The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionSex abuse requires rethinking of mandatory celibacy
Mar. 12, 2010
(CNS photo)
Massive sexual abuse of children and adolescents by Catholic clergymen has been reported from the United States, from Ireland, and now from Germany. This represents an enormous image loss for the Catholic church and spotlights the profound crisis in which this church is caught.
Speaking for the German Bishops’ Conference, its chairman, Archbishop Robert Zollitsch of Freiburg, has made an initial public statement. That Zollitsch has branded the abuse cases as “outrageous crimes” and that the bishops’ conference as a whole, in its statement of Feb. 25, has asked pardon of all the victims are first steps in coming to terms with this inexcusable misconduct, but further steps must follow. Moreover, Zollitsch’s statement contains three grievous errors, which cannot pass without rebuttal.
* First erroneous assertion: Sexual abuse by clergymen has nothing to do with celibacy.
Objection! It cannot be denied that such abuse can also be found in families, schools, associations, and in churches without a celibacy rule. But why is it so prevalent precisely in the Catholic church under celibate leadership? Naturally, celibacy is not the only cause of such misconduct. But it is the most important and structurally the most decisive expression of an uptight attitude of the church’s leadership towards sexuality in general, an attitude that is also revealed in the birth control question and in other related issues.
A look at the New Testament makes clear: Jesus and Paul practiced celibacy in an exemplary way for the sake of their ministry, but they allowed full freedom in this matter to each individual. In terms of the Gospel, celibacy can only be affirmed as a freely chosen vocation (charisma) and not as a generally applicable law. Paul emphatically contradicted those who in his own day took the position that “it is well for a man not to touch a woman,” replying, “But because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband” (1 Corinthians 7:1-2). According to 1 Timothy 3:2, “a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife”: It is not said “the husband of no wife.”
Peter and the other apostles were married men and their ministries did not suffer. For many centuries, this remained the matter-of-course rule for bishops and priests alike, and in the churches of the East, both the Orthodox and those united with Rome, it continues to be the rule, at least for priests, up to the present day. The Roman celibacy law contradicts the Gospel and the venerable Catholic tradition. It should be abolished!
Preview NCR's Family Life Issue
Watch this video from NCR Editor Dennis Coday for highlights from our annual Family Life special section.
You won't find these articles on our website. Subscribe now to receive all the content from each biweekly issue.
* Second erroneous assertion: It is “completely wrong” to trace the abuse cases to a systemic fault in the Catholic church. Objection! The celibacy rule practically did not exist during the first millennium of the church. It was introduced in the West in the 11th century by monks (who freely chose celibacy), in particular by Pope Gregory VII, and against the vigorous opposition of the clergy in Italy and even more in Germany, where only three bishops dared to promulgate the Roman decree. Thousands of priests protested the new law. In a petition, the German clergy objected: “Does the pope not recognize the word of the Lord: ‘Let anyone accept this who can’ [Matthew 19:12]?” In this statement — the only one in the Gospels on celibacy — Jesus clearly speaks out in favor of a free choice of this lifestyle.
The celibacy rule — together with papal absolutism and constrained clericalism — became one of the central pillars of the “Roman system.” In contrast to the Eastern churches, the celibate clergy in the West, in particular because of its celibacy, came to be completely and utterly set apart from the rest of the Christian people, a unique, dominant social class, radically superior to the class of the laity but thoroughly subordinated to the Roman pope. Compulsory celibacy is the principal reason for today’s catastrophic shortage of priests, for the fatal neglect of eucharistic celebration, and for the tragic breakdown of personal pastoral ministry in many places. These consequences are papered over by the fusion of local parishes into regional “pastoral units,” whose pastors are completely overburdened. What would be the best solution to the problem of recruiting future priests? Quite simply: abolition of the celibacy rule, the root of all these evils, and the admission of women to ordination. The bishops know this, but they do not have the courage to say it in public.
* Third erroneous assertion: The bishops have accepted enough responsibility. Of course, it is good to hear that wholehearted measures are now being taken to bring cases of abuse to light and to prevent them in the future. Nevertheless, one must ask, do not the bishops themselves bear responsibility for the decades-long practice of covering up cases of abuse, often taking no more serious measures than relocating the perpetrator under the veil of secrecy? Have the cover-up specialists of the past suddenly become credible un-coverers? Must not independent commissions be established to deal with such cases?
Support independent Catholic journalism.
|
Hardly any bishop has until now admitted his own share of the blame. The bishops could well argue that, in keeping things under wraps, they were only following instructions from Rome. On grounds of discretion, the secretive Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has in the past claimed exclusive jurisdiction for all significant cases of sexual offenses by clerics, and thus, in the years 1981-2005, all of these cases landed on the desk of its prefect, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. As recently as May 18, 2001, Ratzinger sent to all the bishops around the world a solemn epistle concerning serious crimes (Epistula de delictis gravioribus), in which cases of abuse were put under “papal secrecy” (secretum Pontificium), the violation of which entails severe ecclesiastical penalties.
Does the church not have a right to a “mea culpa” from the pope as well, in collegiality with the bishops? And should such an act of repentance not be linked to an act of reparation, allowing, at last, that the celibacy rule, which was not permitted to be discussed at the Second Vatican Council, should be openly and freely submitted to the judgment of the whole church? With the same openness with which the church is at last coming to terms with the abuse cases, it is now time to deal with one of its essential structural causes, the celibacy rule. Courageously and emphatically, the bishops should propose this to Pope Benedict XVI.
[Fr. Hans Küng is a theologian and author of many books, including Does God Exist: An Answer for Today and Infallible?: An Inquiry.]
Stories in this series
|
Let's see. The largest
Let's see. The largest single group of sex abusers is married men. Perhaps if these married men weren't celibate they wouldn't abuse?? The largest institutional group of abusers is public school teachers. If only they would let teachers marry then the abuse would end! Like usual, Mr. Kung, you have forgotten facts and logic in your rants.
Let's see. The largest single
Let's see. The largest single group of sex abusers is married men. Perhaps if these married men weren't celibate they wouldn't abuse?? The largest institutional group of abusers is public school teachers. If only they would let teachers marry then the abuse would end! Like usual, Mr. Kung, you have forgotten facts and logic in your rants.
________________
Who the hail cares! Do the right thing for the wrong reason or do the right thing for the right reason. Just do the right thing!
No one on earth has the right to say God can't call a man or a woman to the priesthood, marriage, and/or celibacy at the same time. Get rid of the damn and let the River flow. The grace of God in the RCC priesthood is backed up, unhealthy, and stagnant.
Our Lord never called women
Our Lord never called women to the priesthood.
Marriage and the religious life are equally valuable callings.
The priesthood may in fact need reform and sanctification.
The faith is threatened by sin and a crisis of truth.
Pray to God for his mercy. And pray for Bishops who will take the necessary acts to root out evil and put standards in effect that will defend the faithful.
Our Lord also never called
Our Lord also never called men to the priesthood.
Jesus and his disciples knew only the Jewish faith and its priesthood.
The Christian priesthood was a historical development. Indeed, every baptized man and woman in the primitive churches was a priest. Their community and, thus, liturgical leader was the presider, i.e., the presbyteros or episkopos (same function, title depending on particular community usage) who effectively served as the "lead priest" at community worship.
Presbyteral and episcopal ordination, on the other hand, was a historical development. The earliest extant ordination rituals are in The Apostolic Tradition (attributed to "Hippolytus"), customarily dated ca. 215 AD, although more recent scholarship suggests its various parts perhaps date from as early as 150 to as late as 350 AD. Even in this apparent composite work, the ordination ritual for bishop has only a threadbare reference to performance/expectation of priestly/sacerdotal service whereas the ordination ritual for presbyter has no such reference whatsoever!
I recommend Kenan Osborne's PRIESTHOOD: A HISTORY OF THE ORDAINED MINISTRY IN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH for an excellent overview of this subject. Robert Egan's "Why Not? Scripture, History & Women's Ordination" in COMMONWEAL likewise offers excellent background on the history of ordained ministry.
To. Mr Joseph
To. Mr Joseph Jaglowicz
Please indicate where the cited works can be purchased.
thanks for your comments.
we all should remember, in the first instance, the love we must have for each other, before we comment on any topic, especially those in controversy.
Pax Christi
If you are not a woman, how
If you are not a woman, how would you know if God calls us?
Do you have an inside track on God's thinking?
Fellow sister in Christ I
Fellow sister in Christ I think you are confused in thinking Jesus is calling you to priesthood.He did not call His Blessed mother so I find it hard to credit any other female being called if she was not.
The impulse of the ego can be confused with the impulse of the Spirit.
If you consecrate yourself to the Immaculate Heart of Mary I suspect this feeling of being called to priesthood would be replaced by a different call.
CDF@cfaith.va The
CDF@cfaith.va
The Vatican
William Joseph Levada, Cardinal Prefect,
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Dear Cardinal Prefect Levada:
As individual persons, we glory in our “oneness" of being and tend to forget the equal portion of the “otherness” in composite nature. Culturally males have suppressed and “preferred” to forget the essential twoness—femaleness—of their personae.
Over-dwelling in personal oneness suppresses twoness-consciousness and imposes single-selfness on other-selfness. In hyping the singularity of individual selfness we (males) do violence to our own otherness. This glorying in hyped personal oneness of males is the root sin of pride—the psychic schism of religious discontinuity. The institutionalizing of male singularity formalizes the root and original sin of pride. Before the fall, pride!!!
The sin of clericalism is the cultural institutionalizing of male power and the suppression, exploitation of the essential otherness of female power. The institutional overreach of the "divine" feminine in the human person and in nature is the sin of exploitation , otherwise called prostitution.
What is radically sinful about clerical culture is that it individualizes and radicalizes socially self-justified male superiority over females, suppresses and exploits females, and not secondarily, it blasphemes the divine Selfness of Other in the human persona.
Sylvester L. Steffen
I thought that everyone knew
I thought that everyone knew that men who abuse youth hide behind "marriage." They also hide as Sports Coaches, Youth Ministers, Fitness Instructors, Policemen, Football Stars, Teachers and Camping Counselors. Marriage is a convenient place to hide. So is Holy Mother Church a convenient place to hide, especially for men with problems of sexual addiction. A church with a celibacy rule is the proverbial 'dream-come-true" for any man with an addiction of any kind. With a cover like the Roman Catholic Church, plus the relaxed acceptance standards by seminaries, bishops who cover for these criminals, it takes years before the sexual addiction problem is discovered. In the meantime, a trail of victims a mile long exists, plus thousands of families that will never, ever enter a church or trust the Pope or the any priest again. The pain of the People of God caused by the hierarchy is horrendous.
The church hierarchy is so focused on bringing back the outdated Latin Mass, that leaders will welcome with open arms any candidate for the priesthood who wears a buttoned-down cassock, espouses Latin as the preferred liturgical language and mentions casually that he would "say mass" facing the wall, with his back to the people.
These and other reasons are why the church is falling apart at the seams, while those at the top write "new" missals with parts for the clergy and people that will deaden the already lifeless liturgies. Instead of fostering their own agendas and comfort levels, leaders at the highest levels might consider doing some real soul searching about what is needed in the church in 2010.
I have always respected the judgment of FR. HANS KÜNG. Given the low standards in the hierarchy, it is no wonder that people have trouble recognizing a real leader with real vision when one emerges. Ad hominem attacks weaken any argument.
I wouldnt elevate Mr Kung to
I wouldnt elevate Mr Kung to a leader with real vision.
Lets not forget he has questioned essential Christian doctrine such as the divinity of Christ and papal infallibility and teachings regarding the Virgin Mary.
Is this a sign of a faithful Catholic? By their fruits you shall know them.
The concept of infallibility
The concept of infallibility was a reactionary stance taken to ward off modernity. No where in scripture is it ever referred to. Nor is a pope.
Get educated John Darcy.
Catholicism was alive and
Catholicism was alive and well before the New Testament was compiled, so your sola scriptura rant is really quite irrelevant. Seems like you need to get educated yourself on the concept of sacred tradition. Furthermore, the Catholic Church does not field female clergy....so why are you even here "Rev. Alice Laquinta"?
Could you try to have the
Could you try to have the civility and decency to refer to Hans Kung as "Dr." or "Fr."? Just because you dislike his ideas does not change his proper title.
http://www.americamagazine.or
http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=2897
When a priest with normal
When a priest with normal sexual tendencies yields to temptation -married or not- he will usually look for a female partner
A priest which even before entering priesthood feels an abnormal attraction towards other men or children, when yielding to temptation will usually look for men or children to satisfy his lust.
As priestly life offers many opportunities to be in close contact with other men and children, it is clear that this way of life must be attractive to those naturally inclined to them, independently of their good faith and high spiritual aims
For those men the celibacy rule does not present any difficulty
I conclude that the celibacy system has little to do with pederasty.
The solution to this serious problem is not "zero tolerance" which, at best, will avoid repetition of such crimes, but proper selection of candidates to the priesthood
To say sexual abuse in the
To say sexual abuse in the church has "nothing to do with celibacy" is an erroneous statement for sure. Given the state of a child molester's penchant for pederasty, would the priest still molest? In high likelihood, probaly. However, allowing a married clergy would give the church a greater talent pool to choose from for the priesthood. Then the church can get back to the traditional sex scandal: marital infidelity!
It's "completly wrong" to trace the abuse casesto a systemic fault in the church is outright idiocy. GM went bankrupt because it was not mismanaged? Toyota is not a victim of their own hubris?
"The bishops have accepted enough responsibility"? Part of the reason for the whole cover up is a mismanaged system: "CYA" as the saying goes. No bishop wants his diocese to look bad to his higher ups and colleauges. Go along to get along.
Looking at it from a mismanged perspective, look at the bishop of Denver. What is he known for? Not allowing a child parented by two lesbians into a school and criticizing President Kennedy who has been dead for 47 years and then speaks of the late President as the cause of introducing religion into modern politics which we all know was introduced by Jimmy Carter: a failed president.
This is not true. Celibacy is
This is not true. Celibacy is not the cause of the sex abuse. It is wrong to use the tragedy of the sexual abuse of children to grind personal political axes in the Church.
Look at the dioceses where sexual abuse has happened the most. Look at the dioceses that have gone bankrupt because of it. These tend to be dioceses set in a very secular culture. Portland, LA, Boston, and the Irish Church...these churches have not been known for their fidelity to Church teaching on sexuality and other matters. Prayer, fidelity, and steadfastness in the work of Christ and His Church are the solutions to this deplorable problem. Axe-grinding, finger pointing, and agenda-pushing against the beautiful traditions of the Church are not the solution.
Anonymous on Mar. 12,
Anonymous on Mar. 12, 2010.
You state:
"This is not true. Celibacy is not the cause of the sex abuse. It is wrong to use the tragedy of the sexual abuse of children to grind personal political axes in the Church.
Look at the dioceses where sexual abuse has happened the most. Look at the dioceses that have gone bankrupt because of it. These tend to be dioceses set in a very secular culture. Portland, LA, Boston, and the Irish Church...these churches have not been known for their fidelity to Church teaching on sexuality and other matters. Prayer, fidelity, and steadfastness in the work of Christ and His Church are the solutions to this deplorable problem. Axe-grinding, finger pointing, and agenda-pushing against the beautiful traditions of the Church are not the solution."
-----------------------------------------------------
Your comment is pure 'blarney, to be sure'. You point out dioceses in a very secular culture. Got news for you---the sexual abuse also occured in other societies---Canada, Australia, Ireland, now in Germany and the Netherlands.
Are they very secular cultures. And what is your complaint about the Irish Church? And what do you have to say about sexual abuse occuring right within our current Pope's diocese?
We are in a different age and if the Church wants to speak to today's people, it needs to up-date itself to do so. Hanging on to a Church Discipline (and that is all that celibacy is---a Church Discipline---not the Gospel) and treating celibacy as THOUGH IT WAS THE GOSPEL---is just another manifestation of the heresy of Gnosticism (and its distain for the human body that God created as God created the human soul).
Little bear: "Got news for
Little bear: "Got news for you---the sexual abuse also occured in other societies---Canada, Australia, Ireland, now in Germany and the Netherlands. Are they very secular cultures."
Please add the Philippines, though it's not that very secular culture.
The debate to be celibate or
The debate to be celibate or not seems to focus on new testament readings.
What about God's comment right at the beginning of the scriptures
Its not good for man to be alone.
To my mind the union of the two is a fundamental condition needed for the potential of growth and the beginning of us learning to become One. Hopefully this then becomes the building block for the whole society.
Yes I know, we are slow learners. but to deny this very obvious direction in the scriptures seems arogant, to say the least
celibacy is nothing but a
celibacy is nothing but a disciplinary rule.
The Holy Father can repeal it at will.
Most of the sexual abuse by
Most of the sexual abuse by the priesthood that we are hearing about is with POST-pubescent boys. The major problem here is the overwhelming homosexual culture within the seminaries. These priests are not sneaking relationships with women becasue of the celebacy issue. They are engaging in homosexual relationships with young men, not boys. Most are not pedophilics. They are homosexuals who pray on young men. If they lifted the celibacy law, maybe more heterosexual married men would enter.
"These tend to be dioceses
"These tend to be dioceses set in a very secular culture... Irish Church"
Ireland? A "secular culture?" Where 90% of public education is conducted by the Church? (cf. NPR story dated today)
Where the Church succeed in making divorce and contreception illegal until recently?
You're kidding, right?
Celibacy is a cause, but the
Celibacy is a cause, but the only cause of sex abuse. Lots of things ar wrong in the church (Catholic church) and in the whole world. Please define for readers what do you mena by each word: personal, political, and axes in the Church. Sexual abuse is a crime, disease, mental illness, authoritative sexual devianat, and of course a sinner. I did not see anywhere in the above "This is not true" statement where sin was mentioned. Some say that Catholics (laity) mainly are apathic towards the notion of 'sin.' If the truth was known even members of magisteriam do not sue the word SIN in connection with sexual abuse cases. Truth, was is truth said Pilate.
I also think that using the term "very secular culture" in relation to dicceses is a grave mistake. Isn't this term (secular culture) a political term? Isn't there holiness abound everywherer? What actually is secular? Is a secular culture a particular place that is only evil and no goodness or sacredness in it? Why would you tell people that you live in a secular culture and not anywhere else, especially if if the person happens to live a holy life?
When something like sexual abuse is WRONG,it is WRONG.
Please admit to the sinfulness of this illness.
Thank you.
As usual, Fr. Hans Kung has
As usual, Fr. Hans Kung has done an outstanding analysis of the issue. With his insight and intellect, he has once again illuminated the way to follow Jesus in a truthful and faithful fashion. If only all of us could have the courage of our leader, Jesus Christ, and return to His concepts of equality for all members of His Body. Control over others, pompous accoutrements, special privilege, and arrogance were all despicable characteristics in the eyes of Jesus. It's time to start over and remove all signs, symbols, and suggestions of clericalism-------at this season of Lent, let us return to the Lord and remove all hierarchical structure and influence from the church that Jesus intended.
1Corinthians2:5 "DO WE NOT
1Corinthians2:5
"DO WE NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE ALONG A CHRISTIAN WIFE, AS DO THE REST OF THE APOSTLES, AND THE BROTHERS OF THE LORD, AND CEPHAS?"
From the Roman Catholic New American Bible.
That says it all.
Before you know it clergy will self flagellate to exorcise those normal sexual feelings. Oops, they're doing it already.
Do you mean 1 Corinthians 9:5
Do you mean 1 Corinthians 9:5 ?
* Second erroneous assertion:
* Second erroneous assertion: It is “completely wrong” to trace the abuse cases to a systemic fault in the Catholic church. Objection!”
============================================================
There are elements of “systemic causality” that cannot easily be denied. What seems causal and systemic are: church’s fixation in its antiquated belief system, its denial (ignorance) of science that exposes false presumptions of human sexuality. Church finds itself trapped in its history. The self-presumed inerrancy of the church exposes "discontinuity" if it changes orthodoxies it has preserved from the institutions beginnings. Church is systemically denied the the option of discontinuity.
Hierarchy behaves precisely as if it believes it has no choice but to cling to ancient and false assumptions. These problems are precisely systemic as is its culture of cover-up to preserve the “hermeneutic of continuity.” Vatican I condemns evolution; Vatican II admits to evolution. How can the church pretend “continuity” between absolutism against and openness to evolution? Let’s tell it like it is: sexual deviancy is rampant in Christian culture; DOMINION THEOLOGY IS SYSTEMIC AND ENABLING IN THE CULTURE OF CLERICAL SEXUAL DEVIANCY.
What is religious about the culture of alienation and dominion? Nothing; they are irreligious. Alienation and the politics of dominion culture are fundamentally irreligious, uncivil. Systemic religious/ cultural discrimination links directly to deviant clericalism, whether in Christian church hierarchicalism, or whether in the cruder and more violent type such as the Islamic Taliban. The mindset behind both is of a piece that is, rooted instinctually in neural hard-wiring and culturally in cultic priesthood and dominion theology.
What is “human” is the intelligence of self-reflection that recognizes personal origin from two-person mutuality, female and male. Not only does the organic two-ness of the body witness personal origin in female/ male mutuality, but so does brain processing of intelligence. Intelligence is characterized in two-pole dialog of emotional intelligence (left brain) and rational intelligence (right brain.) Defective rationality, the failed mutuality of faith and reason, frustrates human relationships and the capacity to be “religious,” to be human. This defect of character is an anomaly, a deviancy — it is a “malicious” deviancy when it is intentionally used to advantage one sex over the other.
Faith is emotional intelligence, the deep well of self-reflectivity in which the virtue of mutuality, of other-concern, accommodates individual sensitivity to social necessity. Reason is rational intelligence, the day-to-day communication of reason with realities at hand and accommodation to faith-inspiration. Personal/ social sensitivity is frustrated when the dialog of faith/ reason is frustrated.
The cult of male bachelorhood, as in hierarchical clericalism, puts the individual person and the social community at risk from deviant culture, that is, of the dominion of one sex and the suppression of the other; religiously implicated violence roots in the deviancy of male self-electionism, as for example, in the institutional alienation of women from hierarchical structures in the Roman Catholic Church.
If deviant clericalism cannot self-correct this moral defect, and it cannot, it needs to be corrected with outside help, that is, by societal reflectivity that recognizes the fatal injury of the alienation of the sexes, and by action to enlighten and correct the violent defect. The true follower of Jesus means to be Eucharistically altruistic, in service and self-dedication to others without self-advantaging and without expectation of personal privilege. This call of universal priesthood opens to all; it is how one personally becomes more Godlike in purpose and reality.
The schism in the Catholic Church, that is, between the First and Second Vatican Councils, is a schism of denied mutuality of the female/ male persons and of affirmed alienation and discrimination. Vatican II, in openness to scientific enlightenment means to affirm the egalitarian nature of the human person and to remove discrimination. The affirmation of faith/ reason continuity as promoted by Pope John Paul II (Fides et ratio) and by Pope Benedict XVI, is a hermeneutic of continuity that affirms essential female/ male mutuality, authenticity.
The hermeneutic of human continuity, of evolution from lesser authenticity to greater, is a continuity of consciousness, a continuity process of conscionable updating. Reduced to its essence, the schism between continuity and discontinuity, between Vatican I and Vatican II, is between mutuality and alienation. Alienation frustrates continuity, mutuality, what it means to be human, to be authentic, while mutuality advances continuity, what it means to be human, to be “religious.” Neither humankind nor nature escapes the fatal hurt of deviant male clericalism and cultural alienation. All are called to respect religious authenticity, the mutuality relating each to other.
I am no professional. I'm just an ordinary layman, but this is how it looks to me from the-bottom-up. Sylvester L. Steffen
The Catholic Church is
The Catholic Church is heterophobic. Read Doyle's "Sex, Priests, and Secret Codes".
Thank you for this, Fr. Kung.
Thank you for this, Fr. Kung. As I wrote in the comments section on America's web page, celibacy taints much of Catholic sexual teaching, from the obsession with teenage masturbation to birth control to homosexuality. The only way to honestly address these issue in the context of natural law is to end celibacy first.
I would only quarrel with your timing. The 4th Century was when celibacy began to taint the Church's sexual teaching.
Thank you, Fr. Kung. You have
Thank you, Fr. Kung. You have mentioned the elephant in the living room that Papa Ratzinger and his underlings want to simply ignore. It is time fot an intelligent discussion of the mandatory celibacy rule.
When the reactionaries insist that the Church can not ordain women because Christ only called men, why is it they insist priests must be celibate when Christ called married men. Are they saying Christ had it wrong?
Steve
I usually don't agree with
I usually don't agree with Han Kung. Smart as he is, I think he usually ignores baisc facts and ideas when it comes to Catholic theology. Nevertheless, he strikes a cord here. Celibacy is a practice, not a doctrine, and so it can be changed.
First, though, the Catholic Church has one of the lowest amounts of sexual abuse of any religion or mainstream denomination. As a result, I disagree with Kung's assertion that celibacy would help, to a significant degree, child sexual abuse. The numbers just don't add up.
Where Kung gets it right, I think, is in regards to his quote of Matt. 19:12. If the Church took away celibacy, I think that it would be a great loss to the Church, but at the same time having mostly mandatory celibacy has its negatives as well.
A compromise might be in order. Going to the Orthodox system of celibate bishops and letting a priest, before he becomes a priest, chose to get married or not may just be the best bet. It would be rediculous to ask the Church to do away with celibacy all together, and one can't deny the benefits that celibac has had for the Church, but at the same time I see nothing wrong with the Church giving way and compromising WHEN AND ONLY WHEN it comes to practice (NEVER to doctrine).
Dear Brett, Smart as you are,
Dear Brett,
Smart as you are, kindly indicate which "baisc facts" the learned Roman Catholic theologian, the Reverend Father Hans Kung, chooses to ignore, and which ideas about Catholic theology he has NOT explored at greatest depth.
I hear Father Hans here strike a lost chord, and wonder what cord you find he strikes . . .
idly yours
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
Two things Bret Adams: where
Two things Bret Adams: where in the world do you get the idea that the Catholic Church has one of the lowest abuse rates of any religion? Pray tell, what are the benefits to celibacy? Please. Some facts.
Shortly after the Diet of
Shortly after the Diet of Worms and Martin Luther's "Here I Stand" position (April 17, 1521), Pope Leo X died. Leo X, a Medici who spent the equivalent of $25 million dollars on his inaugural ball stated that "God gave us the papacy to enjoy, and we intend to do just that!"
Luther was horrified at what he was in Rome from the Pope and the Cardinals---and in the years after his return to Germany---began formulating his criticisms of the Catholic Church. One of his criticisms was about the celibate clergy.
After Leo X died, the College of Cardinals held a conclave and elected a man pope who was not even present at the conclave. He was Adrian Dedel (1459-1523), a Dutchman, who had been a schoolman (taught Erasmus, the most respected scholar in Europe) and then, was appointed archbishop of Tortosa in Spain. When Adrian was elected Pope, he kept his name and became Pope Adrian VI. Pope Adrian wrote to the College of Cardinals that he was coming to Rome, not to celebrate with them, but to chastise and correct them (for all the abuses).
Pope Adrian VI was well aware of what would happen to the Catholic Church if
the Protestant Reformation gained more ground than it had. He fully intended to meet with Luther (or his representatives) and offer the following concessions to Luther and his followers. They were:
1) Acceptance of a married clergy.
2) Acceptance of Communion to be received by the faithful under both species.
3) Acceptance of the Mass in the language of the people---the vernacular.
Pope Adrian VI had incurred enemies within the ranks of the cardinals (curia) for proposing reforms and for proposing reconciliation with Luther. He was murdered after serving as Pope for only one year. Had Adrian lived to enforce his reforming policies, it is highly possible that the Protestant
Reformation would have been nipped in the bud.
It is very possible that the liturgy would have been in the vernacular centuries ago, that people would have been receiving Holy Communion under both species at the same time. AND, this issue of manditory celibacy and the concurrent issue of sexual abuse of youngsters, would have been settled long ago.
Oh, by the way---after Adrian VI died, the College of Cardinals had a conclave and elected Clement VII (1523-1534) as Pope. Clement VII was another Medici---and the Vatican continued its parties and fun. And it relished in the political intrigues and schemes hatched by Clement VII to improve his political fortunes.
Interesting
Interesting history.
"[F]acts, as history teaches, carry more weight than pure doctrine" (Joseph Ratzinger, HIGHLIGHTS OF VATICAN II, Paulist Press/Deus Books, 1966, p. 16).
First of all, sexual abuse
First of all, sexual abuse cannot be linked to celibacy, if it could, there would be no cases of abuse among families and married men and women. In addition, what of the HUGE numbers of priests (95-96% of them) who have never abused a child? To be sure, some of them are likely not as faithful to their promise of celibacy as they should, but even allowing for (a rather liberal) 10% who may not be faithful, this still leaves 85-86% of priests who are faithful. What of them?
Second of all, any credibility that Father Kung might have had on this issue is more than negated by his support for the ordination of women, an issue that has been definitively settled by the Venerable Servant of God, Pope John Paul the Great, consistent with Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, neither of which in any way supports the idea that the Church has the power to ordain women. That Father Kung so deviates from settled Church teaching, and from Sacred Scripture and Tradition, demonstrates how far to the left he has come since the Council.
Most Catholics support
Most Catholics support women's ordination. Canon 749.3 puts the burden on the proponent(s) of allegedly infallible teaching to make their case. JPII claimed that the world's bishops have always and everywhere taught that the Church of Rome has no authority to ordain women. JPII made an assertion. B16 has apparently not been able to support his predecessor's claim. The proverbial ball's in the papal court, and they haven't been able to run with it.
In the meantime, valid Catholic female ordinations to the presbyterate and episcopate continue outside the Church of Rome.
Regarding Canon 749.3, the
Regarding Canon 749.3, the preceding subsection, 1, makes it clear that the Supreme Pontiff has the authority to declare a dogma as infallible if he "proclaims by definitive act a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals". Pope John Paul II stated in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis: "Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful". Seems pretty definitive to me.
Second, Canon 749.2 states that, "when the Bishops, dispersed throughout the world but maintaining the bond of union among themselves and with the successor of Peter, together with the same Roman Pontiff authentically teach matters of faith or morals, and are agreed that a particular teaching is definitively to be held", that teaching is considered to be infallible. That is the definition of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium, exercised by the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops in communion with him.
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in a Responsum ad dubium, and speaking for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with full approval from Pope John Paul II, stated: "This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25. 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith".
In other words, that teaching, regardless of however many public opinion polls one may take, is an infallible teaching of the Church, to be held "always, everywhere, and by all".
Pope Benedict XVI has not commented on the issue of the ordination of women because it is SETTLED CHURCH DOGMA. There is no need for him, or any other subsequent Supreme Pontiff, to discuss this topic because it has already been settled, definitively, by Pope John Paul II. The ball is in nobody's court, because, in accordance with every single teaching of the Church, the issue of the ordination of women has been infallibly settled in the negative.
Finally, no single valid ordination of a woman has ever been confected. Women cannot be ordained to the Sacred Priesthood because the Church lacks the authority to do so. We can wish and hope and dream all we want, we can make believe and pretend all we want, but the Church must abide, not by the wishes of some of her members, or even all of her members. The Church must abide by the wishes and commands of Christ Himself. Christ chose men to be His Apostles (He could have chosen anyone He wished, He chose 12 men). There were 12 men present when Christ instituted the Sacred Priesthood at the Last Supper. If women were present, Scripture would have included them, since Scripture does go out of its way, often, to mention the presence of women when they were with Our Lord and His Apostles. Christ commissioned the 11 (Judas had already committed suicide) to "go and teach all nations...baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". I could go on and on, but the reality is that Christ chose 12 men to be His successors. Public opinion and pretend "ordinations" do not change the specific example of Christ which the Church is constrained to follow.
Clint Green (not verified) on
Clint Green (not verified) on Mar. 16, 2010.
Regarding Canon 749.3, the preceding subsection, 1, makes it clear that the Supreme Pontiff has the authority to declare a dogma as infallible if he "proclaims by definitive act a doctrine to be held concerning faith or morals". Pope John Paul II stated in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis: "Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful". Seems pretty definitive to me.
Second, Canon 749.2 states that, "when the Bishops, dispersed throughout the world but maintaining the bond of union among themselves and with the successor of Peter, together with the same Roman Pontiff authentically teach matters of faith or morals, and are agreed that a particular teaching is definitively to be held", that teaching is considered to be infallible. That is the definition of the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium, exercised by the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops in communion with him....
Finally, no single valid ordination of a woman has ever been confected. Women cannot be ordained to the Sacred Priesthood because the Church lacks the authority to do so. We can wish and hope and dream all we want, we can make believe and pretend all we want, but the Church must abide, not by the wishes of some of her members, or even all of her members. The Church must abide by the wishes and commands of Christ Himself. Christ chose men to be His Apostles (He could have chosen anyone He wished, He chose 12 men). There were 12 men present when Christ instituted the Sacred Priesthood at the Last Supper. If women were present, Scripture would have included them, since Scripture does go out of its way, often, to mention the presence of women when they were with Our Lord and His Apostles. Christ commissioned the 11 (Judas had already committed suicide) to "go and teach all nations...baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". I could go on and on, but the reality is that Christ chose 12 men to be His successors. Public opinion and pretend "ordinations" do not change the specific example of Christ which the Church is constrained to follow
---------------------------------------------------
My dear Clint,
This comment may seem strange to you----but Jesus and the Apostles did not prepare, cook or serve the Last Supper---the women did. Passover meals HAD to have women present. Ask your local rabbi. And remember---all the Evangelists WERE NOT PRESENT AT THE LAST SUPPER! They don't know WHO was there.
Cardinal clint, Jesus the
Cardinal clint, Jesus the infallible head of his Body to whom everyone in the Church including you and popes owe ultimate allegiance NEVER taught with DEFINITIVENESS that women could not be ordained, just as he never did on slavery, the divine right of kings, patriarchy, & celibate priesthood, to name some. Your argument that women couldn't be ordained because Jesus chose an all-male circle of twelve reeks of a literalist fundamentalist reading of Scriptures. You made use of a sociological data drawn from an actual historical and cultural context of two-thousand years ago then conveniently transform it into an irreformable theological teaching. This is a classicist approach, to borrow Lonergan's category, that has no respect for the empirical-historical.
Following your fundamentalist logic priests should also be Jewish. By the way lest you gloss this over: the twelve apostles represent a unique and unrepeatable place in God's kingdom in the here-and-now. Refrain from photocopying it.
Regarding your comments, Mr.
Regarding your comments, Mr. Green:
a. Canon 749.1 does not supersede or contradict canon 749.3 (or canon 750.1, for that matter).
Canon 749.3 reads: "No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident", i.e., unless the doctrine is clearly established as such. This is a legal requirement imposed on the pope and fellow bishops. They, not the recipients, bear the burden of making their case. This fact reflects Vatican II's teaching on the role of the faithful (all of us, ordained or otherwise) in safeguarding the faith.
Canon 750.1 reads in relevant part: "A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things...proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church [i.e., a papal "ex cathedra" teaching or a solemn definition of the world's bishops assembled in council with the pope] or by its ordinary and universal magisterium [a teaching consistently taught by all the world's bishops while dispersed in their local sees but in union with the pope] which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful..." Please note this canon's use of the phrases "proposed as divinely revealed" and "which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful". Again, the legal burden is on the proponent(s) of purportedly infallible doctrine, not on the recipients. This canon, likewise, acknowledges the indispensable role of the faithful in safeguarding the faith.
If Ordinatio Sacerdotalis "[s]eems pretty definitive to [you]," its conclusion --- that the church has no authority to ordain women to the presbyterate or episcopate --- is anything but "definitive" to those of us, professional or otherwise, who have studied this issue.
b. I have no problem with canon 749.2. However, it does not at all contradict or override canons 749.3 or 750.1.
Responsible church citizenship should caution everybody about accepting any kind of global assertion from the magisterium. Indeed, canons 749.3 and 750.1 implicitly acknowledge this potential danger to the faith. Recent history, inter alia, the ordination to the presbyterate of several women behind the former Iron Curtain, is reason enough to give pause to any assertion of the kind made by JPII in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Even the Pontifical Biblical Commission concluded years ago that sacred scripture cannot be used in support of, or in opposition to, women's ordination.
In late 1995, Francis A. Sullivan, a leading authority on the magisterium and professor emeritus of the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, demonstrated how appeals to longstanding tradition of the past might not suffice as proof that a doctrine has been taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium (THE TABLET, 23/30 December 1995, p. 1646). As I've noted before, synonyms for infallibility include irreversibility, definitiveness, and irreformability.
According to Sullivan, "What has to be clearly established is that the tradition has remained constant, and that even today the universal body of Catholic bishops is teaching the same doctrine as definitively to be held."
Sullivan outlined three Vatican documents that suggest the different ways it can be established that a doctrine is taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium:
1. Papal consultation with all the world's bishops, as suggested by JPII in his Evangelium vitae (March 1995),
2. The universal and constant consensus of Catholic theologians, as suggested by Pius IX in his Tuas libenter (1863), and
3. Canon 750.1 of JPII's 1983 Code of Canon Law, cited earlier.
"The CDF," wrote Sullivan, "has not invoked any of these criteria in support of its assertion that the doctrine excluding women from the priesthood has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium." In his Responsum ad dubium and accompanying Letter, Cardinal Ratzinger merely repeated the papal assertion and clarified that JPII was not teaching "ex cathedra" but, instead, was invoking mode 3 of infallible teaching (i.e., the ordinary and universal magisterium) as the basis for his conclusion about women's ordination. Ratzinger's current status as pope does not change this picture, as a CDF head has no authority to proclaim a teaching as infallible.
c. Ratzinger's Responsum and Letter carry no weight, and I doubt that as pope he wants to re-enter this fray. However, if he were to teach "ex cathedra" that the church has no authority to ordain women, I suspect he would lose what little credibility he still has left, and, of course, we would see bona fide disagreement voiced under provisions of canons 749.3 and 750.1. B16 may want "to let sleeping dogs lie" while the church continues to witness doctrinal development in this area.
d. As I've noted on other occasions, while public opinion polls do not determine doctrine, it would be foolish for the magisterium to ignore them since they can --- over time --- shed some light on the "sense of the faithful". Results can at least reveal directionality of opinion as the faithful debate and discuss an issue.
MORE TO FOLLOW
CONTINUATION e. Your
CONTINUATION
e. Your assertion that the conclusion in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is "SETTLED CHURCH DOGMA" is erroneous on two accounts: (1) the issue is anything but "setled", and (2) application of canon law does not permit the Vatican to conclude that JPII's teaching is "dogma". Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is doctrine, not dogma.
f. Finally, you repeat the empty assertion originated by JPII (at least in the current debate) and, of necessity, clarified by Cardinal Ratzinger. The burden is on the pope and/or world's bishops to demonstrate that the church has no authority to ordain women. In the meantime, women are being validly ordained to the Catholic presbyterate and episcopate without official Vatican approval.
Nowhere in the gospels does Jesus "wish" or "command" the ordination of only men to a Catholic (or Christian) "priesthood". In fact, the gospels contain no reference at all to Christian priestly ordination. Jesus and his immediate disciples knew only the Jewish faith and its priesthood. In the primitive churches, every baptized man and woman was a "priest" led in worship by their community leader, the presider (presbyteros or episkopos, title depending on community usage), who was not ordained to any kind of sacerdotal/priestly office. Everybody was a priest, and the presider was their "lead priest". The earliest extant ordination rituals are in The Apostolic Tradition, a "redaction" whose contents date from perhaps as early as 150 to as late as 350 AD. The ordination ritual for episkopos has only a threadbare reference to performance of sacerdotal duty, whereas the ordination ritual for priest has no such phraseology! As a future pope opined many years ago, "[F]acts, as history teaches, carry more weight than pure doctrine" (Joseph Ratzinger, HIGHLIGHTS OF VATICAN II, Paulist Press/Deus Books, 1966, p. 16).
In the first volume of his THE CHRISTIAN TRADITION: A HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE, the late Jaroslav Pelikan writes:
Justin [d. 165] argued that one of the differences between the old
covenant and the new as that the priesthood had been superseded and
'we [the church as a whole] are the true high-priestly race of God.'
In the New Testament itself the concept of 'priest' referred either
to the Levites of the Old Testament, now made obsolete, or to Christ
or to the entire church --- not to the ordained ministry of the
church. But Clement, who was also the first to use the term 'layman'
[ca. 96], already spoke of 'priests' and of 'the high priest' and
significantly related these terms to the Levitical priesthood; a
similar parallel occurred in the Didache [ca. 100] and in Hippolytus
[The Apostolic Tradition, customarily dated ca. 215]. For Tertullian
[d. ca. 225], the bishop was already 'the high priest,' and for his
disciple, Cyprian [d. 258], it was completely natural to speak of a
Christian 'priesthood'.
******************
[T]here is considerable support in the teaching of the second- and
third-century fathers: the distinction between the hierarchical
priesthood and the priesthood of all believers. Already in Clement
of Rome and in the Didache the attributes of the Levitical priesthood
of the Old Testament were being applied to the ministers of the
church. Yet the conception of the priesthood of believers remained
alongside this development, as is evident from quite divergent lines
of tradition. Irenaeus [d. ca 200] was the most articulate defender
of the thesis that the continuity of the church was guaranteed by
the apostolic office of the men who held the apostolic sees; yet it
was also Irenaeus who, perhaps more explicitly than any of his
contemporaries, affirmed that 'all the righteous have a priestly
order' and that therefore 'all the disciples of the Lord are Levites
and priests' [Jaroslav Pelikan, THE CHRISTIAN TRADITION: A HISTORY
OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE, Vol. 1: THE EMERGENCE OF THE CATHOLIC
TRADITION (100 - 600); The University of Chicago Press, 1971/1975,
pp. 25 and 160, respectively; italics added except for "[the church
as a whole]" that is original to the text].
In other words, we have even more evidence that ordination to a Christian "priesthood" and "episcopate/bishopric" was a historical development, not at all original to the earliest Christian communities. An excellent reference is Kenan Osborne's PRIESTHOOD: A HISTORY OF THE ORDAINED MINISTRY IN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, published by Paulist Press in 1988. In addition, an excellent presentation of the women's ordination issue is Robert Egan's "Why Not? Scripture, History & Women's Ordination" in COMMONWEAL (April 11, 2008). In her reply to Egan, Sara Butler presents the Vatican's viewpoint, to which Egan posts a devastating critique (COMMONWEAL, July 18, 2008).
If you really believe that female ordinations are only (in your words) "pretend 'ordinations'," I remind you that I still have a west coast orange bridge to sell you. In addition, because the pope no doubt appreciates your efforts to preserve a Church of Rome that is totally non-catholic in its ordained ministries, I'll give you at no extra cost a second west coast orange bridge to give to B16.
I think the pope would appreciate your thoughtfulness.
OOPS - In my preceding
OOPS - In my preceding paragraph, I wrote "italics added..." I should have written "brackets added..."
"Tradition without history has homogenized all the stages of [doctrinal] development into one statically defined truth...Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living" (Jaroslav Pelikan, ibid, p. 9, brackets added). Thank God for Vatican II. As theologian Bernard Lonergan observed (as quoted by Robert Egan in his COMMONWEAL article cited above), "The meaning of Vatican II was the acknowledgement of history." In parochial school more than 45 years ago, for example, we were told about "the Protestant Revolt". What little church history we may have been taught at the time, it was likely whitewashed so that WE looked good and those mean and dirty Protestants looked bad. Thank God for the flowering of ecclesial historical scholarship in the meantime!
Contrary to what B16 and likeminded would have us believe, God in the person of Jesus has given us much leeway in our communal worship. If recent papal and episcopal arrogance ad nauseum has taught us anything, it should be the central role of the (top-down) Tridentine liturgy, with its emphasis on a passive and docile laity, in preserving a clerical culture that elevates the ordained and subordinates the laity.
Those who don't learn the lessons of history.....
The key word is written:
The key word is written: "Outside the Church of Rome" Anything "outside the Church of Rome" means not following the dictates of the Church of Rome, which is the only Church that has the unbroken line of Bishops and leaders since Saint Peter.
"...[T]he Church of Rome...is
"...[T]he Church of Rome...is the only Church that has the unbroken line of Bishops and leaders since Saint Peter."
Deacon Randy, I think you need to go back to Deacon School and learn church history. (For starters, Orthodox Christians --- as well as Pope Benedict himself --- would disagree with your assertion, but that's just for "starters".)
There is no evidence that The Twelve ordained anybody to a Christian priesthood or episcopate. In fact, the ministry of The Twelve was unique in that it came from Jesus himself. Therefore, it was unrepeatable. Practical (and historical) circumstances would eventually give rise to non-ordained presbyteroi/episkopoi, i.e., community leaders who, by virtue of their leadership, also led their fellow Christians at worship. Every male and female Christian was a true "priest" by virtue of his or her baptism. There was no ordination in the primitive churches.
The earliest extant ordination rituals --- for priests and bishops --- are found in The Apostolic Tradition, attributed to Hippolytus and customarily dated ca. 215 AD. More recent scholarship suggests this body of work is a "redaction", i.e., materials composed, massaged, and changed over decades by various writers from various communities. It is now suggested that this collection's materials could date from as early as 150 to as late as 350 AD. What is most interesting even in this work is that the ordination ritual for bishop includes only a threadbare reference to liturgical presidency whereas the ordination ritual for priest includes no such phraseology whatsoever!!! In other words, ordained ministry in the Catholic and Orthodox communions was a historical development, not at all original to those communities of believers closest to Jesus and his disciples in time and place.
An excellent resource is Kenan Osborne's PRIESTHOOD: A HISTORY OF THE ORDAINED MINISTRY IN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, published by Paulist Press in 1988. Another excellent reference is Robert Egan's "Why Not? Scripture, History & Women's Ordination" in COMMONWEAL.
Please, do not confuse church doctrine, on the one hand, with actual church history, on the other hand. Even a future pope wrote, "[F]acts, as history teaches, carry more weight than pure doctrine" (Joseph Ratzinger, HIGHLIGHTS OF VATICAN II, Paulist Press/Deus Books, 1966, p. 16).
This isnt disputable. Our
This isnt disputable. Our Lord didnt intend for women to be priests.
Its clear in Scripture and Tradition
Maybe you should read the
Maybe you should read the whole story of the morning of the resurrection at the tomb in John! Jesus first appeared to a woman, and she was the first human being he commissioned to spread the good news of his rising from the dead. The men had gone home. But Mary of Magdala stayed and wept, until the risen Jesus revealed himself to her.
If that is not a call, then there is no such thing!
A call to witness to Christ
A call to witness to Christ but not to priesthood which was established at the Last Supper meal.
Cardinal Clint Locuta Est –
Cardinal Clint Locuta Est – Causa Finita Est
:)
:)
Non-sequitur, Clint. If
Non-sequitur, Clint.
If sexual abuse occurs among celibate men (which it does), it certainly does not follow that sexual abuse ONLY occurs among celibate men. And if celibacy were related causally to tendencies towards sexual abuse, it does not follow that celibacy is the only life situation causally related to such abuse.
Whether or not such a link exits has never been adequately studied. The question that the Church should be asking is this "Is there something about the nature of celibate priesthood that makes it an attractive lifestyle for sexually disordered males?" For purposes of discussion, "sexually disordered" would include homosexual men, pedophiles, those with immature or or incompletely developed sexuality, and many other categories.
Lets do a real study, then we'll have the answer.
The credibility of the
The credibility of the authoritarian brand of absolute Patriarchy that Clint Green props up has more than negated itself by refusing to ordain women and allow optional celibacy. The RCC is currently reaping the worldwide negativity it has sown. Father Hans Kung on the other hand is on the right hand of another Man of faith and integrity that walked this earth 2000 years ago.
Clint Green on Mar. 12, 2010.
Clint Green on Mar. 12, 2010.
You stated:
"First of all, sexual abuse cannot be linked to celibacy, if it could, there would be no cases of abuse among families and married men and women. In addition, what of the HUGE numbers of priests (95-96% of them) who have never abused a child? To be sure, some of them are likely not as faithful to their promise of celibacy as they should, but even allowing for (a rather liberal) 10% who may not be faithful, this still leaves 85-86% of priests who are faithful. What of them?
Second of all, any credibility that Father Kung might have had on this issue is more than negated by his support for the ordination of women, an issue that has been definitively settled by the Venerable Servant of God, Pope John Paul the Great, consistent with Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, neither of which in any way supports the idea that the Church has the power to ordain women. That Father Kung so deviates from settled Church teaching, and from Sacred Scripture and Tradition, demonstrates how far to the left he has come since the Council."
----------------------------------------------
First of all, Clint, we do not even have the complete picture---world-wide of all of the cases of the sexual abuse of minors that have occured. Secondly, just based upon the PERCENTAGE of abusing celibate males in the whole priestly population compared to the PERCENTAGE of abusing single or married males in the whole lay male population---the percentage of abusing celibate males is larger. And I do believe that CARA has already done a study on that.
Your comment that John Paul II has 'definitively settled' the issue of the ordination of women---is premature. No human being, pope or otherwise, can make a proclamation that is binding upon the Church for the rest of the course of human history! From past Church History, we know about the topics of many papal bulls and encyclicals that were written at one point of history, only to be refuted/rejected at another time.
Finally, there is nothing in the Scriptures that can prove that there should not be the ordination of women. Jesus, at the Last Supper DID NOT consecrate the Apostles bishops. Jesus, at the Last Supper DID NOT ordain the Apostles as priests. The Evangelists Mark and Luke were NOT present at the Last Supper (their 'eyewitness' accounts came from second/third hand sources).
According to biblical scholarship, Matthew did not write the gospel that bears his name. It was written by HIS disciple---someone schooled in the Jewish law that Matthew was not permitted to study---because he was a tax-collector.
John, the Evangelist, chose to write about the Eucharist in another setting, rather than at the Last Supper (see John 6:22-60). So where does it state that women may not be ordained? Women were presiding at "The Meal" before Mark's Gospel was ever penned. And this IS part of the early tradition of the Church---which ecclesiastical politicians like JP II and Benedict refuse to recognize.
That JP II and Benedict have retreated back into the safe past (pre-Vatican II times) displays how they have been afraid to move forward with what Vatican II outlined. Both of these men have done everything that they could to mute the natural progress of Vatican II---from JP II's reframing the decisions of Vatican II in his own understanding {"Sources of Renewal: the Implementation of Vatican II" 1979}. John Paul believed that God had chosen him and his ideas. And he stated that God had chosen him to proclaim the ideas that he (John Paul) has had in his mind for some years.
And Benedict, for 25 years as head of the Holy Office, had more authority than anyone imagined. While John Paul appeared on the world stage---dazzling people, especially the youth, Ratzinger was back home implementing JP's ideas and adding his own ideas to them.
It is not that Hans Kung is too much to the left. It is that our past pope and current one deny the radical equality of all the baptized (men and women)---which was agreed upon by Vatican II. The Council stated every one of the faithful (men and women) are full and equal members of the Church. But the Vatican kept (and keeps) on insisting that only the hierarchy and clergy can make decisions in the Church.
While you, Clint, keep praising John Paul's pontificate, you fail to notice that a major part of his pontificate was about SEPARATION. In Polish the word for priest comes from chapel. So the priest belongs in the chapel, he's the leader in the chapel. The Polish word for laity comes from the word for worldly. John Paul was all about separating clergy from the laity and in separating men from women. In JP II's mind the clergy MUST be men---they are in charge and the laity (men and women) should keep their noises out of church business, and submit to all hierarchial/clerical authority without question.
Hans Kung has proven over the years his ability to deal with the difficult, sometimes messy ideas, that confront the Church today. He has used his background of traditional theology to ROOT him in the ground his faith. But he is not BURIED in the ground of the past--which can stunt the life of the Church. He has instead, allowed not only the external changes of Vatican II promote his growth, but he has been transformed by the inner dimensions of it as well.
"JP II's mind the clergy MUST
"JP II's mind the clergy MUST be men---they are in charge and the laity (men and women) should keep their noises out of church business, and submit to all hierarchial/clerical authority without question."
Little Bear I think it actually goes deeper than what you have written. In JPII's mind the distinction seemed to be the clergy were God's real men and all laity were to be treated collectively as subordinate women. Hence all the babble about the 'Bride of Christ' and priests as 'in persona Christi'. In this view lay men are just slightly elevated women who couldn't control their urges any better than actual women.
It's no wonder the level of male participation has been drastically dropping since Vatican I. Deep down inside men know Catholicism represents the ultimate patriarchal system. One that is so out of balance it treats all of it's non ordained men like women.
John Paul "the
John Paul "the Great"...please, Sir, respect for the dead is one thing, but, unless you are trying to get some brownie points in the hope that JPII is deemed some day to be a "Saint", such titles only indicate something close to the veneration of idols. And I just wonder why you have such a repulsion to the concept of a woman as priest? You really don't have a very good case. Careful with whom you debate. I think Ratzinger, "the NOT so great", would have a tough time challenging Father Kung.
Yes, the Roman system is
Yes, the Roman system is broken in many respects related to the clergy. The popes have made the church for the celibate priests/bishops and all the rest are but the docile lambs until they get better informed and eduated in church history. Pray for cardinals who will rebel against the system at the next conclave and who will seek reform. That is the only hope the church has left.
But Hans, married men also
But Hans, married men also abuse children.
Mark Andrews on Mar. 12,
Mark Andrews on Mar. 12, 2010.
You stated:
"But Hans, married men also abuse children."
-------------------------------------------
Yes, Mark. But a greater PERCENTAGE of celibate males abuse children as opposed to married men.
LittleBear, Please share your
LittleBear,
Please share your source with me on this...these numbers are not easy to find. Where did you find that a greater percentage of celibates (or just priests) abuse children than average men?
Thanks!
just for a fine point of
just for a fine point of clarification please.
If they are in fact celibates then they ain't abusing anyone.
Not even themselves.
Ray Carl on Mar. 17,
Ray Carl on Mar. 17, 2010.
You stated:
"LittleBear,
Please share your source with me on this...these numbers are not easy to find. Where did you find that a greater percentage of celibates (or just priests) abuse children than average men?
Thanks!"
------------------------------------
Some sources? OK
The American Priest: Psychological investigation by Kennedy and Heckler
"Church in Crisis: Sexuality Sets Stage for Church's next Reformation" (NCR report)
"The Historical, and Continuing Challenge of Confronting Corruption in the Church Itself" essay by Andrew Thomas Kania
"Survival of the Spirit" Tom Doyle
Celibacy in Crisis, A Secret World, and "Clerical Sex, Blackmail and Sexual Abuse" books and an essay by A.W. Richard Sipe
check out fr james martin on
check out fr james martin on huffington post
title: "it's not about celibacy"
The common assumption, and
The common assumption, and the one which the author does little to refute, is that it is as simple as "let priests marry and then they'll have a healthy outlet for their sexual urges."
A number of us feel that that is only part, perhaps a small part, of the issue.
What seems to us to be the case, and it is actually far more alarming than simple enforced chastity, is that celibacy itself may have been and may continue to be attractive to young men seeking to avoid confronting their own real or perceived psycho-sexual issues.
A related worry, one which probably was more applicable in the days of junior seminaries but is probably still applicable to minior seminaries is that young men whose sexuality has not come to its full fruition are at risk of being "fixated" at a psychosexually immature phase as a result of their formation as perpetually chaste, or continent, persons.
Yes, current seminary formation is more enlightened, and men who are minimally 18 years of age are certainly further along the path towards
psychosexual stability than 14-year-olds. Though, as the behavior of college
fraternities illustrates, perhaps they are not as mature as we'd wish.
There is perhaps little risk that we'll again ordain men whose sole
experience of acting out sexuality with others has been to be first the non-consensual victim of priests and older seminarians and perhaps later the perpetrators of such acts within the seminary setting. Such individuals were arguably at great risk of becoming ephebophiles or pedophiles.
None the less, for young men who are ambivalent about a sense of their own sexuality which they may regard as "disordered" or "sinful," an attempt to repress it in sacerdotal celibacy rather than deal with it in a proactive fashion through therapy is a very real risk.
If celibacy is, indeed, 'a gift of the Holy Spirit' it would seem to me that an attempt to 'force' that gift by way of using it as an escape from a psychosexual issue is doomed to failure.
Thank God for Hans Kung's
Thank God for Hans Kung's brilliant thinking and courage and integrity. He should have been the pope since 1970's and the Church would not be in the disastrous evil mess it is in right now. JPII and BXVI have caused enormous harm to the Roman Catholic church. Follow the advice of Hans Kung, PBXVI!
"But why is it so prevalent
"But why is it so prevalent precisely in the Catholic church under celibate leadership?"
From what I have read it's not any more prevalent in the Church than in other institutions. I'd like to know why it isn't less prevalent.
"Compulsory celibacy is the principal reason for today’s catastrophic shortage of priests..."
It is? Where is the data on that conclusion?
Once a dissident, always a
Once a dissident, always a dissident. The celibacy issue is canonical and not doctrinal. It can be changed tomorrow. The matter of female ordination was settled by Pope John Paul II of happy memory. It can not happen. Fr Kung knows this but continues to foment dissent anyway.
"The matter of female
"The matter of female ordination was settled by Pope John Paul II..."
Pulleeeze, get real.
It hasn't been "settled". The issue has only been intensified by those of us who have challenged JPII's Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, as is our right under the 1983 Code of Canon Law approved by JPII (in your words) "of happy memory".
The Catholic Church already has female presbyters and bishops.
Perhaps the Church of Rome will be doing likewise one of these days.
Define "dissident." This
Define "dissident."
This reads like a wise professor fomenting class discussion in Roman Catholic theology and ecclesiology.
Which is what has happened.
Except of course for these ad hominem attacks irrelevant to the material under discussion.
Please explain this passage of yours, which I found an alarming non sequitur: "The celibacy issue is canonical and not doctrinal. It can be changed tomorrow."
Define please canonical, and doctrinal.
Can celibacy be changed tomorrow, at a stroke of a papal pen?
Wow.
Yeah.
Just let in all of those anglicans . . .
And did JPII really settle anything at all?
Of course, you know, dear
Of course, you know, dear brother, than Kung is not a Roman Catholic theologian and can never act in that capacity again.
Post new comment