Vatican: DON'T blame it on celibacy

Beliefnet ^ | March 14, 2010 | Deacon Greg Kandra

[NYer]

Rome is using this day of rest to stir a debate that never seems to rest:

The Vatican on Sunday denied that its celibacy requirement for priests was the root cause of the clerical sex abuse scandal convulsing the church in Europe and again defended the pope's handling of the crisis.

Suggestions that the celibacy rule was in part responsible for the ''deviant behavior'' of sexually abusive priests have swirled in recent days, with opinion pieces in German newspapers blaming it for fueling abuse and even Italian commentators questioning the rule.

Much of the furor was spurred by comments from one of the pope's closest advisers, Vienna archbishop Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, who called this week for an honest examination of issues like celibacy and priestly education to root out the origins of sex abuse.

''Part of it is the question of celibacy, as well as the subject of character development. And part of it is a large portion of honesty, in the church but also in society,'' he wrote in the online edition of his diocesan newsletter.

His office quickly stressed that Schoenborn wasn't calling into question priestly celibacy, which Pope Benedict XVI reaffirmed as recently as Friday as an ''expression of the gift of oneself to God and others.''

But Schoenborn has in the past shown himself receptive to arguments that a celibate priesthood is increasingly problematic for the church, primarily because it limits the number of men who seek ordination.

Last June, Schoenborn personally presented the Vatican with a lay initiative signed by prominent Austrian Catholics calling for the celibacy rule to be abolished and for married men to be allowed to become priests.

In the days following Schoenborn's editorial this week, several prominent prelates in Germany and at the Vatican shot down any suggestion that the celibacy rule had anything to do with the scandal, a point echoed Sunday by the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano.

''It's been established that there's no link,'' said the article by Bishop Giuseppe Versaldi, an emeritus professor of canon law and psychology at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome.

''First off, it's known that sexual abuse of minors is more widespread among lay people and those who are married than in the celibate priesthood,'' he wrote. ''Secondly, research has shown that priests guilty of abuse had long before stopped observing celibacy.''

Continue at the link.

[SnakeDoctor]

Condescention is always appreciated.

I know enough about the Bible to know that neither Christ nor His disciples mentioned a celibacy requirement for discipleship or clergy. Celibate clergy is an arbitrary rule invented by the church. Celibacy was not a requirement of Christ for discipleship, and should not be a requirement for clergy. The “married before but cannot be married after” rule was invented out of whole cloth.

It was stated previously in this thread that those without the gift of celibacy “need not apply” for the clergy. Peter’s marriage was not a disqualifier, and celibacy simply was not a requirement. It is entirely possible (if not likely) that several of the disciples were married ... Peter was just the only one mentioned.

SnakeDoc

[Admin Moderator]

Stay off of this thread.

[A.A. Cunningham]

Explain this.

[A.A. Cunningham]

I'm not aware of any non-celibate religious orders experiencing this kind of problem with sexual deviancy - ministers, rabbis, whatever.

Enlighten yourself.

Sexual abuse of children by Protestant ministers

StopBaptistPredators.org

POKROV.ORG

Clergy Abuse: Rabbis, Cantors & Other Trusted Officials

Sex abuse spans spectrum of churches

Sex Abuse by Teachers Said Worse Than Catholic Church

[A.A. Cunningham]

Honestly, I don't see where they get the idea that priests must be celibate...

Scripture

You should read all of it. You just might learn something.

PETER HAD A WIFE!

What was her name?

[A.A. Cunningham]

If celibacy were that important, I would think that more of a point would be made to show the celibacy of all of Christ’s disciples (or all but Peter). Other than Perer’s mother-in-law and Paul’s “gift of celibacy”, it never comes up.

Incorrect.

Thanks for playing "I'm ignorant of Scripture!"

[A.A. Cunningham]

Mandated celibacy forces those without the gift of celibacy, but who are called to discipleship, to force celibacy on themselves or choose another vocation. If marriage is not a moral wrong, and does not draw men away from God ... why are those without the gift of celibacy not allowed the priesthood?

21 of the 22 Churches sui juris which comprise the Catholic Church ordain, as a norm, married men. No man has a right to be ordained to the Priesthood, particularly in the Latin Rite. Those who feel called to both the vocations of marriage and the Priesthood have options that you are quite obviously unaware of.

I suggest that in the future before opining on a topic you know little about, educate yourself. Unless of course, you enjoy coming across as a buffoon.

[A.A. Cunningham]

Given the case of Peter, that seems like a rather arbitrary rule ... and one likely not acknowledged by Christ Himself when selecting apostles.

Incorrect.

"For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it." Matthew 19:12

"Then Peter answering, said to him: Behold we have left all things, and have followed thee: what therefore shall we have? And Jesus said to them: Amen, I say to you, that you, who have followed Me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of his majesty, you also shall sit on twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for My name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting. And many that are first, shall be last: and the last shall be first." Matthew 19:27-30

"Then Peter said: Behold, we have left all things, and have followed thee. Who said to them: Amen, I say to you, there is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake, Who shall not receive much more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting." Luke 18:28-30

"But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided." 1 Corinthians 7:32-33

The question you should be asking is not why Priests in the Latin Rite are celibate but why aren't all ministers; particularly those who claim to be Bible believers, following the examples set by Christ, the Apostles and St. Paul.

[A.A. Cunningham]

For example in the orthodox church, a priest may marry, but if he marries, he may not be a bishop.

Not quite. In the Orthodox Church a married man may be ordained but once ordained a single Priest may not then marry and remain a Priest. Big difference compared to what you've described.

[SnakeDoctor]

First — I am well aware of the scriptures you quoted ... thanks.

>> “But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided.” 1 Corinthians 7:32-33

The scriputre quote above is incomplete. 1 Cor 7:36-38 continues on to say ....

(36) If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly towards his fiancée,* if his passions are strong, and so it has to be, let him marry as he wishes; it is no sin. Let them marry. (37) But if someone stands firm in his resolve, being under no necessity but having his own desire under control, and has determined in his own mind to keep her as his fiancée,* he will do well. (38) So then, he who marries his fiancée* does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.

>> The question you should be asking is not why Priests in the Latin Rite are celibate but why aren’t all ministers; particularly those who claim to be Bible believers, following the examples set by Christ, the Apostles and St. Paul.

I need not ask why all Bible-believing ministers are not celibate, because, as the above passage makes clear, not all Bible-believing ministers will be called to celibacy ... nor are they expected to be.

My position throughout this conversation has been that celibacy is a rare gift, and is an admirable choice for those that can undertake it — but that it is not, and should not be, a prerequisite for discipleship or clergy. The remainder of the passage that you truncated shows that to be the Biblical view as well.

>> Those who feel called to both the vocations of marriage and the Priesthood have options that you are quite obviously unaware of

Your argument appears to be twofold and contradictory — on the one hand you argue that mandatory clerical celibacy is the only Biblically justifiable choice ... and on the other, you argue that clerical celibacy is non-mandatory.

SnakeDoc

[john in springfield]

You should read all of it. You just might learn something.

I've read the entire Bible, multiple times. I've studied the New Testament in the original Greek.

Maybe you should read it. Maybe you should study the New Testament in the original Greek. YOU might learn something.

[marajade]

i think all except john were married

[john in springfield]

Most of them probably were. In fact, the Bible seems explicit that most (or almost all!) of the original apostles except for Paul. He (at least at one point) is known not to have been married, as he explicitly states he is unmarried. He also says (in support of your point): "Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?"