Posted on 03/15/2002 10:21:03 AM PST by GeneD
Before we breathe a sigh of relief now that many of the allegations against John Geoghan have been settled, we must realize two things: there are outstanding allegations against six other archdiocesan priests; and these scandals have raised serious questions in the minds of the laity that simply will not disappear.
--Should celibacy continue to be a normative condition for the diocesan priesthood in the Western (Latin) Church?
--If celibacy were optional, would there be fewer scandals of this nature in the priesthood?
--Does priesthood, in fact, attract a disproportionate number of men with a homosexual orientation?
--Lastly, why are a substantial number of Catholics not convinced that an all male priesthood was intended by Christ and is unchangeable?
These questions are out there in the minds of Catholics — more so in the United States than elsewhere. They have been answered in the past but now these questions have taken on a deeper intensity in more Catholic minds than prior to these sexual scandals. Even if our present woes in the archdiocese were suddenly to disappear, these questions have taken on an urgency and will not slip quietly away.
Before intelligent answers can be given, we must realize that there is no panacea; that a married clergy presents its own distinctive problems and liabilities, and that more studies with concrete data will be necessary before an intelligent response can be made. Right now emotions are running too high.
For example, if the number of archdiocesan priests accused of pedophilia over the last 50 years is approximately 60, it is essential to know how many priests there were in 1951, how many have been ordained since that date and how many others have been incardinated into Boston’s diocesan priesthood from other dioceses and religious orders. A fair total estimate would be 3,000 — making a ratio of approximately two percent. What is the percentage of American males afflicted with this psychosexual pathology? Is this devastating sin/crime/illness more common in the priesthood than elsewhere?
The New Testament clearly prizes an embraced celibacy “for the sake of the kingdom” and by the earliest centuries it became associated with ordination to the episcopacy and, later, to the priesthood. The Council of Nicea, the first ecumenical council, addressed the issue in the year 325.
We Americans live in a popular culture that simply does not understand, let alone prize, celibacy as an expression of love for the Lord and His kingdom. Would abandoning celibacy be the proper answer to new data from the contemporary sciences or would it be surrendering to popular American culture? A further question is this: What does the Church do to attract a sufficient number of priests for the service of its people in a culture that does not consider celibacy a Gospel ideal? Another question would be: Would a married clergy, in a culture in which there is a 50 percent divorce rate, be the answer? Data from Protestant and Orthodox churches might provide a helpful insight.
Regarding the question of homosexual orientation and the priesthood, the following questions come to mind. Is sexual orientation an either/or? How do we know anyone’s sexual orientation unless they candidly admit it — or their past history confirms it? Is there a valid screening tool that can evaluate such an interior world? Is every male who is sensitive, caring, and even somewhat effeminate a homosexual? Is every male who is macho, a jock and seemingly overflowing with testosterone a heterosexual? We know that our sexual orientation is neither morally good nor evil.
Evidence now seems to indicate that it is a genetically inherited condition. Morality comes in to play only when we deliberately choose to act contrary to our conscience, the natural law and the teachings of the Church. True, the Church teaches a very high morality in matters of sexuality, but not higher than its teaching on truth and honesty — our individual behavior to the contrary not withstanding.
Space prevents our addressing the questions that circulate around the issue of ordaining women so The Pilot will focus on that next week.
2. Optional celibacy would not reduce the number of pedophiles, but could lead to clerical dating "scandals," divorces, and messy break-ups. Pedophiles would continue to prey on children.
3. Priesthood does not necessarily attract a disproportionate number of homosexuals per se. Lax seminary moral standards allow a disproportionate number of practicing homosexuals to remain in the seminary and receive Holy Orders. The same can be said for practicing heterosexuals, but they seem to stir up less trouble.
4. Who are the "substantial number of Catholics?" How serious are they about their faith? Polls about any religion can be skewed by people who profess to be Catholic, Lutheran, Jewish, Baptist etc. but have not set foot in their respective church in years and do not believe what their church teaches.
The statistics cited about the number of priests ordained vs the number of ACCUSED predators brings a sense of balance to this issue. Bishops and Cardinals have allowed pedophiles to remain in active ministry, but the number of pedophiles is quite small and probably fairly consistent with the population. The problem is that the priests who actually were/are pedophiles were allowed to continue in Holy Orders.
Only because the gays say it is, otherwise there is no proof at all.
Morality comes in to play only when we deliberately choose to act contrary to our conscience, the natural law and the teachings of the Church.
No argument here.
There will be an apostate church arising soon. I think it's reared it's ugly head. The church that yeilds to a religion based on man is the one.
Didn't the Catholic church side with Hitler, too?
Glad I'm Baptist! Whew!
So technically, it was that pope that changed the rules. This would return the priesthood to it's earlier state.
LTS
I am a woman, a Catholic, and I firmly support the Catholic Church's teaching of a male, celibrate priesthood.
No one said it was easy to follow Jesus, or to live the Word of God. In fact, it is difficult. It is difficult to obey the commandments ... the obligations ... as God Himself wrote. But difficult does not mean impossible, and with God ALL things are possible.
I am increasingly frustrated by the repudiation of the Catholic Church by those who do not understand our teachings. The crimes some Priests have committed must be punished, but those crimes are not the crimes of ALL priests. This must be stressed.
The priests who have sex with young boys are sick and must be dealt with. Why would allowing them to marry a woman change their perversion towards young boys?
These are trying times, but the Church of Our Lord will survive as Jesus Christ Himself promised in Matthew 16:18.
God bless.
Catholics do not deny that some of the early popes were married or that celibacy, for priests in the Western (Latin) Rite, did not become mandatory until the early Middle Ages. Celibacy in the Latin Rite is purely a matter of discipline.
It came to be thought that priests could better fulfill their duties if they remained unmarried.
Celibacy is not an unbiblical notion; it is Paul’s advice. After saying he wished those to whom he was writing were, like he, unmarried (1 Cor. 7:7–9), Paul said he thought celibacy was the more perfect state (1 Cor 7:28b), noting that "[t]he unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife" (1 Cor. 7:32–33). This applies specifically to ministers of the gospel. When Paul counseled Timothy about how to fulfill his ministry, he cautioned him:
"Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier on service gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to satisfy the one who enlisted him" (2 Tim. 2:3–4). And Paul refers applaudingly to an order of Christian celibate widows (first-century nuns), saying: "But refuse to enroll younger widows; for when they grow wanton against Christ they desire to marry, and so they incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge" (1 Tim. 5:11–12).
So, the practice of clerical celibacy, even taking vows of celibacy, is thoroughly biblical. When a man becomes a priest in the Latin Rite he knows that he will not be able to marry. Marriage is a good thing (in fact, Catholics acknowledge that Christ elevated it to a sacrament), but it is something that priests are willing to forgo for the sake of being better priests.
No one is forced to be a priest (or a nun for that matter), so no Catholic is forced to be celibate. Those who want to take the vows of the religious life should not object to following the rules.
(paraphrased from Catholic Answers)
No. You haven't read much history.
Glad I'm Baptist! Whew!
With your attitude, so am I.
No.
There is no such evidence, none, nada, zippo.
Morality comes in to play only when we deliberately choose to act contrary to our conscience, the natural law and the teachings of the Church.
Correct so how can non-celibate homosexual priests remain priests when the bible and the church recognise man laying down with another man as a sinful act.
True, the Church teaches a very high morality in matters of sexuality, but not higher than its teaching on truth and honesty — our individual behavior to the contrary not withstanding.
I'm not sure what he's getting at here but it smells like moral relativism from my vantage point. I could be wrong though.
As a Catholic who understands our teachings, mandatory celibacy deserves to be reviewed. The Church is obviously not accepting enough of the right kind of candidate for the priesthood. Maybe opening the ministry to married men would attract a different, more mature candidate.
It would certainly go a long way toward ridding the Church of the "gay priesthood" which is largely what we're saddled with today.
No.
Then why did the Pope apologyze to the Jews for it?
Nah, he didn't 'apologyze'. I think he wants to make him a Saint.
I'm sure he did. The Jews were demanding it, and were angry it took him so long.
Does anyone else remember this?
The Lutheran sections of Germany voted for Hitler. The Catholic regions voted against him. After the war, Jewish leaders were lavish in their praise for the actions of Pope Pius XII and many bishops.
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.