same. They can be the same again. Both have incredibly rich histories and valuable traditions that overlap. Both have produced priests and saints that have saved entire generations from being lost.
A Roman Catholic could be confused in an Orthodox setting as to what the rules are. But they will never be confused as to how Orthodox worship is conducted; it has never changed in 2000 years.
Well, clerical CONTINENCE is the subject, not celibacy.
I don’t rightly know what all those churches practice regarding clerical continence, even though they don’t require celibacy.
When I say that perfect, perpetual continence is linked to proximity to the altar, I don’t mean, of course, that it is logically required, such that failure to practice celibacy logically requires denial of the Real Presence or the sacrificial nature of the Mass. So, of course, I am not implying that the Orthodox and Catholic churches that don’t have a celibate clergy deny the Real Presence.
According to what I have read, continence for all those who minister at the Eucharist (major orders) goes back to the apostles.
Just found this which you and other Catholics might find interesting:
http://www.unamsanctamcatholicam.com/history/79-history/465-celibacy-in-the-early-church.html
And if they don’t they can’t be priests.
That’s no choice.
If it’s a discipline, not a dogma, then why should celibacy be mandatory for priesthood?
So what doctrine mandates celibacy for the priesthood, the forbidding of priests to marry, or making them leave the priesthood if they do, or prohibiting married men from becoming priests unless they're transplants from other denominations?
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.