Posted on 01/03/2002 3:41:25 AM PST by dtom
Time to Abolish Clerical Celibacy FrontPageMagazine.com | January 3, 2002 FATHER ARTHUR CARRAHER is a Roman Catholic priest in Toronto. He has just recently confessed to being a child molester. He faces seven charges of indecent assault in Dublin, Ireland.
Tragically, this 79-year-old criminal might avoid justice, because it looks like he will live out his final days in Canada. Already ill, this individual benefits from the fact that bureaucrats have yet to ratify an extradition treaty that would force him back to Ireland. It is clear that "Father" Carraher settled in Canada to avoid punishment for his crimes. His victims, meanwhile, whose lives he shattered at a young age, cry out for justice. This outrage is just another reminder of the serious problem that has grown within the Catholic Church as a result of the imposition of clerical celibacy. I am a Catholic. I believe in the Church. I have also had the privilege of meeting, and befriending, many Catholic priests in my life - and a large proportion of them are obviously pious people who are not child abusers. Having said that, I must say that, as a Catholic, I can no longer stay silent about the pathology that the enforcement of celibacy has caused within the Church. Forced clerical celibacy simply has to go. It is directly connected to the widespread existence of pedophilia and homosexuality in the priesthood. Many of my fellow Catholics will be outraged at me for raising this issue. But I am far more concerned about the victims who have had their lives and identities destroyed for a lifetime, than I am about making some people uncomfortable about bringing this taboo subject up for discussion. Let?s get one thing straight: enforced celibacy has nothing to do with Christian theology. That?s why it was never an enforced rule for priests until the 11th century, when the Church officially mandated it for completely non-theological reasons. Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085) banned priests from being married because he wanted to solve the problem of their families inheriting Church property. Anyone with half a brain would have known that Pope Gregory?s act was going to invite a tremendous evil into the Church. I mean, think about it: does it really take a rocket scientist to figure out what will happen to males in an institution that forbids them from getting married? Let me give you a little hint: ponder what happens to a male?s mind and body after he goes through puberty. Now consider the consequences of a male repressing, and not having an outlet for, the natural feelings and desires that he will subsequently live with for the rest of his adult life. Perhaps some people don?t need sex. Fair enough. But it needs to be a voluntary decision. Is it really a surprise that criminals like "Father" Carraher emerge and that they destroy the lives of many innocent human beings? Of course Carraher must accept personal responsibility for what he did. After all, the majority of priests are obviously ethical people who do not hurt young boys - notwithstanding their celibacy. But this does not mean that we should ignore the pathology that is engendered by enforced celibacy. In recent years, reports of Catholic priests sexually abusing children have come to light in virtually every major U.S. city. Yet the Church continues to refuse to deal with this problem in a serious way. It?s time it did. The fact is that when women are demonized, pathology always emerges. It is so ingrained in many Catholic priests to believe that it would be dirty and evil for them to have sex with a woman, that some of them end up rationalizing that it is less sinful to molest a little boy -- or to have sex with a man. Yet, for the Catholic Church, the alternative decision to engage in homosexuality is far more sinful, and in the case of the abuse of little boys, far more inhumane, criminal and clearly diabolical. Abnormal sexual behavior, like pedophilia, is often found among males in situations where the woman -- the ideal sexual object -- is forbidden or unavailable. That?s why a strong case can be made that Islamic terror, for instance, is rooted in the misogyny and sexual repression that is embedded in Muslim cultures. In light of these realities, it is the obligation, especially of Catholics, to speak out against the Church?s policy of mandatory celibacy for priests. It?s the least that the victims of "Father" Carraher, and of the hundreds of monsters like him, deserve. |
![]() |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
Horowitz's Notepad | Poe's Notepad | Reality Bites | Shop Online | Encounter Books | CSPC Bookstore
Home | Contact Us | Advertise With Us | Archives | Privacy Policy | Top of Page
![]() |
|
You've got to have some sort of referential experience in order to give useful advice. This is one of the big lessons we learned during and after Viet Nam. We had all these vets coming back with emotional problems because of their war experiences and they went to shrinks that turned out to have dodged the draft and had no idea what is was like to slog through the jungles with people shooting at you. And they couldn't relate. The vet would talk about his experience and the shrink would say they understood and everybody in the room knew the shrink was full of crap because he had no way to understand.
It's not the priests fault and I'm not attacking them. I am attacking the Church that said for a number of years that you shouldn't seek advice from anyone other than your priest. They put priests in a position where they had to deal with things they couldn't. If you want to know what the Bible says about something, ask a priest. If you want to know how to solve difficulties between yourself and your spouse, ask somebody who has at least tried to solve difficulties between themself and their spouse.
I do give advice, I give a lot of advice, it's my thing. But I only give advice on things I understand, things where I have parallel experiences. Anything outside of that realm I'm completely honest with my friend and tell them I'll listen all they want but I won't give advice because I'd just be making things up off the top of my head with no foundation. And I think so called marriage counselors that have never been married are a joke and people that go to them are fools. It's like asking someone that's never seen a car before how to rebuild your engine, how would they know?
Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. If you don't want to be a priest, don't be one.
Some of the worst advice I have ever received regarding marriage and children came from married people with children.
This type of "logic" leads to the belief that only congress critters that share your gender and ethnicity can effectively represent you. Silly
Ah, my favorite subject, the Pope. You needn't use upper case for emphasis, I can hear you shouting. We pray for him every Sunday, on First Fridays, First Saturdays, after Benediction, during Holy Hours, during all night adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, on Holy Days of Obligation - all the time. Look around you, sinkspur, and see the devastation that has occurred in the Church during his Pontificate.
But we will never agree on any of this. Enough said.
Last time I check sinkspur's Bishop wasn't excommunicated. Yours was.
Its kind of funny that you accuse him of being in a "new" church only 40 years old, when the illicit order you follow around, and which makes up your entire little "church" was founded in 1970-71. Something about people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones comes to mind.
patent
Our parish never sprang for lace surplices, though.
As will you and your fellow schismatics soon enough. Anytime a sect attempt to seize a charism of the Church for itself it is not long before it becomes distorted. Those who sought to use the Bible as their own and not as a document of the Church distorted its meaning. Just the same in seizing upon the traditional mass which belongs to the Church it will become distorted.
So do the liberals. You mean it the same way they do. How does this distinguish you from them?
patent
I'm sure you long for the days of the old Soviet Union and the cold war.
Thanks for the comic relief. I guess this is what happens when you stand in swampy theological grounds, and you cannot present a cogent defense. Yes, I long for Communism and the Cold War days. You are a sketch!
You know very well that the traditional Catholic Church didn't begin 40 years agoYou know full well you are not the full Catholic Church, even you must admit that. You and the excommunicated Bishops you follow are the Society of St. Pius the X. That began 30 years ago. It cant even trace its lineage to the pre-Vatican II Church it claims to be, it didnt exist before the Council.
- the new, pale imitation of the Catholic Church that has discarded all the traditions that we still hold to began then and has continued in a downward spiral ever since.Hogwash. Many customs and disciplines have been abandoned, especially by the modernists in the West, but you blur the meaning of the word tradition from meaning something formally defined by the Church to something simply done for a long stretch (cant say all time because even the venerable Tridentine Rite doesnt go back to Christ or the Apostles).
St. Paul instructed us to "Domini nostri Iesu Christi; itaque fratres state et tenete traditiones quas didicistis sive per sermonem sive per epistulam nostram; ipse autem Dominus noster ... " And that's what we're doing.You sound like a Protestant, though the rare one who speaks Latin. Who is the arbiter of what those traditions are? You? Bishop Fellay? Bishop Williamson? (I sure hope not.)
patent +AMDG
Sorry st., but this makes absolutely no sense to me. I have no idea what you're talking about. What does "seizing the traditional Mass which belongs to the Church" mean, exactly? The Novus Ordo discarded the traditional Mass, they Protestantized it. How can carrying on the traditional Mass which has remained the same for centuries and which several Popes in their Encyclicals forbid making any changes to, become a distortion of it? I think you need to brush up on your Church history.
But stop trying to rationalize criminal behavior with the excuse of celibacy! Outrageous!
Traditions are those practices which made the Roman Catholic Church immutable and unchangeable and unequivocal. No dancing in the aisles, no Communion in the hand, no guitars, no English Masses, no tables facing the congregation, no ripping out of kneelers, but instead, absolute quiet at Mass, real Confessionals, and the graceful ambience of stained glass windows, Holy Water fonts, the Blessed Sacrament displayed prominently - not hidden off in some corner of the Church, High and Low Mass accompanied by the Schola singing beautifully in Latin. And real sermons and homilies, no social-work clap-trap.
As you know, Popes in the past have forbid any changes to the Latin liturgy. What passes for a "mass" (lower case on purpose) in the Novus Ordo churches is a travesty. Just read what many of the folks here have said about it.
Those are the heat-seeking missiles you're sending out into the world. You're primarily responsible for forming their consciences such that they're "true" ... not only hitting the target but hitting the right targets.
I just don't see how you can belittle somehow the priests (or the monk's or the nun's) similarly absolute devotion to Christ as bridegroom, the Church as mother and ALL individuals as brothers, sisters and children in Christ.
Married priests is like working mothers. I'm delighted some can appear to handle the balancing act but, given my choice, I'd rather have EITHER a mother OR a business associate rather than having some woman who's perpetually borrowing from Peter to pay Paul and vice versa.
If your single friend doesn't know you well enough to give you advice about your marriage then he really doesn't know you at all.
Your error is you are not recognizing that we can have communicable objective knowledge of what is subjective. For example, we can understand the death of someone's parents and offer valuable support for those grieving even if we have not personally lost our parents. It is not necessary to first go through the experience.
There is a sense in which something subjectively experienced cannot be effectively communicated, however, this is only in the case of that which is specific. Knowledge of your particular marriage cannot be had by anyone except you and your wife. However, this does not mean that one cannot have knowledge of the subjective nature of marriage- simply that they cannot have knowledge of the subjective nature of a specific marriage. This knowledge is not only innacessible to non-married persons, but to anyone except you and your wife.
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.