Priestly celibacy is the context for the sodomitic rape of children...
An investigation last year revealed that church leaders in Dublin had spent decades protecting child-abusing priests from the law while many fellow clerics turned a blind eye. (There were) decades of sexual, physical and psychological abuse in Catholic-run schools, workhouses and orphanages. ...a succession of archbishops and senior aides had compiled confidential files on more than 100 parish priests who had sexually abused children since 1940 (but the) files had remained locked in the Dublin archbishop's private vault.
...Clogher Bishop Joseph Duffy said resignations were not on the agenda in Rome...
In recent weeks, a new sexual abuse scandal involving Catholic clergy has erupted in Benedict's homeland of Germany. -read the AP story, "Irish Bishops meet Pope in summit on sex abuse"
(Tim, w/thanks to David C.) I've commented before that the Roman Catholic's unscriptural insistence on celibacy for the priesthood is directly tied to priests' predations against their flocks. Something about it's better to marry than to burn...
Compounding that error is the silence of Reformed men in the midst of this scandal...
Something about making hay while the sun shines. Unless, of course, we don't like hay.
If Reformed men actually like the Sacramentalists or depend upon them for salaries or subscription fees, it would make sense that no one in the Reformed world today is pointing to celibacy as the context and error for sodomite priests destroying the souls of Christ's little ones.
Read this article and imagine what Calvin or Luther or Knox would do with it. In the pages of "World" magazine, for instance...
Clearnote Churches
Clearnote Fellowship
Christ the Word
Monthly archive
- May 2013 (18)
- April 2013 (33)
- March 2013 (43)
- February 2013 (28)
- January 2013 (41)
- December 2012 (31)
- November 2012 (37)
- October 2012 (38)
- September 2012 (21)
- August 2012 (28)
- July 2012 (46)
- June 2012 (50)
Popular Posts
Tags
Recent Comments
- Daniel Meyer on The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away....
- Sue McKeown on The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away....
- Fr. Bill on The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away....
- K. Bartholomew on The difference between pro-life and anti-antiabortion...
- Kamilla on Inflammatory rhetoric in the abortion debate...
Comments
I was going to ask why the problem is with children instead of adult women, and then I googled that question.
Ick.
Turns out that kids are just the tip of the iceberg, it seems.
>>kids are just the tip of the iceberg, it seems.
Yes, but we owe them our first protection, in or outside the womb. See the article on the Texas State Board of Education.
Love,
Repeating, if I may, some comments from Fr Bill (and myself), when this issue was mentioned a couple of years ago:
http://www.baylyblog.com/2007/10/a-celibate-prie.html
Fr Bill's post is at the end of the thread.
Tim-agreed. It's simply that if we take Paul seriously, we should see "less heinous" immorality along with the more grievous kind. And, sad to say, we see that, too.
I highly recommend Peter Lawler's The Faithful Departed, a history and analysis of what went wrong in the Roman Catholic Church that uses Boston as its focus. He doesn't get to the homosexuality scandals till 3/4 through (much of it is about the lack of support for abortion protesting and about the desire of an ethnic church to conform to American culture), but it is apparent by then that the church had been slowly rotting in many ways. When I get round to it I want to send this book to various pastors I know in town, because it has applications well beyond Catholicism. Mr. Lawler is himself a serious Catholic, which seems remarkable to the reader by the end of the book. Even in 1500 the bishops weren't this bad.
From the article: "Several Irish bishops have agreed to resign, including two who stepped down on Christmas Day, but others have flatly refused, including Martin Drennan of Galway, who has insisted he did nothing to endanger children and has rebuffed calls that he step down. Drennan came to the summit."
This is a real test for Pope Benedict. Will he tolerate child abuse, as Pope John Paul II did, or will he force some resignations and publicly criticize the guilty?
The problem is not limited to celibate clergy in the Catholic church. Sexual sin and perversion abound regardless of celibacy. Many individuals have been alarmed for years at the pedophilia and sexual abuse among southern Baptists, which may turn out to be every bit as egregious as the Catholic church. Sadly, Paige Patterson has known about these horrific abuses and participated in the coverups. Like priests, abusive Baptist pastors simply move to another church. Like the Catholic church which has refused to monitor these clergy, the SBC has refused the outcry to start a database that tracks complains and helps churches identify abusive clergy.
http://stopbaptistpredators.org/index.htm
Eric, Kevin, good points, but there is a reality that all the resignations in the world will not help a system that is tailor-made for creating incentives for abusive relationships. You can't put enough safeguards and bankground checks in place to counter a system that runs afoul of 1 Corinthians 7.
I suppose this question isn't exactly related, but I did think of it while reading this article. While I certainly understand how celibacy, as a forced system and requirement, can lead to abuse, how do we as a church not go to the opposite extreme and view all unmarried men of a certain age with suspicion? I say this particularly since I know many celibate men who struggle with homosexuality. There's already plenty of stigma there, and I do think it's a legitimate worry that Christians will regard any unmarried person as a potential abuser.
Dear Jay,
Unfortunately, simply on the basis of raw numbers, it's more likely to be married men who abuse children in the typical Evangelical church. In churches I'm familiar with anecdotal evidence suggests heterosexual abuse is more frequent than homosexual abuse, though both types occur. Homosexual abuse may be the greater danger on a standardized basis but not in the aggregate.
It's a sad reflection of our times that long-term male singleness leads almost automatically to suspicions of homosexuality. But in the churches I'm familiar with, a man's character is usually fairly quickly discerned. I'm not aware of any heterosexual man who was not able to dispel suspicion fairly quickly--and, of course, there are those homosexually-tempted men who have dealt biblically with their desires by resisting them and embracing a heterosexual lifestyle.
Within the church it's important to be on guard against the single male whose sexual predation is entirely heterosexual.
Your brother in Christ,
David
College Jay,
I understand what you're saying. However, keep in mind that sexual abuse does so much damage that we have to look at this primarily from the angle of protecting children.
Also, we don't love those who are tempted to be predators if we don't help prevent their sin. Sadly, such abuse is common.
God blesses these efforts, a safe young man will not be stigmatized and predator will be discovered and helped.
Is celibacy really the cause of child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, or is the rampant sexual corruption in Western culture more likely to be the cause? Isn't most child sexual abuse perpetrated by non-celibate people? Maybe you're right, but it's also true that correlation does not equal causation. Here is an interesting article: http://www.catholicleague.org/research/abuse_in_social_context.htm
>>Maybe you're right, but it's also true that correlation does not equal causation.
Dear Mrs. J,
Here's my point. The Holy Spirit through the Apostle Paul tells us it's better to marry than to burn. This applies to pastors as much as anyone else. There are many things to do to address sexual immorality in the culture, the church, and our own lives in Christ. According to the Holy Spirit, one of them is marriage. And in the Westminster Confession, this is listed as one of the three purposes of marriage.
There are other reasons the Roman Catholic church is wrong concerning priestly celibacy, but this one must be seen clearly since it's the main one.
Love,
Yes, those are good points, but as far back as you go in church history, as far as I can tell, bishops did not marry. Athanasius was not married, Ambrose did not marry, Augustine did not marry. St. Antony of the desert (do I have his name right?) played a pivotal part in Augustine's conversion, through his biography, and he started the monk thing, I think. So beside this teaching of scripture has been the practice of the historic church. Paul did say also that he wished everyone was as he was; was he talking about celibacy? But the whole thing has obviously been mishandled.
It is of note that Peter, the supposed first pope of Catholicism was married:
Matthew 8:14
"When Jesus came into Peter's home, He saw his mother-in-law lying sick in bed with a fever."
Paul also makes it clear that the Apostles had a right to marry and that again, Peter (Cephas) and other apostles were married:
1 Corinthians 9:5
"Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?"
Yes, and priests are still allowed to be married if they become priests after their marriage, and also in the East.
Add new comment