Pope Benedict XVI today reiterated the need for humility and repentance in the face of the clerical sex abuse crisis as he recalled the past year in his traditional Christmas greeting to heads of the Roman Curia.
He also shared some thoughts on how such crimes can be prevented in the future.
“We must accept this humiliation as an exhortation to truth and a call to renewal,” he said. “Only the truth saves. We must ask ourselves what we can do to repair as much as possible the injustice that has occurred. We must ask ourselves what was wrong in our proclamation, in our whole way of living the Christian life, to allow such a thing to happen. We must discover a new resoluteness in faith and in doing good. We must be capable of doing penance.”
He drew on a vision of Saint Hildegard of Bingen which, he said, “describes in a shocking way what we have lived through this past year,” and warned of the context of the times in which these crimes came to light: namely a market for child pornography, sexual tourism, and drugs.
“The excess of deceiving intoxication becomes a violence that tears whole regions apart,” he said, “and all this in the name of a fatal misunderstanding of freedom which actually undermines man’s freedom and ultimately destroys it.”
He said that in order to resist these forces, “we must turn our attention to their ideological foundations.” He noted that in the 1970s, “paedophilia was theorized as something fully in conformity with man and even with children.” The effects of such theories are evident today, he said, but added that Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor (1993) showed “with prophetic force” the essential and permanent foundations of moral action. “Today, attention must be focussed anew on this text as a path in the formation of conscience,” he said. “It is our responsibility to make these criteria audible and intelligible once more for people today as paths of true humanity, in the context of our paramount concern for mankind.”
But the Pope also looked back on the positive events of 2010 including the Synod on the Middle East, and his trips to Malta, Portugal, Cyprus, Britain and Spain.
And he offered a further reflection on his speech to civil and political leaders at Westminster Hall. Recalling Alexis de Tocqueville - the 19th century political thinker whose work ‘Democracy in America’ Benedict XVI has long admired - the Pope said the French scholar “observed that democracy in America had become possible and had worked because there existed a fundamental moral consensus which, transcending individual denominations, united everyone. Only if there is such a consensus on the essentials can constitutions and law function.”
He added: “This fundamental consensus derived from the Christian heritage is at risk wherever its place, the place of moral reasoning, is taken by the purely instrumental rationality of which I spoke earlier. In reality, this makes reason blind to what is essential. To resist this eclipse of reason and to preserve its capacity for seeing the essential, for seeing God and man, for seeing what is good and what is true, is the common interest that must unite all people of good will. The very future of the world is at stake.”
The full text of the Pope’s words:
*******
Dear Cardinals,
Brother Bishops and Priests,
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
It gives me great pleasure to be here with you, dear Members of the College of Cardinals and Representatives of the Roman Curia and the Governatorato, for this traditional gathering. I extend a cordial greeting to each one of you, beginning with Cardinal Angelo Sodano, whom I thank for his sentiments of devotion and communion and for the warm good wishes that he expressed to me on behalf of all of you. Prope est jam Dominus, venite, adoremus! As one family let us contemplate the mystery of Emmanuel, God-with-us, as the Cardinal Dean has said. I gladly reciprocate his good wishes and I would like to thank all of you most sincerely, including the Papal Representatives all over the world, for the able and generous contribution that each of you makes to the Vicar of Christ and to the Church.
Excita, Domine, potentiam tuam, et veni [Stir up your power O Lord and come]. Repeatedly during the season of Advent the Church’s liturgy prays in these or similar words. They are invocations that were probably formulated as the Roman Empire was in decline. The disintegration of the key principles of law and of the fundamental moral attitudes underpinning them burst open the dams which until that time had protected peaceful coexistence among peoples. The sun was setting over an entire world. Frequent natural disasters further increased this sense of insecurity. There was no power in sight that could put a stop to this decline. All the more insistent, then, was the invocation of the power of God: the plea that he might come and protect his people from all these threats.
Excita, Domine, potentiam tuam, et veni. Today too, we have many reasons to associate ourselves with this Advent prayer of the Church. For all its new hopes and possibilities, our world is at the same time troubled by the sense that moral consensus is collapsing, consensus without which juridical and political structures cannot function. Consequently the forces mobilized for the defence of such structures seem doomed to failure.
Excita
– the prayer recalls the cry addressed to the Lord who was sleeping in the disciples’ storm-tossed boat as it was close to sinking. When his powerful word had calmed the storm, he rebuked the disciples for their little faith (cf. Mt 8:26 et par.). He wanted to say: it was your faith that was sleeping. He will say the same thing to us. Our faith too is often asleep. Let us ask him, then, to wake us from the sleep of a faith grown tired, and to restore to that faith the power to move mountains – that is, to order justly the affairs of the world.
Excita, Domine, potentiam tuam, et veni: amid the great tribulations to which we have been exposed during the past year, this Advent prayer has frequently been in my mind and on my lips. We had begun the Year for Priests with great joy and, thank God, we were also able to conclude it with great gratitude, despite the fact that it unfolded so differently from the way we had expected. Among us priests and among the lay faithful, especially the young, there was a renewed awareness of what a great gift the Lord has entrusted to us in the priesthood of the Catholic Church. We realized afresh how beautiful it is that human beings are fully authorized to pronounce in God’s name the word of forgiveness, and are thus able to change the world, to change life; we realized how beautiful it is that human beings may utter the words of consecration, through which the Lord draws a part of the world into himself, and so transforms it at one point in its very substance; we realized how beautiful it is to be able, with the Lord’s strength, to be close to people in their joys and sufferings, in the important moments of their lives and in their dark times; how beautiful it is to have as one’s life task not this or that, but simply human life itself – helping people to open themselves to God and to live from God. We were all the more dismayed, then, when in this year of all years and to a degree we could not have imagined, we came to know of abuse of minors committed by priests who twist the sacrament into its antithesis, and under the mantle of the sacred profoundly wound human persons in their childhood, damaging them for a whole lifetime.
In this context, a vision of Saint Hildegard of Bingen came to my mind, a vision which describes in a shocking way what we have lived through this past year. “In the year of our Lord’s incarnation 1170, I had been lying on my sick-bed for a long time when, fully conscious in body and in mind, I had a vision of a woman of such beauty that the human mind is unable to comprehend. She stretched in height from earth to heaven. Her face shone with exceeding brightness and her gaze was fixed on heaven. She was dressed in a dazzling robe of white silk and draped in a cloak, adorned with stones of great price. On her feet she wore shoes of onyx. But her face was stained with dust, her robe was ripped down the right side, her cloak had lost its sheen of beauty and her shoes had been blackened. And she herself, in a voice loud with sorrow, was calling to the heights of heaven, saying, ‘Hear, heaven, how my face is sullied; mourn, earth, that my robe is torn; tremble, abyss, because my shoes are blackened!’
And she continued: ‘I lay hidden in the heart of the Father until the Son of Man, who was conceived and born in virginity, poured out his blood. With that same blood as his dowry, he made me his betrothed.
For my Bridegroom’s wounds remain fresh and open as long as the wounds of men’s sins continue to gape. And Christ’s wounds remain open because of the sins of priests. They tear my robe, since they are violators of the Law, the Gospel and their own priesthood; they darken my cloak by neglecting, in every way, the precepts which they are meant to uphold; my shoes too are blackened, since priests do not keep to the straight paths of justice, which are hard and rugged, or set good examples to those beneath them. Nevertheless, in some of them I find the splendour of truth.’
And I heard a voice from heaven which said: ‘This image represents the Church. For this reason, O you who see all this and who listen to the word of lament, proclaim it to the priests who are destined to offer guidance and instruction to God’s people and to whom, as to the apostles, it was said: go into all the world and preach the Gospel to the whole creation’ (Mk 16:15)” (Letter to Werner von Kirchheim and his Priestly Community: PL 197, 269ff.).
In the vision of Saint Hildegard, the face of the Church is stained with dust, and this is how we have seen it. Her garment is torn – by the sins of priests. The way she saw and expressed it is the way we have experienced it this year. We must accept this humiliation as an exhortation to truth and a call to renewal. Only the truth saves. We must ask ourselves what we can do to repair as much as possible the injustice that has occurred. We must ask ourselves what was wrong in our proclamation, in our whole way of living the Christian life, to allow such a thing to happen. We must discover a new resoluteness in faith and in doing good. We must be capable of doing penance. We must be determined to make every possible effort in priestly formation to prevent anything of the kind from happening again. This is also the moment to offer heartfelt thanks to all those who work to help victims and to restore their trust in the Church, their capacity to believe her message. In my meetings with victims of this sin, I have also always found people who, with great dedication, stand alongside those who suffer and have been damaged. This is also the occasion to thank the many good priests who act as channels of the Lord’s goodness in humility and fidelity and, amid the devastations, bear witness to the unforfeited beauty of the priesthood.
We are well aware of the particular gravity of this sin committed by priests and of our corresponding responsibility. But neither can we remain silent regarding the context of these times in which these events have come to light. There is a market in child pornography that seems in some way to be considered more and more normal by society. The psychological destruction of children, in which human persons are reduced to articles of merchandise, is a terrifying sign of the times. From Bishops of developing countries I hear again and again how sexual tourism threatens an entire generation and damages its freedom and its human dignity. The Book of Revelation includes among the great sins of Babylon – the symbol of the world’s great irreligious cities – the fact that it trades with bodies and souls and treats them as commodities (cf. Rev 18:13). In this context, the problem of drugs also rears its head, and with increasing force extends its octopus tentacles around the entire world – an eloquent expression of the tyranny of mammon which perverts mankind. No pleasure is ever enough, and the excess of deceiving intoxication becomes a violence that tears whole regions apart – and all this in the name of a fatal misunderstanding of freedom which actually undermines man’s freedom and ultimately destroys it.
In order to resist these forces, we must turn our attention to their ideological foundations. In the 1970s, paedophilia was theorized as something fully in conformity with man and even with children. This, however, was part of a fundamental perversion of the concept of ethos. It was maintained – even within the realm of Catholic theology – that there is no such thing as evil in itself or good in itself. There is only a “better than” and a “worse than”. Nothing is good or bad in itself. Everything depends on the circumstances and on the end in view. Anything can be good or also bad, depending upon purposes and circumstances. Morality is replaced by a calculus of consequences, and in the process it ceases to exist. The effects of such theories are evident today. Against them, Pope John Paul II, in his 1993 Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, indicated with prophetic force in the great rational tradition of Christian ethos the essential and permanent foundations of moral action. Today, attention must be focussed anew on this text as a path in the formation of conscience. It is our responsibility to make these criteria audible and intelligible once more for people today as paths of true humanity, in the context of our paramount concern for mankind.
As my second point, I should like to say a word about the Synod of the Churches of the Middle East. This began with my journey to Cyprus, where I was able to consign the Instrumentum Laboris of the Synod to the Bishops of those countries who were assembled there. The hospitality of the Orthodox Church was unforgettable, and we experienced it with great gratitude. Even if full communion is not yet granted to us, we have nevertheless established with joy that the basic form of the ancient Church unites us profoundly with one another: the sacramental office of Bishops as the bearer of apostolic tradition, the reading of Scripture according to the hermeneutic of the Regula fidei, the understanding of Scripture in its manifold unity centred on Christ, developed under divine inspiration, and finally, our faith in the central place of the Eucharist in the Church’s life. Thus we experienced a living encounter with the riches of the rites of the ancient Church that are also found within the Catholic Church. We celebrated the liturgy with Maronites and with Melchites, we celebrated in the Latin rite, we experienced moments of ecumenical prayer with the Orthodox, and we witnessed impressive manifestations of the rich Christian culture of the Christian East. But we also saw the problem of the divided country. The wrongs and the deep wounds of the past were all too evident, but so too was the desire for the peace and communion that had existed before. Everyone knows that violence does not bring progress – indeed, it gave rise to the present situation. Only in a spirit of compromise and mutual understanding can unity be re-established. To prepare the people for this attitude of peace is an essential task of pastoral ministry.
During the Synod itself, our gaze was extended over the whole of the Middle East, where the followers of different religions – as well as a variety of traditions and distinct rites – live together. As far as Christians are concerned, there are Pre-Chalcedonian as well as Chalcedonian churches; there are churches in communion with Rome and others that are outside that communion; in both cases, multiple rites exist alongside one another. In the turmoil of recent years, the tradition of peaceful coexistence has been shattered and tensions and divisions have grown, with the result that we witness with increasing alarm acts of violence in which there is no longer any respect for what the other holds sacred, in which on the contrary the most elementary rules of humanity collapse. In the present situation, Christians are the most oppressed and tormented minority. For centuries they lived peacefully together with their Jewish and Muslim neighbours. During the Synod we listened to wise words from the Counsellor of the Mufti of the Republic of Lebanon against acts of violence targeting Christians. He said: when Christians are wounded, we ourselves are wounded. Unfortunately, though, this and similar voices of reason, for which we are profoundly grateful, are too weak. Here too we come up against an unholy alliance between greed for profit and ideological blindness. On the basis of the spirit of faith and its rationality, the Synod developed a grand concept of dialogue, forgiveness and mutual acceptance, a concept that we now want to proclaim to the world. The human being is one, and humanity is one. Whatever damage is done to another in any one place, ends up by damaging everyone. Thus the words and ideas of the Synod must be a clarion call, addressed to all people with political or religious responsibility, to put a stop to Christianophobia; to rise up in defence of refugees and all who are suffering, and to revitalize the spirit of reconciliation. In the final analysis, healing can only come from deep faith in God’s reconciling love. Strengthening this faith, nourishing it and causing it to shine forth is the Church’s principal task at this hour.
I would willingly speak in some detail of my unforgettable journey to the United Kingdom, but I will limit myself to two points that are connected with the theme of the responsibility of Christians at this time and with the Church’s task to proclaim the Gospel. My thoughts go first of all to the encounter with the world of culture in Westminster Hall, an encounter in which awareness of shared responsibility at this moment in history created great attention which, in the final analysis, was directed to the question of truth and faith itself. It was evident to all that the Church has to make her own contribution to this debate. Alexis de Tocqueville, in his day, observed that democracy in America had become possible and had worked because there existed a fundamental moral consensus which, transcending individual denominations, united everyone. Only if there is such a consensus on the essentials can constitutions and law function. This fundamental consensus derived from the Christian heritage is at risk wherever its place, the place of moral reasoning, is taken by the purely instrumental rationality of which I spoke earlier. In reality, this makes reason blind to what is essential. To resist this eclipse of reason and to preserve its capacity for seeing the essential, for seeing God and man, for seeing what is good and what is true, is the common interest that must unite all people of good will. The very future of the world is at stake.
Finally I should like to recall once more the beatification of Cardinal John Henry Newman. Why was he beatified? What does he have to say to us? Many responses could be given to these questions, which were explored in the context of the beatification. I would like to highlight just two aspects which belong together and which, in the final analysis, express the same thing. The first is that we must learn from Newman’s three conversions, because they were steps along a spiritual path that concerns us all. Here I would like to emphasize just the first conversion: to faith in the living God. Until that moment, Newman thought like the average men of his time and indeed like the average men of today, who do not simply exclude the existence of God, but consider it as something uncertain, something with no essential role to play in their lives. What appeared genuinely real to him, as to the men of his and our day, is the empirical, matter that can be grasped. This is the “reality” according to which one finds one’s bearings. The “real” is what can be grasped, it is the things that can be calculated and taken in one’s hand. In his conversion, Newman recognized that it is exactly the other way round: that God and the soul, man’s spiritual identity, constitute what is genuinely real, what counts. These are much more real than objects that can be grasped. This conversion was a Copernican revolution. What had previously seemed unreal and secondary was now revealed to be the genuinely decisive element. Where such a conversion takes place, it is not just a person’s theory that changes: the fundamental shape of life changes. We are all in constant need of such conversion: then we are on the right path.
The driving force that impelled Newman along the path of conversion was conscience. But what does this mean? In modern thinking, the word “conscience” signifies that for moral and religious questions, it is the subjective dimension, the individual, that constitutes the final authority for decision. The world is divided into the realms of the objective and the subjective. To the objective realm belong things that can be calculated and verified by experiment. Religion and morals fall outside the scope of these methods and are therefore considered to lie within the subjective realm. Here, it is said, there are in the final analysis no objective criteria. The ultimate instance that can decide here is therefore the subject alone, and precisely this is what the word “conscience” expresses: in this realm only the individual, with his intuitions and experiences, can decide. Newman’s understanding of conscience is diametrically opposed to this. For him, “conscience” means man’s capacity for truth: the capacity to recognize precisely in the decision-making areas of his life – religion and morals – a truth, the truth. At the same time, conscience – man’s capacity to recognize truth – thereby imposes on him the obligation to set out along the path towards truth, to seek it and to submit to it wherever he finds it. Conscience is both capacity for truth and obedience to the truth which manifests itself to anyone who seeks it with an open heart. The path of Newman’s conversions is a path of conscience – not a path of self-asserting subjectivity but, on the contrary, a path of obedience to the truth that was gradually opening up to him. His third conversion, to Catholicism, required him to give up almost everything that was dear and precious to him: possessions, profession, academic rank, family ties and many friends. The sacrifice demanded of him by obedience to the truth, by his conscience, went further still. Newman had always been aware of having a mission for England. But in the Catholic theology of his time, his voice could hardly make itself heard. It was too foreign in the context of the prevailing form of theological thought and devotion. In January 1863 he wrote in his diary these distressing words: “As a Protestant, I felt my religion dreary, but not my life - but, as a Catholic, my life dreary, not my religion”. He had not yet arrived at the hour when he would be an influential figure. In the humility and darkness of obedience, he had to wait until his message was taken up and understood. In support of the claim that Newman’s concept of conscience matched the modern subjective understanding, people often quote a letter in which he said – should he have to propose a toast – that he would drink first to conscience and then to the Pope. But in this statement, “conscience” does not signify the ultimately binding quality of subjective intuition. It is an expression of the accessibility and the binding force of truth: on this its primacy is based. The second toast can be dedicated to the Pope because it is his task to demand obedience to the truth.
I must refrain from speaking of my remarkable journeys to Malta, Portugal and Spain. In these it once again became evident that the faith is not a thing of the past, but an encounter with the God who lives and acts now. He challenges us and he opposes our indolence, but precisely in this way he opens the path towards true joy.
Excita, Domine, potentiam tuam, et veni.
We set out from this plea for the presence of God’s power in our time and from the experience of his apparent absence. If we keep our eyes open as we look back over the year that is coming to an end, we can see clearly that God’s power and goodness are also present today in many different ways. So we all have reason to thank him. Along with thanks to the Lord I renew my thanks to all my co-workers. May God grant to all of us a holy Christmas and may he accompany us with his blessings in the coming year.
I entrust these prayerful sentiments to the intercession of the Holy Virgin, Mother of the Redeemer, and I impart to all of you and to the great family of the Roman Curia a heartfelt Apostolic Blessing. Happy Christmas!
Comments
Post a Comment
In a nutshell, it comes down to this: the Church has no right to exist since it has inflicted unimaginable evil and suffering upon its innocent children for nobody knows how long. There is only one way that the Church can begin to absolve itself, and that is to dissolve itself.
With that logic, we ought to dissolve half the public school system and several families.
The Church exists to bring those He loves to be in relationship with Him. Certainly there are persons who have not been obedient to this requirement, but they are not the Church in God’s eyes. They are already suffering and will be severely dealt with. They too, need our prayers. Rob.B
Well, I applaud Pope Benedict for addressing this subject, giving it more than just a sentence or two. With that said, the way to SHOW repentance is to make changes, not to continue to ignore the situation. This article mentions the clergy has had this problem since the 12th century, when St. Hildegard of Binten lamented over it too.
I know St. Peter Damian wrote about this same thing, complaining to the Pope in his day, writing The Book of Gomorrah, outlining the strict way he would handle clergy having sex - most particularly, condeming sex with minors.
But overlooked is priests having sex with ADULTS. No priest, bishop, cardinal or pope should be having sex with ANYONE outside of the Sacrament of covenantal Marriage. No special moral rules for clergy. We ALL must obey God’s rules.
If the pope and cardinals want to DO something healthy, taking ONE step towards creating TRUST in the church, they’ll sit down with Sacred Scripture and read 1Corinthians 9:5, and Paul’s Pastoral Letters to Timothy [1Tim 3:1-5] and Titus Chapter One, and END the PRACTICE of mandatory celibacy for priests.
Mandated celibacy is not working. It has NEVER worked as they thought it would. It caused two cancers in the church: 1) the ABUNDANCE of homosexual men in the priestood (by the church’s own statistics, there are 22%-50% homosexually oriented men in the clergy - whether they act out or not makes no difference) the population is more like 3-5% identified homosexuals. And 2) it has resulted in NO TRUST between lay people and clergy, because we are always wondering, “Hmm. I wonder if this guy has a sex life, even with another MAN or with a WOMAN, if not a child.”
End the wish of mandatory celibacy, and get back to the Basics of the Bible. It would result in a healthier society too, and heterosexual priests would serve as a good example of how to raise Christian families.
I know of an Anglican priest (with a wife and daughter) that became a Roman Catholic priest. His congregation loves him, and his family.
Note to the Vatican: REPENTANCE involves CHANGE, not just words of apology & a promise of “Well do it better next time. Please give us another chance?”
It didn’t work with St. Hildegard OR with St. Peter Damian. It won’t work now. WE NEED HEALTHY AND REAL CHANGE.
By the way - NO WOMEN PRIESTS. That is not in Scripture or in universal Church Tradition. I repeat = NO WOMEN PRIESTS. Only married men are in Scripture and in universal Church Tradition as ordained clergy.
@Cradle Catholic,
I’d be willing to bet that the number of people who have broken their wedding vows is significantly higher than the number of priests who have broken their celibacy vows. Does that mean we should declare that marriage/monogamy simply doesn’t work? Or should we simply acknowledge that we are human and as such are prone to sin?
Amy, I couldn’t have said it better myself.
I’m sick and tired of this tired old subject of sexual abuse that never seems to go away while the 50,000,000+ human babies murdered in the U.S. alone continues on with the Church’s approval of the Democrat Party, the only reason abortion-on-demand remains the law of the land.
Amy ... and Mark,
The Vatican should, as you say, “simply acknowledge that we are human and as such are prone to sin.” Hands down, I agree with you!!!
Pew people should acknowledge it. Clergy should acknowledge it too. Not when they are caught with their hands in the cookie jar, but NOW.
With that said, the Vatican ought to ALSO agree that priests are HUMAN BEINGS, only men, and as such, they are NOT alter Cristi, “Other Christs”. They are no more Christ than the two of you, or me, or anyone else reading this post. Neither St. Peter nor St. Paul ever called himself “another Christ”. Just the opposite.
So allow these men, sinful as they are, like the rest of us, to marry, as did Jesus, that chose married men to be His apostles. 1 Corinthians 9:5 If St. Peter wanted to enter a seminary today to study to be a priest, he would be refused because he was a happily married man.
When our clergy become respected ROLE MODELS,the society will become healthier. Right now, Europe is a moral wasteland, even ROME - for the 15,000 men in clerical garb that scurry around Rome every day. Spain has same sex marriage! Did you ever think you’d see that?
I blame the Vatican, for all of it. They’re priorities are in the wrong place. They’ve spent since 1995 rewriting the new liturgy, when it will do nothing for our eternal life. Look at all the US politicians that call themselves “Catholic” and that are Pro-Choice (even LATE TERM abortion = infanticide). It is all an affront to a holy God.
We do not hear SIN preached from the altars anymore, because our clergy is afraid to offend those Catholics that attend Mass on Sundays. Let’s empower our clergy = and allow them to marry. It would give women their rightful ROLE in the Church. And if there are any new readers to this post, women are NOT to be ordained priests. It is not in the Bible and it’s not in universal Church Tradition, unlike a married male clergy which is in both.
Amy- I forgot to add the statistics for priests molesting minors, the figure is roughly 3-5%; of those, most are not pedophiles molesting tots and children not yet adolescent ... but rather, they are ephidophiles, molesting older adolescents and teens, and mostly MALE.
The problem is the practice of clergy molesting even children, and teens and vulnerable adults is so common, the bishops covered it up, as did the Vatican. Remember Fr. Marcial Maciel? The founders of the Legionaries of Christ.
I heard about the allegations against him about 8 years ago. They were old then, and CREDIBLE. The seminarians that accused him of molestation did not want money. They just wanted to be taken seriously. Pope JPII refused to allow his friend to be investigated.
It was Pope Benedict that pushed the investigation into Maciel’s sex life, finding the seminarians he was accused of molesting were CREDIBLE and Maciel’s behavior warranted a sanction; Maciel was to spend his life in seculsion & penance. Last week, all his photos were ordered removed from the walls of the seminaries he founded. Think that would happen for nothing?
Seems the man was an equal opportunity lech - fathering a daughter, THAT’S A FACT, and perhaps a son, and is accused of molesting his own son among others, as children.
As for clergy acting out sexually - the statistic I’ve heard is 50% of priests AND BISHOPS are having sexual relations of some kind at any one time; 40% have had “lapses” in their promise to remain celibate, leaving a meager 10% of priests that are faithful to their promise. Of the 10%, only 2% have the real “gift” of celibacy, and may not marry, even given the option. That’s fine. But it ought NOT be ever mandatory.
By the way, it is not a vow to God. Celibacy is only a promise to a bishop - and celibacy is a promise not to marry. It’s not chastity. It’s not a promise to not have sex.
Often priests rationalize they are only having a “lapse” - priests AND BISHOPS having sex every so often is so common, it even has a nick-name. Even if the “lapse” results in a pregnancy, the priest is protected.
The other thing JPII ignored was the nun from Africa that complained to him that priests in her area were expecting her nuns to be sex partners, because the nuns were considered “safe”, in that they did not have AIDS.
I read that in a regular local newspaper, when the nun had visited the Vatican. She told JPII that the worst case she had was a priest that got a nun pregnant, forced her to have an abortion; the nun died in a botched procedure, and HE (the priest that impregnated her) presided at her funeral! Do an Internet search, for the details. It’s all there.
The Vatican did what they do best when the nun complained about that = they ignored it. They’ll hope THIS too will go away, once the pressure is off.
The Vatican thinks pew people are stupid. Pew people are NOT stupid. Many are just timid, thinking their clergy are “alter Cristi”, until they are caught with their pants down. Then everyone acknowledges the truth.
We will ALL have to face a holy God. Church leaders that CAN make healthy changes, and choose NOT to, will have to answer to Him.
In the meantime, there will just be NO TRUST. Trust is earned. That’s the PRICE they pay, for just making the apology circuit, but not really REPENTING, which involves CHANGE.
@Cradle Catholic
You point at well some of the disturbing disregard for celibacy that has plagued certain areas of the Church. But I think you are wrong to therefore conclude that celibacy is an impossible or undesirable practice. Of course the Church, as I am sure you are aware, does not teach that celibacy is a dogmatically required part of the priesthood- She has always said it is a practice or a discipline, but not a doctrine. The Church does not mandate celibacy for theological reasons, but for practical reasons, which is exactly the position that St. Paul takes in his letters.
1 Corinthians 7:8- “Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do” and 732-5: “I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.”
Celibacy may be demanding, but it is possible by the grace of God, and it was clearly the preference of the Church from it’s earliest stages. Ending celibacy will not be the cure- all you imagine it to be. Married men have affairs just like unmarried men do, and there’s no reason to suppose that allowing priests to marry will suddenly make all priests sexually pure. Sexual purity is a choice and it’s a hard one, no matter what your state of life or marital status is. Allowing married priests won’t remove that choice from them. And then of course you’ll have other practical problems, like how to financially support large families of priests when priests already barely make enough money to live on. Where is the salary increase going to come from? (And it will have to be a large increase, since priests have to be faithful to the Church’s teachings and not use contraception, which will mean large families—and of course there’s the added risk of scandal when a priest does use contraception, which many probably would, making it even harder to promote one of the Church’s most ignored teachings).
I understand your concern for priestly abuse and priestly sex. But married people abuse children (in fact, families and schools have higher abuse rates than the Church) and have affairs etc. All I am saying is that allowing married priests will bring a whole host of new practical problems with it and will not necessarily be the solution you think it will be.
Thank you for your comments about my post, Peter. My reply is that the verses you quote above are for pew people, not ordained clergymen.
Will you please list the precise qualifications, per Scripture, and exact verses, that ordained clergymen are to have? What does St. Paul tell Timothy and Titus to look for, in a man before entrusting him with an ordained ministry? Timothy was organizing a church in Ephesus and Titus was doing the same in Crete. What were they told to look for in men?
As for money - the church in the US alone is $2 billion in the hole with payouts for sexual abuse. And pew people NEED to get our heads out of the sand, because did you read about the jury two weeks ago, that ordered a PARISH and its diocese to pay over $30 million to a survivor, for NEGLIGENCE? The abuse happened years ago, and pew people were aware of it, and did NOTHING to stop it.
While I don’t think it’s fair that THIS generation of parishioners will have to pay for the failings of their parents and grandparents, it sends a CLEAR MESSAGE that we Catholics must get involved. The jig, that’s been going on since the days of St. Peter Damian, and EVERYONE knows about it, is up. Time to pay the piper folks.
For the record, I have never been abused - I’m a cradle Catholic with 12 years of Catholic education, and always had priests and nuns in my life. That said, I went to a class reunion last year, and learned that our grouchy old pastor, long since dead, abused two kids in our school, one of them was in my class, the other committed suicide about 15 years ago, naming the pastor in his suicide note, but it was vague why he did that.
Only when I learned MANY girls and boys in my class KNEW about the abuse then and were afraid to tell parents, I put 2 and 2 together.
This HAS to stop - not just molesting kids and teens, but NO SEX for priests outside of marriage. Make honest men out of them - and gain health and TRUST in our church, something St. Peter Damian and St. Hildegard were NEVER able to do.
The time has come now. Pew people are educated. A priest should be able to be married - Peter, what specifically are the verses that describe qualifications for ministry? Will you please mention them in this blog? Thank you.
... forgot to mention the PARISH that needs to shell out $30 million is in Delaware, USA. You can do an Internet search on it - this was news from just last week.
Peter I agree with you. I’ll take the Church’s stance (since the time of Christ himself) over Cradle Catholic:s
opinion in favor of married priests. NO way—NEVER. Married clergy is not the answer and I rest assured it never will be permitted,——thanks be to God in His wisdom!!!
There are already married priests in the Church, both converts and Eastern Rite clergy. But the tradition of celibacy is a valuable one and should remain the norm.
Correct Amy. I have heard Protestant pastors commending the ideal of an unmarried priesthood from firsthand
experience. They too thought it would be better…
Patt - You wrote, “Married clergy is not the answer and I rest assured it never will be permitted,——thanks be to God in His wisdom!!!”
What specifically does the Bible say about qualifications for men in the ordained ministry? Specifically to what we know as the ordained priesthood? I’m referring to Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus, and his commment in 1 Corithians Chapter 9 verse 5.
Do you think St. Paul was Holy Spirit inspired, when he wrote to those two men, and to the Corinthians? Or was Paul wrong?
I do not have to prove my answer based on the Bible to you—or anyone. Therefore I will not waste my time debating it with you as you don’t listen. On the other hand you insist on picking arguments because you have discovered the Bible and now think you are an authority on it. It will never happen and it isn’t my call it is Church teaching that will not be changed no matter what any Bible “authority” rants.
I have to agree with Cradle’s approach.
The posture of the ostrich fascinates me at the zoo, but holds no allure as a way of dealing with theological questions.
Patt - You are correct when you say you don’t have to prove your answer to anyone. But since you are fortunate enough to live in a country where Bibles are in plentiful supply, and you have a right to read it, and you aren’t being persecuted for being a Christian, you WILL have to answer to God, Himself, one day, for your apathy towards His Word. You will not be able to hide behind the church or its leaders. You’ll be on your own.
Ha-ha. Then I’ll answer to God (not you)—but for real sins—not because I neglected to tote and quote the Bible. Did you just make up this sin for people who don’t agree with you when you want them to go tit for tat with Bible quotes? That is new one. Oh, how I love my Roman Catholic Church and the TRUTH it provides us.
Thanks for the holiday cheer, I enjoyed the laugh.
Patt - If you’d read the Bible, you’d know Jesus paid the debt that was owed to His Father for ALL sin on the part of those in His Family. ALL our sin was in the future, when Jesus died for us 2000 years ago.
We do not answer to God for our sins, as our sin DEBT was paid in full. That is “The Good News”. “The Great Commission” is that we are to tell others about it too. So please consider yourself… told.
It is not a sin to be apathetic towards His Word, and you don’t have to “tote and quote” the Bible. But to be IN His Family, one will eventually be drawn to His Word, making it part of our lives so that we can see a CHANGE in our behavior and in our heart. It’s the Fruit. It is the evidence of being Christian. God’s Word changes us, from the inside, out.
God does not take bad people and make them good. God takes dead people and makes them ALIVE: Alive in Christ and for His glory. I can’t get enough of His Word. It’s where God reveals Himself to us. Please reconsider, and open His Word, asking the Holy Spirit to reveal Himself to you in it? There’s nothing like it.
If you’re going to blame the rule of celibacy for the abuse, you have to show that there is a higher incidence of abuse among those who have taken vows of celibacy than among those who are free to marry. There is no such evidence. In fact, most studies will show that the opposite is true. If those who are married (or free to marry) are just as or more likely to abuse children as those who are supposed to be celibate, then obviously celibacy is not the problem.
But you probably won’t listen to that since you apparently are fixated on having married clergy regardless.
Amy - it’s not just the abuse of children. If it WERE just the abuse of children, our church would get gold stars. It’s only around 3-5% that abused CHILDREN.
The problem is many, many priests AND BISHOPS have and are having sex. It’s a fact. The number of women and even men that priests have used for sex, and then dumped, pales the figures for pedophiles and ephidopiles.
And it’s a FACT that bishops covered up even the PEDOPHILES that abused CHILDREN. How did that happen? It’s because those that live in glass houses can’t throw stones.
Roman Catholic clergymen, deacons, priests, bishops, cardinals AND popes, ought not be having ANY sex outside of marriage. None, zip, nada.
Yet they are. Just because a cleric is not having sex with a child, does not make him “moral”. He needs to be OFF the altar.
Let them marry - it is not MY opinion. It is in God’s Word. Only Roman Catholics refuse to READ God’s Word, in full and in context, so we’re fooled by bishops that allowed this mess to happen to our church.
Mandated celibacy is not working. Mandated celibacy has NEVER worked. History proves it. It’s time to LISTEN TO THE BIBLE and obey it.
Please folks: give God a chance. Enough with the “Church Fathers” and their weird ideas that the flesh is bad, and the spirit is good.
If Pope Benedict is worth his salt, he’ll read Scripture as a New Year’s Resolution, and “do church” God’s way when it comes to who is qualified for ordination. Married MEN. Give women their rightful place in the church, as priest’s wives. Not as priests. Not as “parish administrators” = priest wannabees. But as priest’s wives.
Cradle Catholic (a joke title) DO NOT try and sell me YOUR PROTESTANT IDEAS!
NO SALE. Of course we all must pay for our sins, or there would not be 10 Commandments. I pay no heed to anything you type—so give it up!!!
Patt writes: “Of course we all must pay for our sins, or there would not be 10 Commandments.”
If that is true, why are we celebrating this Christmas? If we were to pay for our own sins, Jesus would have stayed in heaven.
Twelve Oaks—I wonder why Protestants continue to enter this forum? Is it to convert us to the Protestant line of thinking? If you read your Bible St. Paul and the apostles and Christ Himself warns about Hell and even tells us which sinners go there. Christ speaks out about sin over and over, He tells us to take up our cross and follow Him. He asks us to imitate Him. I do not read where He is giving everyone a free ticket to Heaven, merely because they “accept” Him. Sin still exists, the world is in turmoil. Adam and Eve caused the gates of Heaven to be shut, we needed a Savior to re-open them and tell us show to get there. You simplify salvation far too much, you suggest that we let Christ do everything and we coast through the pearly gates—gratis. It does not make any sense but I would not stand in your way if that is what you have elected to believe, just do not try to convince me of it. Catholics listen to Old and New Testament readings at every Mass and also own our own copies. In fact, thank your Catholic brothers for providing the world with the Bible in the first place. Although Protestants took it and changed it eliminating books they did not look. This is historical FACT.
What I meant to say was: “Protestants changed the Bible by eliminating certain books in it they did not agree with, and rewriting things more in harmony with what they chose to believe.”
Patt- I am a Cradle Catholic, with 12 years of Catholic education. Unlike many fellow Catholics, I never left the church to seek other denominations. I am offended that you called my beliefs “Protestant”. I am a Roman Catholic.
But I do not leave my brain at the Church door, and I am Bible-literate. Those are the only two things that separate me from MANY of my fellow Catholics. Others are separated from me because they merely go to Mass every weekend, perhaps out of habit, or superstition, and yet they believe whatever they like, such as the Nancy Pelosi’s and Joe Bidens of the world.
I am Pro-Life, and WORK and SPEAK UP publically for the preservation of marriage, and other God-honoring and Christian ideals. Do you? Or do you merely write in blogs and alienate fellow Christians that may be Protestant, and even fellow Catholics, LIKE ME? Your posts show a lack of charity. They will know we are Christians by our FRUIT.
yawn.
Patt, as a Catholic who has returned to the Church by choice and who supplements his faith with Protestant pastors/teachers like Charles Stanley, Chuck Smith, and Greg Koukl, I found your “defense” of the Catholic Church sincere. But I find your response to CC’s last comments too dismissive for what he had to say. Personally, I find my real Christian teaching coming from the Bible preaching Protestant ministers as opposed to from my pastor, my bishop, any bishop and the pope. I attend Mass for Communion and worship Jesus. Oh, I believe the Church is the one, true church - but if you will be able to tell the true Christians by their fruit, I’m afraid you will find the Catholic Church in the U.S. and elsewhere lacking in comparison to those churched in the ministries I mentioned above and others. Just look at the voting preferences of church attending Christians compared to those of Catholics. For some reason the protestants vote against pro-abortion politicians in a lot higher percentage than Catholics, and Hispanic Protestants are three times more likely to vote prolife than are Catholic Hispanics. There has got to be an explanation for that. The only real difference between Protestant ministries and Catholic is the devotion to the study of the bible. And Catholics are practically the only ones who profess to believe every Sunday in Mass that that God “is the giver of life.” And they pray, standing before Jesus in the Eucharist, for His “will be done on earth.” How do you explain so many Catholics professing to believe and pray for one thing in church, and then support, voluntarily, political candidates that belong to a party that is diabolically opposed to what those Catholics profess to believe?
To Stillbelieve: I agree with what you wrote in your last post. As for your question, “How do you explain so many Catholics professing to believe and pray for one thing in church, and then support, voluntarily, political candidates that belong to a party that is diabolically opposed to what those Catholics profess to believe?”—
My reply is that those Catholics will say, “yawn”. Most Catholics, the extreme right-wing, and extreme left-wing, place anything over the Bible. They reverence it, standing to listen to the Gospel, the incense it on special occasions; but most neither know, or care, about what it teaches. Half-truths are fine for most Catholics.
After all, most Catholics, clergy included, spend most of their time right now gearing up for the new translations of the Latin liturgy come Advent 2011. That’s the BIG news.
For most Catholics, sitting in a pew, saying words that have no real relevance in their lives is of utmost importance. KNOWING God, or living a life that shows the Fruit of the Holy Spirit living inside of them, is not a big deal. Born Again? That’s for Protestants. Thus, the reason for the political support being all over the place.
For most Catholics that bother to go to Mass on Sunday, is a modern day example of the verse, “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.” The Roman Catholic church is now, for the most part, the Church of Laodicia, neither hot nor cold. Most just show up on Sunday, without giving what they believe much thought. Why bother? Leaving brains at the door is fine. Just bring your wallet inside, to prove you were there. Patt said it best: yawn.
Stillbelieve—as you can see Cradle Catholic (a joke name) has all the answers and although you addressed me—he has even answered in my stead. I know not why.. attention? I do not have to answer for other Catholics, priests or Bishops, that is God;s job. I do know we have a wonderful Pope, but if he is not heeded, what can I do about it? Now if you want to sleep with the Bible under your pillow and lean in the Protestant direction, who am I to get in your way?. If you choose the Protestant route over orthodox Catholic teaching—I will not get in front of your bus. The postings show minds already made up—No need to fight a battle already lost. I’ll leave you folks to your on devices.
Stilbelieve asked Patt:“How do you explain so many Catholics professing to believe and pray for one thing in church, and then support, voluntarily, political candidates that belong to a party that is diabolically opposed to what those Catholics profess to believe?”
Patt: In your last post, I can’t see you answered Stillbelieve’s question. But you noted, ” I do not have to answer for other Catholics, priests or Bishops…”
How about for yourself? Will you please try to answer the above question in your own opinion? It’s a valid question. It merits a thoughtful answer other than to point out we have a wonderful pope and many Catholics don’t listen to him. You have the floor. In advance, I thank you.
Patt, I seriously doubt anyone is attempting to convert you to Protestantism. You are correct in that certain books have been removed from the Bible which are commonly referred to as the “Apocrapha.” There are some English translations which do, in fact, contain the books you speak of while other translations do not. In fact, an early edition of the King James did include these hidden books. The Council of Trent chose to include these books as “authoritative” and useful information while not necessarily agreeing they are inspired. Regardless of one’s view, they (the books) do remain useful such as the historical references outlined in Macabees. On the other hand, I do not ever recall any Priest (perhaps you do?) preaching at Mass on passages from the Books of Judith, Tobit or Esdras 1 & 2. Even in the Catholic church these books are largely ignored in the liturgy of the Mass.
Finally, and I am sure you would agree, the level to which both adult Protestants and Catholics alike have even bothered to educate themselves in matters of Christian faith runs the full cycle from those fully devoted to childhood simpleton. I certainly understand how you may have encountered some Protestant Christians and came away feeling they think they can now waltz in Heaven by accepting Jesus Christ as Savior. They, in turn often view Catholics who constantly “go to” and constantly receive the sacraments over and over as accomplishing the same objective. Of course, neither is correct and is a shallow view of faith. The true test of faith is knowing how one’s life has been changed and how does a man or woman live that life out honoring the Lord. I can tell you truthfully, a true and honest Christian would never consider the “acceptance of Christ as Savior” into their life as merely some “magic phrase” enabling he or she to coast into Heaven. If they did believe such nonsense, they have been poorly taught and poorly educated in their church. The same would apply for a Catholic who thinks simply receiving the sacrament of Eucharist 5,000 times in their lifetime is better than 4,000 times (and God will keep score of how many times Eucharist was received). The more important question is whether or not—this Catholic,—this Protestant—has Christ at the center of their life.
Posted by Amy on Wednesday, Dec 22, 2010 5:31 PM (EST): She wrote: “If you’re going to blame the rule of celibacy for the abuse, you have to show that there is a higher incidence of abuse among those who have taken vows of celibacy than among those who are free to marry.”
And Amy concluded: “If those who are married (or free to marry) are just as or more likely to abuse children as those who are supposed to be celibate, then obviously celibacy is not the problem.”
Cradle Catholic’s response-
I was reviewing prior posts, and came across this point I neglected to answer for you, Amy. As you pointed out in your post, there’s no way I can prove men that took a promise of celibacy sexually abused more people.
But please consider two points - 1) no clergymen that vowed celibacy should be having sexual relations with anyone at all; to do so is an abuse of trust and sexual exploitation, regardless of the other person’s age or gender. Yet statistics DO show that during their vocations, upwards of 90% of celibate priests HAVE had sexual relations outside of marriage, with someone.
And regarding statistics for the sexual abuse of children, please consider that it is a matter of access. Anyone predisposed to being a child molester and a married parent, has more access to children, than ordained clergymen. In the case of a parent, or a family member, they have the ability to “groom” the child more easily into being victimized too.
The whole subject of sexual exploitation of children must be addressed in all of society, and predators contained, helped to no longer have access to children. Pedophilia is not curable - we now know that.
Married clergymen would model the ideal in terms of displaying the sanctity of a covenantal marriage, raising upstanding children. It IS possible - it’s what St. Paul described in his Pastoral Letters (in 1Timothy and Titus)
Amy - you pointed out that we have married clergymen now, with the Anglicans that have converted to Roman Catholic, and the Eastern Catholic denominations, in union with Rome, also have married priests. True.
Did you also know that, with a bishop’s permission, priests can adopt children? It’s fine with the Vatican. Many priests have adopted not only one child, but even up to three children.
The priests I know of have adopted male children, and many of the children are now grown, and upstanding members of their communities, with the priest-fathers applauded for their parenting skills.
Two words:
Extraordinary Form.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.