Catholic Perverts?

[VOW]

I love Paul's letters to the Church at Corinth! His eloquent explanation of what love is turns me into a sappy fool.

I read 1 Corinthians 7, and I see that Paul is guiding the married people of the Church. He's basically telling couples that they aren't to be selfish, but to think of the other person. And I don't see how "claiming your sexual satisifaction" would necessarily be included in his guide, for verse 6 leaves the final choice up to the people involved: "This I say by way of concession, however, not as a command."

Marriage isn't about "getting some" so you don't look elsewhere. Even the most exhausted sexual athlete will stray if he or she is so inclined. And the implication in this thread was that if Catholic priests were freed from the burden of celibacy, they would be less likely to indulge in the molestation of children.

Further on in Chapter 7, Paul himself even extols the choice of celibacy.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by VOW
I love Paul's letters to the Church at Corinth! His eloquent explanation of what love is turns me into a sappy fool.

Hee hee! Cute.

Originally posted by VOW
I read 1 Corinthians 7, and I see that Paul is guiding the married people of the Church. He's basically telling couples that they aren't to be selfish, but to think of the other person. And I don't see how "claiming your sexual satisifaction" would necessarily be included in his guide, for verse 6 leaves the final choice up to the people involved: "This I say by way of concession, however, not as a command."

Respectfully, I would suggest that perhaps you have missed the point of this verse. In 7:1 he sets the stage for this discussion with "...it is good for a man not to touch a woman." Later he affirms that this cuts both ways. It is good for a woman not to touch a man as well, regarding the unmarried and widows mentioned in verse 8. But verse 2 makes it clear to me that at least part of the duty of marriage is to consent to sex with your partner when they are in that state of need (verse 2) and only to abstain by mutual consent, that is, both partners, not just one (verse 5).

Originally posted by VOW
Marriage isn't about "getting some" so you don't look elsewhere. Even the most exhausted sexual athlete will stray if he or she is so inclined. And the implication in this thread was that if Catholic priests were freed from the burden of celibacy, they would be less likely to indulge in the molestation of children.

No marriage is not all about "getting some". I am sorry if I seem to imply this.

Originally posted by VOW
Further on in Chapter 7, Paul himself even extols the choice of celibacy.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

Yes, but you yourself say choice! There should be choice for both partners. There should be choice for the person called to the various duties encompassed in Priesthood who does not likewise share the calling to celibacy. I do not think a return by the Catholic church to allowing Priests to marry will completely solve thise problem. It is not entirely uncommon among protestants, especially those protestant ministers who specialize in youth ministry. There are some fairly obvious reasons why a person who struggles with pedophilia might feel "called" to help children, falsely, and why a person struggling with their sexuality might find service in a celibate priesthood to be some sort of "calling". But the point is still valid, I think, that by restricting Priesthood to only those who will willingly take a vow of celibacy, you create an artificially high demand within the Catholic church for people with issues about sex.

Plus I still don't know why it was ok that some of the Apostles were married but nowadays in order to plan a life of full service to the Cathlic church you have to devote yourself to celibacy. It's not a small matter, celibacy, in spite of what some may say.

 

[VOW]

The question of celibacy is something for the Church to determine, so I defer to the Church.

You really need to separate pedophilia from normal sexual desire. Pedophilia is a mental defect with a need to dominate, to defile, to control. It is indeed unfortunate that this need is expressed through sexual activity. Pedophilia is comparable to rape, which is another defect that needs to dominate. You will NEVER remove either of these "desires" by allowing a person free access to normal sexual activity. So the issue of celibacy really has no place in the discussion of pedophilia.

I appreciate you being respectful in disagreeing with how I interpret 1 Corinthians 7. However, my interpretation is just as valid as yours. I also speak from personal knowledge in that I've been married over 27 years. The sexual act within marriage should be something that is fulfilling to both partners, not merely "sexual release" of one or the other. It takes a long time for two people to work out exactly HOW to express themselves in the sexual relationship, because as two individuals, they have separate issues, separate needs. Very often, you have to put "self" aside for one another, and this is what Paul is talking about. This ability to communicate with your spouse in a physical way takes a great deal of effort, a great deal of time, and a great deal of understanding. It is the position of the Church that a priest who is completely dedicated to his service to God would better fulfill his office if the time and effort that he would invest in this physical relationship with a spouse were instead expended in his priestly duties. I can see the argument both ways, but the decision is not mine to make. That authority rests with the Church.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by VOW
The question of celibacy is something for the Church to determine, so I defer to the Church.

If the people of God are not to control the policy of the Church of God, who will?

Originally posted by VOW
You really need to separate pedophilia from normal sexual desire. Pedophilia is a mental defect with a need to dominate, to defile, to control. It is indeed unfortunate that this need is expressed through sexual activity. Pedophilia is comparable to rape, which is another defect that needs to dominate. You will NEVER remove either of these "desires" by allowing a person free access to normal sexual activity. So the issue of celibacy really has no place in the discussion of pedophilia.

I agree with this. However, the discussion of celibacy does have to do with the issue of who is allowed to serve the Church, and as I mentioned, but you didn't address, setting such a requirement is bound to have an effect on who is willing to volunteer for such duty, and perhaps not an entirely positive one.

Originally posted by VOW
I appreciate you being respectful in disagreeing with how I interpret 1 Corinthians 7. However, my interpretation is just as valid as yours. I also speak from personal knowledge in that I've been married over 27 years. The sexual act within marriage should be something that is fulfilling to both partners, not merely "sexual release" of one or the other. It takes a long time for two people to work out exactly HOW to express themselves in the sexual relationship, because as two individuals, they have separate issues, separate needs. Very often, you have to put "self" aside for one another, and this is what Paul is talking about. This ability to communicate with your spouse in a physical way takes a great deal of effort, a great deal of time, and a great deal of understanding. It is the position of the Church that a priest who is completely dedicated to his service to God would better fulfill his office if the time and effort that he would invest in this physical relationship with a spouse were instead expended in his priestly duties. I can see the argument both ways, but the decision is not mine to make. That authority rests with the Church.

All views are legitimate. The interesting question is whether or not they are correct! *cough* Ok but seriously, you have 27 years of experience being married, Let me tell you about 34 years of being largely celibate. It is a very very different experience to go day after day knowing you will not have sex, than it is to be in a commited relationship knowing that you will. Asking someone to be celibate is not a trivial thing, and requiring it of every single solitary person who serves the Church in most administrative capacities, specifically when there seems to be no mandate at all for this requirement in the Bible, is a stunning presumption.

If you, as a Catholic, cannot or will not call the Church to the carpet concerning this, then who can, or who will?

I don't know if these questions are trivial to most Catholics, or what. I am protestant, more or less non-denominational, though I belong to both the United Methodist and First Baptist churches, which is simply the effect of joining different local churches at different times in my life because of location and local preference. But, I have been interested because of the issue of Christian unity to join the Roman Catholic Church. But it is issues like this, and the method of choosing the Pope, the basis for Papal authority and so forth, that make it into a question of concience that I didn't run into, for example, when deciding to go ahead and join a Baptist church when my initial conversion and salvation were in the Methodist church.

An interesting aside, the term "catholic" as it pertains to universalism is adopted by the Methodist church. I'm not sure about the Baptist. The distinction then in my mind, is the Roman Catholic church, since I actually already believe myself to be "catholic" in a spiritual sense, meaning a member of God's community of believers. Didn't know if Catholics were aware of this belief by at least one major protestant denomination.

To learn that you feel you have no authority whatsoever in the Church is an interesting and major difference from what I feel most protestants believe, which is that they not only have authority, but an obligation, to stear their church organizations towards correct teaching and values.

Thanks again for your time and understanding.

 

[VOW]

Perhaps if you understood the actual function of the Pope in the Catholic Church, you might feel more comfortable with what his role is.

Protestants hold that the source of all authority is Sacred Scripture. Even as a member of the Church, part of the Body, you don't get to vote on what the Bible says. Therefore, being obedient to the Bible is not a problem, so your voice as an individual in the Church is influential. Catholics also hold that Sacred Scripture is one part of authority, the second part is Sacred Tradition. The two together form the original Deposit of Faith left by the Apostles for the Church of Christ. Where the misconceptions occur is when Protestants assume that Sacred Tradition is something that changes over time, depending on what the Pope of the moment wishes to propose. This is not possible. Nobody, the Church, the congregation, the Pope, the Bishops, nobody, is allowed to change this original Deposit of Faith. The Pope and the Magisterium can and do apply Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition to guide the Church, but they in no way CHANGE anything. When the Pope speaks "Ex Cathedra," or from the Chair of St Peter, he is clarifying a matter of faith through the power of the Holy Spirit, using Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

The Pope's authority to do this is from Apostolic Succession, from St Peter. The Apostles were granted special duties in the church that Christ established, and Peter was assigned an even more prominent role. The Church teaches that these duties did not die out with the Apostles; in fact, it was Christ's intentions to allow for the continuation of the leadership of His Church. Historical writings preserved from the Early Church Fathers confirms this. These are holy and sacred duties, and the successors have tried to fulfill them.

Christianity was never intended to be a democracy. Jesus was not elected to office, and He actually had no intention of wooing voters or taking polls as to how the organization was to be run. The Catholic Church is also such a "benevolent dictatorship," and if active involvement in Church politics is important to someone, then they will not be complete in a Catholic environment. That is not to say the congregation is completely helpless. There are many functions for all individuals to contribute to the ministry, depending on their gifts of the Holy Spirit. And certainly, if a priest or layperson is representing ideas or teachings that are against what the Church says, a parishoner is obligated to see that person is reported.

The issue of celibacy in the Church is something called "Discipline." That would be defined as: rule established by the Church to help the believer walk the straight and narrow path; includes both celibacy and not eating meat on Fridays during Lent and fasting on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

So, it is the teaching of the Church that celibacy is something that promotes the faith, rather than something which takes away from it. I could argue all I want in favor of abolishing it, for I do see both sides of the issue. However, I trust the Church and the 2000 years of experience in leading Catholics. Yes, fallible humans in position of leadership of the Church have made many mistakes throughout those 2000 years, but Jesus said that the gates of the netherworld would not prevail against His Church. That doesn't mean the gates don't get pounded in places at times; it just means that no matter HOW much they get pounded, they will hold.

I have enjoyed our conversation.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[amie]

I have a question, although I am Catholic, I am not sure of the answer. If a woman becomes pregnant by a Catholic priest, is the church held responsible? or does the responsibility lie within the man himself? and what if he flees the country? then what? child support? emotional support?...what is your opinion?

 

[VOW]

I think Wolseley would be the one for the legal, technical advice. But the priest would be acting under what is called the "color of authority." He would be using his position of authority to essentially break a moral law. (and not celibacy, but one of immorality) The man himself should be held accountable, but ultimately, the woman would have the basis for a lawsuit against the Diocese.

I would most certainly pray that she get counseling. Such a situation could skew her very faith.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[Wolseley]

If a woman becomes pregnant by a Catholic priest, is the church held responsible? or does the responsibility lie within the man himself? and what if he flees the country? then what? child support? emotional support?...what is your opinion?

Well, I am not a canon lawyer, but just working on general prinicples, I would say that if she was forced, she has grounds for a lawsuit against the diocese, just as VOW said, or, if the priest is in an Order, then against the Order.

If the liason was consensual, or, alternatively, the woman instigated the liason (which has happened from time to time), that throws another aspect into the situation, in that both she and the priest are responsible for their own actions. What might happen in this case, I am guessing, would depend on the individual situation. Not having access to prior cases, I can't say what the outcome would be. I would still think that the diocese would at least become involved in some fashion.

As an aside, it is extremely unlikely that a priest would flee the country. For one, he is responsible to the Church, which is a world-wide organization. No matter which country he was hiding in, if the bishop of the diocese in which he was hiding recognized him, that bishop would be bound to notify higher authority, or the the bishop of the priest's original diocese, of his whereabouts, and action would be taken from there. Furthermore, unless the priest liked to do manual labor, it might be a tad difficult for him to find a job; let's face it, there ain't much call for guys with X many years of experience as "Catholic pastor" out there, unless of course, he deciced to abandon the Church and get a job as a non-Catholic minister somewhere.

 

[Shane Roach]

My interest has just flipped from the celibacy issue to Cathlic Church organization in general. Any words of wisdom where I can really get deep information about this? Should I start a new thread?

Thanks again VOW. (Veteran of War? Very Ornry Woman?) Kidding! Just kidding!

 

[VOW]

To Shane:

Sure, start a new thread! And we'll see if we can drag Wolseley and his extensive library over. You will also enjoy the resources of nyj and Kotton and KCCatholic!

LOL on your deciphering of VOW. My family would probably vote for "Very Ornery Woman." In truth, it's my initials, and over the years it has become my online name.


Peace be with you,
~VOW

 

[VOW]

Sheesh, and ZooMom too. If I'm not careful, she's going to cut off my supply of Irish Tea, and then I'm won't survive my banishment to the freezer in Reilly's Bar.


Peace be with you,
~VOW