Issues with the Catholic Church

[Boudi]

JJ,
 
60 odd years ago I don't think anyone had a complete grasp of the real nature of peadophilia. I think it was regarded as the actions of someone who couldn't control his urge for sex. In fact peadophilia is a deep seated unnatural disorder from which it is very difficult to overcome.
Some people have blaimed the requirement of celibacy for child abuse. This thinking again displays a lack of knowledge of the true nature of peadophilia.
If a priest, or any person for that matter, has a disordered sexual desire, marriage will not the cure it. Experiencing the redemptive power of Christ in one's fallen sexuality is the cure. Getting married will only involve the transfer of a man's unnatural sexual desire to his wife and possibly his children.

There is often thois harking back to an understanding of paedophilia 60 years ago, but it's still going off, and we are hearing about cases from 5 years ago, ten years ago, when the nature of paedophilia was well known!  The cover ups have continued far more recently that this, and the change in society that means that the victims are seen as victims m,eans that people have been empowered to challenge the power of the church which would have once branded them as ungodly or trouble causers.

[JJ]

Paedophilia may well be a deep seated disorder and could also a result of some sort of early abuse of the perpetrator.

It's not beyond the realms of possibility that the constant harping on the need for celibacy imposed  on normal healthy people by religious institutions somehow mutates their natural urges into disordered impulses.  The continuous institutionalised message that sex is bad is bound to have a strange effect.
Witness and compare the effect of food obsessions on anorexics and bulimics.

[saundthorp]

JJ,
The idea that the Catholic Church requires celibacy because sex is bad couldn't be further from the truth
Priestly celibacy is a requirement of the Catholic priesthood because it is felt that to be an effective priest one should devote ones entire life to being a priest. It is both a sacrifice and a gift. If a Catholic man feels he has a vocation he will be aware that a requirement is celibacy. I am convinced the Holy Spirit gives assistance to would-be priests to enable them to make the sacrifice and follow Christ.
Those who "renounce marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 19:12 NAB) do so not because marriage is bad or second best, but precisely because its goodness makes its renunciation a valuable and generous gift to offer to God. After all, the goodness of a gift determines the value of the sacrifice.
The decision to remain celibate is freely chosen by seminarians, and it is not the Church that is forbidding them to marry. They may choose married or celibate life according to where the Lord is calling them.

In the Gospel of Matthew, 19: 11-12. Jesus says,
"?There are eunuchs born that way from their mother's womb, there are eunuchs made so by men and there are eunuchs who have made themselves that way for the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can"
To me this is Jesus himself giving approval of celibacy but he qualifies it by saying, "let anyone accept this who can" i.e., a man who is called to the priesthood.

Nevertheless, at the end of the day, priestly celibacy is a discipline. At the Council of Trent (1563) it was pointed out that celibacy was not a law that came from God but a Church Tradition that could be changed. The Council also went on to say that the Church's position on celibacy in no way minimised its high regard for marriage; the two callings were quite distinct and had their own distinctive demands.
The Church's position today is the same as the Council of Trent. Celibacy is not an essential element of priesthood, in other words there could be a priesthood, which is not celibate, but it is considered an important part of priesthood, and a sign of the priest's commitment to be free of worldly concerns to serve God and his people.

[tranchiebabe]

To me this is Jesus himself giving approval of celibacy but he qualifies it by saying, "let anyone accept this who can" i.e., a man who is called to the priesthood.

It certainly doesn't follow Jesus meant the priesthood. We have no idea if Jesus was celibate, he could have been married for all anyone knows. Nowhere in the Gospels does it state he wasn't married. Some tradition think he was and had kids too!

[saundthorp]

Nowhere in the Gospels does it state he wasn't married.

Nowhere in the Gospels does it state He was married either!

Some tradition think he was and had kids too!

Is that what you believe?

[tranchiebabe]

I haven't a clue, but as most men of his age would have been married, the gospel writers could have taken that as a read and not thought to mention it. They really haven't talked much about his personal life at all have they?

[Martin]

I think that the point is that we shouldn't make rules based upon something that we cannot know.  The RC Church stipulates celibacy for priests, when it doesn't know whether Jesus was married or not. 

Saundthorp you reply that 'Nowhere in the Gospels does it state He was married either!'  with an exclamation mark as if you are making a hugely important point, when all you are telling us is that we don't know either way (which was the point anyway). It doesn't say in the Gospels whether Jesus had a beard, does the RC church insist that all priests must have beards?, it doesn't say in the Gospels whether Jesus ate meat does the RC church insist that priests should be vegetarians?  We know Jesus wore sandals, does that forbid priests form donning wellies?  The whole thing is so daft.

[AndyHB]

We know Jesus wore sandals, does that forbid priests form donning wellies?  The whole thing is so daft.

Context, Martin?     After all, for one thing the weather in Palestine, even today, is different to what it is here or in other parts of the world, and secondly, when was rubber first made into wellies?

As for celibacy, there is nothing wrong with it - and it has been practised for centuries - if not millenia - so I see nothing odd about the possibility of Jesus being celibate/unmarried.  Furthermore, if Jesus was God as well as human, as many Christians believe, what message would his getting married give to others?  These members of my human family are more important than anyone else, perhaps?

[tranchiebabe]

Hopefully Jesus was married and had a satisfactory sex life.

[AndyHB]

Hopefully Jesus was married and had a satisfactory sex life.

Why is that necessary, T?  I know plenty of people, male and female, who have (i) never married and (ii) never had sex.  they are happy, well-balanced and productive members of society.  Why is it that society feels that people can only be 'fully human' once they are within a sexual relationship.

[Martin]

I don't think that society does feel that Andy.  Some people do feel unfulfilled if they never marry, but society, in my experience, nowadays is not too bothered whether someone has a partner of not.

What society generally would see as wrong, in my experience of people's views, is the stipulation that to do the job of a priest, the person must be male and celibate.  I have to say I agree with society on that one.

[AndyHB]

I don't think that society does feel that Andy.  Some people do feel unfulfilled if they never marry, but society, in my experience, nowadays is not too bothered whether someone has a partner of not.

What society generally would see as wrong, in my experience of people's views, is the stipulation that to do the job of a priest, the person must be male and celibate.  I have to say I agree with society on that one.

I would disagree on both scores, Martin.  Advertising, magazines, etc. are predicated on people having sexual intercourse as standard.  I'm not talking about having a partner or not, I'm talking about having a sexual relationship - and that might be for a night, an hour, whatever.

As for the second paragraph, I don't think people are worried about whether a cleric is celibate or not; rather they are concerned that they are not abusing their position of authority/leadership, regardless of whether they are in a sexual relationship or not.

[Boudi]

Nowhere in the Gospels does it state he wasn't married.

Nowhere in the Gospels does it state He was married either!

Some tradition think he was and had kids too!

Is that what you believe?

I think it is probable that he was married, since this was the norm for the time and for the culture I think there would have been an explanation as to why he wasn't.  Kids would likely have followed

[AndyHB]

I think it is probable that he was married, since this was the norm for the time and for the culture I think there would have been an explanation as to why he wasn't.  Kids would likely have followed

All cultures have norms - but all cultures also have those who don't fit those norms.  Celibacy has been a pattern for centuries; it would not have been hugely unusual for a man to remain celibate; perhaps even for the occasional woman to do so.

[Boudi]

Anyone commenting on the cultural position at the time would say it was the norm, and since it is not made explicit in the Bible as to Christ's marital status we would take it that Christ was married, rather than that he was celibate.  Are we to pick and choose when we take notice of 'experts' comments on the times of Jesus?