Clergy sex abuse crisis 'is not over'

[MC Just]

National News Story
Clergy sex abuse crisis 'is not over,' child protection director says

'The crisis of sexual abuse of minors within the Catholic Church is not over,' Kathleen McChesney, executive director of the U.S. bishops' Office of Child and Youth Protection said.


By Jerry Filteau

2/18/2005

ASHINGTON (CNS) -- "The crisis of sexual abuse of minors within the Catholic Church is not over," Kathleen McChesney, executive director of the U.S. bishops' Office of Child and Youth Protection, told reporters Feb. 18.
McChesney spoke at a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, convened to release the findings of the second national audit of dioceses, assessing their compliance in 2004 with the bishops' "Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People." Her office is responsible for coordinating the audits each year and compiling them into a public national report.

The audit report itself contained firm warnings against complacency, saying there is need for "continued external oversight and evaluation" of dioceses.

An accompanying statistical study reported that during the past year there were 1,092 new allegations of past abuse by 1,083 victims involving 756 accused priests or deacons and that dioceses and religious orders spent nearly $158 million on abuse-related matters -- settlements with victims, therapy, legal fees and other costs such as child protection programs and background checks on church personnel and volunteers.

As McChesney highlighted some of the findings of the audit and statistical study and the situation still facing the church, she punctuated the data with the refrain, "We know this crisis is not over."

"We know this crisis is not over because many men and women who have been abused and their family members continue to suffer from psychological, spiritual and emotional wounds," she said. "We know this crisis is not over because, despite the efforts of many, some victims have been frustrated, hurt and sometimes humiliated, by the response of the church. ... We know this crisis is not over because over 300 reports received in 2004 identified alleged abusers previously not known."

"What is over is the denial that this problem exists, and what is over is the reluctance of the church to deal openly with the public about the nature and extent of the problem," she added.

"While a measurable amount of progress has been made, much more is required, but nothing that is beyond our ability," she said.

Also participating in the press conference were Bishop William S. Skylstad of Spokane, Wash., president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops; William A. Gavin, head of the Boston-based Gavin Group Inc., which carried out the audits; and Nicholas P. Cafardi, dean of Duquesne University's law school and chairman of the all-lay National Review Board formed by the bishops to provide an ongoing independent assessment of how well they implement the charter.

Gavin, a former assistant director of the FBI, said the 2004 audits, conducted on-site by his investigators, show that "much has been done by motivated people, sincerely dedicated toward bringing closure to past misdeeds and to heal those who have been so abused."

"More, however, can and must be done before this closure is fully realized," he said.

Cafardi said completing the second year of audits "is movement in the right direction, but it is not a cure."

"For even after two years, we continue to see the depths and the pain of the crisis," he said. He added that annual audits will be needed to assure that the church continues to improve its work of child protection.

Gavin said that in 2005 all dioceses will be audited with the same "completeness."

A reporter questioned that assertion, noting the bishops have agreed that dioceses found to be in full compliance in 2004 may be allowed do a self-audit rather than an on-site visit by outside investigators in 2005.

Gavin said, "The same audit instrument for 2005 will be used for every diocese." While dioceses without compliance problems in 2004 will be allowed to fill out the 2005 responses themselves, he said, independent auditors will review those responses. If the auditors have any questions and those cannot be resolved by telephone or e-mail follow-up, "they will go on the scene" to complete the audit.

McChesney said that when one adds the 1,083 new claimants who came forward in 2004 to the 10,667 recorded in a previous study of all cases from 1950 through 2002, the cumulative number of apparent victims from the two studies is 11,750.

While the number of complaints lodged across the country in 2003 has not yet been tallied nationally, "that is something that is being discussed," she said.

"It hasn't been presented to the body of bishops" in the form of a proposal yet, "but it is possible to do that if they agree."

Bishop Skylstad said, "The bishops have certainly been very committed to sharing information on the reality of abuse in this country." He indicated an openness to gathering the 2003 data, saying, "There is no reason for us to hide that information. We want to be very open and transparent -- the charter calls us to do that."

Near the end of her opening remarks to the media, McChesney made an appeal to any victims of abuse who have not come forward yet, saying, "I urge you to consider doing so, particularly if your offender might still be in ministry. Please help us to help you and to protect others as well.

"Our goal is to heal where that is possible and to protect because we must," she added. "Continued vigilance and dedication to this effort is not a choice, it is a necessity."

[MC Just]

I know of a cure. The Vatican can send some people over to completely remove and warn the heterodox in the seminaries and remove "fishy" priests. They have all the power to put an end to this.

[crusader1234]

I think the problem is that we don't have enough Priests for the Church to feel in a position to be doing weeding.

[MichaelFilo]

I think that is a big problem, Crusader. I also know that the Church has chosen lesser priests over the troubled men who were priests before.

God bless,
Mikey

[cmotherofpirl]

It has also become a money racket for lawyers and victims who appear after FORTY YEARS and demand compensation.

[MichaelFilo]

The problem with sexual abuse at an early age is that it doesn't come up till later. Although I don't think all claims are valid, I'd be the slowest to throw out any of them. I personally would hate to be the one to start something like accuse priests of such a thing, even if it happened to me. Add that in with the mind's ability to repress things that arne't desirable in childhood, and you have a problem.

God bless,
Mikey

[Melchisedec]

Why not allow priests marriage? Wasn't this allowed until the 16-17th century, I dont remember. It could be an extreme impulse for sexual gratification, only to manifest itself in the most disturbing deviant behavior.

[Guest Eremite]

Melchisidec,

Allowing priests to marry would only give them their own children to molest, rather than someone else's.

Pedophilia is a very serious sickness, and it affects married men as well as unmarried.

[Socrates]

The problem is that many seminaries have become bastions of homosexuality and other deviant sexual behavior, and are run by those who condone such behavior. Fortunately, some of these have been cleaned up, but all the "pink palaces" definately need to be shut down.
(This topic has been discussed and argued at length in earlier threads.)


Melchisedec - The celibate priesthood has been the norm since the early centuries of the Church. The truth is that the Anglican Church has always allowed married priests, yet has worse sexual abuse problems than the Catholic Church (though this fact is largely ignored by the "mainstream" media).
If the priests involved were heterosexual, they would satisfy their "extreme impulse for sexual gratification" by having affairs with women, not by molesting teenage boys. A quick look at the facts and common sense shows the idea that priests molest boys because they are not allowed to marry to be nonsense. The problem is usually pre-existing sexual problems in the men who become priests.
I know many good priests who are celibate and live holy lives. This discipline requires a high degree of holiness, humility, and focus on the sacred.

Crusader - We need quality, not quantity. We should not accept bad men or perverts to fill numbers. Bad priests do great damage to the Church, and discourage men from wanting to join the priesthood. Good and holy priests do great good for the Church, and their presence helps the Church and draws men to the priesthood. Many seminaries are corrupt, and turn down good orthodox men.
Good seminaries (such as in Arlington) attract many good men and are flourishing, while bad seminaries face a "vocation crisis."

Edited February 23, 2005 by Socrates

[Paladin D]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Feb 23 2005, 11:04 AM'] Why not allow priests marriage? Wasn't this allowed until the 16-17th century, I dont remember. It could be an extreme impulse for sexual gratification, only to manifest itself in the most disturbing deviant behavior. [/quote]
[url="http://www.reformation.com/"]http://www.reformation.com/[/url]

A little outdated, but nonetheless shows that sexual abuse does occur even amongst married men and women.

[Guest]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Feb 23 2005, 10:04 AM'] Why not allow priests marriage? Wasn't this allowed until the 16-17th century, I dont remember. It could be an extreme impulse for sexual gratification, only to manifest itself in the most disturbing deviant behavior. [/quote]
priest SHOULD be allowed to marry
no where is it biblical that they shouldnt marry...

ya Jesus didnt marry but that doesnt mean all priest shouldnt marry......
if priest married, sure it would take away some of the time devoted to the church
but on the same token, to out right deny a priest the option to marry is very unfair........ As much as a priest sacrifices and serves in his life, he should have the privlege to take along a wife if he so chooses......

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]priest SHOULD be allowed to marry
no where is it biblical that they shouldnt marry...
[/quote]

Priests have never been allowed to marry. Married men have been allowed to become priests, but if their wife died, they could not remarry. This is an oft ignored (but crucial) distinction.

[quote]to out right deny a priest the option to marry is very unfair........ As much as a priest sacrifices and serves in his life, he should have the privlege to take along a wife if he so chooses......[/quote]

The theology of the priesthood in the West places heavy emphasis on the fact that the priest does indeed marry, but sacrifices a human spouse for a divine spouse (the Church). Since men are not forced to become priests, but rather do so of their own volition, it is erroneous to call the discipline of the west "unfair". A man is free to embrace the vocation of matrimony, if he so pleases. But he has to make a choice which vocation he will embrace.

Even in the East, celibates are the only ones ordained as Bishops. I never hear claims that this practice is "unfair".

As for the biblical practice regarding clerics and marriage, the Apostles did permit married men to become priests, but they didn't have much of a choice. Most men in their culture were married. As the culture in the west gradually become very heavily open to celibacy, the discipline of the Church grew with it.

Edited February 23, 2005 by Eremite

[Paladin D]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' date='Feb 23 2005, 03:50 PM'] priest SHOULD be allowed to marry
no where is it biblical that they shouldnt marry...

ya Jesus didnt marry but that doesnt mean all priest shouldnt marry......
if priest married, sure it would take away some of the time devoted to the church
but on the same token, to out right deny a priest the option to marry is very unfair........  As much as a priest sacrifices and serves in his life, he should have the privlege to take along a wife if he so chooses...... [/quote]
[b]1)[/b] It's a discipline, so it can change. However, I highly doubt that'll be anytime soon considering celibacy does free up time and responsibilites, for priests and their busy schedules.

[b]2)[/b] Married men can become priests in the Eastern Rite, but once they're priests they cannot marry.

[b]3)[/b] The average income of a [i][b]diocesan[/b][/i] priest will not be enough to support a family. ($10,000-$12,000?) Let's not forget to mention [b][i]religious[/b][/i] priests, who don't own anything but share everything.


More reasons can be listed, but someone else will cover them for me.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]The average income of a diocesan priest will not be enough to support a family. ($10,000-$12,000?) Let's not forget to mention religious priests, who don't own anything but share everything.[/quote]

The discipline of celibacy is not up for negotation for religious priests, because celibacy is an intrinsic part of the consecrated life. This is why the Church distinguishes between the "vow" a religious makes and the "promise" a diocesan priest makes. Religious make a vow because celibacy is inherent to the religious life. Diocesan priests make a promise, rather than a vow, because celibacy is not inherent to the priesthood, but rather a discipline in force for priests.

[Paladin D]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Feb 23 2005, 04:04 PM']
The discipline of celibacy is not up for negotation for religious priests, because celibacy is an intrinsic part of the consecrated life. This is why the Church distinguishes between the "vow" a religious makes and the "promise" a diocesan priest makes. Religious make a vow because celibacy is inherent to the religious life. Diocesan priests make a promise, rather than a vow, because celibacy is not inherent to the priesthood, but rather a discipline in force for priests. [/quote]
D'oh! I looked over that detail.

[Myles Domini]

The decision about what to do in this situation is very, very difficult and its probable that the Church in Rome is pondering very seriously over it. It is well known that some seminaries are occupied entirely by heretics whose sole aim is to undermine the magisterium by fostering extreme feminism and sexual deviancy in applicants to the priesthood. Moreover, many of these seminaries find support from their Bishops who perhaps out of their own infidelity or fear of a priest shortage dont get on the 'wrong side' of the rectors of these institutions. Some of these seminaries even turn down faithful young men who wish to be priests because they refuse to dissent from the Church's teachings. This allows them to dictate the priest shortage and thus dictate the future of the Church. It is in the seminaries that this war will be one and lost.

In truth I think there's no way to deal with the crisis except for the Vatican to begin systematically suspending the function of seminaries identified as heretical and call upon aspirants either to come to faithful seminaries like that of the Denver Archdiocese or come to Rome for training. Between Casa Balthasar, The Venerable English College and the American College hopefully they'll be room enough. Its an ambitious project and it will cost losts of money--unfortunately--but it might be the only way to stabilise the ship.

Some people suggested that married priests might assist the situation. To which I would reply it would depend on the type of married priest. The marriage of priests has been legislated against by local councils for a long time and was summarily removed during the great reform of the 11th century, a reform reinvigorated by Trent in the 16th century. It is a long standing tradition, moreover, it is one that has reaped success time and time again. I'm not against married priests, I cant be its part of our tradition, and moreover Rome has the right at any time to reinstate married priests and I would never voice my opinion against something that is in the lawful powers of the Pope to do.

However, I do think the celibacy of the priest is a greater witness to the Western world and its obsession for illicit things. I mean this is why celibacy was extended throughout the West in the first place. The success of the Benedictines in evangelising was in part due to their celibate witness. Does that mean married men cannot witness, of course not. Who would suggest that. Marriage is a vocation and a sacrament--a natural sacrament that existed before the fall no less. Anybody who has read Ephesians 5 knows that it allows human beings to touch a 'great mystery' and get to understand how God's covenantal love for us works according to the character of the two spouses called to that task. However, a priest must be flexible. He cannot be divided between his family and his flock. Someone mentioned the salary of a priest. Nowhere near enough to cope with a wife and child, never mind children. It might even force the priest to take up a job in addition to his ministry as is the case amongst many Eastern priests and Anglicans. Then there is the whole question of being free to administer sacraments at any time i.e. the sacrament of Extreme Unction. In the middle of your kids first birthday party? Its a dilema, unlikely yes, possible certainly.

As I said I am not against anything that Rome has the right to do. If the Pope decides its for the bests, then the Holy Spirit has told him something I'm not privy too. However, I would think that if this were to happen that the Vatican would be prudent enough to restrict the married priesthood to married men with stable families of at least between 45-50 years old before they applied. This might cut out the need for extra cash and providing for kids. Yet, even that would not solve the sex abuse problem amongst the celibates.

The problem is fourfold: improper canditates, improper teaching, improper preparation, improper laity. I seperate the second and third because one is based upon the doctrine they recieve and the latter--more importantly--on their prayer life, and highlight the significance of the fourth also. I hear some places the seminaries dont even pray. How then can they expect to live a life of apostolic celibacy? If you are not deep in God, in those lonely hours Satan will come for you. Lonliness can do bad things to human beings and Satan knows how to exploit that. I'm sure many a priest has heard the words 'did God really say...?' just as Eve did. I'm also certain that this lonliness contributes to the wordliness of many priests. I know many a priest who does not let themselves be called 'Father' because they think it makes them 'fit in'. I object to this and make it a point to address them as such. They are trying to blur distinctions that should not be blurred and the laity should not encourage this. We should remind them that like St Paul they have become fathers to us through the gospel and we're called to emulate them so they better set a good example. Moreover, we've got to give them the emotional support they might sometimes be lacking. After all, even St John of the Cross had a dark night of the soul.

The problem is that the priests arent being engulfed in God, nor are they being encouraged in that direction through the support of their seminary tutors, peers or congregations. If they were on fire with Christ it wouldnt matter if they were celibate or not. Like the cure d'ars and the millions of celibates throughout history they'd make it through without much problem. Sex abuse shows up a desire for intimacy, in my opinion. For some this desire is a real sickness and they should never have entered the priesthood or been allowed to go through 7 years of seminary training unvetted. For others its just a twisted lonliness. Nonetheless, to cure it we have to turn our priests' attentions back towards the immanence of our constant companion, Christ, and drown them in His love. If the seminaries are not spending 60 minutes in mental prayer a day, consistently praying their breviary, spending time before the blessed sacrament, praying the rosary etc.etc. dont expect them to be able to deal with the temptations of the world.

Because they will be alone, and nobody can do it alone. We all need Him. The celibates more so since the majority of the time they have no human confidants to turn to.

So thats my solution. Cure the seminaries, weed out the bad canditates and when we get the good ones foster their vocation to prayer from day one, and constantly encourage them to keep it up. 7 years in a seminary doing an hour of mental prayer daily? Can anybody say that wont change the way you act and be serious?

[Guest]

ya, i dont see how in the world a priest could molest a child.....that is sick...i dont understand it at all........i dont think that becuz priest arent married they look for effection in little kids.........my reasoning was, that i could see how a priest could have relations with females becuz being a male and haveing a flesh, there is a need there......now in noway am i saying that its ok or its right.....but not being able to marry could even present this temptation even more.........

but i agree with u guys about the money part of it...i never knew a priest salary...i was always curious about that.....and ur right about how a priest chooses to make that commitment.....so i see where your comeing from.......

back to my first paragraph......is there many problems with priest haveing relations with females ?? i never really hear about that, prolly cuz its more of an issue with the priest and God and really isnt affecting the average person......or doesnt this even really happen much ? becuz after all priest are very sincere and holy men..........i was jus curious.......i think it would really be tough to avoid that temptation......

[MC Just]

[quote name='Myles' date='Feb 23 2005, 04:32 PM'] The decision about what to do in this situation is very, very difficult and its probable that the Church in Rome is pondering very seriously over it. It is well known that some seminaries are occupied entirely by heretics whose sole aim is to undermine the magisterium by fostering extreme feminism and sexual deviancy in applicants to the priesthood. Moreover, many of these seminaries find support from their Bishops who perhaps out of their own infidelity or fear of a priest shortage dont get on the 'wrong side' of the rectors of these institutions. Some of these seminaries even turn down faithful young men who wish to be priests because they refuse to dissent from the Church's teachings. This allows them to dictate the priest shortage and thus dictate the future of the Church. It is in the seminaries that this war will be one and lost.

In truth I think there's no way to deal with the crisis except for the Vatican to begin systematically suspending the function of seminaries identified as heretical and call upon aspirants either to come to faithful seminaries like that of the Denver Archdiocese or come to Rome for training. Between Casa Balthasar, The Venerable English College and the American College hopefully they'll be room enough. Its an ambitious project and it will cost losts of money--unfortunately--but it might be the only way to stabilise the ship.

Some people suggested that married priests might assist the situation. To which I would reply it would depend on the type of married priest. The marriage of priests has been legislated against by local councils for a long time and was summarily removed during the great reform of the 11th century, a reform reinvigorated by Trent in the 16th century. It is a long standing tradition, moreover, it is one that has reaped success time and time again. I'm not against married priests, I cant be its part of our tradition, and moreover Rome has the right at any time to reinstate married priests and I would never voice my opinion against something that is in the lawful powers of the Pope to do.

However, I do think the celibacy of the priest is a greater witness to the Western world and its obsession for illicit things. I mean this is why celibacy was extended throughout the West in the first place. The success of the Benedictines in evangelising was in part due to their celibate witness. Does that mean married men cannot witness, of course not. Who would suggest that. Marriage is a vocation and a sacrament--a natural sacrament that existed before the fall no less. Anybody who has read Ephesians 5 knows that it allows human beings to touch a 'great mystery' and get to understand how God's covenantal love for us works according to the character of the two spouses called to that task. However, a priest must be flexible. He cannot be divided between his family and his flock. Someone mentioned the salary of a priest. Nowhere near enough to cope with a wife and child, never mind children. It might even force the priest to take up a job in addition to his ministry as is the case amongst many Eastern priests and Anglicans. Then there is the whole question of being free to administer sacraments at any time i.e. the sacrament of Extreme Unction. In the middle of your kids first birthday party? Its a dilema, unlikely yes, possible certainly.

As I said I am not against anything that Rome has the right to do. If the Pope decides its for the bests, then the Holy Spirit has told him something I'm not privy too. However, I would think that if this were to happen that the Vatican would be prudent enough to restrict the married priesthood to married men with stable families of at least between 45-50 years old before they applied. This might cut out the need for extra cash and providing for kids. Yet, even that would not solve the sex abuse problem amongst the celibates.

The problem is fourfold: improper canditates, improper teaching, improper preparation, improper laity. I seperate the second and third because one is based upon the doctrine they recieve and the latter--more importantly--on their prayer life, and highlight the significance of the fourth also. I hear some places the seminaries dont even pray. How then can they expect to live a life of apostolic celibacy? If you are not deep in God, in those lonely hours Satan will come for you. Lonliness can do bad things to human beings and Satan knows how to exploit that. I'm sure many a priest has heard the words 'did God really say...?' just as Eve did. I'm also certain that this lonliness contributes to the wordliness of many priests. I know many a priest who does not let themselves be called 'Father' because they think it makes them 'fit in'. I object to this and make it a point to address them as such. They are trying to blur distinctions that should not be blurred and the laity should not encourage this. We should remind them that like St Paul they have become fathers to us through the gospel and we're called to emulate them so they better set a good example. Moreover, we've got to give them the emotional support they might sometimes be lacking. After all, even St John of the Cross had a dark night of the soul.

The problem is that the priests arent being engulfed in God, nor are they being encouraged in that direction through the support of their seminary tutors, peers or congregations. If they were on fire with Christ it wouldnt matter if they were celibate or not. Like the cure d'ars and the millions of celibates throughout history they'd make it through without much problem. Sex abuse shows up a desire for intimacy, in my opinion. For some this desire is a real sickness and they should never have entered the priesthood or been allowed to go through 7 years of seminary training unvetted. For others its just a twisted lonliness. Nonetheless, to cure it we have to turn our priests' attentions back towards the immanence of our constant companion, Christ, and drown them in His love. If the seminaries are not spending 60 minutes in mental prayer a day, consistently praying their breviary, spending time before the blessed sacrament, praying the rosary etc.etc. dont expect them to be able to deal with the temptations of the world.

Because they will be alone, and nobody can do it alone. We all need Him. The celibates more so since the majority of the time they have no human confidants to turn to.

So thats my solution. Cure the seminaries, weed out the bad canditates and when we get the good ones foster their vocation to prayer from day one, and constantly encourage them to keep it up. 7 years in a seminary doing an hour of mental prayer daily? Can anybody say that wont change the way you act and be serious? [/quote]
That was absolutely beautiful. That's also my vision for a solution and cure...

[Myles Domini]

Delivery boy I have heard of priests abandoning their vocations in order to become married but it doesnt seem to be as big a problem as homosexual child molesting and homosexuals in the clergy full stop. This link from Ignatius Press, who do an excellent selection of books on a variety of topics, should shed some light on 'the Gay priest problem'. The thing is, for some reason, proportionately amongst homosexuals child molesting tendencies are stastistically higher (as you'll one of the articles at the Ignatius press website--sorry at the moment it slips my mind as to which one): [url="http://www.ignatius.com/Magazines/CWRScandal.aspx?SID=1&"]http://www.ignatius.com/Magazines/CWRScandal.aspx?SID=1&[/url]

As for the larger issue of whether or not celibacy is a temptation. What you have too undestand is that God does not impose His will upon people. People are given the vocation God knows their character is best suited to for the purpose of coming to know and love Him. For instance, St Augustine, the world's most famous revert. He spent years in heresy as an anti-Catholic preaching the Manichaean doctrine so very close to the so-called 'new age' movement. In that time he had many 'lady friends' and even an illigitimate son. However, in the end when St Augustine at last found his vocation as a Bishop-Monk he so loved it that he was accused of having a Manichaean view of marriage. Indeed, he had to write a defence of marriage to vindicate himself! However, we cant blame the poor guy because that was his vocation. His character from before he was even created was always directed to the Bishop-Monk lifestyle and thats why he couldnt be happy sleeping around and thats why when he found it he simply couldnt stop talking about it. It was a joy for him, a complete joy.

On the other hand take someone whose vocation is marriage like myself--I am not married yet but I plan to be once I get the money and stuff. I've already discussed it with my better half and we're moving slowly but surely towards the goal trusting in Christ. When I look at Ephesians 5 it opens up a new world to me because my call is to realise that image of God in the world. To love my wife as Christ loved the Church. Through my love for this woman I can in some way touch the mind of God and see how God's covenant love pervades scripture i.e. in Hosea and the prophets when they speak of Isreal as being the whore of babylon etc. God percieves His relationship with human beings through marital terms and having the call to marriage that comes alive for me in a special way. When people use imagery like the bride of Christ to describe the Church, I look at the one I love and then I contemplate Jesus and it brings out something especially personal. Because my vocation is to marriage I can see God better through human love than I could any other way. My love, which seems so small, is actually a point of contact with God. A place where I can touch a facet of God's being. God the ever faithful husband lets my heart touch His feelings in this special way through my vocation. And just as Sts Augustine and Ambrose lauded celibacy and full chastity because they were geared to best see God through those means, so I can see marriage in this way because I am best geared to see God through this means.

You know marriage isnt for those who just cant take temptation, so letting the priests marry for that reason would devalue the covenant. Unless you come to see God in your marriage something is lacking because marriage is a vocation that ideally gives birth to life just as God's love for man led to the incarnation. Or another way of looking at it. Just as God's love for us enters into us as a man into a woman and we become one through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit within us, which produces life in our souls and overcomes the power of original sin (or if its confession we're talking about sin full stop, especially mortal sin).

If the priests simply married because they were tempted it would not allow the vocation to flourish as it should and be a point of contact with God. Moreover, it would be an abuse of the wife because she would be being used effectively for a lower good instead of the highest good: which is the sacramental grace that comes from God, which is found in the actualisation of the full potential of marriage as a means of seeing the face of God.

If a priest has a real vocation to the priesthood or a man has a real vocation to marriage then by forming his conscience in accordance with the teachings of the Holy See, he will not find it hard to fulfil his vocation: Why? Because the burden is easy and the yolk is light. Because the vocation comes from within us not from without. We have each been created with this unique vocation stamped upon us, arising indeed from us, and all God tries to do is providentially guide us to its realisation. St Augustine says in the first paragraph of Book I of his confessions: "For thou hast made us for Thyself, Our hearts are restless lest they rest in you". All our desires are ultimately orientated towards God and if the priest simply gives himself over to the truest desire of his heart he will have it fulfilled and God will be with him always, so much so that he wont even think of women etc. Because his vocation, the truest desire of his soul is to love God and God alone in this unique way. The only hitch would be if the priest was called to be both married and a priest, which is the one consideration I have not dealt with and will do now.

Many Latin Church priests who abandon their priesthood argue that they were called to be married priests ala the Eastern Church. To respond to this we'll play a little logic game as us Theologian types like to do. There are three possibilites 1) they were called to be priests but were decieved--this doesnt make them evil it just means they will never see the face of God in the way that would fulfil the deepest yearnings of their heart. But in His Mercy God has given us the ability to dampen our consciences so this yearning wont affect them in life. Although, in death it depends where they end up. 2) they were supposed to be married but for some reason chose the wrong vocation and entered the ministry--simple and sweet. 3) They're right.

Now is the statement in case #1 impossible, possibly true, or true? Certaintly its not impossible that they could've been decieved by the world and its pleasures, its certainly possibly true, and thus we can say that in many cases this could be the reason for the priest leaving the active ministry.

In case #2 again we ask impossible, possible true, or true? Well again its not impossible that the men in question might've chosen the wrong vocation, the statement can be possibly true, and is thus likely to be true in many cases for why the man's priesthood didnt work out.

Lastly, we have case #3. Are these priests right, are there now supposed to be married priests in the Latin Church? Is the statement impossible, possibly true, or true? I'd answer the statement that the priests are right is impossible. Its a basic premise of the Catholic faith that St Peter is privy to information from the Holy Spirit (Acts 10-11). To suggest that there is supposed to be married priests in our day in the Latin rite is to suggest that Rome is not listening to the Holy Spirit, which is not only heresy but unproveable and contradictory to the Word of God i.e. Matt 16:13-20 and the constant Apostolic tradition witnessed by many Fathers i.e. St Irenaeus Adv.Her.III.3.2 etc. Given that Rome is the oracle of the Holy Spirit on earth and speaks for her in both the ordinary and extraordinary sense (Catechism of the Catholic Church points 890-892) it is illogical to suppose that she would be deaf in this case. Indeed, to maintain that would destroy the whole Catholic faith because then we'd have to ask when she lost her hearing? And thats not a question we can answer with surety thus we'd end up with every tom, Johnsonville brat and harry who doesnt like the Church doctrine on [i]this[/i] saying "here's where Rome lost it" or "there's where Rome lost it" or "she lost it for 10 years here and go it back there" etc.etc. Basically we couldnt say anything with surety not even that the Canon of Bible defined at the Council of Rome in 382AD is correct. So that would mean we couldnt even become Bible Protestants. In short to question the Holy See's openess to God is to question the logical premises upon which all of Christianity stands. If we cant even say the Bible present the Jesus of history, what can we say? (for an answer ask Dan Brown, he's made lots of money from it ) thus the statement is not possibly true, and thus cannot be held as true.

Rome always listens and if every Catholic on earth did the same, nobody would choose the wrong vocation either or ultimately fail in their vocation. Because it is not we who live but Christ who lives in us to paraphrase Paul. Jesus through the sacraments takes up our cross so we dont have to carry it. He makes it easy by flooding us full of love and so we act out of love being happy to act accordingly and seeing our crosses not as blessings but as curses. Thats why all the great mystics could say things like 'all suffering has become sweet to me' or 'rest, rest, I need crosses not rest' both famed lines from St Teresa of Avila. When people are in love they can do anything for the person they love and do it without self-concern as an act of love. They are fulfilled in doing it and this is the reality God offers to all: Jew or Greek, slave or free, man or woman and I add to the Apostle's words, married or single, indeed for all who are one in Christ. That is the mystical body of Christ: The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Hence my signature my friend, hence my signature..

[Guest]

[quote name='Myles' date='Feb 23 2005, 04:32 PM'] The decision about what to do in this situation is very, very difficult and its probable that the Church in Rome is pondering very seriously over it. It is well known that some seminaries are occupied entirely by heretics whose sole aim is to undermine the magisterium by fostering extreme feminism and sexual deviancy in applicants to the priesthood. Moreover, many of these seminaries find support from their Bishops who perhaps out of their own infidelity or fear of a priest shortage dont get on the 'wrong side' of the rectors of these institutions. Some of these seminaries even turn down faithful young men who wish to be priests because they refuse to dissent from the Church's teachings. This allows them to dictate the priest shortage and thus dictate the future of the Church. It is in the seminaries that this war will be one and lost.

In truth I think there's no way to deal with the crisis except for the Vatican to begin systematically suspending the function of seminaries identified as heretical and call upon aspirants either to come to faithful seminaries like that of the Denver Archdiocese or come to Rome for training. Between Casa Balthasar, The Venerable English College and the American College hopefully they'll be room enough. Its an ambitious project and it will cost losts of money--unfortunately--but it might be the only way to stabilise the ship.

Some people suggested that married priests might assist the situation. To which I would reply it would depend on the type of married priest. The marriage of priests has been legislated against by local councils for a long time and was summarily removed during the great reform of the 11th century, a reform reinvigorated by Trent in the 16th century. It is a long standing tradition, moreover, it is one that has reaped success time and time again. I'm not against married priests, I cant be its part of our tradition, and moreover Rome has the right at any time to reinstate married priests and I would never voice my opinion against something that is in the lawful powers of the Pope to do.

However, I do think the celibacy of the priest is a greater witness to the Western world and its obsession for illicit things. I mean this is why celibacy was extended throughout the West in the first place. The success of the Benedictines in evangelising was in part due to their celibate witness. Does that mean married men cannot witness, of course not. Who would suggest that. Marriage is a vocation and a sacrament--a natural sacrament that existed before the fall no less. Anybody who has read Ephesians 5 knows that it allows human beings to touch a 'great mystery' and get to understand how God's covenantal love for us works according to the character of the two spouses called to that task. However, a priest must be flexible. He cannot be divided between his family and his flock. Someone mentioned the salary of a priest. Nowhere near enough to cope with a wife and child, never mind children. It might even force the priest to take up a job in addition to his ministry as is the case amongst many Eastern priests and Anglicans. Then there is the whole question of being free to administer sacraments at any time i.e. the sacrament of Extreme Unction. In the middle of your kids first birthday party? Its a dilema, unlikely yes, possible certainly.

As I said I am not against anything that Rome has the right to do. If the Pope decides its for the bests, then the Holy Spirit has told him something I'm not privy too. However, I would think that if this were to happen that the Vatican would be prudent enough to restrict the married priesthood to married men with stable families of at least between 45-50 years old before they applied. This might cut out the need for extra cash and providing for kids. Yet, even that would not solve the sex abuse problem amongst the celibates.

The problem is fourfold: improper canditates, improper teaching, improper preparation, improper laity. I seperate the second and third because one is based upon the doctrine they recieve and the latter--more importantly--on their prayer life, and highlight the significance of the fourth also. I hear some places the seminaries dont even pray. How then can they expect to live a life of apostolic celibacy? If you are not deep in God, in those lonely hours Satan will come for you. Lonliness can do bad things to human beings and Satan knows how to exploit that. I'm sure many a priest has heard the words 'did God really say...?' just as Eve did. I'm also certain that this lonliness contributes to the wordliness of many priests. I know many a priest who does not let themselves be called 'Father' because they think it makes them 'fit in'. I object to this and make it a point to address them as such. They are trying to blur distinctions that should not be blurred and the laity should not encourage this. We should remind them that like St Paul they have become fathers to us through the gospel and we're called to emulate them so they better set a good example. Moreover, we've got to give them the emotional support they might sometimes be lacking. After all, even St John of the Cross had a dark night of the soul.

The problem is that the priests arent being engulfed in God, nor are they being encouraged in that direction through the support of their seminary tutors, peers or congregations. If they were on fire with Christ it wouldnt matter if they were celibate or not. Like the cure d'ars and the millions of celibates throughout history they'd make it through without much problem. Sex abuse shows up a desire for intimacy, in my opinion. For some this desire is a real sickness and they should never have entered the priesthood or been allowed to go through 7 years of seminary training unvetted. For others its just a twisted lonliness. Nonetheless, to cure it we have to turn our priests' attentions back towards the immanence of our constant companion, Christ, and drown them in His love. If the seminaries are not spending 60 minutes in mental prayer a day, consistently praying their breviary, spending time before the blessed sacrament, praying the rosary etc.etc. dont expect them to be able to deal with the temptations of the world.

Because they will be alone, and nobody can do it alone. We all need Him. The celibates more so since the majority of the time they have no human confidants to turn to.

So thats my solution. Cure the seminaries, weed out the bad canditates and when we get the good ones foster their vocation to prayer from day one, and constantly encourage them to keep it up. 7 years in a seminary doing an hour of mental prayer daily? Can anybody say that wont change the way you act and be serious? [/quote]
God bless you bro
that was really helpfull
it made alot of sence.........