Pedophile Priests tempted by Satan!

While I don't particularly like the idea of using Satan as some bogeyman to scare people into toeing the Catholic line, it seems in this case what he's trying to get across is that these men were responsible for their actions, and were not under the control of Satan. I think, in a very Vatican-y sort of way, he's trying to eliminate Satan as a cop out, and let these guys know they are answerable for their actions.

 

I had two specific rules for not entering back into the BBS bedlam. 1) No threads about abortion; and 2) no threads about Catholicism.

What the heck is wrong with you guys! RULES. You guys think I don't lurk and check up on who's following the rules?

 

It's funny, because for such a crime or any other serious transgression . . . Satan doesn't have to serve 3-10 in a federal pen.

 

I have some questions about Catholocism which I hope I'm not wording poorly, but would really appreciate some views on.

1) If it becomes a fact, as much as any other fact known to us, that lifetime celebacy will cause damage to one's health, would it then factor into the Vatican's approach to Priesthood?

2) Did Jesus (Peace Be Upon Him) ever explicitly say to establish something called Priesthood and that these Priests should be celebate?

3) Does a Priest lose Priesthood forever if they break their vow of celebacy?

 

I tend to agree. Sounds to me that they're saying that Satan is responsible for temptation, but man is responsible for his actions. I don't see it as a cop-out by the Vatican at all.

 

This is simply poor journalism. The quoted his answers/responses but they never quoted the actual questions/inquiries asked.

 

I'm not a Catholic, but I'll try my best.

I wouldn't think so.

I don't think Jesus specified anything about a priesthood, other than commissioning apostles. Paul discusses church structure. He doesn't demand celibacy for priests and the early church didn't practice it. Paul was supposedly celibate himself and does say at one point that it'd be 'better' to be so, if you can handle it (but if you can't handle it, get married). Celibate priests started in the European monastic tradition where a sect of monks took vows of celibacy as an act of devotion. The church adopted the practice and made it mandatory.

I don't know, but I think he probably wouldn't if he was repentant and did not persist in the sin. Getting married wouldn't be an option though.

 

<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://www.collegehumor.com/moogaloop/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1912846&fullscreen=1" width="640" height="360" ><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"/><param name="wmode" value="transparent"/><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"/><param name="movie" quality="best" value="http://www.collegehumor.com/moogaloop/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1912846&fullscreen=1"/><embed src="http://www.collegehumor.com/moogaloop/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1912846&fullscreen=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="640" height="360" allowScriptAccess="always"></embed></object><div style="padding:5px 0; text-align:center; width:640px;">See more <a href="http://www.collegehumor.com/videos">funny videos</a> and <a href="http://www.collegehumor.com/pictures">funny pictures</a> at <a href="http://www.collegehumor.com/">CollegeHumor</a>.</div>

 

Thanks!

I wonder why the Church would disagree with Paul's condition of "if you can handle it".

I think it can be pretty easily established that not many can handle it.

I also don't understand the concept of why a Priest has to do it but others don't. If it is good and mandatory for Priests, then shouldn't it be for all?

Do the benefits of celibacy fit particularly well with a Priest's goals? Moreso than any other Catholic?

 

I was surfing around looking for answers and found this interesting defense of clerical celibacy: http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=143&Itemid=48. If you don't want to read all that, he says:

* The Pope could change the policy whenever.

* Celibacy promotes spirituality.

* There are some priests who are married -- Episcopalians who have converted -- but they don't usually run a parish.

* Celibacy is good because a celibate priest is free to devote his whole life to God and to ministering to his congregation. A married priest would take care of his family first and his church second.

 

I know you aren't saying this is your take, but rather what their argument is, but here's mine. What I bolded is the most disingenuous part of the "defense" of celibacy in the Catholic preisthood. Use that argument with the millions that serve in our armed forces, who have been leaving their families for multiple extended tours of duty. Use it for the police and fire department personnel that work long hours in a dangerous job, for salaries that don't adequately compensate them (at least in my opinion). Use it for those working overseas for the government in extremely dangerous conditions, their families left at home. I would argue that many of those people have an agenda that doesn't place their families "first." Right or wrong? That's up to the individual to decide, but to place a priest on a different plane altogether when compared to them is wrong, in my opinion.

 

I agree with Deckard. Having a family IS devoting your life to God imo, it's unfair to say that only reading and preaching and praying are devoted to God.

I'll read the article, thanks for finding!

 

I believe Buddhist Monks also lead a life of celibacy.

Again, the thinking, I suspect, is that it allows them to devote themselves to their spirituality.

I'll leave the debate as to whether that's a valid rational to those who have less manners then I do. (not pointing to you Deck -- you're usually very..um..civil -- but we should probably ease up on terms like 'disingenuous' when discussing religious practice given recent BBS events -- and a general aspiration to keep the D&D civil -- if that's even possible anymore ).