Time to Abolish Clerical Celibacy

frontpagemag.com ^ | January 3, 2002 | Jamie Glazov

[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.

	Make Comments
	View Comments
	Printable Article
	Email Article

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 11^th 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.

Jamie Glazov holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in Soviet Studies. He is the author of 15 Tips on How to be a Good Leftist. Born in the U.S.S.R., Jamie is the son of prominent Soviet dissidents, and now resides in Vancouver, Canada. He writes the Dr. Progressive advice column for angst-ridden leftists at EnterStageRight.com. E-mail him at jglazov@home.com.

View Comments | Make Comments | Jamie Glazov Archive

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

Advertise your banner here

Copyright © 2001 FrontPageMagazine.com

[Chemnitz]

This is a complicated issue. First of all, marriage does not by itself solve the problems of clergy who are sex offenders. One married Protestant minister (with about 5 children) was caught sneaking into girls' dorms to watch them shower while he... He was spotted once, then arrested on another attempt. His family wanted to keep him in the ministry!

Married Protestants and unmarried Roman Catholics have sex offender clergy. Some are hetero. Some are homosexual. The key is that the church leaders would rather cover up a problem than deal with it. They will use sex crimes to get rid of their critics in the denomination while keeping far worse characters who are buddies and supporters. So this rapidly ruins the denomination.

I think there is no excuse for banning marriage. Catholics admit that they create a lot of lonliness and lust by preventing marriage. As one comic said, "According to the pope, lusting for your spouse is a sin...It is also a miracle."

The lavender crowd quickly recruits for their own purposes. In the 1970's two Christian Brothers (a teaching order) told me how they were suspicious of "aspirants." One nickname for aspirants was "the fruit orchard." When heterosexuals left the Roman Catholic Church to get married (priests marrying nuns, in many cases), the remaining religious were more likely to be homosexual and lesbian.

Roman Catholic religious are highly educated and very well connected. They worship like Episcopalians but they vote like Puerto Ricans. For them, the conservative Roman Catholic members are the unwashed crowd they must tolerate. The intellectuals have done a good job of making homosexual and abortion advocacy a mark of intelligence and refinement. I even saw a statement by an order of nuns in favor of abortion on demand. (See the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights).

Let's not make this a Roman Catholic issue. All the denominations have fallen down in protecting the flocks from clerical wolves. A minister should be very careful of his words and actions. It is too easy to prey upon the vulnerable. And all too often the neurotic will prey upon a minister's weaknesses. One woman seduced two ministers in a row and then exposed them. The men were fools. No excuse. But they should have read Proverbs about loose women.

[patent]

"Can I ask what in particular makes you think I hate, and what or who it is that I hate?"

The tenor and tone

I see. My tenor and tone. I asked you what in particular and it is clear you can’t point to any actual words. Have I called someone an idiot? Called names, etc.? No, I used sarcasm once in response to a silly post. I said someone was acting like a liberal protestant. Neither of those demonstrate “hatred” nor living “in a dark world of fear and loathing.” If what I am doing leads you to conclude I hate all these people you must conclude the vast majority of Free Republic's posters hate constantly, as this is rather mild by local standards.

of your responses and dictates on this particular thread are of one who is intollerant of anyone whose opinions differ in the slightest from your own. This behavior appears to indicate contempt for any and all who do not meet your particular standards of religious "purity".

I hardly have contempt for any one whose opinions differ slightly from mine. I’ve been around here for a while now and get along quite well with quite a variety of folks. From Catholics to Orthodox to numerous different Protestants to Atheists. I also disagree with and argue with a wide variety of folks, from Catholics, etc.

Taliban style intolerance would indicate that I tell people to stop posting, or try to shut them down. I don’t do that. Nor do I force women to wear burkas, shoot them when they don’t, incarcerate people of different faiths for teaching theirs, push walls of bricks over on petty thieves, etc. Actually, I don’t ask anyone to live in the fashion I do. I will give my opinion, but your choices are up to you. But of course, my posting here on free republic is so much worse then shooting a woman for leaving the house with her eyes showing, you must think she deserved that after all. As you say, my posting here “make[s] the Taliban laid-back and compassionate by comparison to your vitrol.”

What a silly reference, it is exactly the equivalent of the oh so common nazi reference. You call me a Taliban, but then you in particular seem to be using your assault on me to try to shut me down. Forget about it, its not going to happen.

Hence, the Taliban analog.

Calling you a Nazi would be intellectually lazy and inappropriate.

Actually the name Taliban is intellectually lazy and inappropriate. You have called me more names on this thread then I have called anyone else, and yet it is you assaulting my civility.

I suspect that the term "Taliban" will become an label in the future for any and all people who take their religion to aggressive extremes.

Heck, I’m not even at the aggressive extremes of my religion. Orual, one of my combatants here, is far more conservative then I am.

As to who you hate, I would, from your numerous postings on this thread, suspect that the list would include all non-Christians, Protestants, and Roman Catholics in particular who do not meet your rigid standards of "purity of thought".

(1)Since you coined the term here, what do you mean by my “rigid standards of ‘purity of thought’”. What in my posts did you consider to be my rigid standards. Please, be specific and actually quote the language that caused you to use this term.

(2) How have I hated non-Christians on this thread? I don’t think I have even referred to them.

(3) How have I hated Catholics who don’t meet my “rigid standards of ‘purity of thought’” as you define the term. The only Catholic I’m arguing with is, if anything, more of a purist then I am.

(4)How have I hated Protestants, when the only comment I made was specifically worded to be so outlandish no one of ordinary intelligence could take it seriously?

Now, have I answered your question in a civil enough manner, or will your inquisition

There you go again. Stick in a little dig re the inquisition.

continue to the logical conclusion of purification in fire after the requisite time on the rack and in the iron maiden?

And yet more. But I’m the Taliban right?

patent  +AMDG

[Redleg Duke]

I have read the book in question a couple of times and nowhere have I seen any reference to kidnapping of wives of clergy.

[Redleg Duke]

Interesting response. You really need to get a life.

[patent]

I do indeed. No disagreement here. But then again, I don't run around calling people Taliban. Huh.

[Redleg Duke]

"I do indeed. No disagreement here. But then again, I don't run around calling people Taliban. Huh."

Rough Translation: "Needer, Needer, Needer!"

You continue to impress me! Now, Get Over It, Tali!

[Notwithstanding]

I understand the same to be true about Luther.

[Notwithstanding]

1. A priest grows up in a family.

2. A priest can provide unbiased advice and counsel not jaded by his own self-serving theory or philosphy (which he would have if he were himself married). He can be truly neutral and advocate for the gospel virtues rather than his personal proclivities.

3. A family that leaves the church because "a priest can't give advice about marriage" is a family that never cared that much about the gospel or the Church anyway.

[Notwithstanding]

In my novus ordo parish we pray for him every Sunday, on First Fridays, First Saturdays, after Benediction, during Holy Hours, during perpetual adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, on Holy Days of Obligation and during the rosary.

So what of it? We love the guy more than you could know and are so grateful to have him at the helm of Peter's bark. Pope John Paul the Great, he is.

[Orual]

n my novus ordo parish we pray for him every Sunday, on First Fridays, First Saturdays, after Benediction, during Holy Hours, during perpetual adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, on Holy Days of Obligation and during the rosary.

You'd better go back and check my quote. Novus Ordo, I ain't, by a very loooong shot. I belong to a traditional Catholic Chapel - you know, Latin Mass and all and the reason I posted that was because we are accused of not supporting the Pope. Check it out, and be careful who you call Novus Ordo.

[Notwithstanding]

You misunderstand. My post was a declaration about me and my bustling, crowded, large-family, high-vocation novus ordo parish.

Novus ordo folks do many of the same traditional things (in fact all you listed in the post I was responding to) schismatic Lefebrites do, and all the things the indult Latin Mass Catholics-in-good-standing do.

[Orual]

Your confused and confusing first post to me, and your equally indecipherable second post make no sense. I still have absolutely no idea of the point you're trying to make, unless it was to make sure you include something about the "schismatic Lefebrites" - your misspelling of the Bishop's name is kept as quoted. You may pray some of the same prayers as traditional Catholics, although I know the modernists have changed many prayers including the Apostles' Creed, the Gloria, and the prayers at the Consecration to make them more "inclusive", more "ecumenical", more like Protestant prayers - but there is little in the Novus Ordo that attains to true, traditional Catholicism.

[Notwithstanding]

You are still not reading what I posted in 169. I did NOT quote you - nor did I mean to. Yet you assumed I was quoting you! That is the source of your confusion - your hasty assumption.

My post 169 is my own statement about me and what happens at my novus ordo parish - which I repeat again for you here (note there are a few slight intentional differences between what I posted in 169 and what you posted in 105):

"In my novus ordo parish we pray for him every Sunday, on First Fridays, First Saturdays, after Benediction, during Holy Hours, during perpetual adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, on Holy Days of Obligation and during the rosary."

This statementclosely resembles your post 105 precisely to make my point that many wonderful Catholics in thriving novus ordo parishes are very very faithful and traditional.

Does your Latin-only parish have perpetual adoration? Is it a parish or a schismatic "chapel"?

I would think that subtlety would be appreciated by someone who appreciates traditional liturgy. I love the Tridentine Mass - though I have only been once. I also loathe the prevalent abuse found in many novus ordo parishes. Yet I loathe even more those individuals who purposefully torment and defy the pope - both leftish fools and integralist extremists (which perhaps you are).

[Orual]

Yet I loathe even more those individuals who purposefully torment and defy the pope - both leftish fools and integralist extremists (which perhaps you are).

Your vitriol is so refreshing and now we're back to where you started. This "loathesome" charge of yours is precisely why I posted the reply which you quoted almost verbatim and directed to me - except you put novus ordo in front of it. Perhaps you should use your own words rather than quoting others. I have been called a Protestant on this thread for the first time, and now you pile more insults on the heap, although I'm not at all sure what they mean. A leftish? - is that a word? - a "leftish fool" and an "integralist extremist". My, oh, my. Since I don't know what the latter term means, maybe I'll want to be one. I notice you called in the troops. Can't you handle this alone? I wonder how one "purposefully torments" the Pope? Do they put a burr under his chair?

[Notwithstanding]

You seem to be an "integralist".

Do a web search to find out what it means - though you seem smart enough to figure it out by yourself.

I know you know full well what "leftish" means.

And the troops were notified - not called in. They may wish to kow who is who at FR. I am letting them in on your leanings - though perhaps it is no secret. The troops know full well I can handle a discussion with an integralist extremist.

I see you won't admit the obvious fact that you made an erroneous assumption in 170. Sorry to see that, laurO.

[Notwithstanding]

You are keeping your head in the sand on purpose.

And perhaps you are confusing me with sinkspur - the poster to whom you responded in 105.

[Orual]

patent and I are old, good friends. We disagree on some things, but are in agreement on others. No use "notifying" him and it is a bit silly to send out the warning clarion that there is an SSPXer on the site so everyone better run for cover, or shoot to kill. How immature.

I don't know why you spelled my name backwards - Sorry to see that, laurO.. Oh, I know, the sign of satan, right? Another indication of grammar-school thinking. And I have never used the word "leftish" nor seen it used - perhaps you mean "leftist". Grow up, please. I'm not going to do any bodily harm to novus ordos, just some mental prodding. I feel compelled to debate with them because I think we are witnessing one of the most destructive periods in Roman Catholic Church history and I believe that it can be dated back to the Bishop's Council at Vatican II when all the modernization and ecumencial nonsense started. Now perhaps it's time for you to roll up your insults and go to sleep.

[Orual]

No, never, I could never confuse anyone with sinkspur.

[Rushian]

Makes one wonder how the celibate, Jesus Christ, could have ever given good advice concerning marital problems!

[Righty1]

What about the fact that forced celibacy severly limits the number of priests and brothers? Don't you think having a celibate priesthood vs islam where an imam may have multiple wives and numerous offspring means eventual extinction for your religion? If you don't believe that look at France. In addition, Catholics in Ireland and especially Poland have suggested that this policy amounts to negative eugenics by removing the genes of bright (usually rural and poor) boy's and girl's (let's not forget nuns) from the pool.