Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Counting down to ICP rapping at the 2012 Republican National Convention Previous entry: Breaking: Benedict’s signature on letter requesting delay of defrocking of pedophile priest

What role celibacy?

CrimeReligion

There’s been a lot of speculation about the role of the vow of celibacy in the priest child rape scandals.  It ranges from the irresponsible (suggesting that rape is the result of sexual frustration, instead of the will to dominate) to the more interesting (that celibacy contorts sexuality, or that celibacy attracts criminal deviants who need cover).  But most of this speculation misses the point, because it focuses on the role celibacy plays for offenders.  It gives defenders of the Catholic church—-who are becoming one with rape apologists very quickly—-ammo to minimize the situation, because they can point to churches without celibacy requirements that nonetheless have child rape problems.  And it turns attention away from the biggest issue here, which is the institutional support and protection the Catholic church has offered to child rapists.  Rapists are extremely opportunistic criminals, and are far less likely to offend if they think they’re going to face consequences.  So if you, like the Catholic church, offer protection and support, you’re basically encouraging rape. 

None of this is to say that we shouldn’t look at celibacy as a reason this has all happened.  But I’d like to think big picture.  Instead of talking about how celibacy affected individual rapists, let’s talk about how celibacy encouraged institutional protection for rapists. 

It’s not a secret that the Catholic church has a staffing issue.  It’s pathetic how desperate they are for priests, even trying to talk up the “cool” factor—-as if! 

The banners hanging in the main corridor of St. Joseph’s Seminary in Yonkers declare, “Through Faith We Grow.” The class portraits that line that very same corridor tell the opposite tale. Half a century after the halcyon days when several hundred men at a time studied to be ordained as priests for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York, only 22 are enrolled.

In the U.S., there has been a precipitous drop in the number of priests as there’s been a huge rise in the number of actual Catholics.  In other words, they’re in the same situation the military is in.  The demand for soldiers remains high and is even growing, but the number of people willing to do that job is rapidly declining.  And so the military has been forced to lower its standards, accepting more and more people with criminal records.  In fact, according to this article, even though it’s technically illegal for the military to recruit criminals, issuing special waivers has become routine—-nearly 12% of new recruits at the time of writing three years ago. 

But this isn’t to debate whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing.  (After all, a lot of them may not be violent criminals.)  The issue here is simple—-the military had a standard, and it had to drop it in face of declining numbers of volunteers.  The Catholic church is in the same boat, though I’d argue the situation is even more serious for them.  And it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that a major reason many Catholic men are saying no thanks to joining the priesthood—-even though it’s a pretty perk-heavy job, if you think about it—-is the vow of celibacy.  With declining numbers of new recruits, therefore, the church is especially disinclined to let go of existing priests, and that desperation has a lot to do with why they don’t immediately give the ax to child rapists, but instead just reshuffle them and try to cover it up. 

That concern is written all over this letter from Pope Ratz that Pam blogged about. Oh sure, his ostensible concern is that defrocking a priest for the apparently piddling transgression of child rape would somehow be bad for children, who would get disillusioned with the church.  But that is obvious bullshit.  What comes through loud and clear is his extreme reluctance to let any warm body go.  And we can look at celibacy as a major reason they’re having so much trouble replacing dying or disgraced priests.

So why not give up the vow of celibacy?  It would be a really swift way to fix a lot of their problems, it would seem.  But beyond just the fact that the Pope and all his minions are extreme right wing nutjobs who resist change at all costs, you also have the problem of how the Catholic church brands itself.  It’s like any other free market issue.  When people have choices between different products—-in this case, not only different flavors of Christianity, but also different religions and the choice not to believe anything at all—-competing products have to make it clear to would-be buyers what makes them unique.  And the Catholic church is just getting more invested in selling severe sex-phobia as its brand.  It actually makes sense to stake out this territory.  The evangelicals own the argument that sex is good if it only occurs under tightly controlled circumstances.  The Anglicans are the option if you like the pomp but aren’t interested in the body hatred.  But if you’re morbid and have major sexual hang-ups, the Catholic church is the church for you.  Think of converts like Ross Douthat, and it’s easy to see why the Catholic church sees sadism as its selling point.  Celibate priests can be the sacrificial lambs for a flock that is uneasy and hateful about sex, but doesn’t want to stop having it themselves.  But fewer and fewer people are willing to play that role for them. 

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 11:07 AM • (112) Comments

The reason I don’t buy celibacy as a core *cause* of the child rape problem amongst the clergy is the fact that so many children around the world get raped by their own parents, family members, and others who have access to “normal” sexual relationships with other adults.  I myself was abused by a female daycare provider.  When I was a child it didn’t even occur to me that I even had the right to tell anyone it was happening.  The biggest remorse I feel is that I’ve since lost touch of where she is and have no clue if she is still hurting other children, and potentially I could have stopped her.

Abuse of the weakest members of our society (whether they be children, the elderly, etc) is extremely widespread and a symptom of a sickness in our society.  But Amanda and other bloggers like Melissa McEwan do a much better job of explaining rape culture than I ever could.

Comment #1: Blitzgal  on  04/10  at  12:19 PM

Thanks, Amanda, for so clearly explaining the big picture here—even if one does concede that the celibacy requirement may attract the sexually confused trying to find a refuge from their compulsions, the real problem is that they found protection in the catholic church where their could abuse children without facing the consequences.

Also, you really hit on why the Catholic Church irrationally clings to the celibacy requirement for its priests—it’s a branding issue. They have found a niche for people who want an anti-sex message to be hammerred home, and it is really hard to do that when you have a married clergy. The truth is that the number of people who can live a life of celibacy is low. Traditionally it was limited to people wanted to run off and live in a monastery, but somehow the church got the idea that every parish should be led by people with no spouse or family.  There just aren’t enough people in the world with the inclination to go down that path.

Also consider the role of economics here: in an era of endemic rural poverty and lack of opportunities, odds were you were never going to be able to support a family, anyway, so a vocation in the church provided a lot of opportunities you wouldn’t otherwise have. Even if your family was wealthy, the rules of primageniture meant that you weren’t going to inherit any land to support yourself if you were a younger child. In this day and age, marriage and children are economically within reach for most people. Joining the priesthood or a monastery isn’t going to make you better off, compared to the alternatives, so it just isn’t appealing.

Comment #2: Tyro  on  04/10  at  12:22 PM

The priest that oversees my nephews’ parochial school is very outspoken in support of the RCC allowing priests to marry—the bishop tends to stay pissed at him, but he’s universally beloved by everyone under about age 50.  He didn’t enter seminary until age 30, and has made it reasonably clear that he was not in fact chaste before doing so, so he seems to be an increasingly rare exception to the rule of arrested sexual development within the priesthood.  The RCC already lets Orthodox & Anglican priests who convert to keep both their wives & their ordination, so that supports your thesis.

Dunno… I grew up in a Southern Baptist/Church of Christ culture with a smattering of Pentecostals, before fundies & Catholics made common cause over sexual politics, and my mom made very sure that we rejected the common derision towards Catholics & Jews.  For years—eventually, my mom & sibs & I converted to the ECUSA, btw—I was mostly in charity with the RCC, allowing for a nasty political history and strong disagreement on sexual matters, but now I’m just as appalled as with the fundies.  More so, really, because my expectations were somewhat higher.

Comment #3: latts  on  04/10  at  12:24 PM

I think the declining number of men willing to join the priesthood due to a lack of interest in celibacy may have some role, in that it creates a disincentive to discipline or eject bad actors in the priesthood, but I don’t think it’s a major motivation.  After all, this pattern of secrecy and of protecting bad actors on the part of the church hierarchy predates the current priest recruitment crisis by decades, if not centuries.  That being said, and though I agree it’s stupid to call celibacy as a practice a “cause” of warped sexual impulses or the desire to rape, I think celibacy as an institutional characteristic of the priesthood has, historically, played a tragic and critical role in the whole mess, as has the church’s repressive tack on sexuality in general.  But it’s a role that has to be considered in context.

Traditionally, the church has offered celibate priesthood as an acceptable, even desirable, calling for men whose relationship to their own sexuality is alienated or troubled.  Indeed, by some accounts, it’s fair to say that the church has gone so far as to recruit such men for the priesthood.  In doing so, the church has represented that a vocation can essentially “cure” such troubled men of their unwanted, uncomprehended impulses.  At the same time, since the church has no interest in actually acknowledging or helping with these impulses (impulses that, it is fair to say, repressive church teachings and culture may actually have helped to form in these men in the first instance), men who come to a vocation with the hope of being relieved of their sexuality (warped or otherwise) receive no support, no guidance, and no realistic assistance, treatment or advice.  They have, in short, been lied to by the very core notions behind the institution of celibate priesthood and the fundamental conceptions of human sexuality that underlie the institution.  It’s really just another version of telling people they can “pray away the gay.”*

*By making this comparison, I in no way mean to equate gayness with predatory pedophilia, or predatory sexuality of any sort.  But we still have to acknowledge that the church, historically, has really really really screwed with the heads of a lot of gay men, and also has had a history of representing to young gay men that their only acceptable option within the church is to take on a vocation.  Double repression whammy of the worst sort.

Comment #4: nolo  on  04/10  at  12:38 PM

The Anglicans are the option if you like the pomp but aren’t interested in the body hatred.

AND dont believe in God which I find hilarious beyond words.

Comment #5: firefall  on  04/10  at  12:44 PM

On the branding point, with a 100% male priesthood celibacy = repudiation of female flesh.  That must have been good news for Douthat when he shopped for a religion to convert to.

Comment #6: Unree  on  04/10  at  12:46 PM

omehow the church got the idea that every parish should be led by people with no spouse or family.

Clerical celibacy was introduced in the 10th/11th century in order to stop parish priests having ‘legitimate’ children who could and would inherit the parish property, i.e. to keep ownership of the property and the priests office from becoming alienable and out of centralised control. Given that this hasn’t been an issue for at least a century, they really should consider a change, but of course they won’t - aside of being control freaks and sex-hating being part of their core brand, they also have the central role of Tradition (!) which keeps an awful lot of their adherents glued to the pews

Comment #7: firefall  on  04/10  at  12:48 PM

Worth noting, the Catholic Church isn’t actually entirely celibate today.  The eastern rite Catholic churches all follow more or less the Orthodox rule, where married men can take holy orders and become priests (single priests still can’t marry).  It seems pretty clear that this is where the Catholic Church should be going.

Comment #8: jlk7e  on  04/10  at  12:56 PM

aside of being control freaks and sex-hating being part of their core brand, they also have the central role of Tradition (!) which keeps an awful lot of their adherents glued to the pews

As jlk7e said, it’s apparently not so important to them when it comes to their Eastern Rite churches abroad: they have been allowed to maintain their married clergy for 500 years since they agreed to accept the leadership of the Pope: and the Catholic church would never consider going to Ukraine and demanding that their Catholic clergy become celibate, because the community would never put up with something so ridiculous.

They do demand celibacy of their Eastern Rite Catholic priests in the USA because they don’t want a parallel married Catholic clergy existing side-by-side an unmarried one to dilute the “brand.”

The thing is for me that when I say the church’s problem with child molestation to be rooted in the use of the priesthood as a perceived refuge for those with sexual dysfunctions they were trying to run away from, it made the priests come across as tragic criminals. Criminals, yes, but ones who had been sold a false bill of goods in their failed attempts to get away from their urges. Now I see them as people aided and abetted by a church that, perversely, depended on them to serve the church that was willing to look past their criminal behavior because the church needed anyone willing to accept ordination.  And that’s a horrible realization: that you had the hierarchy and the criminals working hand in glove because, perversely, they needed each other.

Comment #9: Tyro  on  04/10  at  01:08 PM

I’m not looking forward to priests hanging out in singles bars, in their open flannel shirts, mom jeans, and oxfords—just how and when are they supposed to meet these wives of theirs? “Hey, baby—want to get a little closer to God with me? Let me anoint you with my holy chrism.”

Two reasons not to have married priests: the expense of supporting wives and an unlimited number of children (no contraception, right) , and the decreased amount of time each family man will have to spend on parish duties. (Although I can’t find it now, I’heard a story on public radio about wives of Anglican-to-Catholic priest converts, who say their husbands have much much less time for them nowadays.)

Comment #10: Hector B.  on  04/10  at  01:09 PM

Now I see them as people aided and abetted by a church that, perversely, depended on them to serve the church that was willing to look past their criminal behavior because the church needed anyone willing to accept ordination.

Tyro, I think it’s possible to see predatory priests as both victims and opportunists without necessarily making the priests into overly sympathetic “tragic” figures.  People who commit heinous crimes are often people who have some victimization and trauma in their own pasts, and yet we do not excuse them for their crimes against others.  Still, from at least a systemic point of view, I think it’s important to acknowledge the role that the victimization of perpetrators plays in creating a culture of victimization.  As for the need to retain anyone willing to accept ordination, I still think that plays at most an ancillary role in this whole mess.  More important, from a causal standpoint, is the church’s ancient culture of secrecy and valuing its institutional image over its pastoral mission.

Comment #11: nolo  on  04/10  at  01:30 PM

Sorry, I’m still in the celibacy causes a lot of the problems, and not just pedophilia issues as I’ve posted previously.  Previously, the church accepted a lot of very young men and teens into the priesthood career path.  Add to that an abuse culture (I have to wonder how many abusers were themselves abused by older priests) and voila - you have this problem. 

Scenario goes something like this older priest abuses young altar boy or teen in seminary prep in the first half of the 1900’s- “see you must be gay” (whether the teen actually was or not) “you’ve had sex with a man.  If you try to live in society, you will be ostracized, beaten, killed.” All pretty real possibilities at the time.  “The priesthood will demand celibacy and protect you from suspicion of being gay.”  Kid joins before he’s even explored or established his own sexuality - warped from generation to generation.”

But that article you posted is an insight into the collision course the RCC is on.  THough somewhat confusing : “Growing conservativism,” “emphasis on ritual and being set apart from the laity” - at a time when the laity is no longer the illiterate peasants needing or believing they need the priests education to commune with the skybuddy or for mundane stuff like reading a legal doc.  Yet they want to talk moral teaching - from what basis - conservativism?  liberation theology? libertarianism?

Comment #12: phylosopher  on  04/10  at  01:36 PM

I don’t think celibacy is a major cause for the sexual abuse in and of itself. I think it’s more of a symptom of a warped view of sexuality as a whole - which in turn might contribute to the sexual abuse.

Celibacy may however well be a more direct contributing factor for protecting the offenders, since it seems to be one of the main causes of their personnel problems.

Comment #13: Deen  on  04/10  at  01:49 PM

Two reasons not to have married priests: the expense of supporting wives and an unlimited number of children (no contraception, right) , and the decreased amount of time each family man will have to spend on parish duties. (Although I can’t find it now, I’heard a story on public radio about wives of Anglican-to-Catholic priest converts, who say their husbands have much much less time for them nowadays.)
Comment #10: Hector B.  on 04/10 at 11:09 AM

False.  Not all priests take a vow of poverty. I’m seeing conflicting data on priest salaries.  some are as low as $20K, others are mid $50K.  Not sure what makes the difference, but salaries generally include housing, maid and or cleaning service (out of parish funds). Car and car expenses.  Health insurance (all those RCC hospitals). They are also taxed differently and seem to pay no social security.  Pretty much all living expenses seem to be paid, so the salary is all expendable income.

And one HUGE item missed is the “extra envelopes.”  Perform a wedding ceremony - couple hundred in the envelope, a funeral - same thing. Baptism - you got it $ in the envelope.  It’s often not noticed by outsiders, because it comes in a stack - “Father, please make sure everyone gets these” - for the organist, altar servers, etc. In the midst of those is “For father.”

Oh, and wait a minute - why would you say all those children? - the RCC promotes the use of Natural Family Planning - claiming high rates of success - one would have to imagine that priests would be experts in this form of BC, amirite?  Heck, they should be able to remain childless.

The increase in duties is often because of the shortage of RCC priests - so that formerly multi-priest parishes are now solo, that solo covering multi-parishes because the RCC laity is damned attached to THEIR piece of bricks and mortar.

Comment #14: phylosopher  on  04/10  at  01:54 PM

Celibacy causes a lot of problems (although I would hesitate to say that it plays a major role in the sexual abuse of children), but my answer to the lack of seminarians is always “start ordaining women!” The number of women who become nuns is not going down—nor, I must point outhave we yet been provided with any examples of nuns who regularly deal with children sexually abusing them. We’re desperate for clergy to the point where we’re trying to make ordination sound “cool”, and yet we’re not trying to reach out to that untapped market that is fifty percent of the Church?

Comment #15: Miffyfish  on  04/10  at  02:01 PM

I’m not looking forward to priests hanging out in singles bars, in their open flannel shirts, mom jeans, and oxfords—just how and when are they supposed to meet these wives of theirs?

You are aware that all other ministers in all other religions are allowed to marry, right?  There are married priests in the Anglican/Episcopalian church, even.  And women!

Comment #16: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/10  at  02:09 PM

phyl, you seem to have reading comprehension issues.  I didn’t offer an opinion on what effect celibacy has on individuals, and yet you seem to think I did.  Is it that you don’t want to talk about the institutional problems?  Or just disagreeableness in general?

Comment #17: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/10  at  02:13 PM

Miffy, considering that misogyny is the official belief of the church—-which explains celibacy in large part, and also the hostility to contraception—-keeping women out of power is also part of the brand.

Comment #18: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/10  at  02:15 PM

We had a very sad case near my parent’s house.  An older parish with one elderly priest who became lonely and hired a prostitute, who used the guy to steal like crazy from the parish.  They handled it very quietly, because you couldn’t feel anything but bad for the guy, and in the end they had to absorb the whole parish into another one and sell off the property, because there was simply no one to take his place.

I’m not saying the problem could have been avoided if he’d been married - a lonely widower could easily be in the same situation, but certainly a larger staff and some company would have kept the situation from getting out of hand.  The key problem was he was lonely.

Two reasons not to have married priests: the expense of supporting wives and an unlimited number of children (no contraception, right) , and the decreased amount of time each family man will have to spend on parish duties.

Meh, in other religions pastor’s wives are expected to be stay-at-home wives, and by that I mean do a bunch of officially unpaid work on behalf of their parish, so there’s a two-for-one deal going on there that the church could benefit from.  After all, they’re not exactly flush with nuns at the moment, either.  And in America at least, Catholic families with 8 children are pretty rare.  The church could easily adopt a wink-nudge “do as I say not as I do” policy, or, if they’re shaking things up anyway, get a little relaxed on the subject of birth control as used by married couples who already have children.  Anyone who read Angela’s Ashes could see how such a baby step could be a hugely positive impact in the lives of not just American Catholics, but Catholics from poorer nations as well.

Comment #19: Kyso K  on  04/10  at  02:16 PM

<blockquote>Two reasons not to have married priests: the expense of supporting wives and an unlimited number of children (no contraception, right) </blockquote

Married priests with children would bring about the formal reversal of the Humanae Vitae faster than anything else. 

Priests who actually deal in the real world?  Who can understand their parishoners issues intimately b/c they face the same problems?

HOW THE HELL ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO KEEP UP THE PRETENSE OF BEING BETTER BECAUSE THEY WERE ORDAINED?!?!  They have a special club, damnit!  Plus, they had to take vows of celibacy, so everyone else should, too. Also.

If sex isn’t icky, if St Augustine isn’t revered, if the spiritual and the physical aren’t in competition with one another, what’s to stop women from being priests?

Wait—that’s supposed to be such a preposterous suggestion that you laugh and come to your sense, NOT AGREE WITH IT!!!!111!!!!111!

————-
Seriously, now, I do think part of their resistence is similar to the resistence you see in surgeons to new policies that let interns/residents have normal hours and don’t keep them working for 48 straight hours.  It’s actually better policy for both learning and for the poor patients who got doctors on their 47th hour, but since they suffered through it and think it made them better doctors, that anecdotal feeling should be honored more than the science that shows otherwise.

And then you get the damaged people who look to celibacy to solve their problems.  Men who buy the line that being gay is not sinful, but homosexual acts are—so since God demands their celebacy, they might as well be priests.

And then you get the rapists who see it, consciously or unconsciously, as an opportunity.

But mostly the first one—>the hierarchy is trying to repeal Vatican II, which was an attempt to modernize the Church They’ve fought against it’s reforms all along, and they’re right there!  Just about to repeal it, when this crap comes up, stirring up the laiety, who should just shut up and obey.

When the Church was a medieval power, bishops often had ‘nephews’.  There have always been violations of the celibacy rule, especially as you move up the ladder.  They look the other way and hide it from the laity, since they are supposed to be holier than thou. 

Hiding the pedophilia was a centuries old practice.  I really don’t think they understand how much the world has changed, though they do seem to understand that they can go to jail or be held civilly liable for these crimes.  They just don’t seem to be able to acknowledge that this is also SIN. 

Even if they do get that it’s sin, they certainly don’t think they need to confess to the laity.  They can only confess up the ladder.  Confession is private, damnit. 

As for repenting and atoning?  They don’t get that they need to apologize not only to the victims, but to the parishes as well, b/c they victimized EVERYONE by betraying our trust.  That betrayal has nothing to do with celibacy.  That betrayal has to do with believing that because they are ordained and have an extra sacrament, that they are better than those who were merely baptized.

I don’t think they can see the hypocrisy over their belief in being better.

Comment #20: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  04/10  at  02:23 PM

This would be funny, were it not for the context:

And as the therapists continue to discover, no therapeutic technique can heal a church of all its pathology. “And I treated half a dozen priests who fathered children,” Dr. Lothstein said. “I treated priests who had two children. I treated priests who got women pregnant and got them abortions.

“I said to one of them, ‘Why didn’t you just use a condom?’ And he said, ‘Because birth control is against the law of the church.’ ”

Comment #21: ema  on  04/10  at  02:27 PM

I’m not saying the problem could have been avoided if he’d been married - a lonely widower could easily be in the same situation, but certainly a larger staff and some company would have kept the situation from getting out of hand.  The key problem was he was lonely.

If he had a right to be married and to date, though, I think it’s likely it could have been avoided.  I’d imagine an elderly priest would do alright on the dating market!  Think of all the widows out there who’d be delighted to be the priest’s girlfriend. He’d be beating them off with a stick.

Comment #22: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/10  at  02:34 PM

ema, thanks for the link to that article.

Comment #23: nolo  on  04/10  at  02:42 PM

My pet theory is that the church by its nature attracts people who are sexually deviant in their desires. Basically, in the middle ages, because inheritance went to the eldest male sibling, younger male siblings went into the church because they had no other options. These days, that’s just not the case, and instead of casting such a wide net, the church is accepting people who self select. My theory is that the self selectors are often people who believe going into the church and taking the vow will cure them, but instead it leads them into direct contact with vulnerable victims and a system that shelters them, which instead encourages their behavior. So I guess I think there’s something inherently wrong with the way the church is set up, but also, of course, deep issues of corruption. I could be wrong; the phenomenon I’m describing could be more perception than fact.

I’m not interested in excusing the behavior of child rapists. Rather, I feel it’s relevant because it asks important questions about the system that is quite apparently churning out and nurturing these predators. Obviously, as amanda points out, marriage doesn’t stop a child predator from desiring children any more than gay men marrying women stops them from wanting men. The issue remains a system that makes it easy for people to hurt other people, and then protects them from justice.

Comment #24: Cola82  on  04/10  at  02:45 PM

I should add that a deviants motives for joining the church need not always be so noble as looking for a spiritual “cure.”

Comment #25: Cola82  on  04/10  at  02:46 PM

@firefall #7.  They tell everyone that story about not wanting a priest’s children to inherit church property, but it is not true.  Priests didn’t own church property and children could never have inherited it.  There is one reason then and now for celibacy, and it is the church’s hatred of women.  They do not want a priest handling the holy sacrament if his hands have been touching a dirty and impure woman.  It is also why they will not ordain women to the priesthood.  No woman’s hands may touch the body of christ.  From beginning to end, this is the issue which concerns the church hierarchy.

Comment #26: jackspratt  on  04/10  at  02:47 PM

I think Amanda is absolutely right: it’s not what celibacy means for the sex lives of individual priests (the only one I knew well was gay and partnered, and his bishop just made sure not to know) but what it means for the tone of the institution. But I don’t think that the coverup is about maintaining numbers. It’s about the kind of hierarchy you get when you have a huge percentage of conflicted and/or broken people running an organization. The Magdelene Laundries were long before the church was feeling the pinch for personnel, for example.

What’s happened in the past half-century or so, though, is a sort of archetypal death spiral. As economic opportunities outside the priesthood have improved and traditionally RCC ethnic groups have become more mobile and fragmented, it’s only been the people who feel particularly strong vocations (or are particularly unsuited for the outside life) who end up in the priesthood. And only the particularly driven who stuck with it. Which has made the RCC (both as a church and as a corporate body) less attractive to belong to for ordinary individuals. So you get more crazies and fewer sane people, which leads to an environment even less attractive for sane people, rinse, lather, repeat.

I wonder about two unrelated things: 1) how many young men have ended up in the priesthood as a result of sexual hangups brought on by abuse at the hands of a priest; 2) whether it would make more sense for the church to arrange itself like most military organizations, where people could serve a 10 or 20 year hitch and then go back to civilian life and its relative freedom.

Comment #27: paul  on  04/10  at  02:48 PM

@MikeG #24.  Please see my comment # 27.  You are 100% wrong.  BTW, I am an ordained protestant minister and yes my theology is very different from the RCC.

Comment #28: jackspratt  on  04/10  at  02:54 PM

Bye, MikeG.  Your equation of gay men with rapists will not be tolerated here, especially since it’s an attempt to distract from the real rapists.

Comment #29: Amanda Marcotte  on  04/10  at  03:07 PM

MikeG, the sexual abuse of minors has everything to do with homosexuality? What about the priests who abuse little girls? Are we going to blame the heterosexual orientation for that?

Celibacy is a problem because priests who seek sex are taking a huge risk with their secret. Adults might tell, but children are more easily intimidated or overawed into silence.

Comment #30: Lindsay Beyerstein  on  04/10  at  03:14 PM

The number of women who become nuns is not going down—nor, I must point outhave we yet been provided with any examples of nuns who regularly deal with children sexually abusing them.

No, sorry, the number of women who become nuns has plummeted as drastically as the number of men who become priests has.  The kids who grew up in Irish orphanages or were sent to Magdalene asylums would be more than a little upset by your contention that since the nuns “only” physically abused them and didn’t (usually) sexually abuse them, they have nothing to complain about.

Comment #31: Mnemosyne  on  04/10  at  03:14 PM

“I said to one of them, ‘Why didn’t you just use a condom?’ And he said, ‘Because birth control is against the law of the church.’ ”

In other words, if a woman has an abortion the sin is on -her- head, so in other words he’s covering his own ass while throwing her soul under the bus (according to their beliefs). Better to not use BC and have the resulting ‘out of wedlock’ and related messiness fall on the woman. Disgusting.

Comment #32: Pietoro  on  04/10  at  03:15 PM

There’s another factor that keeps celibacy in place that’s an administrative factor:  in the Catholic church, it’s the hierarchy that moves priests from place to place, not the parishes.  As I understand it, it’s the other way around for Protestant churches—they “audition” ministers who are then hired by that individual church and could conceivably be fired by them.  In Catholicism, the archbishops decide who goes where and they get sent there on a moment’s notice.  Usually, assignments only last 5 or 10 years (if that) before you’re moved again.  You’d be pretty hard-pressed to find someone with a family who would be willing to pick up and move on his boss’s whim—even private industry doesn’t do that anymore.

When I was a teenager, we had a new priest transferred into our parish, Father Job.  He was a great guy (as far as I know) but he found all of us spoiled suburban kids to be boring as hell compared to the inner-city parish he’d just come from.  He was more of a Fr. Greg Boyle than someone who would be happy as a middle-class parish priest.  Eventually, he was able to be transferred back to the kind of assignment he preferred, but it took a lot of doing on his part.

As fewer priests have joined the church, these kinds of transfers become more and more vital to keeping the parishes staffed, so the hierarchy is going to be even less amenable to the idea that they need to get rid of a priest since they may not have anyone to swap him with.

Comment #33: Mnemosyne  on  04/10  at  03:25 PM

“I said to one of them, ‘Why didn’t you just use a condom?’ And he said, ‘Because birth control is against the law of the church.’ ”

That reminds me of one of my favorite “Father Ted” episodes, but at least Ted is on the right side of the question.

Comment #34: Mnemosyne  on  04/10  at  03:28 PM

As I understand it, it’s the other way around for Protestant churches—they “audition” ministers who are then hired by that individual church and could conceivably be fired by them.

Pretty much.  It was certainly that for the United Church of Canada, where I was raised, but then again the UCC is recognized as being one of the most liberal large Christian denominations in North America.

(Incidentally, the Canadian Anglicans are similarly recognized amongst that group.)

When I was younger and actually not out of the closet as an atheist, I was chosen to attend the annual UCC meeting for the Atlantic Provinces and Bermuda.  One of the things that went on there was the recognition and introduction of new ministers, two of whom were former Catholic priests.  With their new wives.  Far as I could tell they were pretty good guys, faithful and and the like, but the whole celibacy thing ended up being the breaking point with the Catholic Church.

As I recall, one of them was immediately snapped up by a local congregation in the same town he’d been a priest, and he was so well regarded that a couple of his old parishioners jumped ship with him.  Of course, in that area of Canada marriages between various religious beliefs is so common that they probably already had immediate family who were protestants anyway.

Comment #35: KeithM  on  04/10  at  03:58 PM

It was made very clear in the boston globe series on priest sex abuse that the sexual abuse of *boys* happened not because the priests were gay but because as males they had access to boys, and not to girls.  Priests were thought to be a safe father substitute for young boys, the altar boy system and the educational system brought them into close contact, and many of the guilty priests actively sought out fatherless or dysfunctional families and offered to act as “big brother” or father substitutes. 

Where there has been easy access to women and young girls, they have been abused.  Pedophilia is a crime of opportunity.  Pedophiles can control themselves, and do control themselves, in public most of the time.  The Church’s insistence on retaining these men and hiding their acts is a necessary condition for these crimes.

It must also be remembered that there is tons of money here, at stake. The priests are receiving and handling massive amounts of money on behalf of the church from their congregations.  As the number of priests declines the administrative burden becomes bigger on the rest of them.  And the cost of defrocking them grows since every public acknowledgement of the scandal can lead to parishioners removing their funding.

I’d be interested in looking at the growth of groups like opus dei which create a parallel, non celibate, dependable laity that can take on some of the fundraising and parish running duties in the absence of a fully staffed priesthood.

aimai

Comment #36: aimai  on  04/10  at  04:03 PM

I’m not looking forward to priests hanging out in singles bars, in their open flannel shirts, mom jeans, and oxfords—just how and when are they supposed to meet these wives of theirs? “Hey, baby—want to get a little closer to God with me? Let me anoint you with my holy chrism.”

They’ll probably meet women the same way many religious people do:  through their church.  I’ve heard anecdotes about single rabbis (not for long!) being swarmed by Jewish mothers hungry to get their daughters a nice rabbi husband.  Why wouldn’t something similar happen in a Catholic church?

There is one reason then and now for celibacy, and it is the church’s hatred of women.  They do not want a priest handling the holy sacrament if his hands have been touching a dirty and impure woman.

That’s one reason, but it doesn’t explain the sudden reversal in the 11th and 12th centuries.  It was also because wives of priests were getting a certain degree of power within their own parishes, similar to a rabbitzim.  Can’t let Catholics be like Jews!  And you can’t let women have any influence on the church, even if it’s a secondary role to the priest.

Comment #37: keshmeshi  on  04/10  at  04:13 PM

Priests didn’t own church property and children could never have inherited it.

The problem wasn’t just one of economic inheritance, though, but of spiritual inheritance, and a question of who had control in areas far from Rome: the local bishops, or those in Rome.  Many of these rules were laid down in the early middle ages, when the church was expanding and many areas were almost too far away for Rome to control; the rules then became more and more rigid, and were worked deeper and deeper into the theology and social climate internal to the church.  What in the fifth century was intended to strengthen the church has become something very damaging to it.

Comment #38: fluffster  on  04/10  at  04:14 PM

Would the Christians on this board correct St. Paul? Would they correct Jesus Christ? Both said it was better to be chaste “for the kingdom”.

Even if one is willing to agree with that, you have to admit that the number of people suited/called to living a life chaste “for the kingdom” is very low. It would be better to have fewer celibate priests able to keep their vows than lots of celibate priests where only a fraction are able to live up to their promises.

Priests are married to the Church. They are called to a higher form of self sacrifice so they can be available COMPLETELY to the people of God.

Most of them most certainly are not called to such a life. The church shouldn’t be demanding that their priests live a life they’re not called to. Why? Because it forces the church to become dependent on a priesthood that is living a lie and in some cases committing crimes to coverup for their priests.

Comment #39: Tyro  on  04/10  at  04:22 PM

The vow of celibacy has always been a cloak that has hidden fornication, pederasty, and rape.  It doesn’t cause these things, but it veils them quite neatly.  Those who want to use that cloak are attracted because celibacy provides cover for their atrocious acts.

That said, more men were formerly drawn to the priesthood because they were essentially conscripted into it.  Large families would “tithe” a son or two to the church.

Comment #40: Ms Kate  on  04/10  at  04:26 PM

nolo @4, spot-on. And not only are the ‘troubled’ not given counseling - they’re given authority and freedom from being questioned as long as they openly follow the religious rules. It’s a completely toxic combination.

Hector B., I don’t mean to shock you, but there are many marriages where instead of ‘supporting a wife’, the wife is supporting the husband - either financially or (as has already been noted) by being unpaid helpmeet to his career.

Comment #41: mythago  on  04/10  at  04:30 PM

I was vacationing the day in 2003 that the decision on gay marriage in MA was handed down.  I was in an empty resort area, it being November, but found myself in one of the few open restaurants - a pizza place packed with women with five televisions going with the news on every channel. 

When Cardinal O’Malley started running his homophobic mouth, I couldn’t resist a jab about “hey!  If all the commitment minded gay men marry each other, where will we find new priests??”  This went over quite well with the ladies who heard me.

Comment #42: Ms Kate  on  04/10  at  04:30 PM

N.B. That’s not to say that gay priests had anything to do with pedophiles in hiding - just that the Catholic Priesthood has long been a giant closet with a velvet curtain for gay men in traditional societies.

Comment #43: Ms Kate  on  04/10  at  04:33 PM

“Priests are married to the Church. They are called to a higher form of self sacrifice so they can be available COMPLETELY to the people of God.”

Honestly, I feel like this is the attitude that is causing the problem. As someone who was brought up Catholic, went to Catholic schools, etc., the biggest issue isn’t the celibacy exactly. The issue is culture in which these men are accountable to no one, because they’re seen as fundamentally holier than (and separate from) the laity. They’re seen as fundamentally holier BECAUSE of the celibacy, and the weird Catholic guilt stuff that makes them see any pleasure as bad, and any self-sacrifice as inherently good. The Protestant reformation rejected clerical celibacy, I think, not because they were especially enlightened about sex, but because they saw that barrier between the lives of the clergy and the lives of the laity as a bad thing. The RCC sees it as an essential thing.

So, yeah, I don’t know if the celibacy itself causes the pedophilia. I doubt it helps. What I’m pretty sure about, is that the celibacy contributes to the power the priests have over people, to the general lack of a feeling among regular Catholic people that priests are just like the rest of us, because its drilled into us that they’re not. They’re supposed to be better than us, their lives so much harder and full of sacrifice than ours, because look what they gave up to serve god in the only pure way god can be served.

Its hard to make people with that kind of power be accountable for anything they do. Pedophilia and child abuse are not uniquely Catholic, true. But the cover-up? The general tone-deafness? The refusal to admit any sort of responsibilty? That’s not a bug in the hierarchy, that’s a feature of the hierarchy, and the hierarchy probably couldn’t exist as it does without the celibacy convincing everybody that the priests are better than everyone. Of course the bishops cared more about the abusive priests’ welfare than the abused children’s welfare. They think the priests are more important than anyone who’s not a priest.

Comment #44: pollatadeina  on  04/10  at  04:51 PM

It’s the obsessive sexual shaming by the catholic church that causes disproportionate sexual dysfunction and abuse among its members—the catholic church really is worse in this regard than other denominations and religions, with even procreative sex within marriage being considered worthy of shame by the Papa Ratzi and his followers.  The celibacy of the clergy only serves to focus that dysfunction and abuse among the clergy, thereby making the abusers easier to identify and avoid for those who pay attention.  Getting rid of the celibacy requirement without getting rid of the multitude of hardcore sexual phobias preached by the catholic church will only disperse the problem and make it harder to identify perpetrators.

Sexual dysfunction and shaming, and all the resulting problems, are core elements of the practice of catholicism and can’t be changed merely by allowing a noncelibate priesthood.

Comment #45: Robert Johnston  on  04/10  at  05:02 PM

JackSpratt: Do you have a cite for your claim, because every credible scholarly source I’ve seen backs up that the Church was attempting to break up clerical dynasties.  It wasn’t that the children of clergy legally inherited property so much as they became the de facto owners of church property because they inherited their father’s position.  This gave a local priest or bishop much more authority over people than the Church itself maintained and the Church wanted to consolidate their political and social authority.

I personally, don’t think celibacy is responsible on any significant level for the decline in seminarians.  As mentioned above, the priesthood was often an outlet for younger sons to maintain their social prestige and financial support.  For men of the middling and lower classes, it was the best opportunity to receive an education, to hobnob with the wealthy who might offer you patronage, and access to political power.  In the West, one can attain all of these without joining the Church and priests do not maintain the same level of social prestige as they once did.

Celibacy was honored more often in the breach and was one factor that lent Protestants a bottomless well of ammunition against the Church.  There simply has never been a period when priests weren’t sexually abusing their parishioners, but nobody seemed to care when the victims appeared only to be women and girls (I have no doubt boys and young men were similarly abused but kept silent).

Comment #46: history_mom  on  04/10  at  05:04 PM

And I think the power accorded to clerical wives is an important point that keshmeshi noted.

Comment #47: history_mom  on  04/10  at  05:08 PM

One thing everyone here seems to be overlooking that is at least as big a factor in the maintenance of celibacy as a permanent requirement is the corner the church has painted itself into about divorce.

Even with the (wink, wink) far easier access to annulments which release divorced Catholics to remarry, the Church has still far too much inertia build up about the absolute sacredness and indissolubility of marriage. Combine that with the ongoing claim that priests are holier than the average, and are also supposedly the arbiters of conscience and morality, and they don’t dare let the priesthood marry - because it will inevitably lead to priests divorcing. And openly using contraception. Bluntly, if Father and his wife don’t have six kids, it’s pretty apparent they’re using contraception.

An organization that took several hundred years to pardon Galileo is not prepared for the social upheaval that will cause.

On the other hand, in a better world, the pedophilia scandals should allow a third Vatican Council to to a major retooling of the Church’s view of sexual morality - equality of woman, recognition of gay people, rethinking contraception, and allowing divorce. All of it is absolutely inevitable, and the Church could easily go for it - with some hurt feelings and confusion, but far more open welcome of it. They could, as they did with other deeply held “truths” like requiring Latin, claim it was the calling of the Holy Spirit just as they did with Vatican II - which actually called for a lot of these very things to either be enacted immediately, or at least be opened for study.

It won’t happen.

As for women priests, that would blow the doors off the entire boy’s club. They cannot allow it. A century into it, women priests would be just as subject to corruption as men. But the first few generation of women priests would likely be far more genuinely interested in spirituality and social justice - and holy crap, would the whistle blowing start!

Comment #48: Lymis  on  04/10  at  05:28 PM

Lymis @48,

You’re right, it won’t happen. My ex-Catholic cynicism is long abiding, and I’d be REALLY surprised if there are any attempts at reform or amends because of all this. I still haven’t seen any indication that Ratzinger things he even did anything wrong. The most we can expect is a statement from a successor of his, fifty years from now, admitting mistakes were made or some such. It honestly makes me laugh when anyone wonders whether this is going to make him resign. If the Pope steps down over this, I’ll eat my hat.

I tend to think it’s more likely that they’ll take the opportunity to repeal the meager reforms of Vatican II.

Comment #49: pollatadeina  on  04/10  at  05:42 PM

Miffyfish:

Nor, I must point outhave we yet been provided with any examples of nuns who regularly deal with children sexually abusing them.

Are you fucking kidding me? Google on “nuns abusing children” and see how many hits you get.

Comment #50: Nobody in Particular  on  04/10  at  05:59 PM

Addendum to above: Many of said Google hits will be about sexual abuse, not “merely” physical abuse.

Pietoro, #32: A few years ago there was a case of a woman suing her local Catholic [arch]diocese for child support, as the child’s father was a priest. Their lawyer said that she should have been using birth control.

Comment #51: Nobody in Particular  on  04/10  at  06:17 PM

@firefall #7.  They tell everyone that story about not wanting a priest’s children to inherit church property, but it is not true.  Priests didn’t own church property and children could never have inherited it.  There is one reason then and now for celibacy, and it is the church’s hatred of women.

Sorry, but you need to go have a look at the relative fluidity of property and inheritance in the 9th - 12th Century. Many parishes HAD become inheritable, as had many of the Bishoprics in Germany and North Italy - that’s what the whole Investitures struggle between Heinrich IV and Innocent II (?) was about, and why clerical celibacy was introduced and enforced.

Which is not to say I disagree with your point about hating women - the church, then and now, exhibits misogyny in many different ways, which seems to go back to (amongst other roots) Saul of Damascus aka ‘Saint’ Paul, who pretty much poisoned that well from almost the start.

Comment #52: firefall  on  04/10  at  06:33 PM

I think of the celibacy also in terms of accountability. The structure of women-hating and sexphobia that separated religions such as Christianity from their more polytheistic precursors and early competition made it such that those with the least amount of contact with the “inferior” sex would be more spiritual. Early Christian thinkers echoed those claims and even now, we grant an extra sort of assumed gravitas and moral authority to those who successfully lead “sinless” lives including the limitation of carnal activities.

If they lose their celibacy, they lose their authority, the ability to basically bully and destroy their petitioners into carrying on their diseased political and moral views for generations to come and the power that sort of hold over people can have in the more temporal sense of money and political power.

With celibacy, they are “better”, because they have made the “greatest sacrifice”. And it doesn’t matter if they fail because then they are only as bad as “the rest of us” even if what they are doing is more monstrous.

And it’s that cultural of being better than, where anything you do can be given the additional moral weight of having that authority will naturally be abused in ways dependent on the level of control.

The more power a father has over his children and wife, the closer it veers to creepy incest cult as we have seen with situations like purity balls and the rate of incest and child abuse in religious communities. The same applies to religious structures.

The child rape comes from the power and the power is granted by the trick of abusing the notion of “sacrifice” to gain unearned and undeserved authority over the flock.

This is made even more clear when you admit asexuality to a priest in any of these christian sects and they start berating you for not marrying, because you’re cheating the system of the gravitas of “sacrifice” and the false authority it grants.

Comment #53: Cerberus  on  04/10  at  06:56 PM

Assuming the Pope has any humanity left on that Darth-Vaderish psyche, imagine what it would be like for him or any other elderly priests to admit that their lives of celibacy were completely pointless (which is something that would have to happen to allow priests to marry)—not just the sex (although that’s plenty on its own) but all those years sleeping alone (or having to hide when they weren’t), the loneliness, the chance to be close to someone, to be someone’s lover, someone’s husband, someone’s dad, all down the drain, having to digest the fact that they’d thrown away what would have probably been the best parts of their lives for no reason at all?

I honestly can’t imagine anyone in the priesthood being strong enough to take that kind of anguish.

On some level, the Pope and cardinals might know that this particular aspect of ending the celibacy requirement would end the RCC faster that anything some pedophiles in their ranks could do—you might as well stand all those old men up and shoot them for all the good they’d be to the Church afterward.


**********
(@22) He’d be beating them off with a stick.

I.e., still doing it wrong.

Comment #54: Molly, NYC  on  04/10  at  08:28 PM

The Boy Scouts, which is for all intents and purposes a Mormon organization is having its own problems with child sex abuse and cover-ups.  With one leader blaming the parents for leaving their kids alone with a predatory Scout Master.  So I don’t see celibacy playing that large a role in the incidence of sex abuse against kids.  Priests and Scout Masters have access to boy children and are put into positions of authority over them.  That’s what it boils down to IMHO.

Comment #55: DonnaDiva  on  04/10  at  08:46 PM

I’d be interested in looking at the growth of groups like opus dei which create a parallel, non celibate, dependable laity that can take on some of the fundraising and parish running duties in the absence of a fully staffed priesthood.

OhDearG*dNo!

Wasn’t the latest Papal Gentleman an Opus Deist? My impression from reading and from the very few Opus Dei types I’ve known is that it pretty much melds the worst of the religious and secular worlds: deep “traditionalism”, lots of money and power (one guy I knew who was being recruited was the son of some european industrial name or other) and the message that O.D. members are called to do the church’s work in places where the church can’t go. If there were similar lay groups founded by liberation theologists, that would be great, but most of those seem to leave the church or be among the ones currently calling for accountability of child abusers. Not the kind of folks Ratzi would be wanting to let into church offices.

Comment #56: paul  on  04/10  at  09:06 PM

The most prominent Catholic liberation theologists are now Anglican/Episcopal liberation theologists.  They did too good a job of making their case in a scholarly manner, but it conflicted with mainline fundamentalist doctrine and they had to go.

Comment #57: Ms Kate  on  04/10  at  09:52 PM

Just throwing this out for discussion - I think a number of pedophiles may have initially sought refuge in the priesthood, honestly believing that the discipline, routine, and vow of celibacy would “cure” them of their urges.  Then they were charged with groups of youngsters and, well, found out that it doesn’t quite work that way.

Comment #58: Ms Kate  on  04/10  at  09:54 PM

history_mom@ 46 and firefall @ 52:  Sorry, I do not have a citation.  It was our church history textbooks from many years ago which I no longer own.  Yes, there was some problem with inheritance, but IIRC it was more of a problem that they sold offices of priest and bishop to the highest bidder.  To require all priests everywhere to be celibate as a solution to a fairly limited, specific problem seems to be overkill.  I’m going to stick with a theological reason for celibacy which does affect every single priest and his relationsjip to the sacrament.  That is, women are less than, impure, and capable of polluting men.

As to Paul, we know that he did not write much of the women hating stuff, particularly I and II Timothy, which are from a later time, (not that he didn’t have some issues with sexuality).  The early church wanted clergy to be married, despite what the bible says.  They opposed pagan practices of celibacy and chaste marriages.  They wanted a bishop to be “one husband of one wife” with children to prove that the couple was sexually active. 

It seems to me that this religious concept of purity is what is behind many religions having extreme problems with human sexuality.  Personally, I believe that consenting adults should be free to set up whatever relationships and practices work for them.  Purity has certainly been used against me as a oay pastor.  I have been told many times that I should be celibate because I am impure.  If celibacy works for someone, let it be their choice.  Don’t try to impose it on others.  There is no earthly reason in any age that anyone should be forced into a practice they do not choose.

Comment #59: jackspratt  on  04/10  at  09:56 PM

...hanging out in singles bars…

I used to know a (male) UCC minister and his wife. When asked how they first met, the wife laughed and said, “He picked me up in a bar.” It was one of those after-work open-air happy hour deals at a downtown park. She thought he was cute, asked “What do you do?” and then “No, seriously, what do you really do?”

Another (“out” gay male) UCC minister had a few more successful and less successful relationships with other men while I knew him. Not wildly different from the way things go for anyone else.

Sure, there’s got to be a sense of decorum about these things, but… yes, Protestant clergy do meet partners more or less the same way laypeople do. For better or worse, you might say.

Comment #60: catfood  on  04/10  at  10:44 PM

When the Church was a medieval power, bishops often had ‘nephews’.  There have always been violations of the celibacy rule, especially as you move up the ladder.  They look the other way and hide it from the laity, since they are supposed to be holier than thou. ...

Comment #20: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes on 04/10 at 12:23 PM

Have to wonder about sexual outlets being removed, too.  There has always been rumor and acceptance? in the church about the well worn path between the rectory and the convent.

Comment #61: phylosopher  on  04/11  at  12:45 AM

Just throwing this out for discussion - I think a number of pedophiles may have initially sought refuge in the priesthood, honestly believing that the discipline, routine, and vow of celibacy would “cure” them of their urges.  Then they were charged with groups of youngsters and, well, found out that it doesn’t quite work that way.

This seems like something that theoretically could be true, yet so many of the priests who abused children behaved in such a predatory and sociopathic way that it’s honestly hard for me to imagine them really wanting to be better.

Comment #62: chingona  on  04/11  at  01:10 AM

Can we look forward yet to the next big Catholic issue of whether or not to allow same-sex marriage between priests?

Comment #63: News Nag  on  04/11  at  01:46 AM

Why can’t the RCC simply make it a tier system? Those that want to be parish priests do not have to be celibate, those that want to move up the ranks past priest do.

Comment #64: Ursula  on  04/11  at  02:03 AM

“but IIRC it was more of a problem that they sold offices of priest and bishop to the highest bidder.  To require all priests everywhere to be celibate as a solution to a fairly limited, specific problem seems to be overkill.”

Different issue.  Simony and inheritance (more of position than property) are separate things.  There was also some dealings with the Church wanting to start getting involved in the paying of priests (as in: I pay your salary, I make the rules) - making priests celibate meant not having to pay for wives and kids.  To the Church, celibacy solved a control issue (inheriteted position vs appointed position), a monetary one (costs of the priesthood), and an administrative issue (how the hell can we make all these clowns toe the line).  In many ways it was the elegant solution to a series of problems the Church was dealing with as it consolidated power.  And like many things, after awhile, it started to rot, and has only gotten worse.

” I’m going to stick with a theological reason for celibacy which does affect every single priest and his relationsjip to the sacrament.”

Then you’re sticking with crap.  The Church has married priests in it today - besides the Greek rite dudes, there are some Aglican defectors who have wives and touch the Host with the same hands they diddle their wives with.  And the Church doesn’t care because it sees Aglican ordinations as essentially valid even without a celibacy vow, and since the vow as a requirement for ordination itself isn’t part of doctrine or dogma, but an administrative issue (which institutional iertia has raised to some sort of quasi-dogma I admit) the Church merrily goes along.  There is nothing whatsoever that prevents Ratzi from allowing seminarians to be ordinated without the vow of celibacy starting tomorrow - wouldn’t even need a bull, much less some ex cathedra action.  Now the chance FuhrerPope would do something like that is virtually nil, but no part of Church dogma would stop him.  Assuming the Church trundles along for a few more decades, the then-current Pope will most likely drop the celibacy thing just to get warm bodies into the priesthood (3 doddering old men just simply cannot molest the children of America to the standards we all expect if the celibacy requirement is in effect) - we might even see a woman or two allowed in (complete with Popey “Gawd has shown me tha lite!!!” revelation BS to spin for the faithful)

Comment #65: phalamir  on  04/11  at  02:52 AM

On the other hand, in a better world, the pedophilia scandals should allow a third Vatican Council to to a major retooling of the Church’s view of sexual morality - equality of woman, recognition of gay people, rethinking contraception, and allowing divorce. All of it is absolutely inevitable, and the Church could easily go for it - with some hurt feelings and confusion, but far more open welcome of it. They could, as they did with other deeply held “truths” like requiring Latin, claim it was the calling of the Holy Spirit just as they did with Vatican II - which actually called for a lot of these very things to either be enacted immediately, or at least be opened for study.

It won’t happen.

*Shrug*

They’ll change or they’ll die.  It’s as simple as that.  Andrew Sullivan described this as the biggest church crisis since the Reformation, and I think he may be right.  They’re hemorrhaging money, followers and - most serious to such a hierarchical organization - recruits over this.  It’s really just a question if a bunch of stubborn old men who’ve effectively isolated themselves from the world can bring themselves to admit that their church really can be reduced to a powerless remnant before it’s too late.

Comment #66: Seraph  on  04/11  at  04:01 AM

And if they can bring themselves to admit that “doubling down Is.  Not.  Working.

Comment #67: Seraph  on  04/11  at  04:02 AM

The key problem with your argument, Amanda, is that we know priests have been raping and molesting children for over 50 years, and we know that the Church has been defending the priests rather than their victims for all of that time.

This is not a new problem. The only newness is that the Church is now having to defend its defense of rapists publicly, instead of being allowed to get away with it privately.

Comment #68: Jesurgislac  on  04/11  at  05:48 AM

Amanda wrote:

If he had a right to be married and to date, though, I think it’s likely it could have been avoided.  I’d imagine an elderly priest would do alright on the dating market!  Think of all the widows out there who’d be delighted to be the priest’s girlfriend. He’d be beating them off with a stick.

The rules already in place for ordained married men would prohibit this: a permanent deacon, who can be a married man, is not allowed to remarry if his wife dies.  Similarly, a married priest, whether an Eastern rite priest or a Protestant-to-Catholic convert Latin rite priest, is not allowed to remarry if he is widowed.

Comment #69: Dana  on  04/11  at  06:32 AM

Jesus, phalamir, have you never heard of psychology?  Why choose such an asinine and cruel “solution” to your problems as celibacy for all priests if your hatred of women didn’t see loss of sex as no big deal?  And not only that, you are somehow a better person if you abstain.  Seeing women as less than and impure underlies so many of the church’s beliefs and decisions that it is a major cause of their rot.  Later rot didn’t mess up celibacy.  The decision for celibacy itself was part of the rot.The doddering old men may drop celibacy a few decades down the road, but hatred for women is part of the church’s DNA. There will be no solution for the church’s problems until they face the destructive nature of one of their core beliefs.

Comment #70: jackspratt  on  04/11  at  09:27 AM

Why can’t the RCC simply make it a tier system? Those that want to be parish priests do not have to be celibate, those that want to move up the ranks past priest do.

That sounds like a good idea in theory that would have unintended consequences.  It might actually concentrate the crazy to the top because unless there are enough Catholic, male asexuals to people the vatican, you’d eventually just end up with a bunch of guys who early on chose power over sex when given a choice.  And they’d probably be smug as all hell over it.  And why would you make that choice in the first place when in so many other professions, you can have both at the same time?

Comment #71: Kyso K  on  04/11  at  10:29 AM

  They tell everyone that story about not wanting a priest’s children to inherit church property, but it is not true.  Priests didn’t own church property and children could never have inherited it.  There is one reason then and now for celibacy, and it is the church’s hatred of women.  They do not want a priest handling the holy sacrament if his hands have been touching a dirty and impure woman.  It is also why they will not ordain women to the priesthood.  No woman’s hands may touch the body of christ.  From beginning to end, this is the issue which concern

Indeed Jack,, the churches of ministers of other faiths aren’t threatened by children inheriting.  But women have been distributing communion since oh… the mid ‘80’s, IIRC.

Comment #72: phylosopher  on  04/11  at  11:13 AM

Also consider the role of economics here: in an era of endemic rural poverty and lack of opportunities, odds were you were never going to be able to support a family, anyway, so a vocation in the church provided a lot of opportunities you wouldn’t otherwise have. Even if your family was wealthy, the rules of primageniture meant that you weren’t going to inherit any land to support yourself if you were a younger child.

A very good point, and it just illustrates just how much social evil flows from the Church’s clinging to a celibate priesthood (and, of course, the misogyny that underlies it).

Supporting a celibate priesthood requires that a whole host of social engineering tools be brought to bear.  Endemic poverty is one of them - limiting opportunities so that the priesthood becomes a more attractive option.  Demonizing homosexuals is another one - by denying homosexuals the option of living their own relationships openly they hope to force them either into the priesthood or into a sham marriage that might at least produce a priest or two.

However, I think the most important tool in their kit is control of women’s reproduction.  How many priests do you know that are only children?  More on point, in a society where land and family name pass down through the male line how many priests do not have at least one brother?  Damn few, I’d wager.  To have any reasonable chance of contributing a son to the priesthood, a family pretty much needs two or more boys.  A family with one child has a probability of zero of meeting that criterion,  a family with two children has a 25% chance.  The probability doesn’t exceed 50% until you have at least 4 children.  With 6 kids your chance is almost 90%.

On top of the basic probability calculation, having huge families helps feed the aforementioned endemic poverty.  The church needs sons- lots of sons- and they just don’t care how much poverty, pain, or suffering they cause to get them.

Comment #73: DaveL  on  04/11  at  12:39 PM

“It might actually concentrate the crazy to the top because unless there are enough Catholic, male asexuals to people the vatican, you’d eventually just end up with a bunch of guys who early on chose power over sex when given a choice.”

Isn’t this already true?  The top of the RCC right now is nothing more than a concentration of male asexuals (or men pretending to be asexual) who early on chose power over sex (or power and sex).  Being in the top RCC leadership is their reward for giving up any semblance of a normal life and sticking it out for decades.  They think they’ve earned the right to be power mad pricks. 

By god, Ratzi earned those red Prada shoes and everything that comes with them.  And no group of whining little ex-alter boys and other sniveling Catholic proles upset because they were diddled as kids are going to stop him — or the other craven men surrounding him who are hoping to become The Pope — from seizing and wielding that sweet, sweet, awesome power…

Comment #74: MikeEss  on  04/11  at  12:44 PM

Why choose such an asinine and cruel “solution” to your problems as celibacy for all priests if your hatred of women didn’t see loss of sex as no big deal?

Both/and, I’d imagine.  It was a solution to the financial/power-related problems, and it was also only thought feasible because of the terrible views that the Church had (and has) about women and sexuality.  Which relates back to the post—I’d wager that celibacy is a symptom, not a cause, of what ails the RCC—their fucked up and punitive views on women and sex, and the organization’s need to maintain power at any cost.

Comment #75: Karinna A.  on  04/11  at  12:46 PM

Why choose such an asinine and cruel “solution” to your problems as celibacy for all priests if your hatred of women didn’t see loss of sex as no big deal?

I’m afraid this doesn’t make sense to me. In a lot of ways it’s exactly the hatred of women that makes sex (or the lack of it) a big deal. Otherwise priests could just masturbate. But for men who hate women, sex is (to paraphrase Roy Cohn) about f*cking someone.

Also, in the times we’re talking about celibacy being instituted, I think it pretty much went without saying that (see Chaucer) those who wanted to break the rule could pretty much do so with impunity. What celibacy meant was “no legitimate/acknowledged offspring”. And hence no dynastic problems, either for the church trying to control a particular parish or bishopric, or for the nobility who supported the abbeys as places to put extra offspring. (The rule was also important for maintaining class distinctions: poor/common offspring who went into the church could get an education and a living and maybe even a measure of power and distinction for themselves, but they couldn’t pass that on.)

So certainly organized misogyny had a fair amount to do with it (this was about the same era that the church was struggling with—and eventually suppressing—mariolatry) but there’s no reason something can’t have multiple causes. And once the notion of celibacy caught on, misogyny could run unchecked.

Comment #76: paul  on  04/11  at  12:46 PM

@ Paul #56
Isn’t the DOminic’s pizza dude an ops dei, and one of the Cheney’s?

Comment #77: phylosopher  on  04/11  at  02:28 PM

I agree that celibacy doesn’t “cause” the Church’s child rape/pedophilia problem. But I do think it plays a role by creating an environment that makes it safe (or safer) for individuals who would commit such atrocities to do one of two things: (1) hide out in the priesthood where there is an available pool of victims; or (2) join the priesthood in the too often forlorn hope that the structure of the priesthood will help him contain his urges.

Comment #78: LynnDee  on  04/11  at  02:29 PM

Opus Dei is pretty fucked up.  As much as they like to think they are uber-Catholic, true believers, they ‘cafeteria Catholic’ even more than liberal Catholics.

And all their choices are evil.  It’s all about denying and mortifying the body. getting tons of money, and, of course, treating women like complete shit.  But if you do it in Latin, it sounds sooooo cooooool.

Comment #79: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  04/11  at  02:54 PM

phylosopher,

I don’t know what an ops dei is because I was raised Baptist, but you are correct. Monahan (former owner of Domino’s pizza) is uber Catholic. So much so that he sold the pizza empire to start a far right, religious college.

Comment #80: DC Fem  on  04/11  at  02:54 PM

It might actually concentrate the crazy to the top because unless there are enough Catholic, male asexuals to people the vatican, you’d eventually just end up with a bunch of guys who early on chose power over sex when given a choice.

Given that the people that are working with children and also doing most of the molesting are the priests, I still think the tiered system would help if celibacy is indeed a factor. It certainly wouldn’t hurt the RCC’s ability to recruit priests, and would still allow the leadership to continue their complete avoidance of women. Sure, the crazy would rise to the top, but that would also keep them away from the laity.

Comment #81: Ursula  on  04/11  at  03:22 PM

Clerical celibacy was introduced in the 10th/11th century in order to stop parish priests having ‘legitimate’ children who could and would inherit the parish property, i.e. to keep ownership of the property and the priests office from becoming alienable and out of centralised control.—Firefall

Giuliano de’ Medici (brother of Lorenzo), had an illegitimate son by his mistress, a son who later went on to become Pope Clement VII because of a loophole in canon law that gave mistresses the power to ensign legitimacy to bastard sons if it was “agreed” between the couple that they were “married” at the time of copulation (basically similar to the verbal contract short marriages in Islam, except a priest is not involved). I can’t find any information on whether that “verbal contract” option still exists or is even recognized, but I can’t imagine that it is.

Comment #82: Princess Rot  on  04/11  at  03:48 PM

Sorry for the typo, Ursula, but “awareness of Opus Dei” seems to be far reaching after The DaVinci Code.  Personally, they are just as fucked up as the RCC in general, and subscribe to an extremely more virulent philosophy.    If the RCC does embrace any changes - it’s just a bait and switch if the Opus Dei replaces the priesthood.

Comment #83: phylosopher  on  04/11  at  04:13 PM

Sorry, #83 was meant for DC Fem.

Comment #84: phylosopher  on  04/11  at  04:14 PM

Well, marriage isn’t performed by the priest.  He officiates.  Marriage is performed by the bride and groom, so I can see the argument.

I cannot remotely imagine any RCC official accepting it in this day and age.  Regardless of the fact that every Mass has the refrain “we acknowlege one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”, and despite the fact any Catholic in good standing has the ability to baptize another, if you aren’t baptized formally in a church with all the attendant paperwork, you’ll get re-baptized.  Doctrine be damned.  Nothing counts unless one of the ordained is present.

Comment #85: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  04/11  at  04:15 PM

Opus Dei is composed of people who think the Catholic church is way too liberal. Having their members in positions of power scares me even more.

Comment #86: Hector B.  on  04/11  at  06:01 PM

They tell everyone that story about not wanting a priest’s children to inherit church property, but it is not true.  Priests didn’t own church property and children could never have inherited it.

yeah, but if the Abbots job opens up at the Monistary, who is going to get it - the most devout monk or some son of a Bishop

you dont need title to the property to have a nepotism problem

Comment #87: jefft452  on  04/11  at  08:57 PM

“Opus Dei is composed of people who think the Catholic church is way too liberal’

they think the Inquisition was too liberal

Comment #88: jefft452  on  04/11  at  08:58 PM

they think the Inquisition was too liberal

Oh, that’s too harsh.  They think it was just right.

Comment #89: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  04/11  at  09:58 PM

The Boy Scouts, which is for all intents and purposes a Mormon organization

Now, there’s an unusual misunderstanding. The Boy Scouts are not dominated by Mormons except where entire communities are dominated by Mormons. So yeah, Utah branches of the Boy Scouts are entirely a Mormon organization. Around here, no Mormon influence.

Comment #90: asdf  on  04/11  at  10:06 PM

I think Amanda is spot on about celibacy’s affects on the Catholic church as an organisation. ABC radio (Australian national broadcaster) had a really interesting program on this a few weeks ago which looked at the kinds of toxic thinking created through the (current) process of ordination itself. Basically it was arguing that the way the Church thinks about and creates priests leads individual priests to become, at the very least, co-dependant and immature. You can download or read a transcript here.

It wasn’t celibacy alone but rather its use as a way of setting priests apart, making them feel ‘other’ that was identified as part of the problem.

Comment #91: JC  on  04/12  at  12:45 AM

Oh and on the whole why was celibacy imposed historical question; definitely a way for a central hierachy to impose control. Remember this was a time of centralisation for states as well as the church and the church was in part reacting to that centralisation. And celibacy was not considered cruel. It was considered godly. The church already had major arms of its organisation in which celibacy was the norm (the monasteries/nunneries) and these were going gangbusters at this period. Was there misogyny? You betcha. But then the patriarchy has been around for a long time and its tendrils reach deep and into everything including the medieval church.

On papal bastards (in the earlier sense of the word bastard), yes there have been bastards who were made pope and popes have also had bastard children. The time of the Medici popes was also a time where church offices were bought and sold openly. The papacy was a secular power in Europe and the position of head of state (ie Pope) was sought after and fought over by the powerful families/heads of state of the day. You could certainly become Pope if you were a bastard but only if you were a rich and powerful bastard wink and male, of course. Most of the weasling justifications such as that cited by Princess Rot above were made post facto. Incidently if you were a pope’s bastard daughter you could end up as de facto head of a state and a pretty important personage in your own right (see Lucrezia Borgia). All of which indicates that wealth and status pretty much trumped church rules.

/medieval and early modern historian

Comment #92: JC  on  04/12  at  01:06 AM

I can’t find any information on whether that “verbal contract” option still exists or is even recognized, but I can’t imagine that it is.

It was actually a pretty common way of doing common-law marriage throughout Europe.  In Scotland, you could be legally married simply by announcing to other people that you were married and setting up a household together until 1939.  And IIRC there were always huge problems in medieval Europe with figuring out who was and was not married since a handshake agreement to eventually get married was considered to be just as binding as an actual ceremony and there would be many hoops to jump through to get that contract annulled.

So marriage as we think of it now is not even close to what it was when the church first decided that priests shouldn’t get married.  And a vow of celibacy is a vow not to get married, not a vow to never have sex.  A vow not to have sex is a vow of chastity.  It’s only pretty recently that the Church started acting as though the two are identical.

Comment #93: Mnemosyne  on  04/12  at  02:33 AM

IMHO celibacy is a significant problem, but sex scandals aplenty happen in churches where clergy can marry as well. The real problem is the repression of consensual sexual conduct between mature adults allowing very bad things to go on when everyone’s worried about gayness.

Comment #94: BrianX  on  04/12  at  06:58 AM

“And a vow of celibacy is a vow not to get married, not a vow to never have sex.  A vow not to have sex is a vow of chastity. “

Not quite. Half right. A vow of celibacy is a vow not to get married. A vow of chastity is a vow only to have sex within the appropriate allowed station in life - that is, married. A married person having sex with their spouse is being chaste.

However, since the church also defines sex outside of marriage as a serious sin, someone who has vowed not to get married and proceeds to have sex is not off the hook. In fact, a priest would technically not be allowed to say mass until he has gone to confession and received absolution.

Not, mind you, that it appears to stop any of them.

Comment #95: Lymis  on  04/12  at  08:49 AM

that celibacy attracts criminal deviants who need cover

My working theory is that the celibacy requirement in the RCC provides a haven for those Catholic men whose sexual desires conflict with either the intolerant culture of the religion (e.g. homosexuality) or with the values of general society (e.g. paedophilia). Many of these men who wrestle with these demons look at the priesthood and say, “hey, somewhere where I don’t have to deal with them.”

Of course, as with all things, there is no “away.” Especially if the institution places these men right back into positions of temptation, giving them power and authority and protection in the bargain.

And it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that a major reason many Catholic men are saying no thanks to joining the priesthood—-even though it’s a pretty perk-heavy job, if you think about it—-is the vow of celibacy

That’s definitely an impediment to recruitment, but for a certain sort of man the perks are more important than the ability to have sex. Things become even more interesting when we consider that power and authority and a culture of secrecy and internal justice are some of those perks. At that point, certain priests decide that they can use the perks to over-ride the celibacy requirement. Last week on “This American Life,” a “fixer” priest described a whole range of these situations of self-justification, from child molestors to priests who were de facto married to their housekeepers.

So why not give up the vow of celibacy?  It would be a really swift way to fix a lot of their problems, it would seem.

Beyond your insight on the Church’s branding, I don’t know if it would do much to fix the real problems. As with rape with individual criminals, the sex-phobia is mainly an expression of power by an institution: an attempt to control a primal human drive in as many ways as possible, to send the sole message that “we have the power to do this.” Some weak-willed people, like Douthat, are simply drawn to that kind of control, and not in the healthy BDSM way.

The Church might just as well focus on controlling fasting and permitted food types (oh wait, they do that, too). The point is that this is about institutional power and privilege, and taking away the celibacy requirement won’t change the nature of this rotten, corrupt, control-freak institution. From that point of view, the celibacy requirement (in combination with the declining authority of clergy in the developed world) now serves a somewhat useful purpose by scaring away the bulk of power-seekers.

Comment #96: Gracchus.  on  04/12  at  10:14 AM

To illustrate that, I’d argue that, had he been born 40 years earlier, Douthat would likely have gone into the priesthood, celibacy and all. But these days, the influence and authority he craves comes more from wingnut welfare punditry, so here he is.

Comment #97: Gracchus.  on  04/12  at  10:35 AM

“And celibacy was not considered cruel.  It was considered gogdly.”

JC thanks for your post.  That celibacy was considered godly is the official history and what the church promoted.  On this thread I’ve been arguing for alternative history- how it actually affected people.  We know that the imposition of celibacy was experienced as cruel by many young people who were placed by their families in convents/monasteries against their will. As many have already noted, some people just disobeyed and were sexually active anyway.  Later on, it was part of Martin Luther’s work to free women from vows they did not wish to take, and leave the convent to marry (including his own wife).

Only a patriarchal, misogynist institution would reach for the imposition of celibacy as a solution to economic, inheritance, or control problems.  If women are believed to be inferior and impure, abstaining from sex with them would not be seen as much of a sacrifice. 

As you note, celibacy was just one part of a quest for unbelievable power and wealth.

Comment #98: jackspratt  on  04/12  at  01:08 PM

This just in:

High-ranking Bishop Blames Jews for Pope Criticism in Child Rape Scandal

As if the defense of the Pope could get any uglier:

http://www.americablog.com/2010/04/high-ranking-bishop-blames-jews-for.html

Comment #99: judybrowni  on  04/12  at  04:41 PM

One reason the Bishop may have thought he could get away with Jew-blaming: Everybody’s doin’ it.

Study: Anti-Semitism in Europe hit new high in 2009

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1162191.html

Comment #100: judybrowni  on  04/12  at  05:11 PM

judy—I saw that…. weren’t they just comparing the outrage against the pope and the bishops over this scandal to anti-semitism?

I can just picture the meeting: “Well, trying to side with the Jews didn’t pull our asses out of the fire, let’s throw them under the bus instead… maybe that will work!”

Comment #101: Mighty Ponygirl  on  04/12  at  05:30 PM

Here’s your handy Catholic church pedophile scandal wrapup for the week
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/pedophile-round-up.html

(including links to “a few good posts that show you what a church (in this case, the Episcopalians) which actually gives a shit about protecting its flock and securing justice for rape victims will do, when confronted with evidence that members of its clergy are sexually assaulting its members.”

...“The Episcopal church I go to in Upstate NY got word of sexual abuse by a rector who had left the parish almost 20 years ago. For six months they investigated secretly and found more who were abused. They invited the entire parish to an emergency meeting to tell us what happened before we found out in the papers. It was a sad meeting, of course. Many of us worried out-loud if our parish would recover.

The abuser was banned from the church. The parish instituted more awareness programs. People didn’t leave the parish in droves. Here’s hoping that the Pope will start trusting Catholics with internal secrets.

Another writes:

Here is an even more relevant story from the Episcopal Church. A brief summary:

While Charles Bennison was a young rector of a parish in California in the 1970s, his brother John, a seminarian who was working as the youth minister in the same parish, was having sex with several parishioners, including a 14-year-old girl. Eventually, John left the parish and the priesthood (yes, he was ordained anyway!). Although Charles knew of this scandal, however, he said nothing to the police about the 14-year-old.

In 1998, Charles becomes bishop of Pennsylvania, but the story gets out about his brother and his shenanigans. Charles’s failure to contact the police at the time causes a furor in 2006. The result: Charles Bennison is officially brought up on charges by the church hierarchy and deposed. Bennison is appealing the sentence, but this is a prime example of a church taking responsibility by firing one its bishops.”

Comment #102: judybrowni  on  04/12  at  05:46 PM

Wouldn’t it be nice if church officials weren’t somehow also blaming the Jews in the child rape scandal?

It would be nice, but unfortunately wouldn’t be in character, now would it?

“A furious transatlantic row has erupted over quotes that were attributed to a retired Italian bishop, which suggested that Jews were behind the current criticism of the Catholic church’s record on tackling clerical sex abuse.

A website quoted Giacomo Babini, the emeritus bishop of Grosseto, as saying he believed a “Zionist attack” was behind the criticism, considering how “powerful and refined” the criticism is.

The comments, which have been denied by the bishop, follow a series of statements from Catholic churchmen alleging the existence of plots to weaken the church and Pope Benedict XVI.

Allegedly speaking to the Catholic website Pontifex, Babini, 81, was quoted as saying: “They do not want the church, they are its natural enemies. Deep down, historically speaking, the Jews are God killers.”

http://www.americablog.com/2010/04/high-ranking-bishop-blames-jews-for.html

Oh here we go again with the “Christ killers” malignment. What’s next, how low can the Catholic Church go in trying to blame their own sins to others? Hinting at Blood Libel Jewish child rapist orgy parties would be my guess.

Comment #103: judybrowni  on  04/12  at  05:55 PM

Anti-Semitism in Europe hit new high in 2009

I went to the research center’s website: anti-Semitism is conflated with protests against specific actions of Israel, especially in the case of “Operation Cast Lead.”  (Amnesty International has a harrowing account of Israel’s actions on their website.) If people marched in the streets against our invasion of Iraq, we wouldn’t put it on the anti-white, anti-Christian side of the ledger. They need to reanalyze the data and draw two separate conclusions.

Although certainly there are anti-Israelis who started as anti-Semites, and people appalled by the actions of Israel who grew to hate all Jews, everywhere.

Comment #104: Hector B.  on  04/12  at  06:02 PM

And Bishop Babini blamed the Freemasons equally with the Jews. At 81, he sounds like the uncle that you hope stays in his room when company comes over, fearing what idiocy might come out of his mouth.

Comment #105: Hector B.  on  04/12  at  06:22 PM

I went to the research center’s website: anti-Semitism is conflated with protests against specific actions of Israel, especially in the case of “Operation Cast Lead.”

A long-time tactic of those who can’t see anything wrong with those dirty savage Palestinians being pushed onto bantustaans to rot.

Comment #106: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  04/12  at  06:29 PM

I went to the research center’s website: anti-Semitism is conflated with protests against specific actions of Israel

Babini certainly does that in the general sense ... “they killed Our Lord” one moment, “Zionists” the next. For a churchman this guy doesn’t know a whole lot about the modern history of the Holy Land (hint, Monsignor: not all Jews are Zionists, nor all Zionists Jews).

At 81, he sounds like the uncle that you hope stays in his room when company comes over, fearing what idiocy might come out of his mouth.

Except this isn’t the marginalised crank relative, this is one of the typical old men who are given the privilege of sitting at the head of the table and telling everyone at the dinner party when they can and can’t eat.

It was only a matter of time before this scandal started bringing out the real nasties from the Vatican’s finely carved woodwork.

Comment #107: Gracchus.  on  04/12  at  09:21 PM

Fascinating discussion; thank you.  The concept of celibacy as part of RC “branding” is new to me and helpful.

Background (since I’m new here) to the following comments:  I was a convert to Catholicism who “de-converted” (reverted?) after twenty years or so; during that period I attended a Catholic seminary as one of maybe five lay students out of about a hundred total; the others were candidates for the priesthood, and most of them were members of major religious orders.

1.  It seemed to me, even at the time, that the vast majority of these candidates, and the priests who were our teachers, were men who had difficulties not only with sexuality and bodies, but with intimacy in general.  They did not have, and many of them seemed incapable of, close relationships with any other human beings.  Life in a religious order and in the priesthood appeared to be a way for them to form some connections while still keeping others at arm’s length.

Not that this excuses rape or other predatory behavior in the slightest, but it fits what I understand to be part of the classic profile of an abuser:  someone who cannot relate to adult peers and therefore preys upon children—who do not require an adult relationship, and even more are not empowered to refuse or resist the demands of an adult.

If my admittedly small sample was representative, this is an additional aspect of the situation, related but not identical to the misogyny and problematic sexuality, which I haven’t seen addressed very much.

2.  Yes, also, to Cerberus’ comments at #53.  And I’m wondering about the connection between this and the attitudes explored in a recent psychological study (will look up the reference and post it if anybody’s interested) that showed that the more a person perceives his/her behavior as morally “better” than average, the readier he/she was to excuse lapses that he/she understood as “worse”—a sort of averaging study.

3.  Very minor point, but:  Opus Dei is extraordinarily conservative and misogynistic, yes.  And please note that the “dedicated” members (argh, sorry, I can’t find the comment now, but there was one that referred to responsible laity taking over some priestly tasks) are, or were at the time when I had contact with them, not ordained and not clergy but are required to be celibate and chaste, and take vows thereof.

Comment #108: ookpik  on  04/13  at  01:45 AM

Later on, it was part of Martin Luther’s work to free women from vows they did not wish to take, and leave the convent to marry (including his own wife).

The problem I have with this statement is that it suggests that Luther and Protestants were somehow less misogynist and that Protestantism liberated women to some extent. The truth was that the Reformation did a lot of harm to women by foreclosing one of the few options for a woman to receive an education, to have a vocation that allowed them to work in the world, to have some political authority (such as it was), and not to marry.  The closure of convents in reformed states was devastating.  The Church’s counter-reformation move toward claustration ensured that many of the previous benefits of becoming a nun were removed in an effort to protect the Church from Protestant accusations that nuns were whores.  Protestants, including Luther, were just as misogynist as their Catholic brethren even if they disagreed on celibacy.

As a historian, claims to “alternate history” and suggestions that your history makes a better approximation of how people were “really” affected make me cringe as it is often used to posit rather ahistorical claims.  I imagine it’s how scientists feel when they have to listen to various iterations of “alternative medicine”.

Comment #109: history_mom  on  04/13  at  03:55 AM

I’ve long wondered why the Catholic church doesn’t give more responsibility to lay workers. I mean, most parochial schoolteachers seem to be laity these days, and it looks like a good model. If all you really need a celibate priest for is to conduct the sacraments, it’d be easier to stretch them out to serve more parishes.

Comment #110: ttintagel  on  04/16  at  02:54 PM

ttintagel @ #110:  At least one reason:  control.  The Church’s control over layfolk is much more limited than that over priests and religious, with the latter being under various vows of obedience to the hierarchy and the former bound only by the general theology of what it is to be a Catholic, if that.  You can suspend a priest for unorthodoxy writing/teaching, let alone activities (such as political office); there’s nothing of that sort for laity short of excommunication, and that only happens after much larger “offenses.”

Finances are probably a second reason.  Religious sisters and brothers teaching in parochial schools “didn’t need” a living wage, let alone health insurance or pensions, and priests running parishes can generally make do on minimal salaries plus the housing provided with the job.  Laypeople need real salaries to survive in the outside world and maybe support families as well, and they may even be covered by employment law so they can make sure they get it!

Comment #111: ookpik  on  04/16  at  05:11 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.