Many years ago one of the Popes said that men needed to "approach their wives in holiness" etc.. Senator Earl Butz then retorted "he no playa da game, he no maka de rules." WWIII just about commenced after that.
But really, the clergy abuse from what I've heard existed all the time. I'm Jewish and I tend to have a big mouth about certain things but the Jews always had a hard time understanding the Catholic's insistance that the clergy not be married. Rabbis are encouraged to marry as early as possible to avoid all kinds of problems.

[u:f34c0d76eb]Vows of Silence: The Abuse of Power in the Papacy of John Paul ll[/u:f34c0d76eb], by Jason Berry and Gerald Renner, is an excellent book on this subject.
Includes information on Father Marcial Maciel, an accused pedophile and founder of the Legion of Christ. Maciel's crimes date back to the 50s, but he still is revered and public.
There are several Catholic organizations working for change, We Are Church is one. They call for a vigorous discussion of optional celibacy amongst other needed reforms. The Catholic church has not always required celibacy of priests, one reason behind the change was the Church's fear that wives and children would inherit their considerable wealth, rather than keep it all in the Church.

Sarah

The Catholic Church's position of priest celibacy is based on the concept of the primary role of the Priestly Ministry, that of bringing people into a closer realtionship with God. The Church views that an unmarried priest can devote all his time to his ministry rather than be split between his wife and family and his parish.

It is a question of where a priest's primary focus is designed to be.

However, the Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church permits priests to be married and clergy from other Christian faiths and Rabbis from the Jewish faith allow married life.

Arguements for married clergy may be that it provides a broader experience base and a balanced lifestyle.

Arguements against married clergy may be that married life may distract the priest from the spiritual welfare of his parish, particularly when in family crisis.

[b:491beaae7f]In the areas of celibacy and pedophilia:[/b:491beaae7f]
There is no evidence to suggest that celibacy and pedophilia are causally linked. Further, it is not the celibacy of the priest that results in interpersonal sexual conflict and manifests in this horrid form of abuse.

Many married family men are among the worst pedophiles and married clergy from other faiths have also been pedophiles.

So does married life or priestly celibacy cause pedophilia? Neither do.

It is more the case that a pedophile seeks out a career or social past time that puts the perpetrator in ready access to children and the role of a priest provides this.

However, society is more outraged, (and justifiably so), by a priest perpetrating this gastly act because of the values a priest is suppose to uphold.

Oz

Quote

In the areas of celibacy and pedophilia:
There is no evidence to suggest that celibacy and pedophilia are causally linked. Further, it is not the celibacy of the priest that results in interpersonal sexual conflict and manifests in this horrid form of abuse.

That is a very important point, one often not understood.

In reading further on the issue of child abuse in the Catholic Church, I'm struck by how secrecy has been much of the problem and perhaps still is. When a huge organization is able to operate as a country within a country, with it's own internal closed system of rules, seems then that abuse can flourish in the shadows.
I like this quote from a news commentator, Ken Schram:

Quote

From what I understand, the Seattle Archdiocese has "policy guidelines" that call for the church to initially investigate any reports of sexual abuse. Only if the church finds that those allegations hold up are police finally called.

Excuse me? Last time I checked, I didn't see any priests at Mass with detective badges pinned to their vestments.

If a child claims to have been sexually molested by a priest, it's not up to the Catholic Church to determine if those claims are valid.

That's what cops and courts are for.

Truth is, the Archdiocese doesn't need any special "policy guidelines" to deal with priests who molest kids.

It already has something. It's called THE LAW. And no Catholic Archdiocese is above it.

[www.komotv.com]


Sarah

I would like to state first, that I am a practicing Catholic and I see no contradiction in myself stating this while at the same time criticising the handling of sexual abuse cases perpetrated by Catholic Church clergy.

My view is that for too long, the Church has singularly focused on showing mercy and forgiveness to the perpetrators at the expense of dispensing Justice and healing for the victim.

An offending priest should be decommissioned as a priest, not so much as penalty, but as recognition by the church that this type of crime more often than not leads to repeat offending behaviour. At the very least, the Church shows naivety by returning a priest to normal duties after performing such a serious and unlawful act. There is a duty of care by the Church.

The children must be protected at all costs!

Legal matters should be performed by the courts, unobstructed and in full co-operation.

Oz

Quote
richardmgreen
Many years ago one of the Popes said that men needed to "approach their wives in holiness" etc.. Senator Earl Butz then retorted "he no playa da game, he no maka de rules." WWIII just about commenced after that.
But really, the clergy abuse from what I've heard existed all the time. I'm Jewish and I tend to have a big mouth about certain things but the Jews always had a hard time understanding the Catholic's insistance that the clergy not be married. Rabbis are encouraged to marry as early as possible to avoid all kinds of problems.

Many cite Jesus as the example of celibacy that the Church and its representatives are supposed to follow. However if Jesus was both a Jew and a Rabbi, then this immediately creates some historical difficulties. First and foremost, as a Jew and Rabbi, Jesus would have been expected to obey the Mishnaic Law requiring marriage before teaching. Furthermore, the Jewish orthodox rigorously condemned celibacy, for it was commonplace and expected for Rabbis to have children. Some Jewish writers of the time even considered celibacy on par with murder.

So this begs the question: Why is there no mention of this in the Bible? Many posit two possibilities: One, Jesus was a Jew who did all the above, but after the Nicean Ecumenical Councial around 400 AD, when Constantine oversaw the Bishops who voted Jesus equal to God, they subsequently edited out Biblical passages that may have been in contradiction to it. It is interesting to note that this vote wasn't unanimous, and most notably the Arian Christians were some of the most indignent and vocal critics of this change of the former Canon. Interestingly the Catholic Church recently commented after the furor over the "Davinci Code," that Jesus not being celibate wouldn't necessarily be incompatible with Catholicism.

The other obvious and only remaining alternative would have to be that Jesus wasn't Jewish--at least by birth--hence His celibacy would have been moot insofar as orthodox Judaism was concerned. I leave the reader to research and decide for him/herself. At least now, we live in an age where we can discuss such things rationally without fear of mortal consequences.

So is Catholic celibacy divinely inspired or is it merely a human construct, for whatever reasons, that has no particular spiritual significance? I seem to recall that either Catholicism's Greek Orthodox or Eastern Orthodox permits its clergy to marry. So apparently they're not breaking any God-like laws, else Roman Catholicism would have been all over them on CNN.

So what constitutes an inerrant belief? Is there such a thing even for a Roman Catholic? The Church has had some rather curious beliefs in the past it insisted were inerrant: Does life truly begin at conception? Sure, the Church adamantly says "YES!" now, but at one time it was held that a child wasn't a living being until it took it's first breath, somewhat reminscent of God breathing the life/spirit/re--SPIR---ation into Adam, as the two words were somewhat synonomous at one time.

What's more Catholicism didn't always have the same Apostle's Creed, confession, communion, and some may be astonished to discover that just like the Hassidic Jews and Gnostic Christians who still do to this day, Christianity accepted reincarnation until 553 AD when it was dropped from the doctrine at the Fifth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople.

The point is that whether all or some of those changes in Catholicism were divinely or merely materially conceived, such would have profound implications for the significance such decisions and subsequent beliefs ultimately have in regard to science, mysticism, politics, medicine and the judicial system.

CNFT

I am Catholic and I support celibacy. I believe that it frees the priest from family obligations so that he has more time for parishioners. What would a priest do if a parishioner needed him but his child needed him too. I hope that he would choose his child but celibacy prevents this decision from having to be made. Priests are married to the church and parishioners are their children. A priest is a priest 24 hours a day so they are really very busy. I don't think it would be fair to a wife and children that their husband and father is gone so much and has so little time for them.

I have had all good experiences with priests I have known. Unfortunately, a few bad priests have really given the priesthood a bad name.

Celibacy does not lead to sexual abuse. The priests who have sexually abused people would do it whether or not they were priests and whether or not they were married. However, I do believe that a priest can gain trust from others more easily than a man that is not a priest. So being a priest can make it easier to gain access to situations where abuse can occur.

I am appalled and extremely disappointed in the way the church has handled the abuse. They covered it up for years and that was wrong. The church should have stepped forward and dismissed the priests from the priesthood immediately after they were found guilty.

I hope that people won't judge all priests by the actions of a few bad men. The church has changed its policies on sexual abuse and they are now very willing to conduct an investigation and to hold the priests accountable. Iknow this doesn't make up for what they've already done but it's a step in the right direction.

Here is a good article from the UK Guardian that calls for the legal immunity granted to the current Pope as head of state of the Vatican ( the Vatican was singularly declared a state by fascist Italy) to be rescinded.

The figures, breadth and scope of the cover-up of the paedophilia scandal--directly attributed to the decisions of this current Pope while in his previous role---are covered in this short and informative article, which also makes the point that other, more valid, heads of state are not considered immune from prosecution for crimes against humanity committed under their direction:

[www.guardian.co.uk]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/25/2010 05:04PM by Stoic.

A fabulous song and animation from Tim Minchin on the morality of the pope protecting paedophile priests--the language is very ripe and could offend but Tim covers that in the lyrics:

[vimeo.com]

A recently disclosed 1997 letter from the papal nuncio to Irish bishops, overruling by virtue of an order from the Vatican, their directives to report all cases of abuse to the civil authorities:

'Vatican letter told Ireland's Catholic bishops not to report child abuse'

[www.guardian.co.uk]

and the beginning of the attempted 'damage limitation':

'Vatican denies it told bishops not to report abuse'

[www.irishtimes.com]