Ratzinger's Responsibility

The priesthood isn't a job. It's a calling from God, a vocation.

One Humanity/One Church — A NEW ERA: The magnitude of what is happening today should not be underestimated. What is happening is the ending of one Church Era and the beginning of a new era. The soiled and closeted hierarchical linen of twenty centuries has been found and is being outed; it isn’t pretty. Institutional Catholicism in the Constantinean mold is imploding by reason of its moral vacuum.

Literal scriptural belief and the hyped culture of ritual and dogma are being exposed for their deception and overreach. The rationality of science, but even more importantly, the inspirational fidelity of women, are together exposing the lie of systemic deceit and the calculus of clerical defrauding of the people. For political convenience and perverse motives of corporate self-interest, the male celibate hierarchy lords over the people and outlaws women from their rightful authority in Church.

The Vatican still closets its soiled clerical laundry, for now, but the dirty secret is out and true institutional intent is showing its real face. However, enough has already been outed to make clear that the era of theological dominion and patriarchal imperialism is ending. The people might be deceived and dominated for a while, but when the truth of the abuse of trust is exposed, so will its era be brought to a close.

There are sincere clerics who have been wronged and who are ready to join in bringing Church to conversion. To preserve the priesthood and restore credibility, the immediate movement toward three matters (all related) should begin: return to priestly ministry should be opened to all married priests; priests should have the option of marrying or not marrying; and the priestly ministry should be open to women on an equal basis. Anything less than this is inadequate to the circumstances. The justice of this should be obvious to all who are sensitive to the Gospel and ministry of Jesus. The failure of priesthood in the Church is a disgrace and is inexcusable. Husbands confess your sins to your wives and live uprightly together. Seek counsel and reconciliation when needed.

The Google World of broadband communication puts everyone on equal standing. Everyone’s word can virtually spread to every one else. The virtual nerve-linking of global humanity makes universal consciousness possible. The days of secrecy when power structures could deceive and dominate with impunity are over. The “whole truth” is virtually accessible to everyone. Communication means consciousness; consciousness means conscience; religion now has a chance of being understood in universal light, not as a tool to be manipulated by power structures and violent overreach, but as a tool of instant and constant education, reconciliation.

Factual information is the stuff of truth; the stuff of truth is the stuff of right conscience; the stuff of right conscience is the stuff of right relationship; the stuff of right relationship is the stuff of religion. Perhaps for the first time, truth has a chance to be the universal option of politics, religion, education, and continued updating — evolution. What is evolution? It is instant and continuous updating of consciousness, of religious education, of political work. Updating, consciousness, education and religion are a unity in the continuity of the self-reflective person. The task of “One Humanity” and “One Church” is the word and work of all. Let us together put our hands to the task, for it is the human thing to do, the divine thing to do, the political thing to do; CHURCH IS THE CHANGE THAT IS NEEDED.
http://www.secondenlightenment.org/ENLIGHTENED%20%20%20EVOLUTION,%20TRIM...

I say the bible isn't the only authority of the church. I say Jesus founded a church to govern and continue His teaching. And one of those teachings is celibacy.

I say you should join Jesus' church.

God bless,
Mike

I reply that you are ignorant of Catholic colture, dear Anonymous. Many Catholics are married, didn't you know?

We do not force ANYONE to remain celibate. Who becomes a priests CHOSES celibacy as part of his mission as a sheppard.

In a web search, I did find diagnostic language, indicating that "celibacy" is a common manifestation of schizoid PD/traits. And I think "celibacy" as an expression of pathological personality traits/structures is a very different thing from the "celibacy" of religious life, a distinction which I believe clinicians should handle with care.

Best Regards,
Lisa Caponigri

I personally believe marriage a is God's instruction from the biblical readings. Celibacy has been formulated by the church as one condition of being a priest. It is a man made commitment that overruled biblical teachings. What is better; A priest commits adultery or a good married priest? Since when has marriage been blasphemous? I support the idea of optional celibacy. Compulsory celibacy make some of the clergy highly immoral.

Dr Porch -

You seem to be responding to me but have totally side-stepped my message. I have nothing to say in response except my basic message to Fr Kung: please refrain from addressing the sexual needs of adults when the crisis is the lack of sexual safety for children exposed to those adults. At best, that is misguided and/or opportunitistic and, at worst, absolutely dimissive of a child's absolute need and right for freedom from sexual abuse.

Jean Brookbank

ps

I think you, like Fr Kung, are manipulating Sipe's work. And I think it likely that you may also be manipulating whatever information you may (or may not have) re: incidences of schizoid personality problems and structures in celibate priests and religious. (I would be interested in citations on that, Dr Porch. I assume you are a psychiatrist? Do you primarily provide initial diagnosis and med management or do you provide therapy? Where were you trained and when and what was the theoretical foundation of that training and, now, of your practice?)

I agree wholeheartedly with you. I just asked as a reply to another statement here why celibacy is so grand that so many seem to want priests held to it. I really want to know why it's so great. And I think like you say, they can't really answer it well. Does it make them holy? When according to our own church sex is made for procreation and we should have children, why do we say some people cannot?

Dr Porch, I am very interested in whatever citations you can offer re: this connection between schizoid traits/structures, priests and celibacy. Again, I think this is an unhelpful thread when we are seeking an absolute end to tolerance for sexual abuse of children in the RCC but I also think this post from you seems rather extreme.

In a web search, I did find diagnostic language, indicating that "celibacy" is a common manifestation of schizoid PD/traits. And I think "celibacy" as an expression of pathological personality traits/structures is a very different thing from the "celibacy" of religious life, a distinction which I believe clinicians should handle with care.

Supporting that caution is the fact that I could find very little support for your statements. I found two clinical studies, one that documented 2 diagnoses of "schizoid PD" in 160 priests hospitalized for treatment of child sexual abuse; and one that documented various characteroligical traits and disorders among priests accused of abuse and that one noted that the smallest category was those diagnosed with a number of traits/structures that *included* schizoid traits/PD but also included paranoid, etc. (which makes the incidence of schizoid PD/traits extremely small and, one would wonder, possibly not even statistically significant).

I think, Dr Porch, that you are likely speaking from a very theoretical space, which I am cool with and, certainly, personality theory is essential (and fascinating).

I also think it can be dangerous stuff when cited in the way you have cited your hypothesis here. (For instance, most people probably don't know the dif between schizophrenia and schizoid personality disorder - a difference which you and I know is vast. Most probably don't understand that personality theory and diagnosis are intended to provide "word pictures" that guide our thinking about and exploration with people with whom we work, which is why I would suggest that even the study which documented 2 schizoid PD diagnoses out of 160 diagnoses for hospitalized sexually abusive priests is not terribly supportive of your hypothesis that people with schizoid traits/structures are drawn to the priesthood and particularly for your explicit statement that celibacy "is the basis for schizoid personality problems").

I am willing to be persuaded if the literature is out there.

JB

fr james martin "responds"...

huffingtonpost.com/rev-james-martin-sj/its-not-about-celibacy-bl_b_533037.html

Please checkout Fr James Martin on Huffington Post about celibacy and the sexual abuse crisis.

Thank you Dr. Porch for that lucid thought. Maslow's hierarchy needs. Thanks for the reminder.

I am not a Cathlolic any longer but I applaud your post Dr. Porch.

Kung is very irritating in the way he keeps connecting celibacy with pedophilia. There is really no inherent connection at all.

It is also annoying to see him keep asserting that all sex abuse cases went to the CDF when in fact this is so only for the period from 2001.

Dear Abdulrahman, I am very sorry that my language seemed vitriolic. I assure that my attention is focused on abusers through my work as a social
worker. Fr Kung does speak to some common sense strategies for holding abusers accountable and, thus, protecting children. That said, he facilitates - perhaps inadvertently - a shift in focus from the protection of children to a focus on celibacy, with abuse of children as one potential negative outcome of celibacy.

Fr Kung is a priest, scholar, activist in possession of a truly exceptional platform within the worldwide Catholic community. I sincerely doubt Fr Kung's intended to use his one-in-a-billion platform to provide abusers one more sourced argument that "it's not really my fault. if the Church had not forced me into celibacy, i would have been able to address my sexual needs in relationship with adults and I never would have considered reaching out to children in my very human and natural need for sexual release and expression. instead of focusing on me - a good man/woman who just wanted to serve God and bought the Church's line that I could be fulfilled without sexual relationship, you should be focused on fixing the Church. fix the Church - eliminate (mandatory) celibacy and you'll find that you've fixed me and other men and women like me. we would never turn to kids if we could turn to adults. read about all these priests and experts and psychoanalysts who say that sex is a basic need and then tell me that the church was not abusing me
between making choose between my religious life and a basic need".

that is the kind of "rap" I can imagine an abuser engaging in based on Fr Kung's writings here. that is, in fact, what any argument like Fr Kung's provides. It is absolutely immaterial whether that was his intention. He and all who followed his line of thinking drew a very thick and dark causal line from (mandatory) celibacy to sexual abuse of children by celibates. And please do not fool yourself, Abdul, into believing that abusers are not listening, are not seeking every possible cover for their abusive behavior, including "if the Church had not required celibacy of me, I never would have abused that child". and, for the sake of children, please do not fool yourself that such cover, such rationalization, such blame-defection does not put more children at risk of abuse. it does.

And that is a profoundly dangerous message for children.

The cause of sexual abuse of children is the sexual abuse of children.

If we want the sexual abuse of children to stop, we will say - without any qualification whatsoever - that children are off-limits.

If we want the sexual abuse of children to stop, we will say that each and every adult - no matter what their circumstances, experiences, needs, wounds, deprivations, power or lack thereof - will be held 100% accountable for 100% of the sexually abusive behaviors and actions they chose and then enacted.

People of Fr Kung's stature and people who are "nobodies" like me must accept full responsibility for ensuring that our voice and influence is focused on protecting children, period. Each of us make take full responsibility for the reality that any explanation of contributing factors or conditions that facilitate the abuser can be exploited to sustain a(n often subterrain) tolerance of sexual abuse and abusers.

I believe Fr Kung fails to do that in these pieces.

I believe his focus is an end to celibacy. No doubt Father Kung is outraged and mortified by the sexual abuse crisis.

Nonetheless, Father's discussion seems to argue his main concern (an end to celibacy) in a manner that inadvertently complicates and obfuscates the critical necessity for a universal and unequivocal and prfoundly active condemnation of the sexual abuse of children, regardless of any and all other facts, realities, needs, pressures.

Mandatory celibacy may or may not be sexually and psychologically and culturally and spiritually healthy and/or necessary. That discussion is out there and waiting for all of us.

But it is a dangerous focus when our goal is the protection of children.

Our attention should be first and foremost and again and again and again for as long as we have any question about whether children remain at risk on sending the crystal clear message that CHILDREN ARE OFF-LIMITS regardless of all other realities. Adn we need to say that and say that and say that....even to the Fr Kung's of the world.

And he can take it and he will understand, I am confident, that the criticism is not about him. It is, instead, ***for*** children.

I do apologize if I spoke with vitriol, Abdul and I will watch it going forward.

Jean Brookbank

Not all non-celibate priests are wolves and not all celibate priests are quality priests!

JTolbey - Thank you for your thoughtful response and its peacefulness.

You wrote, "You're attempting to carve out this idea of 'healthy celibacy' by circumscribing the priesthood with an oath or some such contrivance: 'No matter what your need, your pain, your desire, your stress, your wound and no matter the failures of the world around you, CHILDREN ARE OFF-LIMITS'."

First re: the term "healthy celibacy". I encountered that language in Richard
Sipe's work, which I first learned about through Fr Kung's articles here on NCR. He makes a solid case for celibacy as a healthy and life-giving commitment in a context of Church-facilitation of genuine formation, communication and ongoing education/self-awareness, etc. I just tried to find the specific Sipe article in which I read his extensive discussion of "healthy celibacy", but was unable to do so. (I will look for it and, when I find the piece from which I drew my understanding and language of "healthy celibacy", I will post it here).

Hopefully that will help you understand that I was not "attempting to carve out this idea of 'healthy celibacy'". ***Richard Sipe, a former priest and mental health expert, "carve[d] out the idea of healthy celibacy". I was simply responding to Fr Kung in the context of the work he cited. I apologize for that lack of clarity (I assumed that people interested in this thread would check out Sipe's work and would recognize that I was referencing his conceptual work by using his language. Without that context, it is confusing).

JTolby, Sipe's work was welcome to me, not because I am invested in the issue of clerical celibacy (I am not. I do not, in fact, have any particular opinion about celibacy and the priesthood. I apologize to those for whom it is a critical issue, particularly those priests who love their priesthood and believe they could serve God and their vocation as well or better if they could also be married or partnered. We all have to decide where to place our intellectual energy, and I have not devoted my energy to the issue of clerical celibacy. Again, my apologies. In all sincerity, JTolby, I personally do not care what adults - priests included - do with their sex lives as long as children are not sexually abused in the process. Beyond that, I am happy to leave the discussion to others. There is certainly no lack of Catholics, priests and laypeople, who are understandably and profoundly concerned about this issue (you sound like one of them and, because you engage so peacefully and thoughtfully, my guess is you can be an effective advocate for continued dialogue about this issue). I will follow from a distance while pursuing some of the other issues of importance in the Church today. ).

Sipe's concept of "healthy celibacy" was welcome to me because it offered a counter to the prevailing (and frequently ugly) pronouncement on religious celibacy, which you echoed when you wrote, "I'm not altogether sure such a thing [as healthy celibacy] exists".

I read that stuff and think, "so, what? are you saying those healthy, passionately fulfilled, intimacy-rich lives of celibate priests and religious women I know are just a fiction?" And, of course, I know that suggestion is pure bunk: the priests and religious women I know deal with the tensions of sexuality and celibacy. And they are happy, JTolbey; they are healthy; they have intimate relationships. Is that true of all who take a vow of celibacy? Of course not. But it is true of many diocesan priests, many religious priests, many sisters and brothers. And Sipe's work acknowledges and supports that while describing the Church culture necessary to nurture and sustain life-giving celibacy.

****

That said, most of what you say makes sense to me, JTolbey. I have been wondering whether, if the Church were to eliminate mandatory celibacy and if the pool of priests did in fact expand, would the Church - experiencing an abundance of priests - respond with a greater willingness to remove sexually abusive priests (or to screen better in the first place)? Your mention of that possibility is interesting to me and, if you have sources that pursue that argument, I would be interested. As it is, that sounds like what we all wish would happen....... AND I have not read anything that makes me think the shortage of priests is a significant causal factor in the Church's failure to address sexual abuse of children by priests (though I will look for that thread in Sipe's research. Do you know of evidence-based literature out there that identifies the clerical shortage as a causal factor in the Church's failures in this area?)

****

With regard to my concern and my deep disappointment that Fr Kung has used his unparalleled access to the media (during its focus on the sexual abuse crisis) to twin the issues of clerical celibacy and clerical sexual abuse of children:

all i can tell you, JTolbey, is that I believe that the first real step to ending violence - against children, against women, against people of color, against gay men and women and teens, against the mentally ill, against the poor - is that most difficult step of unceasing vigilence against those slippery slopes that render us tolerant of the intolerable.

The world - the whole world, JTolbey - was focused on the horror of the sexual abuse of children. And I believe Fr Kung *did* offer a distraction when he used his forum to address celibacy. I would much rather he had lent that forum on sexual abuse to Sr Maureen Turlish, whose keeps her eyes on the children. Then the dialogue stemming from her contribution would have remained focused there, rather than shifting to the desire of many priests to marry, etc etc etc. Which is what happened in the responses here to Fr Kung's articles on the issue.

Thanks again for the peacefulness of your response and I apologize the confusion caused by my references to Sipe's language and concepts that you and others had not encountered. JB

Jtolbey -

I hope you will read two links in today's NCR:

***one link to the article from Rome.............. (which I think addresses some of the many questions and issues here. one definite take-away I would hope for would be for people to challenge this schizoid personality disorder story: the statistics don't exist and it perpetuates a mid-to-late 20th century urban myth about the bulk of sexual offenders/child sexual abusers. the truth is likely to be far less "sexy" psychiatrically and far more frightening: narcissism, the pathological syndrome this article focuses on, is highly rewarded in today's dominant world culture. interestingly, this article - and its psychiatric hypothesis - is the first one that, for me, proposes a potentially solid link between a power-based structure/culture in the institutional Church and the sexual abuse of children within that structure. JTolbey, i would ask you to look particularly at the statement that "narcissists don't believe there is a problem [with their conduct or desires]" and compare that with your statement that the abusers knew what they were doing was wrong - you are talking knowledge and the article is talking belief and pathology...and i think the article is talking the reality of those who abuse others. there is, i believe, significant parallel here with spousal abusers and they need to hear the same message over and over again like a broken record: "no matter what your need, fear, pain, desire, etc., is - hitting your partner is off-limits"); and

*** the link to the Washington Post on seminarians. i would encourage you to read the article and then read the last line of your post. i wonder if your last line seems fair to you?

I would be interested to hear more.

JB

I agree Dot, Hans for me is a great theologian and is one of the few honest ones to look at the implications and responsibility that the pope, as a man and a clergyman has to take. Just because he's pope and surrounded by a whole number of insecure closeted men does not mean he should be absolutely accountable for his actions. All this is a blessing in disguise, because a new church will rise out of this.

This information from anonymous is as relevant as any potential conflict of interest or prejudicial experiences from any one who makes a public statement. There is a large amount of information to consider if a serious position is adopted on this issue, and any proclamation as brief as Mr Hung's should be recognized as purely rhetoric - to that end his current standing with those he accuses is very relevant.

Jesus was OBEDIENT to His Father. Kung needs to take a lesson from Jesus and be OBEDIENT to his Holy Father. Adam was disobedient and from this sin we all are born with original sin. Jesus' obedience absolves all of mankind from sin. The vows of the religious are poverty, chastity and obedience. I guess OBEDIENCE is pretty important to God. And frankly, Mr. Kung, you need a lesson in obedience.

Such a worldwide organization exists. It's called "Celibacy is the Issue" - CITI for short. Louis Haggett began this almost 20 years ago, and this group has encouraged resigned priests to reactivate their ministries around the world! Don't ever doubt what a handful of committed people can do to change the world. It's the only successful way to do so!