Posted on 11/11/2007 7:19:28 AM PST by shrinkermd
He’d probably have to be able to spell “celibacy” too! ;-)
It’s not a word I much reason to use.
We agree. I think many of our past cultural attitudes about sexuality were simplistic; that said, I continue to believe all children are best off with a committed, married mother and father, preferably Christians or religious Jews, and whatever it takes socially to make that happen.
I have no prejudice against the idea of celibate priests per se, but believe the preparation stages should include a testing phase. I saw part of a reality series on the TBN Catholic cable channel awhile back in which young men in their twenties were meeting with their high school girlfriends in an effort to work out the depth of their vocation.
The social problem of "what did God intend" for people who do not naturally seem marriageable is formidable.
It used to be that boys left home after the 9th grade to attend a Seminary high school, then did college work with the same young men on their way to becoming priests. The Church realized that this was not a good way to attract mature young men, so that's why that has changed.
During the heyday of Feminism, many Seminaries were infiltrated, for lack of a better term, by Feminist teachers, and homosexuals were accepted readily into the ranks of the priesthood. This also led to many young men who would have been strong orthodox priests either not being accepted into the Seminary, or if they happened to get accepted, were drummed out by the overarching homosexual culture of a few Seminaries in the US. The older Bishops weren't paying attention, or it didn't seem to matter to them. When a younger group of Bishops came up, appointed by John Paul II, they started changing that situation. It will take several more years for the situation to be resolved, but it's happening. Mostly what it took was for the Bishops to tell the Seminary where he normally would have sent his Diocesan candidates, that he wasn't going to send any more until they cleaned up their act!
I saw Post 12, and there are no solid statistics in it.
Pardon the misuse of the word. I know what prosecute means. The point is the same.
Does anyone seriously think all homosexual/pedophile priests are on the parish level?
Does anyone really expect a ‘purge’ to be conducted by high church officials who fear being purged themselves? Why do you think those Bishops ‘cowed’ people into not pressing charges?
Did they know how huge the problem was and wanted to ‘protect’ the Church-reasoning that homosexual/pedophile priests were better than none; or did they also fear being brought down by the guilty priests they would have to turn over?
This is CYA ( no pun intended) on a massive level.
Semantics aside- does anyone think homosexual/pedophile Bishops, Archbishops etc want to really purge the Church of their kind?
Despite media coverage, the problem is not now, and never was, HUGE. It WAS bad, and there were some priests who abused their positions when they abused kids over whom they had authority. It never involved large numbers of priests, though because of the media coverage, most folks assumed it did, and many priests were unfairly viewed suspiciously by some of their parishoners.
I don't believe that Bishops were shielding priests because the Bishops were homosexual. Some Bishops, and their liberal staff members were solidly in the Feminist camp, so were loosey goosey on some Church teachings anyway. Back in the 70's, the Bishops were told by the secular psychologists that these 'problems' could be corrected by sending the priest off for treatment, because that was the belief of mental health professionals at the time. Then, they'd tell the Bishop that the priest was 'cured', so the Bishop would put the priest back in a parish. The Bishops considered it a 'pastoral issue', and would try to treat the priest as a 'brother in Christ', and didn't look upon him as a criminal.
Oviously, we know better today, but we're judging the Bishops based on what we know now, that they didn't know them. What I DON'T accept is that when it happened again, the Bishops did the same thing they'd done before. They should have gotten a clue, by that time.
In my opinion, if they had credible evidence, or enough complaints, they should have turned the whole thing over to the police the FIRST time, and not tried to handle it themselves, even through psychologists. However, in some places, the legal system was less than helpful, too. In Boston, a couple of the priests were not investigated because they were plugged into the Democrat party and had powerful friends,so charges were not filed against them at the time.
It's interesting that it was only the Boston situation that received relentless media coverage, even though there were a couple of instances in Chicago, and a few in Los Angeles. I am convinced that the reason the issue came up in MA when it did, and was hammered so much by the media, was because the issue of homosexual 'marriage' was about to break and activists wanted to destroy the credibility of the Catholic Church in Boston. They didn't want the opposition of the Church, because they knew it would have been powerful; Cardinal Law was well respected.
By bringing up the accusations, mostly against priests who had committed the abuse so long ago that the statute of limitations had run out, and they wouldn't have been able to be tried anyway, the media besmirched all the priests, and turned a lot of people against the Church. Cardinal Law was the one who was in charge of the Archdiocese when it all came to a head, even though all but two or three of the cases were from before he ever came to Boston. He was not served well by his Auxiliary Bishops who were the ones who WERE aware, but didn't pass all of the information along to him. He accepted the blame and resigned so that there could be someone new to head the Archdiocese and he, as a lightning rod for the anti-Church activists, would be gone. The Attorney General of the Commonwealth admitted that the Cardinal had broken no laws, and would never have been subject to arrest, but still excoriated the Cardinal in a newspaper article saying that he WISHED he could have put him in jail; no pretense of evenhandedness at all.
It was during all this, that the Supreme Judicial Court decided that homosexuals should be allowed to 'marry', so the homosexual 'marriage' activists thought they got what they wanted, a weakened Church that could afford little opposition. What's interesting is that the activists took one look at the new ARchbishop, Sean O'Malley, in his brown Fransciscan robes and sandals and thought they had a pushover. They were badly mistaken. He was just as strongly against the issue as Cardinal Law was. He led his brother Bishops in a very good fight, but the overwhelmingly Democrat legislature weenied out and voted NOT to allow the citizens of MA to vote on the issue.
What's truly amazing to me is that it's written by the LA Times and is pointing the finger at the Cardinal Archbishop of Chicago ... as though the situation in LA was something to brag about.
Mahony certainly has friends galore in the LA media.
**If the Church would allow Priests to marry, more men who are not homosexual would go into the Priesthood.**
I hate to tell you but even in Protestant churches with married clergy there are pedophile problems.
And how about the public schools where many teachers are married and still there is a problem of sexual abuse of students.
This is NOT a problem of celibacy.
Pope: Priests Must Stay Celibate
Giving Thanks for the Good Shepherds ( A Defense of Priestly Celibacy)
Don't end celibacy for priests
The celibate superhero
Priestly Celibacy And Its Roots In Christ
How to Refute Arguments Against Priestly Celibacy
Priestly Celibacy Reflects Who - and Whose - We Are[Father George W.Rutler]
Celibacy
Tracing the Glorious Origins of Celibacy
God’s call to celibacy for the sake of His Kingdom - by Card. George
Vatican Says Celibacy Rule Nonnegotiable
Bishop Attacks Move to End Celibacy
A response to Fr. Joseph Wilson's defense of mandatory celibacy
The gift of Priestly celibacy as a sign of the charity of Christ, by Mother Teresa of Calcutta
Archbishop Dolan:"We Need to Be Renewing Our Pledge to Celibacy, Not Questioning It"
Celibacy is gift cherished by church
Celibacy Will Save the Priesthood
Celibacy Defended by EWTN's Fr. Levis
Call To Action: Dump Celibacy
The (Catholic) Church Has Always Prospered When Celibacy Is Honored
John Paul II Hails "Inestimable Value" of Priestly Celibacy
For Priests, Celibacy Is Not the Problem
Fr. Shannon Collins Discusses Celibacy
5 Arguments Against (Catholic) Priestly Celibacy and How to Refute Them
Why A Married Priesthood Won't Remedy the Priest Shortage
New Vatican Document on Homosexuality and the Priesthood Coming Before Fall 2005
Catholic priests demand the right to marry
Catholic priests urge Church to reconsider celibacy rules
Alternative Priests´ Council Hits Back on Mandatory Celibacy
Married Priests? The English Experience
Saying Yes to God: a Look into Vocations
New Vatican Document to Eliminate 1961 Papal Ban on Ordaining Homosexuals
Saying Yes to God: a Look into Vocations
Is it time to ordain married men to the Catholic priesthood?
40% of Scots priests want end to celibacy
A small, sturdy band of 'John Paul priests'(JPII legacy of conservative priests)
Yes, Gay Men Should Be Ordained
Cardinal says Priests will marry
Fathers, Husbands and Rebels: Married Priests
An Unneeded Headache (Vatican document on [NOT] admitting homosexual to the priesthood)
Vatican Prepares Draft Directives Against Admitting Gays as Priests
From Anglican to married Catholic priest
Spain gets first married priest
Spain (R) Catholic Church ordains first married priest
The Catholic Church - East-West Difference Over Priestly Celibacy
ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF SCRANTON TO RECEIVE FIRST ECUSA PRIEST
Defending Chastity in the Priesthood
Ordination of married men is raised at Vatican synod
Patriarch of Venice deemphasizes ordination of married men to the priesthood
Cardinal Pell: Ending Celibacy Rule Would Be a Blunder
Priest shortage stems from crisis of faith, ignorance of the infinite, not celibacy, say Bishops [at Synod]
Synod Affirms Priestly Celibacy
Married Priests Aren’t the Answer (a seminarian states his view)
5 Arguments Against Priestly Celibacy and How to Refute Them
(Catholic) Church makes a clear distinction between chastity and celibacy, says Priest
Why Not Married Priests? The Case for Clerical Celibacy
Married, ex-Episcopalian ordained a Catholic priest in California
Getting It Right:The Foundation of Friendship (What can a celibate priest really teach us about love
Another One Takes the Plunge [swims the Tiber]
Following the Signs (to a priestly vocation)
Long Journey to Rome (Former Southern Baptist Pastor Now a Traveling Crusader for Catholic Church)
Ex-Lutheran bishop found Catholic rock: Joseph Jacobson to be ordained Catholic priest by Christmas
The Gift: A Married Priest Looks at Celiba[cy]
Vatican Reaffirms Celibacy for Priests
Pope, Curia Aides Reaffirm Value of Priestly Celibacy (detailed Vatican response)
There can be prosecutions within the Church for violations of canon law. Such trials are rare both in the Latin and Orthodox churches, though they do happen even nowdays.
Irving's Law has been invoked. Alex Murphy wins the round by default.
Of course, if the priest has done something wrong specifically regarding Church business, he can be prosecuted in a Church trial, but this abuse was in the secular criminal realm, so the Bishop would not have any authority over it.
I’m thinking of priests that I have known in my many long years as a Catholic: (”BOP” that follows stands for Before Ordination to the Priesthood)
* one was a soccer star in Ireland —BOP
* one was in sports medicine—BOP
* one was a successful real estate broker—BOP
* one was a construction worker—BOP
* one made a decision between his girlfriend and the priesthood—he chose the priesthood—20 years ago
And so on-——so many over the years like that. Also, the priests I have known have enjoyed the respect of other men—something that I think speaks for itself.
The following may be a new perspective on this subject: it was written by St. Benedicta of the Cross, a Carmelite nun, shortly before her death as a martyr at Auschwitz in 1941. (Born Edith Stein, St. Benedicta was a university professor and Jewish convert to Catholicism).
“Whether man or woman..each of us is called to the imitation of Christ. The further the individual continues on this path, the more Christlike he will become. Christ embodies the ideal of human perfection: in Him all bias and defects are removed, and the masculine and feminine virtues are united and their weaknesses redeemed; therefore, His true followers will be progressively exalted over their natural limitations. That is why we see in holy men a womanly tenderness and truly maternal solicitude for the souls entrusted to them while in holy women there is manly boldness, proficiency and determination.”
Sometimes that’s what it takes to win—default.
Really? And how many of the early bishops or priests were married?
Let's go beyond the Apostles to the first Christian generations after them. Who was married? Polycarp? Clement? Ignatius of Antioch?
I think you will be hard pressed to find more than a very few examples of married priests in the first few centuries. Personally, I can't think of any.
Frankly, I think your definition of "normal and regular" is a little...well, I'll say it....Anglo-Saxon prim and proper, and it may need a little rethinking.
First of all, what do you think of married Orthodox priests? Do they strike you as regular guys? And married Catholic priests (such as the ones in the pastoral provision)...same?
Second of all, you can't fit Catholic ecclesiology in a quaint little "Me and my wife in ministry" model. Catholic priests are on call 24-7 to deliver sacraments when needed....there are far more demands on them then there are on Protestant ministers. And having a family and being a priest has its own challenges.
Third of all, your perspective is not shared outside of Anglo-American culture. Both Protestant ministers and Catholic priests were active among the Indian tribes of the West in the 1800s. And a few of the tribes flat out rejected Protestant ministers. Why? Because, they said, these guys are married like we are, they have their own concerns, their own families, so why should we follow them? But the blackrobe has no wife, and can devote himself fully and completely to God.
Everywhere around the world, voluntary celibacy is associated with higher spiritual pursuits. From ancient Rome to Buddhism, from the Irish monks to the American Indians.
And for some reason Americans think this is something strange, something weird.
It ain't. We Americans just need to get out more. ;)
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.