How to tell the story of a church scandal

Newark Star Ledger ^ | 1/5/03 | Raymond A. Schroth, S.J.

[Catholicguy]

<. See "The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy," by Fr. Christian Cochini. He cites the Decretal of Pope Siricius, Prior to 400 a.d., reminding ALL priests of the MANDATORY DUTY to remain continent - that is, to avoid all sexual congress even if married<>

[RonF]

Hm. Well, I'm afraid I don't have that in my library. Think it's available on-line?

[RonF]

You know, it seems to me that when you get married you take an oath before God to abide in a certain state and to take on certain obligations to your spouse. Wouldn't a married man unilaterally deciding to be celibate be denying your spouse's conjugal rights? Isn't it kind of dishonest? Certainly a spouse has the right to presume that when married, they should be able to enjoy the companionship, etc., that sexual congress affords married couples? Does the Catholic Church regard denying one's spouse their conjugal rights grounds for divorce?

[ELS]

The highest-ranking U.S. Episcopal priest, who ironically headed a national committee examining the church's position on sexuality, resigned in October following charges he sexually abused young men in his congregation. Rev. Wallace A. Frey, rector of St. David's Church in DeWitt, is married with 2 grown children.

The married father of 4 sons was headmaster at St. Timothy's Episcopal Church in Catonsville. He was charged with child pornography and molesting 7 boys, ages 11 to 16, in his home and on church property.

So much for the idea that married priests will solve the problem.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

Wouldn't a married man unilaterally deciding to be celibate be denying your spouse's conjugal rights?

It isn't a unilateral decision. The spouse must agree or else Holy Orders will not be conferred. Nothing is forced upon anyone. It is a choice made of free will by both parties just as it is for single men seeking ordination.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

You aren't clear on a lot of things.

"We would be naïve and dishonest were we to say this is a Roman Catholic problem and has nothing to do with us because we have married and female priests in our church. Sin and abusive behavior know no ecclesial or other boundaries."

Rt. Rev. William Persell, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Chicago, Good Friday Sermon, 2002.

[sinkspur]

You should be defending the teaching and disciplines of the Church, not attacking them in a public forum.

I'm a married deacon, in a parish with a married Catholic priest.

I'm defending the reality that exists in my own parish.

[sinkspur]

Don't be coy, who are you talking about.

Take your pick.

[sinkspur]

Even today, the binds it's married clergy in a vow of continence.

"the" what? You've left a word out here.

It really doesn't matter. There's no Church today which allows a married clergy which binds them to continence.

And, how much continence do you think there was when married priests lived in the same house with their wives?

Celibacy is proposed in theory, and observed much less in practice.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

You made the assumption. Now put up or shut up.

[Poohbah]

Celibacy is proposed in theory, and observed much less in practice.

It is also not hereditary :o)

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

And, how much continence do you think there was when married priests lived in the same house with their wives?

That was forbidden by Canon XXVII of the Council of Elvira. However, there were probably some ecclesiastics who felt themselves above said rule just as there are ecclesiastics today who don't feel obligated to keep their vows. Would you have obeyed said Canon or are you nothing more than an animal unable or unwilling to control his libido?

[sinkspur]

Would you have obeyed said Canon or are you nothing more than an animal unable or unwilling to control his libido?

Married people are married.

The sacrament of Matrimony supercedes "promises" contrary to that sacrament.

Are married people "animals"?

Your defense of this facade of "continence" is foolish.

There is nothing about the Sacrament of Holy Orders that requires continence or celibacy, the Council of Elvira notwithstanding.

You just go right on believing that these folks observed "continence."

[sinkspur]

You made the assumption. Now put up or shut up.

You actually believe that men married women, then said, oh, never mind on the marital union?

There may have been rare instances of continence. If you believe otherwise, then it's up to you to produce the evidence.

[Notwithstanding]

Does your "I-had-a-bad-experience-and-everyone-else-needs-to-know-about-it" approach in your diaconal ministry help bring people to know and accept the teachings of Christ's Church?

[Notwithstanding]

Do you believe that a couple with kids who are in an invalid "marriage" who then choose to enter the church are not morally obligated to live as brother and sister until the mariage is validated?

Do you believe a couple who enter into a civil "marriage" prior to their church wedding (military people do this all the time to secure housing for their bride to be at the new duty station) are obligated to not live as husband and wife until the church wedding?

How about young lovers whose wedding is next month and who spend hours upon hours with one another? Are they obligated to be continent?

Is anyone morally obligated to be chaste?

Sinkspur, why do you loathe chastity so?