Celibacy in the Priesthood, and Related Issues

[truehobbit]

Can I please once again remind people that this thread is not for criticising religious ideas you disagree with, but merely for stating what your own personal practices are.


Speaking as a historian, I have to say that there is no such thing as a historic 'fact', just factual aspects you choose to stress and on which you choose to base your opinion, at the expense of other factual aspects you choose to ignore. This is because, even though each single fact might be true, there are nevertheless multiple aspects to all things, making it impossible ever to arrive at a final conclusion about a historic 'fact' and no single 'fact' ever conveys the whole of anything.

[JewelSong]

Speaking as a historian, I have to say that there is no such thing as a historic 'fact', just factual aspects you choose to stress and on which you choose to base your opinion, at the expense of other factual aspects you choose to ignore. This is because, even though each single fact might be true, there are nevertheless multiple aspects to all things, making it impossible ever to arrive at a final conclusion about a historic 'fact' and no single 'fact' ever conveys the whole of anything.

If this be the case, why study or even think about history at all? If we can learn nothing from history and there are no "facts" then what is the point of looking back at historical events and customs and trying to learn from them?

Point being that past practices, whether religious or secular, need to be put into historical perspective in order to be better understood.

I believe this to be true for the current Church rule about celibacy for priests and also for the Church's response to the sex abuse scandal, particularly in the US.

[Lurker]

I know it's a fact, but IMHO, just because a few priests deviated from Church teachings I would denounce my faith or hey, let's change the rules let's allow priests to get married. Married or not, if they want to commit sin, they are bound to commit it. It's not a cure all, solve all. Call me traditional, I'm not proud of it, but IMHO, it won't solve anything.

IMHO, I guess when these younger generation of priests grow older they maybe able to change the church views somehow. No more cover ups, anything the church does will be out in the open. In fact, when the Da Vinci Code came out the older priests in the Parish said don't read it while the priests (my age) said go read it, make your own opinions. They are not as conservative as their older counterparts, so change is going to happen, not now, maybe later, but hopefully soon.

[truehobbit]

If this be the case, why study or even think about history at all?

In the hope that adding up multiple views of the same topic will make us aware of the multi-faceted nature of what we tend to think of as 'facts', and also that it will make more pieces of the puzzle known, getting us closer to something approaching an idea of what the full picture might have been - always with the proviso, of course, that we remain aware that nothing can ever be truly and exactly known, for the simple reason that history is about people. I think you wouldn't deny that it's impossible ever to fully understand and know another human being - how much less is this possible about a lot of people who aren't even alive anymore.

But we are interested in people and try to understand them, even though we are (hopefully) aware that this is bound to be ultimately in vain.
And thus it is with history, too.

If history were simple and straighforward, you might indeed ask the question 'why study it', because then there would be nothing left to study and we'd have all the facts pat.

[Lurker]

I believe this to be true for the current Church rule about celibacy for priests and also for the Church's response to the sex abuse scandal, particularly in the US.

Jewel,
Do you honestly believe that "marriage" is going to solve sexual abuse and pedophilia?

When in fact, a lot of these sexual abusers are married as well. We have to think about mental illness and psychological make-up of the person. This is not often asked when you enter the priesthood.

Ok, let's say we allow married priests, now not only do we have to deal with sexual abuse but divorce, affairs and marital abuse. I'd rather have the church have this headache of weeding out the sexual abusers and do something about it than having more problems that will deviate from the church teachings which is fine with me right now.

[Rodia]

I also don't think celibacy among priests is the cause of sexual abuse in the church- I would hate to think men are not capable of any kind of restraint, and will most likely turn to abuse if they are not given a wife!:shock: Obviously there is a lot to be done to clean out the clergy, no one can deny that. There are not only abusive priests, but racist priest, bigot priests, priests who have nothing to do with the message of Christ. They are that way because they have refused to seek enlightenment, rather than because some sort of regime was forced upon them. Assholes in the clergy are just like any other assholes, and by being abusive they are not enforcing the Christian ideal- they are lost.

(and I speak only of what I know- Christian men of the cloth, because I have no idea what the situation is with other religions, but I think it's safe to assume, alas, that religious status can be used to abuse others in any faith. Just like in any position that makes people rely on a person's supposed wisdom and better judgement; that of a superior, leader, or teacher... )

[JewelSong]

I believe this to be true for the current Church rule about celibacy for priests and also for the Church's response to the sex abuse scandal, particularly in the US.

Jewel,
Do you honestly believe that "marriage" in the priesthood is going to solve sexual abuse and pedophilia?

No, not quite.

I was suggesting that we look at the history of the culture of the Church and the evolution of the reasons for the celibacy rule. Of course it is impossible to know everything about it; as Truehobbit has said, one cannot "know" all the "facts."

But I have found, when discussing habits, customs and rules of long-established organizations, that it is sometimes helpful and even enlightening to at least try to discover how those habits and so on originated. And I was suggesting that it might be illuminating to dig a little bit into the history of both the rule of celibacy, the more recent sex-abuse scandal and the origins of the male-dominated hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church and see if perhaps there could possibly be some correlation.

I will tell you that the "jokes" about Catholic priests and young boys go way, way back. I believe that the "culture" of the Church allowed it to happen for a very long time; always thinking it could be dealt with on the quiet. And it came to a head in Boston, where about 10 years ago Cardinal Law called down the wrath of God on the Boston Globe for daring to break the story of what turned out to be a huge problem that had been going on for years, with the Church complicit in some horrific abuse.

Do I think if the priests were allowed to marry this would not have happened? You know what? Yes, I do. Or at least, a more open attitude towards sexuality. There would not have been the culture of secrecy and silence that allowed it to happen. Of course there were other factors involved...pride, ego, poorly-prepared priests, uninformed laypeople and an unawareness of what this kind of abuse could do to a child. Bottom line is that the Church was not prepared or willing to deal with its own problem, or even admit that it WAS a problem for a VERY long time.

This is not a question of a "few" errant or mentally ill priests. This was an entire organization working to keep a terrible secret. And even after it was obvious what had happened, it was a LONG time before the Church admitted that something had to be done. The Boston Diocese is slowly starting to recover. But many of my Catholic friends (and I have many) think it might be too little, too late.

I have seen some people in absolute grief over what has happened to their Church here. And although there is some outreach, the instinct of the Church is to turn inward and protect its own. And thus, they reject those believers who are in pain over the events and questioning their Church and their Faith.

At some point, I think there will be a split with the American Catholic Church and Rome and we will have something similar to the Anglican Church.

[baby tuckoo]

You are right that the very very small percentage of teachers and priests who abuse their position in order to abuse the youth is far far smaller than the % of family members and trusted guardians who do the same.


That doesn't justify even one incident. But celibacy isn't the cause.



As we've discussed on a previous thread, Chastity, Poverty, and Obedience are not scriptural directives for the priesthood. Nothing is. And let's not forget that there are many orders that don't involve "pastoring" at all. Those priests are contemplative and monastic and scholastic.



Oh, and some make wine. And liqueur. And brandy. It helps with the contemplative part.


I got drunk in the cloister with some hispanic Dominicans once in Santa Ana, Cal. They all smoked constantly, too. We spoke Spanish, then after a while they started to speak Latin, which I didn't even realize for a bit, sort of like Hobby if everyone broke into Dutch.

[Crucifer]

A family has never hindered my last dean, who got made a Bishop. (Come back to us!)

In fact, his kids joined the choir, and his wife supported his ecclesiastical doings.

His family, far from distracting him from his spiritual duties, supported him, and made his life easier, because he could go home at night to a loving family, and thank God for his wife and four kids.

The one difficulty was when he had to move away to his new position, as he and his family had made friends with his flock.

But he would have been our friend anyway, so that wasn't that much of a factor.

And he still visits us. I had coffee with him this morning.

[truehobbit]

Crucifer, that's nice for your dean.

I'm happy he's your dean and that you like him. But your dean is not my priest, and neither would I want him to be.

Now, can we just agree that the role you expect your dean to fulfill and the role I expect my priest to fulfill are two entirely different things, and that I'm not implying your dean would do better to conform to my ideas of a priest, and that you equally should not be implying my priest would do better to conform to your ideas.

I have my ideas and you have yours, and that's good that way. It makes sure that we have enough diversity for you to follow your ideals and for me to follow mine.
We are none of us going to convince the other that our ideas are the better ones, and neither should we even try that, I think.

All this discussion is like asking why the President of the US is not more like the King/Queen of England. They are two different roles, and I don't see why one should be more like the other. Obviously, the President of the US has the role he has because the people of the US want him to have it, and the Queen of England fulfills the role the people of Britain want her to have.
It's interesting to compare the two, of course, but to say that you don't like the idea that one of their jobs differs in this or that way from the other's doesn't make a lot of sense to me.


bt, ick ben helemal van je mening - wil je een glasje Genever hebben?

[JewelSong]

Now, can we just agree that the role you expect your dean to fulfill and the role I expect my priest to fulfill are two entirely different things, and that I'm not implying your dean would do better to conform to my ideas of a priest, and that you equally should not be implying my priest would do better to conform to your ideas.

I have my ideas and you have yours, and that's good that way.

I have a question for you - and for other Roman Catholics that have stated that they much prefer/want their priests to be a) male and b) celibate.

If the doctrine of the church was changed (as it has been in other religious denominations) what would your reaction be?

In other words, if women could serve as priests in the Roman Catholic church, would it bother you? Enough to stop going to church or to change denominations? Or would you simply find a parish with a male priest?

Likewise, if priests could marry, would that affect your church-going habits? How?

And finally - if YOU, as a woman, felt called to the priesthood would you choose another religion to which already allow this OR would you try to change your own so that it would permit you to serve?

(There was a huge uproar in the Episcopalian church here when women were finally permitted to serve as priests and some people left the church because of it. Ironically, many Roman Catholics here have become Episcopalians in the wake of the Church's response to the sex abuse scandal. I was brought up Presbyterian and women were not allowed to be ministers until about 50 years ago - although I do not think there was any huge outcry about it; it happened more organically, I believe. I have had several women pastors since I was a child. I belonged to a Quaker Meeting for about 10 years and of course, in Quakerism, everyone is called to serve.)

Anyway, I am just curious about how firm your convictions/feelings are on this matter.

[Rodia]

I used to dislike the idea of women becoming priests, now it still doesn't ring right with me but I can't really justify the feeling so I couldn't protest if the rules changed. I would be glad to see new possibilities.

If the rule on celibacy changed...See, I don't think those who go see married pastors somehow get a lesser experience, or that those pastors are less God's servants than the celibate priests I see. Different religions find different paths to God. But I think the rule of celibacy we have in Catholicism is very useful, and I don't see reason to change it. I don't see allowing marriage as something particularly beneficial, or an improvement.

Perhaps this is because so far most of the arguments for letting priests marry that I've seen mentioned all have to do with easing their sexual frustration. The other claim is that someone who is willingly celibate cannot understand those who choose to have a relationship. But celibacy isn't the only thing that makes priests different. I could say they haven't a clue about anything at all, because they live their life by rules that are not 'normal'. Why is celibacy being singled out as that one thing that should be changed?

If I saw a truly good reason for the clergy to stop being celibate, then I would probably be glad if the rule changed. I don't see such a reason now- I see more benefit to them being celibate than to them having relationships. So I can't tell you if I would be pleased or not, because I don't know what the reasoning behind the decision would be.

[yovargas]

...this is none of my business but...

...I dunno if part of a priests "job" includes marriage advice...but I don't think I'd be interest in getting marriage advice from someone who never has or will be married...

[Primula Baggins]

Catholic parishes I know a little about have trained lay counselors available for marriage counseling.

Sexual frustration is a lousy reason for anyone to marry, let alone a priest or pastor. That isn't at all why I am glad we have married pastors. As a pastor's daughter who heard pastors' gossip, I'm well aware that a few married pastors commit sexual indiscretions. Marriage isn't a cure for that or an insulation from it. (When it happens, it is dealt with by the bishop.)

The tradition I come from does not call for priests/pastors to set themselves apart from the life of the parish or the lives of their parishioners, and that's what I prefer; I don't think my pastor needs to have a special private connection to God that family life would interfere with, any more than I need one. And I do think that family life can enrich a pastor and make him or her wiser. It isn't about sex; it's about love.

Please understand that I'm explaining why I like my own church's ways, not prescribing for Catholics what they should want. I just think we should not overemphasize sexual desire as a reason for anyone to marry; that's adolescent. It's only one dimension of marriage, and in many phases of life can be a minor or even nonexistent one.

[Cerin]

Why is celibacy being singled out as that one thing that should be changed?

Probably because it is something people not necessarily familiar with all aspects of Catholicism are aware of, and because it is, rightly or wrongly, associated in people's minds with the problems of sexual abuse that have been much in the news, at least in this country.

[nerdanel]

I don't see such a reason now- I see more benefit to them being celibate than to them having relationships.

Ro -- what do you perceive to be the benefit of priests being celibate? I'm just interested to hear your views on it, not necessarily disagreeing.

I don't have a very strong feeling on whether Catholic priests should be celibate; it's not my religion anymore, and even if it was (and women were permitted to be priests), I would not make that choice. So it does not harm me if other people make a different choice. Nor do I think that the problem of sexual abuse in the priesthood is as simple as "let them all get married and then the problem will go away." Even as a non-Catholic, I feel strongly about the inability of women to be priests because it strikes me as one further reinforcement of society's patriarchal norms (it was the first time that I learned as a child that there were things I wouldn't be allowed to do simply because of how I was born) and because it restricts the ability of women who genuinely believe they are called by God to serve their community as priests, to heed that (perceived) call. However, celibacy is undisputedly a choice, and I think that it is potentially reasonable for a religion to require that choice of its leaders. I just would want to understand more about why the religion believes that choice to be spiritually or practically beneficial.

[Crucifer]

Hobby, I wasn't saying that all priests should be like the dean. If every priest was like him, he wouldn't have been one in a million. He would have been just another one.

I think priests should have a choice on whether or not they marry.

Of course, if you want to be married, and a Catholic priest, you're going to have to sacrifice something, and hurrah for all those who have given up one for the other.

But I would like to have the choice if I was a priest.

[truehobbit]

If the doctrine of the church was changed (as it has been in other religious denominations) what would your reaction be?

I'd hate it.

In other words, if women could serve as priests in the Roman Catholic church, would it bother you? Enough to stop going to church or to change denominations? Or would you simply find a parish with a male priest?

It would bother me very much.
Fortunately I'm not forced as yet to make any of the decisions you ask about, that's why I can't tell what I would do. I just hope it doesn't happen.
I might just stop going to church.
I don't think I'd change denominations, because the only one left would be becoming Orthodox, and that's not for me for many other reasons.

Unlike in Protestantism, there are no zillions of sects to choose from.

Likewise, if priests could marry, would that affect your church-going habits? How?

I just hope that doesn't happen.

And finally - if YOU, as a woman, felt called to the priesthood would you choose another religion to which already allow this OR would you try to change your own so that it would permit you to serve?

Well, I don't feel called to priesthood.

But I would like to have the choice if I was a priest.

Then be a priest in a religion/denomination where you have the choice.

Why is celibacy being singled out as that one thing that should be changed?

Ro, I really ask myself that, too.
I think it's because people just can't understand all the excellent explanations you already gave - the concept is too alien.


I expect a priest to be 'special', different from all us everyday people. I expect him to be willing to give up everything to serve God (just as Jesus said we all should do, but as we all are too frail to do). The only justification for the elevated role of the priest in the congregation for me lies in the fact that he has made that choice. This is what qualifies him to represent the religious community with God, so to speak.
It's not his primary job to counsel couples in trouble. It's his job to mediate between God and the people and to perform the leading role in performing sacred rites. In order for me to be able to accept and acknowledge this role, he can't be Mr Everybody, he needs to have special qualifications that raise him above the crowd.

I think that Protestant pastors don't have such an elevated role. They just run the parish. Even preaching gets done by lay-people occasionally.
If you remove the special role of the priest, it's also ok to remove the requirement of special qualifications.
It's the role of the priest in Catholicism that is so fundamentally different from Protestant churches, that I think makes it so hard to understand.

[nerdanel]

But I would like to have the choice if I was a priest.

Then be a priest in a religion/denomination where you have the choice.

You know, that's not going to work out so well for any woman who genuinely believes many of the religious tenets unique to Catholicism and would not feel (as) comfortable in a church without those views.

I realize there is a certain...dissonance in my advocating for the "right" (feels weird to use that secular word in a religious context...how about "ability") of Catholic women who hold a religious viewpoint very different than my own, to serve as priests. However, I understand their position, because I am not yet fully equal in the Jewish denomination with which I closely identify (yes, even in my agnostic mode), and it is a difficult choice to make - whether to accept inequality in the denomination in which you otherwise feel most comfortable, or turn to a (usually more liberal) denomination whose teachings you might not as closely identify with. It's not as simple as "just go to the more liberal denomination." Each of us has the right to advocate for the religious environment in which we feel most comfortable, rather than merely be told by the traditionalists to go elsewhere.

[baby tuckoo]

bt, ick ben helemal van je mening - wil je een glasje Genever hebben?

Yeah, as soon as you do.