Should catholic priests have to remain celibate?

CreedIsChrist said:

Sexuality in itself is not impure, the Church has never taught that. Being with your husband or wife is totally natural.

Click to expand...

That is totally untrue and demonstrates that you have a lack of knowledge of church history. For centuries, the Catholic church viewed marital relations as base and carnal. Something that was impure. And that the human body was shameful and dirty. During the medieval times for eg, people went without bathing for ridiculously long times because you would have to undress and be naked.

The Catholic church has a long history of seeing sex as dirty, base, impure etc and the human body as shameful. Something always to be covered up.

BlackSabb said:

That is totally untrue and demonstrates that you have a lack of knowledge of church history. For centuries, the Catholic church viewed marital relations as base and carnal. Something that was impure. And that the human body was shameful and dirty. During the medieval times for eg, people went without bathing for ridiculously long times because you would have to undress and be naked.

The Catholic church has a long history of seeing sex as dirty, base, impure etc and the human body as shameful. Something always to be covered up.

Click to expand...

Indeed. Just read what the church fathers (virtually ALL of them) had to say on the topic. Sex was the way "original sin" was transmitted from parents to children. In fact, sex was considered so utterly depraved that the only mitigating circumstance for engaging in it was procreation, and even that barely. Having FUN was pretty much a sign that what you did between the sheets was sinful in the extreme.

CreedIsChrist said:

sexuality in itself is not impure, the Church has never taught that. Being with your husband or wife is totally natural. However being with multiple partners who you are not married to would be either fornication, or if the person is married, adultery. How many families have become ruined because of adultery? What about the millions of people who are dead because of their promiscuity? There is a reason why its a sin. Its hurts both yourself and others. Flesh can lead to lust, envy, and vanity, indulgence can lead to gluttony and sloth.

Why are people so fixated on pleasure? what it causing them the need to feel that they need pleasure in order to feel good? We see on the forums people will defend it quite ardently as if what they are defending is their own child. Why is there so much of a need to have ones sins justified??

Click to expand...

Ever read Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven?

CreedIsChrist said:

yet, since 80% of the victims were boys the same argument could be used that homosexuality is a problem linked to this.

Click to expand...

I'm wondering if homosexuality is really the right word. Is homosexuality the true sexual orientation of the priests, or are they simply pedophiles who will take advantage of any child within their reach? It would seem easier for a man to have access to a young boy rather than a young girl. A parent might allow their sons to hang out with Father So-and-so and consider that a beneficial relationship, but most wouldn't send their daughters to hang out with grown men, even clergy, independently. I happen to believe denying their sexuality has probably got a lot of individuals so hyped up they are at the stage of taking what they can get, and children are an easy target. I don't believe gay men sign up to become priests in order to take advantage of young boys. I wouldn't want to imagine that vocation was considered an easy road to free sex instead of a true calling.

As far as celibacy, there hasn't been much linking evidence. With homosexuality there has though.

Click to expand...

What kind of studies have shown this? I wasn't aware any studies had been done on priests who abuse their charges.

The reality of it though, I think, is that these people were predators from the start and simply used Holy Orders to get into a position of authority to take advantage of.

Click to expand...

If your goal is accessing small children, it would be a lot easier to be a sport coach, a volunteer "Big Brother" or a camp counselor or scout leader. Entering the priesthood isn't easy or well paying, from what I understand. Seems like a lot of work involved just to get to be around little kids.

Morcova said:

This just in: Catholics still defending abuse by their priests.

There is no manufactured hysteria, there is a very good reason to be wary of the catholic church, it's the church who was moving pedophiles from one church to another.

As for the silly article you posted...

Click to expand...

It ws not a silly article.

It seems to focus endlessly on the exploits of Priests but little is done concerning the fact that 10% of male teachers end up in jail.

Furthermore, are the Catholics supposed to acknowledge every lie that is said in this trend against the Church?

Braunwyn said:

I don't think anyone would suggest that a majority of child abuse is done by clergy, not by a long shot (gross numbers or % by profession). I think it's sensationalized and shocking for the same reasons Ted Haggard was all over the news. Most don't care if a man is in bed with another man, but a guy that was outspoken against homsexuality engaging in activities he publically fought against from the pulpit is going to get attention. So, an organization that publically fights for their brand of moral code, which often includes stratified and unapolgetic judgement, has hypocrisy adding insult to injury. To be clear, that does not excuse abuse from other sources nor the media's likely dishonorable intent regarding news they publish.

Click to expand...

It is good to publicly decry immoral actions because it is the expression of an opinion that needs to be shared.

There should be more people opposing sexual indulgence, alcoholism, etc. and all things that turn our nation into a cesspool.

But I would agree that I am disgusted with some of what the Catholic church has done on this topic.

wanderingone said:

Ever read Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven?

Click to expand...

I doubt it. After all, it was written by a WOMAN who was foolishly allowed to teach Catholic theology at a university, which - of COURSE, with her being female and all - did not end too well. Didn't you know that women are the devil's gateway, and that any pious woman ought to be silent and do whatever her husband tells her to?

BlackSabb said:

That is totally untrue and demonstrates that you have a lack of knowledge of church history. For centuries, the Catholic church viewed marital relations as base and carnal. Something that was impure. And that the human body was shameful and dirty. During the medieval times for eg, people went without bathing for ridiculously long times because you would have to undress and be naked.

The Catholic church has a long history of seeing sex as dirty, base, impure etc and the human body as shameful. Something always to be covered up.

Click to expand...

Oh really? You realize you are talking to someone who has 38 volumes of the ECF..Please show me where an early Church Father say marital relations are bad and dirty. All they say is that it is for pro-creation in married couples. And that is what it is. Using sex just as a tool just for pleasure would be a form of lust and idolatry and objectify your spouse as a sex object. Objectifying your spouse as a sex object would be wrong.

The only thing I can think of remotely close to what your thinking is St. Jerome's condemnation of Jovinian where he says virginity is preferable to marriage. But where does he say marriage is dirty? In fact he says " Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled."

Jermone also says:

It is not disparaging marriage when virginity is preferred to it. No one compares evil with good. Let married women glory too, since they come second to virgins

Just read what the church fathers (virtually ALL of them) had to say on the topic. Sex was the way "original sin" was transmitted from parents to children

Click to expand...

*sigh* . Original sin is transmitted by concupiscence and the enfeebling of our free-will, not by sex in itself. People are born that way because of the guilt of our fore-fathers.

Again I just can't see where you claim "ALL" of them as said this. I somehow seriously doubt you have read all of the ECF considering its over 30,000 pages long(and thats only up to the 8th century). We have Augustine who wrote "Of the Good of marriage", St. John Chrysostom wrote also a treatise on marriage. Hermas once said :"But if you always remember your own wife, you will never sin"

We have St. Ambrose who says :

divorce,”

Now if marital relation was "bad" according to you why would he be saying such things?

Thomas Aquinas says

The greater the friendship is, the more solid and long lasting it will be. Now there seems to be the greatest friendship between husband and wife, for they are united not only in the act of fleshly union, which produces a certain gentle association even among beasts, but also in the partnership of the whole range of domestic activity. Consequently, as an indication of this, man must even "leave his father and mother" for the sake of his wife as it is said in Genesis (2:24).

Clement wrote:

A man who marries for the sake of begetting children must practice continence so that it is not desire he feels toward his wife...that he may beget children with a chaste and controlled will


So the ECF and not condemning marital relations, but rather they are condemning the abuse of the position of being married and the using of ones spouse simply for sexual pleasure.

seashale76 said:

Orthodox priests can marry as long as they have done so before they are ordained to the priesthood or the deaconate (most do). An entirely celibate priesthood (as it is practiced in the CC) is a rather late innovation. As most parish priests usually have to live in the world it makes no sense to impose the monastic rule on them. The life of a heiromonk (priest monk) isn't the same as that of a married priest.

Click to expand...

How late would you say? Thanks

LittleLambofJesus said:

How late would you say? Thanks

Click to expand...

I would have to do some research to double-check, but I remember reading some years ago that the Church made that decree sometime around the 12th or 13th centuries. Of the 2000 years of Christianity, more than half the Catholic church allowed married priests. And after only a couple of hundred years, it was one of the problems Martin Luther and the other Protestant Reformers had with that Church's policies and doctrine.

Braunwyn said:

Given the recent Ryan report, and this older article I found below, is celibacy playing role?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7369152/#post51766415


The World Today Archive - Vatican admits to culture of sexual abuse

Click to expand...

Sexual abuse occurs everywhere.

Braunwyn said:

Agreed. It's seems like an archaic practice that hasn't been working out very well. I remember reading something many moons ago about celibacy becoming a requirement due to church finances. According to what I read, throwing families into the mix threatened the church's wealth. Don't quote me on that though, because it was several years ago and I may be recalling incorrectly.

Click to expand...

Celibacy has been around since the beginning of Christianity and even Judaism - priests had to remain celibate for a period of time before entering the temple for worship.

sidhe said:

If I'm correct, it had to do with paying the priests - the Church had to pay more if there was a family to support.

Given that the RCC is the only church to require celibacy (and not even in all rites!), and that the EO hasn't totally broken down, I think it might be causing more problems than it solves at this point.

Click to expand...

That really has nothing to do with it. It's absurd to think that the Church has celibacy simply to keep from paying more.

Braunwyn said:

Yea, and this is interesting....


Catholic sex abuse cases - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

It has changed since that time. Understanding celibacy is a big part of seminary today.

Braunwyn said:

You can certainly take a 'do nothing' approach, stick your head in the sand, whatever suits your fancy. Others may be interested in taking preventative measures to thwart potential abuse. Addressing celibacy might be something worth doing in the CC and I can think of no greater voice than members demanding such change. Enough evidence is surfacing that sex is an issue. Regarding your straw man (lynch mobs), that aren't present in this thread, addressing that sad mentality doesn't add to the OP.

Click to expand...

The idea that celibacy has anything to do with sexual abuse is offensive and just absurd. You don't become attracted to children by not having sex. Furthermore, the numbers of celibates who are pedophiles is the same as everyone else. There is not a problem with pedophilia in the Church as compared to the rest of the world. The problem was in how it was handled by some leaders... although any abuse is a problem... but I am speaking of by comparison.

If that's what Catholics want and what they choose to practice, sure (since last time I checked membership in the Catholic church wasn't compusory)

KCKID said:

I'm not sticking my head in the sand. Taking preventative measures is one thing. Constantly digging up the past is another. This new revelation will blow over after a while for a little while. Then, a few weeks down the track it will emerge again with yet another report. The media will again drive the public into a frenzy and the entire thing will start all over again. We KNOW that children were abused by those who were in positions of authority. But we've known for years and years and years. So, what's new?



While I have no idea why such a thing as celibacy within the priest-hood exists in the first place I would think that changing such a strict tenet of the CC would be nigh impossible. It has also been argued that celibacy, per se, has little to do with child sexual abuse. I would beg to differ but the CC seems to feel otherwise.



Yes, you are right ...this thread is concerned with celibacy. However, the thread was prompted by the recent news report over child abuse within the CC. And, the question of celibacy or not for priests is, of course, related to the constant allegations of child abuse BY celibate priests.

Click to expand...

The constant allegations are created by the media who focus only on what goes on the Church. If you look at the numbers, there is no difference.

I know many priests, monks and nuns... not one of them have I known to be a pedophile.
Yet, I knew a teacher at my High School who was arrested for pedophilia. A family member's pastor (protestant) was arrested for pedophilia.

Do those cases make the news? Nope. It's all about what gets reported, not what the actual numbers say.

Braunwyn said:

Given the recent Ryan report, and this older article I found below, is celibacy playing role?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7369152/#post51766415


The World Today Archive - Vatican admits to culture of sexual abuse

Click to expand...

As much as I despise the Roman Catholic Church for what it has done with sexual abuse, I don't think a choice of celibacy is to be blamed or even considered.

There is such a thing as people who are not celibate abusing children and adults sexually and such a thing as priests who have never abused children sexually.

I would honestly look at what the signs are for a rapist and include them in this case and not make this a special case for the sake of rehabilitation and justice and fair criticism because of religious celibacy is not a worthwhile special case to consider for a sign as to why. A rapist is a rapist.

Penumbra said:

It's unnatural for most people to go their entire lives without relations...

They take a vow to remain celibate, and think that praying and God will allow them to overcome it, but many of them have to release their desires somehow. I think people do things they wouldn't do normally if under a lot of repression, like how people who otherwise might not be homosexual have relations with other men when they are in prison.

I just think that priests could do their job equally as well without the requirement to remain celibate, and perhaps better...

Click to expand...

I disagree. Celibacy is a gift within the Catholic Church.

I also find it highly offensive that you consider celibates sexually repressed. Men have sex with men in jail because that is all that is available to them. No one becomes gay in jail- they want women as soon as they get out. They were never attracted to men.

A celibate male isn't in jail, he can pick anyone he wants. Believe it or not, but (weird) women often throw themselves at priests. If they want sex, it isn't hard to get. The ones that abuse children do so because they are pedophiles.

I will agree with Penumbra that celibacy is not natural. I'm not sure if people are called to it or not, but I lean toward not. But this also kinda plays into my religious background and ideation so, yeah, go figure.

LightHorseman said:

Desperation and represion drive people to do things they wouldn't normlly consider

Click to expand...

Priests aren't in jail, they aren't sexually repressed. I'd argue that the average person has a lot less control over the sexuality than the priests they call repressed.

A priest has the freedom to go to a bar and pick a woman up, which does sometimes happen, just as married men do.