A former Catholic, I'm open to the church changing the celibacy rule, but I don't have strong opinions on it. To me, letting women enter the priesthood is much more important. Certainly sexual abuses by priests is gaining acceptance as a legitimate problem, and I'm glad it's starting to be addressed. However I do question everyone's automatic jump from the occurrence of such sexual abuses to concluding it's the fault of the celibacy policy. I concede that imposed celibacy may have something to do with it, but has anyone considered the possibility that celibacy MAY NOT be the problem? This type of molestation is not a problem limited to priests. I think it's a fact that such sexual abuses have been reported amongst ministers, monks, and other persons in religious orders, as well as persons outside religious orders, of course. Are such molestations disproportionately greater among priests than amongst ministers? I wonder. While molestation by a minister is certainly news, I think it's very possible that such incidents don't get as much press (on a national scale) as those involving priests, precisely because of the focus in the States on the Catholic Church's celibacy policy. Again, I'm not 'wed' to the church's celibacy policy (okay, bad joke), but I do question the way many people approach this issue. I could certainly be flat out wrong on this, but it seems overly simplistic to blame the celibacy policy for the sexual abuses committed by priests. But, hey, if getting rid of the policy helps, I'm all for it. By the way, as a former altar server, I am happy to report that I have never been sexually abused by a priest, to my knowledge. Although there was that time I passed out after drinking too much communion wine...
1. NPR did a bif report on this last week. One guy they interviewed (can't remember which -- I think it was an ex-priest consultant) said that, statistically, priests molested children on par with the population at large. Because of this, he didn't think celibacy had anything to do with the problem. 2. Ever since the Pope claimed infallibility (that is, infallibility when it comes to establishing policy for the Church in God's name; not while driving or putting together Ikea furniture), the papacy has a very hard time changing policies that were set by predecessors. They can make new rules that influence the old ones, but can't really say an earlier Pope was flat-out wrong. That would suggest that his predecessor did not have the direct Word of God, which would in turn suggest he wasn't a true heir of the Apostles' mantle, which means that the current Pope (who got it from the previous one) didn't have that mantle either -- and therefore couldn't say the previous one was wrong. So, they can't really change the policy, no matter how much outsiders think they should. 3. St. Paul has already been quoted. In his treatment of the subject, Paul says that when a person (not just a priest!) is married, his allegiances are divided between his wife/family and his ministry to God. Because of this, the Catholics believe it is a higher calling (though a hard one) because a person's life can be wholly devoted to God. It is similar to the quotes about not being able to serve two masters (in that case, God and Money). 4. In Judaism, the priesthood is set apart in that the tribe of Levi was supposed to serve that function. In that way, the priesthood was hereditary/racial. It is based on a Chosen People model. In Christianity, priesthood can be held by anyone because of the work of the Holy Spirit. They can not be 'set apart' by tribe; but they can be by virginity. 5. If you really want to know what the Catholics are thinking, check out this page from the Catholic Encyclopedia: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm
This is not really on topic, but I just wanted to say that giddyup's topic name was damn clever. Every time I come into the Hangout now, I read that and think, "Damn! I wish I'd thought of that!" Carry on.
Swear to God, no lie, I was going to post asking if you got that from Alan Keyes, having not even watched the show.
I'm not Catholic at all, and the whole idea priests doing this sort of thing sickens me to no end. But to say that the Catholic church should change their policy is something else. Whether or not you accept their beliefs, the Catholic church believes that celibacy in the priesthood is an important, divine directive. It's not anyone's place but the church itself to establish it's policies, and certainly not it's beliefs. Remember, they basically accept the Pope as the mouthpiece of God, so outside influences don't really affect how they make their decisions, and they shouldn't, if you believe in the Pope's authority. (which I don't) On the other hand, there should be some MAJOR, MAJOR discipline for those priests which are found in these types of situations. Clearly they're violating there vows, and the Catholic church certainly believes they have put their eternal well-being on the line. They should definitely be punished by the law. I wonder if that sort of thing calls for excommunication in the Catholic church? I don't really know. I'm not really educated in those kind of matters. But that's a real possibility.
Well it was only about the third or fourth time I've seen "Making Sense." I prefer the laid-back "Andy Griffith Show" or nothing usually! I'm changing my charge of "psycho" to "psychic"!
Giddyup...but what about when they wake up and have the midnight rager? Or morning wood? Those babies need to be taken care of one way or the other...they are painful!
There are several different denominations involved in the cases in Canada. And the lawsuits will run into the billions, not that that will come anywhere near making up for what happened. http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/gs/schl_e.html http://www.indianlife.org/newspaper/v21n4/il pages 1-7.pdf
Giddyup I meant by being with a partner...or going hand solo style... Seriously though...the bottom line is that it's not natural to supress things like sexual desires. These guys should be allowed partners...
Hand solo style. Hans Solo. Hmm! Better ask George Lucas. I didn't mean to imply that you were justifying the mis-use of the young men. Sorry. It is a terrible predicament. Wouldn't the kind of fealty the church is desiring of its priests/nuns be better gotten on a voluntary basis? What is the Catholic Church's attitude toward Free Will? The absolute numerical incidence of this kind of abuse may be nearly identical to the general population's but it is much more horrific because of the "bearding" aspect of using the positiion of high trust to get away with it and the desecration of that high office hand-in-hand with the abuse. I'm not sure that the "married" pedophile is not just simply analgous to the "married" gay man of the mid-twentieth century-- the Beard phenomenon. Will NAMBLA ever become as "accepted" as the Gay Rights movement?
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and not assume that you just compared homosexuals to pedophiles. To answer your question, let's hope not. There is a main difference, of course, that being a matter of consent. In homosexual relationships, both partners are usually consenting adults. With NAMBLA you're getting into older men taking advantage of very impressionable boys and downright rape of children. It should never be accepted and I don't know of many people (or any) that think it should.
Unfortunately, RM95, the American Medical Association (if i remember right, it was them...but nevertheless, it was an accredited group) ran an article in their journal a couple of years back classifying the desire to have sex with children as an inborne trait...and went on to say that it really didn't hurt most of the kids' development. I was dumbfounded when I read of it...
should they be molesting little girls instead? why are you and the Vatican trying to scapegoat gay men in this scandal? Should people assume all straight men are pedophiles when a little girl gets molested? Are all straight men "sexual predators" because hundreds of thousands of women are raped by them in the U.S. every year?
outlaw and RM95: I am only comparing their political ambitions to gain a stronger foothold in this culture. That is a fair comparison for I know that they both have that ambition. Comparison is not equasion.
