26 Mar 10
Originally posted by Conrau KThe base problem with the Catholics is the prohibition of marriage for their priest. Completely against the Bible..as usual. 1Tim 4: 1-3.
[b]What does that mean? According to a very active Catholic here on the forums he told me that on a human level he can make mistakes but on some spiritual level that he was never really able to explain, the Pope cannot make mistakes.
I can only assume that I am this 'very active Catholic on the forums'. As I understand, I am the only Catholic on the ...[text shortened]... of molesting numerous young girls. The problem of abuse is not unique to the Catholic Church.[/b]
If these men were allowed to have a normal chance at marriage and the normal release it offers, these men may not follow the desires of attacking the young boys in their churches.
26 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75Can you back that up? For example, what is the percentage of child molesters in the general population, and is it higher amongst priests? Do Churches that allow priests to marry, have less child molesting priests? Do Churches that allow priests to marry have no child molesting priests?
The base problem with the Catholics is the prohibition of marriage for their priest. Completely against the Bible..as usual. 1Tim 4: 1-3.
If these men were allowed to have a normal chance at marriage and the normal release it offers, these men may not follow the desires of attacking the young boys in their churches.
Do Schools and other institutions involved with children have problems with child molesters? Do they solve that by allowing their teachers to marry?
Is there any evidence that child molesters in general are less likely to molest children after they marry?
I suspect (though I have no evidence or stats), that come child molesters would seek to become priests either through guilt, or for the opportunities. However, I am less convinced that they therefore molest more than they would otherwise. My biggest issue with the current situation is that it was known and covered up.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
26 Mar 10
2 edits
Originally posted by galveston75The base problem with the Catholics is the prohibition of marriage for their priest. Completely against the Bible..as usual. 1Tim 4: 1-3.
The base problem with the Catholics is the prohibition of marriage for their priest. Completely against the Bible..as usual. 1Tim 4: 1-3.
If these men were allowed to have a normal chance at marriage and the normal release it offers, these men may not follow the desires of attacking the young boys in their churches.
This old nutshell. The Catholic Church does not forbid marriage. It simply requires that priests not be married when in ministry. These are two very different things. A priest can marry (and many have); he just would not be permitted to remain a minister. Likewise, any man or woman who takes a vow of celibacy is not forbidden to marry; they have personally elected this as their vocation.
For your information, there are numerous Catholic priests who are married. Eastern Catholic Churches have numerous married priests. The Catholic Church also permits married Anglican and Lutheran pastors to be ordained as Catholic priests if they convert. Although not the norm, they remain a very sizable group.
If these men were allowed to have a normal chance at marriage and the normal release it offers, these men may not follow the desires of attacking the young boys in their churches.
There is no evidence to support this. In America, clerical abuse prominently involved young males between the ages of 12 and 17. 4 out 5 abuses were against them. It seems implausible that marriage would have prevented this since abuse seems to have been homosexual in its orientation (according to the John Jay Report, 8% of abusers whom they interviewed had also engaged in consensual sex with men and another 6% with women.) Furthermore, in 1% of cases of abuse, the priests/deacon was actually married (and given that, between 1950 and 2000, married clerics were very small, this is quite a significant number.)
So on the whole, I would say that celibacy itself is not the cause of abuse.
26 Mar 10
Originally posted by Conrau KYes the "Hey Dad" example is a very good one.
[b]What does that mean? According to a very active Catholic here on the forums he told me that on a human level he can make mistakes but on some spiritual level that he was never really able to explain, the Pope cannot make mistakes.
I can only assume that I am this 'very active Catholic on the forums'. As I understand, I am the only Catholic on the ...[text shortened]... of molesting numerous young girls. The problem of abuse is not unique to the Catholic Church.[/b]
Unfortunately this case highlights the similarities with abuse in the Catholic Church. There is a central ,powerful figure who abuses his power and has a lot of supporters to back him up.
And when it comes to sexual abuse , I dont think there should be any distinction made between 'religous' people abusing their power or non-religous people abusing their power. The punishments should be the same.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
26 Mar 10
Originally posted by karoly aczelI disagree. Because the priest purports to act in persona Christi, because he exercises so much spiritual authority and because he is expected to be a model of faith to his community, he should be punished even more severely for his abuse of power. Not only has he abused a power but he has abused it in the most despicable way.
Yes the "Hey Dad" example is a very good one.
Unfortunately this case highlights the similarities with abuse in the Catholic Church. There is a central ,powerful figure who abuses his power and has a lot of supporters to back him up.
And when it comes to sexual abuse , I dont think there should be any distinction made between 'religous' people abusing their power or non-religous people abusing their power. The punishments should be the same.
26 Mar 10
Originally posted by Conrau KI see your point but in other circles the star of "heyDad" could've been seen like a 'preistly' figure and hence carry the same amount of weight of morality,etc.
I disagree. Because the priest purports to act in persona Christi, because he exercises so much spiritual authority and because he is expected to be a model of faith to his community, he should be punished even more severely for his abuse of power. Not only has he abused a power but he has abused it in the most despicable way.
28 Mar 10
1 edit
Their "fruits" are getting really rotten. Matt 23:27.
This is one of many reasons people are getting turned off by religion.............
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/world/europe/26church.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/us/27wisconsin.html
http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/credibility-gap-pope-needs-answer-questions
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
28 Mar 10
2 edits
Originally posted by galveston75A little perspective, please.
Their "fruits" are getting really rotten. Matt 23:27.
This is one of many reasons people are getting turned off by religion.............
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/world/europe/26church.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/us/27wisconsin.html
http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/credibility-gap-pope-needs-answer-questions
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/world/europe/26church.html
This article adds nothing new. That the Pope, as archbishop, allowed a priest accused of abuse to be treated in his diocese has already been acknowledged. It is important to recognise three facts about this case which mitigate the Pope's culpability: the priest did not belong to the archdiocese of Munich and so archbishop Ratzinger was not his superior; the parents themselves decided not to contact police about this issue; the decision for the priest to return to ministry was made by the vicar-general. The psychiatrist who counseled this priest never informed Ratzinger himself about the unsuitability of the priest for ministry.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/27/us/27wisconsin.html
I have already gone to great detail to explain this one too. Allegations did not come to Cardinal Ratzinger until 1996. The allegations did not immediately concern sexual abuse but solicitation in the confessional. These allegations resulted in an immediate trial. Contrary to the article, the Vatican did not sit on the case. By paper's own admission, a trial was immediately instigated. This trial would be halted two years later ]because the priest was about to die.
It seems in this case, the NY has misdirected its criticisms. The archbishop of Milwaukee should be held accountable here, not the Vatican. The archbishop had undeniable evidence of abuse over three long decades which he failed to report. This is the same man who funneled money to silence his gay lover from speaking out. This is the same man who was forced to resign because of his incompetent mismanagement of accusations of sexual abuse. Why the NY fails to mention this only proves their determination to implicate the Pope.
http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/credibility-gap-pope-needs-answer-questions
No doubt Pope Benedict has to explain his handling of the Munich case. Was there a failure? Yes. It is quite clear that he knew that the priest was a sex-abuser and, even though the diocese of Munich was quite large and had many hundreds of priests, his behaviour seems negligent. The Pope should have inquired about this priest; he should have demanded reports about this priest's progress; he should also have been informed about the decision for the priest to return to ministry. However, as it is, it does not seem more than an administrative oversight. The Pope seems to have delegated duties that he should rightfully have overseen more carefully.
For a more balanced perspective of Benedict's handling of sexual abuse claims, there is this column from the same paper:
http://ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/keeping-record-straight-benedict-and-crisis
As head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Ratzinger actually made it easier to deal with sex abuse allegations. Firstly, in 2001, with the publication of Gravioribus Delictis, he extended the statute of limitations so that victims would have more time to report allegations of abuse. Secondly, he made it compulsory for all bishops to report allegations of abuse to the Vatican. Thirdly, he made is easier to defrock priests. For 60% of cases, priests could be defrocked without need for canonical trial. Benedict is not perfect but his role in the Vatican gives a positive picture of his attempts to deal with sex abuse claims.
I personally find it abhorrent how people like you, Galvo, gleefully read these reports as if a proof of all your anti-Catholic neuroses.
28 Mar 10
5 edits
Originally posted by Conrau Kan administrative oversight??? my goodness Conrau you are facing the biggest crisis in your church history and its an administrative oversight? Its not only this case nor of the Popes administrative duties, the scale of the abuse is unprecedented and truly horrendous. There are hundreds of cases pending in Ireland, Germany, United States, Italy and who knows elsewhere. Galvo is correct there is something wrong with a morality which allows these things to go on unpunished. If there is a case of child abuse it is a criminal offence and the appropriate authorities should be notified, regardless of the parents wishes and regardless of the party's involved. We are talking about children, who shall live with this for the rest of their lives.
A little perspective, please.
[b]http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/world/europe/26church.html
This article adds nothing new. That the Pope, as archbishop, allowed a priest accused of abuse to be treated in his diocese has already been acknowledged. It is important to recognise three facts about this case which mitigate the Pope's culpability: the e you, Galvo, gleefully read these reports as if a proof of all your anti-Catholic neuroses.[/b]
what is abhorrent is to reduce culpability to an administrative oversight?????
28 Mar 10
Originally posted by Conrau KNo the problem is the spiriuality that had been lost or actually never had to begin with. It's been missing for centuries and is finally catching up with the Catholic church.
A little perspective, please.
[b]http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/world/europe/26church.html
This article adds nothing new. That the Pope, as archbishop, allowed a priest accused of abuse to be treated in his diocese has already been acknowledged. It is important to recognise three facts about this case which mitigate the Pope's culpability: the ...[text shortened]... e you, Galvo, gleefully read these reports as if a proof of all your anti-Catholic neuroses.[/b]
2Tim 3:3,5.
1Thes 5:6-11.
Col 3:22.
1Pet 5:8.
I think the perspective the Catholics should have is "Get out of her my people!!!!! Rev 18:4
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
28 Mar 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRobbie, as always, I am a little confused. Are you simply disingenuous or are you really unable to read?
an administrative oversight??? my goodness Conrau you are facing the biggest crisis in your church history and its an administrative oversight? Its not only this case nor of the Popes administrative duties, the scale of the abuse is unprecedented and truly horrendous. There are hundreds of cases pending in Ireland, Germany, United States, Italy an ...[text shortened]... their lives.
what is abhorrent is to reduce culpability to an administrative oversight?????
what is abhorrent is to reduce culpability to an administrative oversight?????
If you actually took the time to read my post, rather than take little excerpts out of context, you would notice that this comment was only directed at the particular case of Hullerman in Munich. Nowadays it would be standard for a bishop to take a greater interest in priests being sent to their diocese for therapy. Ratzinger delegated and was negligent in this case. This was an administrative oversight.
Notice that I am not saying that the abuse scandals as a whole are merely an administrative oversight. Once again you expose your amazing inability to grasp simple arguments.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
28 Mar 10
Originally posted by galveston75Galvo, is there any significance to these passages? Let me inform you that posters on this forum generally observe the protocol of explaining any verses they might quote from Scripture. This is a very basic courtesy. I suggest you do likewise. If you have a point to make, then you ought to explain it.
No the problem is the spiriuality that had been lost or actually never had to begin with. It's been missing for centuries and is finally catching up with the Catholic church.
2Tim 3:3,5.
1Thes 5:6-11.
Col 3:22.
1Pet 5:8.
I think the perspective the Catholics should have is "Get out of her my people!!!!! Rev 18:4
I think your comments about Catholic spirituality are ignorant and misinformed. Firstly, Catholicism has in recent centuries witnessed to very rich spirituality. It has produced people like Thomas Merton and Therese of Lisieux who wrote very popular works on simple spirituality; people like St Damien of Molokai who decided to minister to lepers and eventually died from the disease himself; people like Maximilian Kolbe who fervently protested against Nazism and Bl Titus of Brandsma who campaigned against them and died. The Catholic Church runs numerous schools and hospitals and missions throughout the world and especially in third world countries. While the sex abuse scandal is a tragic blight, it certainly should not undermine the evangelical and spiritual fervor of many other Catholics.
Secondly, it is important to note, as I said earlier, that sex abuse is not unique to the Catholic Church. There is in fact evidence that incidence of sex abuse is no higher than in other denominations. Philip Jenkins (not a Catholic mind you) is famous in Catholic circles for his book 'Priests and Pedophiles' which suggests that in fact there is a higher percentage of abuse in schools and families and that clerical abuse is actually lower. There is some discussion on this on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases
It is important to remember that, concerning clerical abuse, it is not so much the incidence of abuse which is so controversial rather than the cover-ups associated with it.
28 Mar 10
Originally posted by Conrau KI both read it and dismissed it as an attempt, which i still think it is, at mitigation. Yes i may have been guilty of a little sensationalising never the less, citing a catholic news source as a 'balanced', point of view was hardly anything less than acceptable, and now look, further attempts have been made to force mitigation with supporters calling the whole affair, a 'conspiracy', to undermine the church. A little honesty one thinks is all that is needed.
Robbie, as always, I am a little confused. Are you simply disingenuous or are you really unable to read?
[b]what is abhorrent is to reduce culpability to an administrative oversight?????
If you actually took the time to read my post, rather than take little excerpts out of context, you would notice that this comment was only directed at the parti ...[text shortened]... dministrative oversight. Once again you expose your amazing inability to grasp simple arguments.[/b]
28 Mar 10
Originally posted by Conrau KIt is important to remember that, concerning clerical abuse, it is not so much the incidence of abuse which is so controversial rather than the cover-ups associated with it.
Galvo, is there any significance to these passages? Let me inform you that posters on this forum generally observe the protocol of explaining any verses they might quote from Scripture. This is a very basic courtesy. I suggest you do likewise. If you have a point to make, then you ought to explain it.
I think your comments about Catholic spirituality ar ...[text shortened]... the incidence of abuse which is so controversial rather than the cover-ups associated with it.
No they are both equally abhorrent, anything else is an attempt to diminish responsibility!