www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Just Wrong

Alex,

that sentence must be the first time i've seen you write purple prose

in Domino,

Edward

Dear Friends:

The age distribution of the victims of sexual abuse in the recently reported survey follows:

--11-14, 50.9%
--15-17, 27.3%
-- 8-10, 16%
--under 7, 6%

The survey said , the victims are more on the post-pubescent age range and, as I have posted long before, the cases are more about ephebophilia rather than about pedophilia.

And the victims' gender?

--81% male and

--19% female.

Now discuss amongst yourselves.

AmdG

I agree abolishing celibacy across the board would not address the problem and isn't the first thing to be done.

Taking your own words from another perspective: such an approach impugns the honor, the chastity, and the sacrifice made by all those brave men with same-sex attraction all through the history of the church who choose to serve the Church as celibate priests, is wrong-headed, and offers an illusory solution to the abuse problem.

The entire Church would be much poorer without the contributions of such men.

Incidentally, how many Catholics struggling with same-sex attraction do you know? It's frightfully easy to speaking judgingly of those whom one is not personally acquainted. Most homosexuals (just like heterosexuals) do not have an attraction to children, so simply not ordaining homosexual men will block from the priesthood many worthy men who have no attraction to children. The key to the problem here is to ensure celibacy - among clergy of all inclinations.

We don't agree on this.

This we DO agree on.

Dear Dolly,

Well, I come from a family tradition of a few married priests, including my granddad ("priestliness" is in my blood, you know . . . I get these urges to make the Sign of the Cross over groups of people I am with . . .).

Of course, one need not impose marriage for clergy ( ).

But there is really no better spiritual school for self-discipline and obedience than having a wife, you know . . .

A wife teaches you humility, self-effacement, exact obedience, fulfillment of one's duties, responsibility, mortification, hard work, detachment from the things of this world, constant inner prayer and the like.

That's why I think seminaries and monasteries produce such spiritual wimps nowadays.

I think you would make an excellent Presbytera, you know!

Alex

Edward,

There are disagreements here.

Nevertheless, I just wanted to clear one thing up: I am not being judgmental of those with same sex attraction.

I am not making any statements about the innocence or guilt of their souls.

And I have known people with SSA. I don't think I knew any who were Catholic or Christian, but I have friends of friends who are Catholic, chaste men with homosexual inclinations.

What I am saying is that SSA, even if not culpable, is a disorder. All sound medicine and psychology, and the Church herself (incl. COURAGE btw) acknowledge this. The Church, for reasons of prudence, as stated that those with SSA should not be ordained to the priesthood unless and until their SSA gets cleared up. This is not a judgment on their souls, any more than it is a judgment on the soul of a disabled man not to admit him to the ministry. The bar against those with SSA is in order not to expose them to temptation unnecessarily. SSA, unlike heterosexual attraction, is not healthy in and of itself. SSA is a symptom of psychological wounds that need to be treated before one is fit for the priesthood.

This, as far as I understand, is the position of the groups COURAGE that you cite above, as well as the traditional position of the Catholic Church.

LatinTrad

I think that you are wrong on this point, Alex.

It is difficult to make an East West comparision with cultural context held constant. It is relatively easy, however, to compare married and non-married clergy. You as a sociologist may be familiar with the literature on this subject. AFAIK the stuides, cross-comparison, although in principle easy to do, have not been done to any large extent.

ISTM that you are making a big conclusion without supporting data. This is not good practice. I would be happy learn of more suppoting studies for your conclusion.

Dear LatinTrad,

I hope I'm not impugning anyone.

Are you saying that the Eastern (and early Western) tradition of married priests impugns the honour of the priesthood?

My only beef with the Western tradition is not that there are celibate priests - but that celibacy is IMPOSED. But that is another issue.

The fact that there are pedophiles who are married is one thing.

How many pedophiles in the RC Church among the clergy are married? None?

The issue is that pedophiles seek out a way of life where they may hide their problem - and potentially seek what they believe is a "safe outlet" for it.

Married priests are not the total solution.

But, in the current climate of distrust of celibate priests that the Latin Church must unfortunately deal with - married priests just may help reverse that.

There is no "catch-all" solution.

And the fact that a priest has a same-sex orientation does not mean that that man is a pedophile.

We have had popes and saints with same-sex orientations (ie. Pope Julius II and St Aelred of Rievaulx).

It is a complex problem that has been allowed to fester far too long by bishops, the main gate-keepers who have the most culpability in this matter - and those bishops who are responsible for "cover-ups" should be sent to monasteries right away and this before the secular authorities start coming after them.

Lay Catholics and parents are among the most worried and turned off in this whole mess.

And it is they, in general, who would just perhaps prefer to have some married Latin priests around.

For their peace of mind . . .

Alex

How many pedophiles in the RC Church among the clergy are married? None?

Where do you get this idea, Alex?

The data are of course sparse in this regard, but the recently published report suggests that the answer is not "none", and that married status is not a governing factor.

Dear djs,

Actually, when it comes to this issue, perception counts more than "objective data."

(This would make a fascinating study - when I return to academe, I'm definitely going to undertake one ASAP.)

As a general observation, one could say that the idea of married priests is a hope that some laity hold onto as a way to restore their trust in the priesthood.

I've only said that the consideration of a married priesthood is something that is being discussed, much to the bishops' chagrin.

His Beatitude Lubomyr, when he was here in Toronto last, was ORDERED by the RC Cardinal to remain silent on the matter of married priests and sex abuse cases.

And he largely did - except to say, when asked by journalists, that such cases are fewer in Eastern Europe among married clergy than among celibate clergy.

That's what he said. I agree that it would be good to have some data to compare, based on numbers, population etc.

But the perception of the laity, rightly or wrongly, is that, to put it simply, "this would never have happened to such a degree if we but had a married clergy."

Do you deny that such a perception exists?

Mistaken it very well is. But it exists and it is something that is "out there" as an objective reality - just as objective as any "data" that can be produced to show that married priests or ministers abuse at the same rate as celibates.

Alex

Dear djs,

Actually, when it comes to this issue, perception counts more than "objective data."

(This would make a fascinating study - when I return to academe, I'm definitely going to undertake one ASAP.)

As a general observation, one could say that the idea of married priests is a hope that some laity hold onto as a way to restore their trust in the priesthood.

I've only said that the consideration of a married priesthood is something that is being discussed, much to the bishops' chagrin.

His Beatitude Lubomyr, when he was here in Toronto last, was ORDERED by the RC Cardinal to remain silent on the matter of married priests and sex abuse cases.

And he largely did - except to say, when asked by journalists, that such cases are fewer in Eastern Europe among married clergy than among celibate clergy.

That's what he said. I agree that it would be good to have some data to compare, based on numbers, population etc.

I would say that this is a matter of understanding the culture in which abusive Latin priests have developed in (rather than a comparison with the Eastern Church or with Protestantism).

But the perception of the laity, rightly or wrongly, is that, to put it simply, "this would never have happened to such a degree if we but had a married clergy."

Do you deny that such a perception exists?

Mistaken it very well is. But it exists and it is something that is "out there" as an objective reality - just as objective as any "data" that can be produced to show that married priests or ministers abuse at the same rate as celibates.

Also, reports that provide data from a social scientific perspective are always "probabilistic" in nature - unlike pure scientific research.

The report you cite is simply not the final word on the matter nor can it be.

Alex

Dear Latin Trad,

O.K., you say that it is important not to ordain men with "abnormal sexual desires."

How are you going to determine that? How are you going to screen for that? You've already condemned the method mentioned in the first post as being, I presume, immoral.

Does the Latin Catholic Church refuse to ordain men with a same-sex orientation but who promise to be celibate? No, it does not and it won't.

As for lax administrators in the Catholic Church - aren't your own bishops who have covered up this problem for so long the main culprits here?

They are the ones who decided on the "transfer to another parish" paradigm, not anyone else!

What would you suggest should happen with all these bishops?

Alex

No kidding, and even fewer still in Eden. Of course. At the Catholic league website, there is some preliminary work comparing Protestant and Catholic clergy, and compariing clergy with non-clergy professionals that have acces to children (e.g., teachers). They help give some needed perspective.

I don't know the persception of the laity. But in any survey, I would work hard to factor out the "liberals" who have always sought to change the nature of the RC clergy (married and women), and so forth. Chances are the aggregate numbers for married clergy would be inflated by those whose opinions are not informed by recent events, but other ideas.

Dear djs,

If you can pull your head out of the sand for a moment, you should realize the Patriarch was comparing RC's and EC's.

You mean to say the Catholic League is biased in favour of the status quo in the Catholic Church?

Since when?

have a great day!

Alex

No Alex he was comparing EC and RC clergy in eastern europe. How are those results transferrable to the US? Any extrapolation is very dicey, IMO.

No the Catholic league is by no means intersted in the staus quo. It is the Catholic equivalent of the Jewish anti-defamation league. Check out their report.

Dear djs,

I apologise for my harshness - like you, I too can dish it out!

Since you know what our Patriarch thinks so well - do you still maintain you aren't Ukrainian?

The Catholic League is a nice group, I'll admit.

Enough with all of this?

Have a great weekend!

Alex