Mandatory Celibacy?
Today marks the third anniversary of the election of Pope Benedict XVI. In his recent visit to the United States, he has tackled the priestly sexual abuse crisis directly and has even met with several of its victims. The subject of priestly celibacy, which mistakenly stems from this crisis in the minds of many, is the subject of this post.
Lightweights tend to bring up the issue of priestly celibacy, and their desire to see a renewed debate on the subject, when the priestly sexual abuse crisis is raised. While it is likely never wise to become unthinking and confine oneself to a particular ideological camp (conservative, liberal…), if I may use these labels, those more liberal seem to suggest that a priesthood that allows its members to express their sexuality openly in marriage would not then see its members express their sexuality in such vile manners (by abusing a child). Those more conservative, equally unthinking in their response, have supposed that the crisis is on account of some sort of homosexual infiltration of the priesthood, reasoning that such vile actions like the abuse of a child, are to be expected from homosexuals. Such people tend to view the descriptive terms homosexual and pedophile as synonymous.
The former argument is easy to defuse since a frustrated priest with normal sexual urges, should he wish to actualize them, will normally seek out a normal venue (with a female partner…) and not an abnormal one (like abusing a child…) while with regard to the latter argument, Benedict himself, on the ride over to the US, while talking about the sexual abuse crisis, distinguished saying he was not speaking about homosexuality "but pedophilia, which is another thing."
However, just because those unthinking desire a renewed debate on priestly celibacy for the wrong reason, that doesn’t mean that those thinking should be uncomfortable with such a debate. I am not arguing that the Church open it’s priesthood to married men but I do hope that those who are satisfied with the current state of priestly requirements realize that what Jesus and St. Paul made optional, the Church has since made mandatory, and that those seeking a priesthood closer in resemblance to the one Jesus and Paul envisioned are no more "sinful" or "unfaithful" for their "dissent" than Jesus and Paul.
The Church has allowed married ministers who convert to the Catholic faith to carry on their duties, both as married men and newly acquired Catholic priests, showing in my mind that while there are very real and acceptable reasons to confine the ranks to those who have made a vow of celibacy, such extensions of the ranks (or a desire to see extensions) does not constitute as dissent.
K.
"If one wants to be a bishop, I suppose it is a good aspiration. But let him be a man of tried and proven virtue, married only once." I Timothy 3:2
"There are some who are celibate by nature; there are some who are celibate by choice; there are some who are celibate for the sake of the kingdom. Let him who can take it, take it." Matthew 19:12
This is an interesting topic, and I may at least be able to comment on it with some weight. I grew up Catholic, and the current Mexican Cardinal, Norberto Carrera Rivera, is a distant relative. We came from an austere Spanish Catholic background, and I still find much that is beautiful about it. Regarding the priesthood, the last quote you make from Matthew is the one that matters. If one wishes to enter the Roman Catholic priesthood, whether I agree or disagree with the status of clergy, the person entering should be honest with himself and measure his ability to conform to those structures. It is not for an outsider to change these. The reason the Catholic Church has wished to not give up ground is that they don’t want divorcees of priests receiving property that in actuality belong to the Church. We in Eastern Orthodoxy have married clergy, excepting the Bishops and Archbishops, who tend to be older or widowers. Our monastics, however, must be celibate. Very simply, if this is the life one wishes to engage in, then do it to the best of your ability. No one gets excommunicated for having normal urges.
Comment by Rudy Carrera — April 19, 2008 @ 3:44 pm
Kelly, I agree with your post. It reminds me of some of the writings of the noted 14th-century theologian John Wycliffe. Among other things, he attacked mandatory priestly celibacy as an 11th-century revisionist tendency and a deviation from over a thousand years of church tradition.
Comment by Theophilus — April 19, 2008 @ 9:27 pm
Yes and no.
The abuse scandal has certainly been hijacked by those pushing things like that. Indeed, as beneficial for the Church as airing out the abuse scandal was, the presentation unfortunately invited anti-Catholicism ironically due to the comments self identifying Catholics pushing this and other barrows.
Pedophile abuse is clearly distinguishable both from adult homosexual activity and the abuse that predominated in the 60s to 80s rocketing the Catholic Church into the public eye and creating a tragedy for victims and an undesirable image particularly for priests.
I have a very good Pentecostal friend who has been celibate for a number of years. Prior to his current circumstances he bought into that nonsense about celibacy making Catholic priest pedophiles. I am tempted to remind him and ask him how many boys he has found himself attracted to to make a point but there is no nice way of doing that. Hopefully he will get a realization next time the issue arises.
Now where I don’t see things exactly the same…your characterisation of Jesus and St Paul. I don’t profess to read their mind and can only make inferences based on what they said.
Jesus made the comment that you cited and St Peter actually left his wife to follow Jesus and be celibate for the kingdom. Jesus didn’t specifically require celibacy (assuming that he wasn’t doing so in the quote) but he seems close to the opposite extreme of those calling for married priests. Likewise the Roman Catholic Church only accepts celibate priests as a disciplinary issue but makes exceptions if they are appropriate. That makes them seem pretty close to Jesus.
St Paul made the comment that you stated so I fail to see why you don’t consider him to fall on that side of the fence as well. Have you asked yourself why a man who remarried after his wife (presumably) passed away would be unsuitable for the vocation? (I presume that you realize that a Christian man can’t remarry unless his wife has passed away so that appears to be a prerequisite for the situation St Paul had in mind.) Could St Paul’s requirement be because the remarried man would appear less capable of being celibate? Is there an equally obvious possibility? (Putting that together with Jesus’ comment seems to be a case of putting two and two together regarding the way the priesthood was run at the time) St Paul also made other comments about how it is better to be celibate but if you are going to burn in lust you would be better off married. St Paul was celibate himself. Why you consider him to have something in common with people calling for a universal change in the disciplinary requirement I don’t understand. Again he appears to lean toward the opposite extreme.
The Church has made celibacy mandatory as a disciplinary requirement with exceptions. It is not dogmatic but seen as beneficial.
I know you are talking about something entirely different to the system in place immediately before the rule was universally introduced. However for the record I note that replacing a system of mere continence buffeted by scandal it makes sense. Prior to that a man could not get married after joining the priesthood but even if he was married he could not have sex. Clearly not being married at all would make it easier to avoid scandal if the preceding approach was in place.
Further, whether people calling for married priests are sinful or unfaithful will all depend on what they say and do. I distinguish the ones I have encountered from the theoretical possibility of having a view without being sinful or faithless. The ones I have encountered reject the disciplinary requirements in conjunction with a rejection of dogma. Their concept of sin (if they consider anything sin) is very different to the concept in Catholicism. On this basis, whilst I am open to dispensing of the disciplinary rule entirely in appropriate circumstances and open to exceptions being made, I don’t consider it prudent at this time. The Church has enough problems right now and excessive risk taking might not be the best strategy.
God Bless
Michael.
Comment by Michael Bates — April 20, 2008 @ 6:35 pm
A married priesthood would not mean the end of the Catholic Church, although many would suggest it. The Celibate Priesthood is a disipline plain and simple. It was set up for practical reasons and it remains in place for those same reasons. The old issue of Church lands is no longer of concern but married clergy are often divided between family and faithful.
And although St. Paul left this an option I would like to beleive that his successors, the Roman Pontiffs, have spoken wisely in restricting this option. Also Celebacy has, since the beginning, been considered one of the highest forms of virtue. But, dispite what i see to be positive aspects to this tradition in our Latin Rite, it would not be the end of the world if this rule was to be releived.
Comment by Sean — April 24, 2008 @ 10:50 am
I will respond to the following comments in the order they appear:
Rudi, thanks for your perspective. I never made the connection between yourself and Cardinal Rivera. (Perhaps sometime you can explain your shift to the Eastern Church [by email?]). You cite the Matthew quote as being the one that matters, but fail to tell me why. I agree that the person entering should be honest with himself and whether he can conform to the predetermined expectation of celibacy, however we all have the right to question the quality of such expectations especially if we feel that such expectations does not conform to the original ones put in place by Jesus and recognized by Paul and the early Church. Your last comment “no one gets excommunicated for having normal urges,” is a comment whose existence confuses me. Did you read into my post that I believed the Church treats unkindly those with normal urges?
Theophilus, thanks for your comments. I don’t know what to make of the comparison to Wycliffe especially since I haven’t done what you credit him with doing, namely, attacking the mandatory priestly celibacy as an 11th century revisionist tendency. I am not attacking anything. I am saying, let’s treat those who disagree with the requirement just a little bit more charitably rather than heaping ridiculous terms like “unorthodox,” “dissenting,” or “sinful” on such people.
Michael, I am glad that you agree with me that the sexual abuse scandal has been high jacked by unthinking individuals on all sides (those who play the celibacy card, or the homosexual card, for example) but overall your comments leave me confused.
Allow me to respectfully express my humour about how you preface your disagreement with my reading of the Biblical text. You say “I don’t profess to read their mind and can only make inferences based on what they said…” and then a line later, with no absolutely no Biblical evidence at all, you allege that St. Peter left his wife? Come now, really? How well are you following your own comments on Biblical interpretation? Overall you show you are agreeing with my basic premise (that celibacy was a development, and not a central requirement for the earliest ranks of priests…) by saying that “Jesus didn’t specifically require celibacy…” however more important I find is Paul’s quote and don’t really know what to make of your reading. Could you break it down a little bit more? Perhaps this is an off day for me.
As I read on, I am seeing mome than one example wherein my words are being misread. Example, you say: “Why would you consider him [Paul] to have something in common with people calling for a universal change in the disciplinary requirement [of priestly celibacy]” Well, first of all, I didn’t ally him with anyone. And I am not calling for a universal change. But clearly St. Paul does not see priestly celibacy as a disciplinary requirement.
Also, thank you, but I do understand and agree that the requirement is disciplinary and not dogmatic, and that is why I am saying that those who disagree with the legitimacy of the discipline have to be treated differently from those who disagree dogmatically with other matters.
Regarding your conclusion about whether the Church should lighten its requirements, as I said myself, “there are very real and acceptable reasons to confine the ranks to those who have made a vow of celibacy…” so while you give me a “yes and no” citing some agreements and some disagreements, overall I am not sure what how to respond to your comments.
Sean, I agree with your identification of some of those “very real and acceptable reasons,” (the priest’s duties being sacrificed between a family and the Church his family), but am glad you also realize that since the early Church left this option open, and since future leaders have deemed it wise to alter such requirements, even future alterations down the road, are hardly something to be interpreted in an alarmist fashion. I think this marks the first time we are in agreement at this Blog.
K.
Comment by K. — April 24, 2008 @ 12:15 pm
You updated your site, looks good!
Comment by Stephanie — April 28, 2008 @ 1:53 pm
“Allow me to respectfully express my humour about how you preface your disagreement with my reading of the Biblical text. You say “I don’t profess to read their mind and can only make inferences based on what they said…” and then a line later, with no absolutely no Biblical evidence at all, you allege that St. Peter left his wife? Come now, really? How well are you following your own comments on Biblical interpretation?”
Respectful or not I’d prefer that you were humoured as a result of my deliberate attempts to do so rather than that. I believed that St Peter leaving his wife was always the understanding of the scripture recording that Peter said:
What about us? We left all we had to follow you. Jesus answered: “I tell you solemnly, there is no one who has left house, wife, brothers, parents, or children for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not be given repayment many times over in this present time and, in the world to come, eternal life (Luke 18:28-30; cf. Matt. 19:27-30, Mark 10:20-21)
Clearly I took too much for granted but saying there is no biblical evidence is I’d submit an overly extravagant description of something that you may interpret differently.
“Could you break it down a little bit more?”
The main thing is that all we know was that celibacy was a development but we can’t assume that it changed from marriage with sex in apostolic times to celibacy in the 11th Century. The contrary inference that sexual continence for those with a vocation working for the kingdom was either required or encouraged and the 11th century change wasn’t dramatic seems more likely.
In the quote celibate Paul was discussing requirements for Bishops. He said that they can only have married once. I know some prots claim that St Paul was saying that Bishops had to be married once but not more than once but given he was celibate himself they should know better. Clearly it was okay to be celibate and okay to marry once but not okay to do it again.
Believers can’t remarry unless their spouse dies. Accordingly, the reference to more than one marriage could only apply if someone had died and remarried. It raises the question: why is someone suitable to be a Bishop if they marry once but not if they remarry if their spouse dies? We don’t know. The only reason I can think is that part of his checklist was based on suitability for sexual continence but we don’t know. Then we have another celibate man Jesus talking about being a eunuch for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven and related vague comments by early Christians. An example of this that may refer to nuns and priests is:
St. Augustine of Hippo, Heresies (428 A.D.):
“He (Jovinian) equated the merits of chaste spouses and of the faithful with the virginity of consecrated women and the continence of the male sex in holy persons choosing a celibate life.”
Doesn’t it raise the question of whether sexual continence was always at least encouraged in the priesthood and possibly mandatory? Nothing is proved but everything seems to point to it. Then we know of the later requirement for priests to not marry after ordination and stop having sex if they were married followed by celibacy. Given the scandals it stands to reason that the slight adjustment to celibacy instead of mere continence made sense as a disciplinary procedure. But the point is it can’t be assumed that the change was as clear cut as married with sex to celibate. Would any married priest advocate be happy if it was decided that it was fine to be married prior to ordination providing you stopped having sex? That would seem like a tougher restriction.
You say that St Paul clearly doesn’t see priestly celibacy as a disciplinary requirement but what if he sees celibacy as beneficial and sexual continence as a requirement? He would be one disciplinary twist away from the current situation.
“Also, thank you, but I do understand and agree that the requirement is disciplinary and not dogmatic, and that is why I am saying that those who disagree with the legitimacy of the discipline have to be treated differently from those who disagree dogmatically with other matters.”
Unless they also disagree with dogmatic issues.
Comment by Michael Bates — April 28, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
“Believers can’t remarry unless their spouse dies. Accordingly, the reference to more than one marriage could only apply if someone had died and remarried.”
To avoid further amusement I need to point out that I meant:
Believers can’t remarry unless their spouse dies. Accordingly, the reference to more than one marriage could only apply if a potential Bishop’s wife had died and he had remarried.
Comment by Michael Bates — April 28, 2008 @ 2:09 pm
First, Kelly, thanks for pointing out that you weren’t attacking priestly celibacy, merely questioning why it is (almost) mandatory. Wycliffe’s comments were stronger.
Michael, given that Paul is dealing with first-generation Christians who were almost certainly adult converts to the faith, it seems to me that it is at least as likely that Paul is referring to polygamists and the divorced and remarried as he is to the widowed and remarried. This approach makes more sense to me because there aren’t any real Biblical discouragements of remarrying after a spouse’s death except for Paul’s explicitly stated personal opinion. Also, the Bible doesn’t support your claim that Peter left his wife to follow Jesus. Paul asserts that Peter’s wife accompanied him in his apostolic life, and that this is a right for church leaders. (1 Corinthians 9:5) What do you make of this passage?
Comment by Theophilus — May 2, 2008 @ 9:44 am
Theophilus,
Sorry to delay replying. I was monitoring this discussion with interest but my wife had some complications from her c-section that recently brought our 10lb 5 son into the world. That took me away for some time. Now they are both doing fine and I’m back.
Out of curiosity and sense of irony (given Wycliffe’s views) I looked up the Wycliffe New Testament edition. It translates 1 Corinthians 9:5 as:
“5 Whether we have not power to lead about a woman, a sister, as also other apostles, and brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?”
Read in conjunction with the surrounding verses in any translation my understanding of the passage is that Paul is defending himself as a real Apostle. He doesn’t rely upon the community to support him or have a Christian woman to assist him like the other Apostles including Peter but he is nevertheless an Apostle and whether or not he relies on the assistance he has a right to that assistance.
Now I was playing version shopping for a reason although I had no idea what the Wycliffe one would come up with. I’ll explain in a moment why I did so.
Before I explain that I note that it is likely that you were looking at another translation that suggests Peter is with his wife. If so I agree with your take based on the translation you were viewing I’m just not so confident about that translation. I believe the Bible does support my claim about Peter for the reason I gave earlier. Nevertheless if he did so then it would be strange for him to make such an extravagant and well known claim (passed around orally sufficiently enough to be available to New Testament writers) and then to publically go back to something he had left to follow the Lord later on. If I Corinthians 9:5 had him back with his wife then he would certainly lack credibility or my interpretation regarding him leaving his wife would be a misinterpretation. That would be the implication of some translations of the scripture you cited.
The New International Version reads like this:
“5Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas[a]?”
I suspect you were guided by a version like the latter. My understanding is that the original Greek scriptures handed down are in two versions with one that translated as “believing wife” and the other saying “a believing woman” (hence the “sister” in the first translation I cited). Although it is impossible to know which version is correct one can make an educated guess.
Scripturally there is Matthew 19:12 if “eunuch” is interpreted as I have done so above. There is also the context of the passage that you cited. If the Apostles could take their wives with them and were entitled to community support wouldn’t some have kids and their kids also be entitled to community support? I know it is just an accumulation of circumstantial evidence not a smoking bullet but their kids don’t get a mention.
Throughout history there have been other hints. Did you know that Tertullian of Carthage believed way back in 217 that Peter was the only married apostle? If he is correct then the wife translation must be wrong because the other apostles wouldn’t have been married.
As early as 306AD we know that Canon 33 from the Council of Elvira stated:
“We have decreed a general prohibition for married bishops, priests, and deacons or also for all clerics who have been appointed to ministry: they must not come together with their wives and they must not beget children. Whosoever shall do the same shall be expelled from the ranks of clergy.”
I know prots see this type of thing as Catholicism going off track around then but I suspect that it was merely a formal codification of the general expectation or requirement for those with a vocation working for the kingdom from the time Jesus spoke of eunochs. Again I suspect the later change from married to unmarried celibacy was not as great as some people think.
Even today priests are assisted by nuns so if the believing woman version of 1 Corinthians is correct it would be yet another example of the early Church pointing toward modern Catholicism.
“Michael, given that Paul is dealing with first-generation Christians who were almost certainly adult converts to the faith, it seems to me that it is at least as likely that Paul is referring to polygamists and the divorced and remarried as he is to the widowed and remarried. This approach makes more sense to me because there aren’t any real Biblical discouragements of remarrying after a spouse’s death except for Paul’s explicitly stated personal opinion.”
It makes sense for me too as quite a reasonable position. However I am more comfortable with a slightly different take on it. While there are no other biblical discouragements on that he is talking about clergy only and there does seem to be other things pointing to continence and celibacy particularly for those doing it for the kingdom. Basically it looks to me like a piece in a puzzle that seems to fit in nicely. Hence my opinion.
God Bless
Comment by Michael Bates — May 6, 2008 @ 1:02 am
A lot of people were recent converts who had indulged in all types of sin before their conversion but I don’t believe the polygamous interpretation is plausible due to the immediate context. High standards were set for the Bishops in that scripture. They were to be above reproach and to have a good reputation. It is taken for granted that the candidate has led a Christian life. Adultery is glaringly out of place. The worst of the other things are vices that a Christian could have and remarriage fits in as something that a Christian can do. Issues like being temperate, self controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not being a recent convert, gentle, not quarrelsome etc. are addressed not adultery (unless I am wrong), stealing etc.
Hence being an outstanding Christian in conjunction with special qualities that assist in the role like being a long term Christian, having the ability to teach or having the ability to be continent is the theme. Does it make sense to you to stick adultery in there?
Comment by Josh — May 6, 2008 @ 6:31 pm
Historical research on the 19th Century framed in terms of continence rather than celibacy hit a brick wall when the writings of an early historian Socrates were discovered. In consequence subsequent research has mainly been framed from the perspective of celibate versus married and early married clergy have been assumed to be open to sexual relations prior to evidence of continence developing toward the end of the 4th Century.
Socrates established that continence was not universally an issue as late as 325 at the Council of Nicea. He recorded the actions of Paphnutius who he described as a Bishop of Upper Thebes. Other Bishops at the Council of Nicea wanted to introduce a law that consecrated men were forbidden to sleep with the wives they married prior to their conversion. Paphnutius spoke up. He argued that it was unreasonable, undesirable, would tempt cleric’s spouses to be unfaithful and that tradition only forbids subsequent marriage. He headed off an unendurable burden on the clergy.
Unfortunately historians also observed that Catholic Popes couldn’t help themselves and less than half a century later Popes Damasus and Siricius had forgotten all about Paphnutius’ wise words leading to documented evidence that higher clerics and their wives were expected to live in perfect continence until of course the Second Lateran Council and the Council of Trent made things even worse.
There was thus no reason to countenance the possibility of earlier continence because historians all knew that it was not required as late as the Council of Nicea. The Council of Nicea had been a useful landmark because unlike the Council of Elvira it was the first Ecumenical Council.
The Paphnutius story was established to be a fraud only in 1968 by Winkelmann. Historians like Cochini and Heid are now re-exploring the issue of early continence. Unfortunately this approach might take off slowly. Since the swinging sixties, and even earlier for prots, most people would like to consider the headship and teaching authority of the magisterium of the Catholic Church as some type of illegitimate dictatorship akin to sin and clerical continence absurd. Accordingly, it is more palatable to consider celibacy as something imposed on priests at the Second Lateran Council than a convenient application of a sexual continence which existed from the time Jesus said:
“There are some who are celibate by nature; there are some who are celibate by choice; there are some who are celibate for the sake of the kingdom. Let him who can take it, take it.” Matthew 19:12
God Bless
Comment by Michael Bates — May 7, 2008 @ 5:46 pm
It’s true that homosexuality and pedophilia are two different things. It’s also true that pedophilia refers to attraction to prepubescent children. Whereas the majority of molestation victims were post-pubescent boys. It’s hard for me to believe that this doesn’t indicate a high proportion of homosexuals among the molesters.
I’m not saying that homosexuals are inherently more likely to molest. They may or may not be, I don’t know. On the other hand, if there are equal numbers of heterosexuals and homosexuals among American priests, and if heterosexuals and homosexuals are equally likely to molest, then one would expect more or less equal numbers of male and female victims of abuse. But instead we find a significantly higher proportion of male victims than female.
Those seeking a married priesthood, are not for that reason alone unfaithful or sinful. But those who argue in favor of it do tend to be dissenters from orthodoxy in other areas as well.
Comment by Agellius — June 20, 2008 @ 5:27 pm
I am appreciative of your differentiation between homosexuality and pedophila, and while I agree that statistically the majority of abuse was male-on-male, I think it is important to say that the problem is pedophilia, not homosexuality, the same way that if the majority of cases were male-on-female, the problems is not heterosexuality, but pedophilia.
While those supporting a married priesthood may often dissent from orthodoxy in certain areas, their support of a married priesthood does not in itself constitute a problem.
Thanks for your comments.
K.
Comment by K. — June 20, 2008 @ 6:15 pm
K: You keep saying that the majority of cases were cases of pedophilia. But as I said, pedophilia means attraction to pre-pubescent children, whereas the majority of molestation victims were post-pubescent boys.
Wiki states, ‘As a medical diagnosis, it is defined as a psychological disorder in which an adult experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children and may engage in child sexual abuse, also known as “pedophilic behavior”.’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophile (see also footnotes thereto)
Attraction to post-pubescent adolescents (redundant?) is not considered a disorder as long as one’s attraction is not exclusive to same. ‘Sexual desire that includes adolescents, as well as older individuals, is common among adults of all sexual orientations; this is not labeled “ephebophilia” because the attraction to adolescents is not exclusive. In some cultures, such as those in which adolescent girls are routinely married to older men, it is considered normal for adults to include adolescents among their sexual interests.’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia
Thus, a man who is attracted to post-pubescent males does not merit a diagnosis of mental illness on that basis alone, as a pedophile would. At least according to the general consensus in the mental health professions. He is, however, without doubt a homosexual.
Comment by Agellius — June 21, 2008 @ 3:54 pm
Pedophilia is the term used popularly, and while I did hesitate before using it, I don’t think the specifics matter enough to alter points made here. This is my point. It remains unaltered:
In a consensual relationship, either homosexuality or heterosexuality can be expressed. The fact that a non-consensual event like rape can occur seems more important than the fact that it was heterosexual. The fact that a non-consensual event as occurred many times under what has become known as the priestly sex scandal can occur seems more important than the fact that it was homosexual.
We are dealing with abuse. Hetero/Homoseuxal abuse is still abuse. Pretending that the reason for abuse is becuase of a participants homosexuality is a mistake, and it is a mistake some more conservative make when looking at the priestly sex abuse crisis.
K.
Comment by K. — June 21, 2008 @ 4:33 pm
Since we’re making distinctions, I would like to clarify what is meant by “rape” as well. Rape is commonly understood in two ways: (1) forced, i.e. non-consensual, sexual intercourse, or (2) intercourse between an adult and a minor, whether or not consensual. The latter is referred to as “statutory rape” because although in some cases it may well be consensual, it’s still legally considered rape because a minor is considered incompetent to decide whether to give consent.
You seem to be asserting, or at least implying, that all the cases of molestation were non-consensual. I don’t know that to be true, and I don’t know if you know it to be true. I would agree with you that even if they were consensual, they were wrong, because a minor is not competent to decide whether to engage in such acts with an adult. Any adult, and especially a priest, would be taking unfair advantage of a minor in that situation.
They were also wrong because they were immoral, a violation of God’s law, which would have been the case even if all the victims had been consenting adults.
Be that as it may, I am not prepared to concede that all the molestations in question were of a forced, non-consensual nature. That would imply that all the molestations were of a violent nature, and I don’t know that to be true. Do you have information supporting the assertion that they were?
But again, whether they were violent or not, they were wrong, there is no dispute there.
You say the fact that the molestations occurred is “more important” than whether they were homosexual in nature. I don’t understand the need to say which of those is “more important”. If the main issue is “the fact that they occurred,” then don’t we want to know why they occurred, and how to avoid it in the future? If (I said “if”) the vast majority of molesters were homosexuals, and if (again “if”) that indicates that homosexuals are more likely to molest than heterosexuals, why isn’t that relevant to the question of how to prevent similar occurrences in the future?
I don’t believe I am “pretending” anything. I have only pointed out the facts and drew what I considered to be the logical inferences.
Again, if there is an equal number of hetero- and homosexual priests in the American Catholic church; and if heterosexuals and homosexuals are equally likely to molest; then one would expect the victims of molestation to be more or less equally divided among boys and girls. But in fact the vast majority of victims are boys, and most of them post-pubescent boys. If you think these facts lead to a different conclusion, I would like to know what it is.
Comment by Agellius — June 21, 2008 @ 5:20 pm
First of all, I didn’t accuse you of pretending anything.
Second, to answer the question posed in your last paragraph let me say quite simply the just because the majority of victims were “post-pubescent boys” (the fact that the majority were boys could in part be because the majority of alter servers were boys…), the whole victimization of such minors is cheapened by supposing it a result of homosexuals.
Let me just repeat, and perhaps if you disagree, you can tell me exactly where:
“Those more conservative, equally unthinking in their response, have supposed that the crisis is on account of some sort of homosexual infiltration of the priesthood, reasoning that such vile actions like the abuse of a child, are to be expected from homosexuals. Such people tend to view the descriptive terms homosexual and pedophile as synonymous.”
Your clarification that pedophilia refers to pre-pubescent boys has been made.
The problem is molesters. The same is the case when a woman is assaulted by a man. The problem is not the orientation of the attacker, but rather the fact that an attack has occurred. Benedict himself said on the plane ride over that the priestly sex abuse crisis is not to be heaped upon homosexuals saying “that is a very different matter.”
So, what are you claiming exactly, just so I understand. Yes, the majority of abuse was male-on-male. The fact that abuse is more important than the orientation of abusers is my claim. What’s yours?
K.
Comment by K. — June 21, 2008 @ 7:36 pm
I don’t understand your point in drawing a hard line between “abuse” and “the orientation of abusers”, as if you’ve got to focus on one or the other but not both. That’s like saying the robbing of old ladies is more important than the preferences of robbers for robbing old ladies. Doesn’t the one have a bearing on the other? If there is a series of robberies, and old ladies are being targeted more than any other group, does it not matter that there might be a reason why old ladies are being robbed more than old men, or young ladies? Would that question have no bearing on the investigation of the causes of the robberies, and possible solutions?
You concede that “the majority of abuse was male-on-male”. But why do you not say, “the majority of abuse was homosexual”? You seem to be bending over backwards to avoid that term. As you point out, my “clarification that pedophilia refers to pre-pubescent boys has been made.” But you ignore what follows from that fact: That most of the abuse was not pedophile rape of children, but homosexual seduction of teenagers. If the latter accurately describes the majority of cases, how can the homosexuality of the perpetrators be irrelevant?
Yes, it’s bad whether it’s hetero- or homosexual seduction of teenagers. But the fact is that most of it was not hetero, and I don’t think that fact should be ignored. You say that it may be due to priests having more access to boys than girls. But has that been established? Has it even been investigated? Or is the question being ignored under threat of being labeled politically incorrect? If you agree that everything that can be done to prevent a re-occurrence of what happened, should be done, then shouldn’t all angles be looked into?
Comment by Agellius — July 1, 2008 @ 3:48 pm