21 Jul 07
2 edits
Originally posted by rickgarelWhat does the good work of some priests have to do with the vile acts of others? Are you suggesting that the crimes of the molesters are somehow offset by the works of their more decent colleagues?
I know I'm going to get clobbered.
What about the thousands of good priests and clergy that do good work? I know that it's easy to bash catholics because our church is the largest but we've done a lot more good then harm.
Further, if those good priests that you cite were so good, why did they all turn a blind eye to what was going on around them? When is the last time a purportedly decent priest exposed one of his child molesting colleagues to the parish, the public or the police?
21 Jul 07
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYa. Like the way we are all guilty because a few are twisted.
What does the good work of some priests have to do with the vile acts of others? Are you suggesting that the crimes of the molesters are somehow offset by the works of their more decent colleagues?
21 Jul 07
Originally posted by rickgarelThose priests didn't have to be celibate to do the good they did. Priests should be allowed to have a normal sex life. I understand the profound significance of chastity, but lifelong chastity for so many people is asking too much. There aren't enough men with the capacity to remain chaste to fill out the ranks of priest so you get the scumbags to join. Either that or you turn normal people into perverts due to the abnormal demands of the life of a priest.
I know I'm going to get clobbered.
What about the thousands of good priests and clergy that do good work? I know that it's easy to bash catholics because our church is the largest but we've done a lot more good then harm.
04 Aug 07
Originally posted by rickgarelI tend to see it as more analogous to a family, and in this family there are 4 or 5 kids and one of them is getting into trouble all the time. The parents deal with it by avoiding and minimizing the behavior. The behavior escalates until it is impossible to ignore. Ultimately it effects the whole family. It doesn't mean that everyone in the family is bad, but the system was dysfunctional in how it dealt with the initial problem. The more they covered up, the more shame and secrets tended to rule the family.
Are you suggesting that all priests are bad?
04 Aug 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt's not about celibacy. Look at the life first, and then think about who will respond to it.
Those priests didn't have to be celibate to do the good they did. Priests should be allowed to have a normal sex life. I understand the profound significance of chastity, but lifelong chastity for so many people is asking too much. There aren't enough men with the capacity to remain chaste to fill out the ranks of priest so you get the scumbags to ...[text shortened]... t or you turn normal people into perverts due to the abnormal demands of the life of a priest.
1. Youth who are interested in the priesthood before their interest in women wakes up.
2. Young men who are interested in women but feel they have a higher calling and are willing to make the sacrifice.
3. Young men who aren't interested in women to begin with, and so to them there is no sacrifice.
The first group begins the process at a young, formative age, going to all-male schools that filter into the priesthood, thus spending crucial years away from females. While they may have been predisposed to be attracted to women, they were only exposed to males. While they may have been healthy and "normal" when they began seminary or feeder high school, that doesn't mean everyone else in that environment was. All-male boarding school with a special God-stamp on it? There's no doubt some were victimized there, and the God-stamp on those experiences could lead them to being victimizers themselves.
The second group is more likely to have a quiet mistress somewhere or to victimize nuns or adult female parishioners if they're unable to remain celibate.
The third group may have a male lover on the side, but if they were predisposed to children to begin with, then they'll be priestly predators.
Think about it: There are times in your life when you can't meet your needs by having sex with a consenting woman for whatever reason. Did it turn you into a child molester? If it didn't, then the issue isn't celibacy.
That said, I agree with those who call for an end to priestly celibacy. There's no reason a priest can't marry. My understanding is the rule was changed to that due to the laws of primogeniture and the impact on "church" property and its definitions.
05 Aug 07
Originally posted by pawnhandlerIn the Greek Orthodox churches, there are two orders of priesthood: married and unmarried.
It's not about celibacy. Look at the life first, and then think about who will respond to it.
1. Youth who are interested in the priesthood before their interest in women wakes up.
2. Young men who are interested in women but feel they have a higher calling and are willing to make the sacrifice.
3. Young men who aren't interested in women to ...[text shortened]... he laws of primogeniture and the impact on "church" property and its definitions.
I agree with you about women clergy, BTW. And I predict (somebody date-stamp this for my future prophetic claims!) that The Orthodox will eventually ordain women, after long and arduous debate—after all, they are really only a few decades behind the Protestants, and tend to move slower anyway.
05 Aug 07
Originally posted by kirksey957Isn't the entire organisation as guilty as the perpetrator in the eyes of God because they covered it up?
I tend to see it as more analogous to a family, and in this family there are 4 or 5 kids and one of them is getting into trouble all the time. The parents deal with it by avoiding and minimizing the behavior. The behavior escalates until it is impossible to ignore. Ultimately it effects the whole family. It doesn't mean that everyone in the family is ...[text shortened]... itial problem. The more they covered up, the more shame and secrets tended to rule the family.
05 Aug 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzLet's take my analogy a step farther. The children in this home grow up and have their own families. They take with them everything they have learned in their family of origin. They learned the value of keeping secrets and covering up. As time goes on this becomes the family legacy until it is dealt with.
Isn't the entire organisation as guilty as the perpetrator in the eyes of God because they covered it up?
I don't know the answer to your question , but the entire organization is having to pay out millions in court. You can't pay damages to God to this will have to do.
05 Aug 07
Originally posted by kirksey957Well, but if one of the family commits a crime, let's say murder, and the others try to cover it up, they are guilty too.
Let's take my analogy a step farther. The children in this home grow up and have their own families. They take with them everything they have learned in their family of origin. They learned the value of keeping secrets and covering up. As time goes on this becomes the family legacy until it is dealt with.
I don't know the answer to your question ...[text shortened]... s having to pay out millions in court. You can't pay damages to God to this will have to do.
Didn't Jesus say something about not covering crimes up, especially for others? Isn't lying, per se, frowned upon by God? Surely this must be worse than a mere 'fib'?