Clergy sex abuse crisis 'is not over'

[Myles Domini]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Guest]

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

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

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

[MC Just]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Myles Domini]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hence my signature my friend, hence my signature..

[Guest]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[RemnantRules]

Priests can't be married.
That's why there are two seperate Sacraments for this.

Also, if priests should get married then why can't they become sisters too? It sounds crazy but so does them getting married.

Imagine a married priest....Has children and everytime some huge Milestone happens in their lives he couldn't be there for them b/c his devotion to his church has made him be at other places at other times. It wouldn't be fair to either party. At our parish we have two married priests, obviously converted priests, and they have a very difficult time scheduling their lives b/c in marriage you promise your whole life to that one person until death do you part and in religous you promise your whole life to the church...ugh I pray for them everyday.

I think if you really prayed about it and thought logically about it you would see it is BEST for priests not to be married.

[Guest]

[quote name='RemnantRules' date='Feb 24 2005, 04:13 AM'] Priests can't be married.
That's why there are two seperate Sacraments for this.

Also, if priests should get married then why can't they become sisters too? It sounds crazy but so does them getting married.

Imagine a married priest....Has children and everytime some huge Milestone happens in their lives he couldn't be there for them b/c his devotion to his church has made him be at other places at other times. It wouldn't be fair to either party. At our parish we have two married priests, obviously converted priests, and they have a very difficult time scheduling their lives b/c in marriage you promise your whole life to that one person until death do you part and in religous you promise your whole life to the church...ugh I pray for them everyday.

I think if you really prayed about it and thought logically about it you would see it is BEST for priests not to be married. [/quote]
i see where your comeing from
makes good sence to
God bless

[Myles Domini]

[quote]Priests can't be married.
That's why there are two seperate Sacraments for this.

Also, if priests should get married then why can't they become sisters too? It sounds crazy but so does them getting married.[/quote]

I know I'm new around here but...allow me to object

Both Scripture and Sacred Tradition permit priests to be married. We must remember that not only in the Eastern Catholic Church this tradition has been unbroken since the Apostolic age but that one of Jesus' healing miracles was performed on St Peter's mother-in-law. The first Pope, the rock upon which the Church is built, was himself married and according to legend his wife was martyred for the faith. Naturally, the Church maintains the right to change these practices thats why since the Patristic period married Bishops have been banned in East and West and how we came to have a completely celibate priesthood in the Roman Patriarchate. Nonetheless, I would be diametrically opposed to the use of fact that we have two seperate Sacraments for the Holy Orders and Holy Matrimony as evidence against a married priesthood. Precisely because of the evidence of Scripture and Church History.

The reason we have those sacraments and the other five is because that was what Jesus told us we should have. Anything else we might discover from them we learn from Holy Mother Church, and according to her there is no doctrinal reasons why priests cannot be married. It is within her rights at any moment in time to open the priesthood to married men according to the Divine Will that guides her decisions and keeps her from error. The only reason she doesnt because the Holy Spirit has awared her to the fact that the practice she has in place now is for the best, when pertinent to priests reared in the Western Church. As I've highlighted the Orientals have their own tradition and converted Anglican clerics after often granted permission to keep their wives.

Now I'm not saying that Roman rite priests should be married. As I said in a previous post on this thread I think, as RR pointed it out for many married men it would be unfeasible. Hence, I would suggest if the Papacy ever did decide to take the step to allow married men to return to the priesthood that they should be around 50 years of age before they're allowed to apply. After all St Hilary of Poiters was happily married and around that age when he entered Holy Orders and that seemed to go quite smoothly, what with him becoming the Church's first and, to date, only married Doctor of the Church whilst earning the nickname 'Athanasius of the West' for his uncompromising Catholicity. My real point is that one cannot take away the right of Rome to allow that to happen and it is potentially a fatal error to reason it shouldnt happen because of the nature of the sacramental system.

I dont believe RR has done this intentionally so I wont lecture on this topic. However, I will stress that the fact that there is two different sacraments of service doesnt mean that God could not and does not will men to live out both. From the fact we have married eastern rite priests and convert western rite priests I'd say he does. To question this would be to bring into question the Church's interpretation of this issue for the past 2,000 years both East and West. Moreover, it would suggest that the embrace of both sacraments might make one automatically invalid if not both. When it comes to the sacraments the best arbiter is the Church and of all the things to argue about they are the things even Theologians like myself should leave alone. Indeed that was the tradition for a very long time hence the Church didnt finally say definitively we have 7 sacraments until the Council of Trent. Hardly anyone dared to discuss the nature of the sacraments, indeed until the 11th century nobody questioned the real prescence and when St Thomas Aquinas was handed the job of clarifying it he was greatly perturbed by it. So much so that he threw his finished work down on the altar and ran away in shame. His conclusion, the same as in his corpus Christi office: A change that only faith can percieve.

The sacraments are mystery, they are neccessary for salvation, we can say more about them and their effects. But when we get into the why's? Its better just to say its God's will and trust in the Church's tradition to interpret that will for us. The Church says the existence of both sacraments is not contrary nor does it prohibit priests from taking wives. As far as I'm concerned thats all we need to know. Lets just wonder at the fact that God allows us to have the Holy Spirit dwell inside of our souls in this direct and personal way. This might seem contradictory to what I said about vocation but its not, since for some people its equally plausible that their character means they can only get the big pictures as both a married man as a priest. I'd simply trust God's providence to lead them to the Eastern Catholic Churches or from another denomination to Catholicism, although equally through watching EWTN's 'the journey home' I've seen many ex-Anglican priests who have found their vocation as Catholic laity and I dont doubt thats providential too. My only objection RR is that we should not try to pre-empt God's thoughts, He himself says 'My thoughts are not your thoughts'. There are 7 sacraments, why *shrugs* I dont know but I know there are 7 and that he intended 7 and some people i.e. monks and nuns might only ever recieve 5, no reason why a Benedictine has to be a priest etc. St Benedict himself was technically a lay monk. But there are 7 sacraments the reason for which is known only to God and we should leave it there.

Thats my two pennies anyhow

PS) Men wishing to be sisters? For the reasons above and also because its a disordered desire there's no way you can equate that with having married priests, which you have in your own parish. God alone knows why certain people are called to certain vocations and He calls them as He wills. But He has made clear through the Church that He does not call men to be sisters. Just as he has made clear that He does not call women to be priests: [i]Roma locuta est, causa finita est[/i]

[rufiokicks]

I agree with RemnantRules, priests are better off not being married. You can't devote your life to the priesthood and a family. The vocation of priesthood is taken by choice, which means you are choosing a vow of celibacy. I think the media deserves some of the blame. We're brought up to think sex is casual but an essential part of every life. The media teaches us that it's something everyone must have. Of course some of the priests are turning to molestation. It's terrible, don't get me wrong. But to these guys it's an easy way out. It's a lot easier to rape a child than it is to find a woman (or man for that matter) to deny your vow of celibacy. Children aren't aware of the vow, they don't know any better, they don't fight back. We need to spread the message that sex is a beautiful, amazing, God-given gift, but you really can live without it.

[Guest]

i dont see how a "MAN" could go from needing sex and not finding a woman, to takeing this need and acting it out on a innocent child.......i dunno how anyone could do this, let alone a priest.....that is so sick......remember Jesus said anyone that harms one of these little ones, is better off drowning to the bottom of the sea............... how could a priest do these things....

[rufiokicks]

I agree, it's disgusting. But it's not just clergy...

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='rufiokicks' date='Feb 24 2005, 03:00 PM'] I agree with RemnantRules, priests are better off not being married. You can't devote your life to the priesthood and a family. The vocation of priesthood is taken by choice, which means you are choosing a vow of celibacy. I think the media deserves some of the blame. We're brought up to think sex is casual but an essential part of every life. The media teaches us that it's something everyone must have. Of course some of the priests are turning to molestation. It's terrible, don't get me wrong. But to these guys it's an easy way out. It's a lot easier to rape a child than it is to find a woman (or man for that matter) to deny your vow of celibacy. Children aren't aware of the vow, they don't know any better, they don't fight back. We need to spread the message that sex is a beautiful, amazing, God-given gift, but you really can live without it. [/quote]
I agree that sex can be sacrificed with the proper discipline. But at the same time, our bodies and minds are hard wired for sex. Some more than others. The very essence of being a man (testosterone) is linked with sexual desire. For boxers, they are told to abstain from sex while training, because come fight time. The will be in a frenzy. If an indivual cannot deal with the repression of their sexual tendecies, than I feel the likelyhood for deviant sexual behavior to occur is increased. Maybe for a virgin saying goodbye to sex is not difficult. But to someone who has had it before, it may prove far more difficult to let go.

[rufiokicks]

Exactly. That's why I'm so worried about our society. People are having sex earlier and earlier and out of wedlock. If children would be brought up with a more modest, conservative idea of sex then this wouldn't be such a big problem. The media though portrays sex as just another part of life. Everyone's doing it. We encourage the human desire and when a guy has sex outside of marriage it's much more accepted. "It's a guy thing."

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='Delivery Boy' date='Feb 24 2005, 03:06 PM'] i dont see how a "MAN" could go from needing sex and not finding a woman, to takeing this need and acting it out on a innocent child.......i dunno how anyone could do this, let alone a priest.....that is so sick......remember Jesus said anyone that harms one of these little ones, is better off drowning to the bottom of the sea............... how could a priest do these things.... [/quote]
I think its possible for them to choose kids simply for many reasons. THey are around them all the time. They are naive and more easily manipulated minds. They form a trust type bond that helps keep it secret. I dont understand it anymore than you. But the facts are pointing to either a real bad evaluation of these future priest. Or maybe something develops in the mind due to sexual tension or frustration. Not sure.

[rufiokicks]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Feb 24 2005, 03:16 PM'] But the facts are pointing to either a real bad evaluation of these future priest. Or maybe something develops in the mind due to sexual tension or frustration. Not sure. [/quote]
It could be a combination of both really. Who knows? But I agree, they choose children over adults because it is much easier to take advantage of a naive child. It's sad but true.