Celibacy In Catholicism

[Pragmatopian]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6899391.stm

 

Abuse is a complicated issue, but am I off the mark in suggesting that enforced celibacy in the priesthood could be part of the problem? Turning something perfectly natural into a reason for shame seems to me inherently wrong and likely to have serious physical and psychological repercussions in the long-term.

 

I would be interested to see statistics by religious background of convictions for acts of sexual deviancy in the general population, although I doubt they exist due to political sensitivities/discrimination laws. My theory is that the more restrictive a religion, the more likely it is that followers will 'snap' at some point as a backlash to the restrictions.

[Pat Ayres]

A virulent anti-catholic thread, how original.

I am atheist but will protect peoples right to practice whatever religion they like free of oppression. This is oppressive to catholics and therefore I must protest at this puerile attempt to vilify them.

Having a pop at religion in general is valid, but to pick on a specific religion is not on.

Kindly rephrase your question if you want any further response.

[thesultanofsheight]

Ignoring the Catholic Church, I do think that any religion that actively insists its priests are celibate is potentially opening itself up to the wrong recruits.

 

For centuries how many have joined the priesthood because its easier to say that you want to devote yourself celibate to God, than explain to your family why you'll never marry or why you have a strange attraction to sheep / horses / fish etc.

[DjDan]

One of the biggest difficulties facing religious organisations across the world is simply this:

 

people are people. individuals... each free and able to make their own decisions and actions.

 

Religions generally operate on the basis that 'anyone' is able to be affiliated with them, because at the end of the day, a belief in God is down to the individual. It's kinda awkward for any faith to determine who is allowed to join. With that, you find all sorts of people within any particular faith. The good... the bad... etc.

 

It's quite easy say, to find a 'bad' 'mormon' somewhere across the world (using my own faith as an example). When those people are found in leadership positions, it's very 'unfortunate'.. and should they act in any way of wrongdoing, it is up to the church (and the law) to deal with them appropriately.

 

I suggest the same is with the Catholics. You will never stop these sort of people from reaching leadership positions.. but that is not the fault of religion. Religion cannot scan every person to determine their intentions and desires!! People are people. It's the same in any society/organisation.

 

The real problem is when such a person is found doing wrong... and then not dealt with.

 

Just another comment:

In February 2004, a report commissioned by the Church said more than 4,000 Roman Catholic priests in the US had faced sexual abuse allegations in the last 50 years.

 

To be accused... does not mean that anything actually happened. Church leaders are often targeted for false accusations, especially in the US where there is money to be made from lawsuits!!

[The Bastard]

I am atheist but will protect peoples right to practice whatever religion they like free of oppression. This is oppressive to catholics and therefore I must protest at this puerile attempt to vilify them.

 

Rubbish. If the South Africans had said that apartheid was part of their religion, would you be up there defending them ? The "celibacy" issue has attracted a lot of coverage recently because of the numerous misconducts by so-called examples of the faith, and it's not an example of faith-bashing, more a commentary on current events. If they're that serious about celibacy, how about cutting their nuts off when they enter the priesthood ?

[hboy]

If they're that serious about celibacy, how about cutting their nuts off when they enter the priesthood ?

 

Its already been done.

 

http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=52,3456,0,0,1,0

 

There's nothing like a stiffie to put you off your praying.

 

I'm guessing that it won't catch on.

[Rhumsaa]

There is a reason the phrase "Bash the Bishop" was invented...

[Gladys]

Ignoring the Catholic Church, I do think that any religion that actively insists its priests are celibate is potentially opening itself up to the wrong recruits.

 

For centuries how many have joined the priesthood because its easier to say that you want to devote yourself celibate to God, than explain to your family why you'll never marry or why you have a strange attraction to sheep / horses / fish etc.

Agreed. Celibacy in itself may not be the cause of these mis-deeds, but rather the cloistered environment of the priesthood and, the position of trust that comes with it, which attracts a certain type of person.

 

Let's face it, someone whose entire position in society is founded on superstition and who expects to be believed (and is by the majority who hold him esteem) no matter how outlandish or contrary to any logical thought or reasoning their propositions may be, may also be the kind of person who thinks that there is no reason on earth why a choir boy should not believe that doing that is part of God's bidding and will help in his chorister chores.

[LittleEva]

I have always been of a mind that it is the celibacy aspect of Catholicism that attracts some priests to their posts in the first place. Feeling guilty about attraction to young boys, girls, siblings, etc., they seek out the restrictive framework of the Catholic Church to keep them on the "straight and narrow". In other words, they don't trust themselves, so the seek an enviroment that will encourage them in the other direction.

 

I think any religion that restricts sexual self expression is bound to produce failures as we are all animals and are compelled in the sexual sense by Mother Nature, who I give far more credence to than this faceless, illogical, even cruel figment of the imagination called God.

[Pragmatopian]

A virulent anti-catholic thread, how original.

I am atheist but will protect peoples right to practice whatever religion they like free of oppression. This is oppressive to catholics and therefore I must protest at this puerile attempt to vilify them.

Having a pop at religion in general is valid, but to pick on a specific religion is not on.

Kindly rephrase your question if you want any further response.

 

I don't think I'm being oppressive to catholics - I picked up on a particular story in the news which happened to relate to the catholic church, but extended my theory to any religion that seeks to restrict its adherents' basic freedoms. I have a friend who is quite a devout catholic, yet she is still prepared to recognise this as a serious issue facing the church.

[Lonan3]

A brief history:

 

Although St. Paul believed that spreading the Gospel was easier for a man who didn’t have a family to provide for, he still mandated that bishops, elders and deacons be only “the husband of one wife.” (Even then, polygamy among all ranks of the clergy persisted, and by the third century only bishops were required to be monogamous.)

The change began with the Council of Elvira in Spain in about 306, which prohibited bishops, deacons and priests from marrying. Shortly thereafter, the early church fathers began to stigmatize sex as sinful in their writings.

With the advent of the Dark Ages around 500, the upheavals in society saw a decline in clerical discipline and with it, a return to marriage and even the keeping of concubines by priests.

C. 1018 Pope Benedict VIII put teeth in the Elvira decree by forbidding descendents of priests to inherit property.

Later, in the 11th century, Pope Gregory VII, who had assumed vast power by declaring himself the supreme authority over all souls, went even further by proscribing married priests from saying mass; he also forbid parishioners from attending masses said by them. Scholars believe that the first written law forbidding the clergy to marry was finally handed down at the Second Lateran Council in 1139.

The law finally became official doctrine at the Council of Trent in 1563.

 

Celibacy, therefore, has not always been a requirement of the priesthood. It is, at best, a man-made decision that has no real foundation in scripture. I have little doubt that it provides a cloak of assumed innocence for many who use it to hide their particular sexual orientations. Celibacy, except for a very tiny minority of people is unnatural and has the potential to be psychologically damaging and should certainly not be a requirement for entry into the priesthood of any church.

[Chinahand]

Of all the sexual perversions humanity submits to, none is stranger than celebacy.

 

My only query is whether comparatively the church really is so bad? I wonder, for example, how many school teachers have been guilty of similar abuses. Because Priests are members of a collective, and secretive, organization, the acts of the few can be used to demonize the whole. Teachers are less tarred with the same brush.

 

The popular image of abusive priests is very much a part of the modern myth - I just wonder are they really so much more common than say abusive school teachers - both are terrible, is one really more common than the other? I don't have any figures or evidence to show this, just the popular perception, and that isn't a particularly helpful source!

 

Also the implied assumption some people seem to have underlying their analysis is interesting - The Priesthood may attract people who due to their sexual orientation may wish to hide the fact they will not marry - these people are more likely to abuse children.

 

I agree professions that deal with children are likely to attract child abusers, but I am unclear if there is evidence to show that the sexual orientation of the abuser is important. Are little boys, proportionately more at risk from priests than little girls? Again I don't know, the public perception would say yes, but AFAIK there is little evidence that sexual orientation increases the propensity to abuse children.

 

For me the worst crime is the fact that the Church has failed to report child abusers to the police, and has seen abuse as an internal matter to be dealt with via the Church authorities. This attitude that they are above the law and should deal with their own in their own way is reprehensible and shows the arrogance of the church - they are answerable to the laws of man, and this has authority over their assumption they rule over us with the laws of their God.

 

What is providing all the newspaper coverage now is that 60 or so years of crimes are now been forced into the open at one go by the ending of the culture of silence. This makes it look like abuse is rife - more fool the Church for trying to hide its sins - the result is the popular perception it is a very sinful organization indeed!

[Lonan3]

Ferns Report

 

John Jay Report

 

In May 2001, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and later elected Pope Benedict XVI on the death of his predecessor, sent a letter to all Catholic Bishops declaring that the Church's investigations into claims of child sex abuse were subject to the pontifical secret and were not to be reported to law enforcement until investigations were completed, on pain of excommunication. (Source: Wikipedia)

 

However:

 

In their 2002 survey, the AAUW reported that, of students who had been harassed, 38% were harassed by teachers or other school employees. One survey, conducted with psychology students, reports that 10% had sexual interactions with their educators; in turn, 13% of educators reported sexual interaction with their students. In a survey of high school students, 14% reported that they had engaged in sexual intercourse with a teacher. (Wishnietsky, 1991) In a national survey conducted for the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation in 2000 that roughly 290,000 students experienced some sort of physical sexual abuse by a public school employee between 1991 and 2000. And in a major 2004 study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education, nearly 10 percent of U.S. public school students reported having been targeted with sexual attention by school employees. Indeed, it has been claimed that sexual harassment and abuse by teachers is 100 times more frequent than abuse by priests.

 

However, it has been countered that some of these claims are groundless, either deliberate false accusations or misunderstandings resulting from misinterpretation of what is and is not permissable.

 

In Japan, sexual harassment of students by teachers is so prevalent it has been given its own acronym--SHOC, for "Sexual Harassment on Campus."

[tucker]

According to the Christians book of rules priests do not have to be celibate

http://www.gospelhall.org/bible/bible.php?...+1&ver1=kjv

Is every rule change after this a case of "Two legs good ,Four legs bad better"

[Lonan3]

According to the Christians book of rules priests do not have to be celibate

http://www.gospelhall.org/bible/bible.php?...+1&ver1=kjv

Is every rule change after this a case of "Two legs good ,Four legs bad better"

I started to read that... but found an awful lot of bullocks!