Posted on 07/08/2005 10:41:30 PM PDT by gamarob1
I agree, and I should have made that point clear in my post. I don't think that the evidence is in that homosexuals are any more likely to commit genuine pederasty (i.e. molesting small boys and girls) than are heterosexuals. So eliminating celibacy wouldn't solve that problem at all, in my opinion.
But these true child-molestation cases seem to make up a very small number of the problems that the modern Roman Catholics are dealing with in their parishes. That was the main thing I was trying to get across.
But it was my impression that pederasty was one of the major issues in the priest-related sex scandals and that such is not limitted to homosexual only. What other problems are you talking about as they possibly relate to sexual absue among clergy?
I am convinced that celibacy in the Roman Church has nothing to do with pederast priests.
Having homosexuals (and/or other sexual deviants) invade the Priesthood has everything to do with it, however.
Priests are not married for many reasons -- but the most important is that it's understood that having a family is something beyond their incomes and beyond their time (as it's most importantly devoted to their parish.
I AM a PROUD, PRACTICING Roman Catholic!
I AM a member of the Knights of Columbus. I am disgusted by these false "priests."
Later in his life he went on to write two more books of canon. There's no telling how much happened by God's doing through him which we don't even know about
So to suggest that an unmarried person is "more used of God" than a married, is preposterous. Paul was making a suggestion, and THAT'S ALL HE CALLED IT. He didn't pass an edict.
In my opinion, a married man makes a better minister than an unmarried man. Because many of the unmarried ministers I've met were distracted with finding the future Mrs. Maybe that's why the catholics take their silly vows, but be that as it may, it certainly hasn't made the catholic church more fruitful or productive than ANY OTHER.
And by the way, whoever it was that suggested that I called Jesus' sinlessnes stupid, clearly didn't read my post at all.
Do you feel the same way with doctors, teachers, coaches co-workers etc?
That wasn't the point. Let's say I wanted to be a catholic priest. But I also wanted to be married. Now I would be FORCED to stay single, to become a catholic priest. That is what I was talking about...
What exactly are you saying it led to?
Aww c'mon, get real. I could make the same accusation of at least 25% of the posts on the "religion" topic header, because, it's a volatile subject that deserves discussion. If you think it is a "flame thread", you're mistaken.
I could have laid out the same accusation against those who constantly post, for instance, anti-Rick Warren articles and such. But I've never made that kind of ridiculous accusation, because it's a subject area worth discussing. May I even say, when all is said and done, it's the ONLY topic really worth discussing, on an eternal scale. The rest of the topics are temporary, you know that.
I read the LA Times, I found the article, so I posted it. It addressed something that has bothered me for years, and I wanted to discuss it. No different than anyone else that posts whatever, so don't lay your trips on me ;)
If you notice none of the Gospels state that any Apostle was married or had a wife. I think that is very telling,don't you?
That is correct, for the Latin Church. The Eastern Catholic Churches fall into Eparchies. The Eparchy functions in much the same way as a RC diocese, except that it falls under a Patriarch.
These men, who still consider themselves Roman Catholic priests, have wives, children
Saying it does not make it so.The fact that the LA Times is touting this says everything.
Noticed you are a newbie. Welcome to FR.
Have there been any studies on how the married clergy works in the Eastern Rite Churches?
Perhaps but I have not read them. As a Roman Catholic, born and raised in the US, a married priesthood is alien to my experience. As a Roman Catholic practicing the faith in a Maronite (Eastern) Catholic Church, I have a limited understanding based on what others have told me.
The clearest insight, for me, comes from our Lebanese born Maronite pastor whose great grandfather was a married priest. He has spoken about the sanctity of vows and related his own personal experiences insofar as choosing to be a celibate priest rather than a married one. Judging from his workload at our small parish and within the broader community, he barely has time for himself, much less a wife and children. He did mention that in the Maronite Church, when a married man expresses interest in becoming a priest, he and his family are subjected to tremendous scrutiny to ensure that their marriage is sound. Once they pass that phase, they are admitted into the deaconate. Should they pursue it to the next level, the family and marriage are again scrutinized. Once ordained, they are never assigned outside of Lebanon.
There are no married Maronite priests in the US or on any of the other continents (as far as I know).
I agree, as my posts indicate.
Dear AlaninSA,
Vivat Jesus!
S/K sitetest, PGK
Paul was a Pharisee. That means he was of the highest order of Jewish Rabbis. I do believe that means that he must have been married at some point, and that he was a widower.
What evidence do you have that any of the other Apostles (and specifically Peter) were celibate? (Begin Jeopardy music).
While you are at it, what evidence do you have that the office of "Priest" or Pope was established in the first century? (Begin Double Jeopardy music).
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my posts above. I am making a distinction about priests who molest small, pre-pubescent children. This is true child molestation, and its practitioners are apparently not much more likely to be homosexual than heterosexual in their public life -- they are frequently as likely to molest girls as boys.
On the other hand, most of the cases that the RC's are dealing with are with boys (never girls) around or after puberty -- lots of early teens. This is a separate deviance, and it is called homosexuality.
Is a 30 year old man who wants to have sex with a good-looking 14 year old girl a child-molester? No, he is a heterosexual. And if he has sex with her, even by seducing her and gaining her "consent", he is guilty of statutory rape, because she is under the age of consent.
That's what most of these sex-abuse cases are about -- homosexual priests seducing vulnerable young men who are under the age of consent and who are perhaps still a little confused about their sexuality. This is a common pratice in the homosexual world, and that's why they shouldn't be allowed in the priesthood.
Removing the celibacy requirement would eliminate most of this, but it wouldn't guard against that tiny group that molests small children.
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.