Cardinal: Married Catholic priests a possibility

[fhdz]

Hey guys, Raz doesn't want married priests, ok?

[Martinus]

So yes, sex scandals are a direct result of celibacy.

Sex scandals don't impact the priesthood at any greater percentage than in any other profession.

I hope you are being sarcastic.

[Martinus]

The Church's position would be that if you can't don't become a priest. It's not for you, you haven't really been called. Or you've been called to another position, like a deacon.

I don't think it's celibacy that leads to sex scandals.

Paul was actually wiser on this point than the Church.

It isn't that celebacy "causes" sex scandals - the "cause" is each individual choice to indulge. Rather, it is that celebacy makes such scandals more likely, as celebacy is (as Paul recognized) too difficult for many people to hack. Making a bright-line rule that one cannot have sex and keep one's position breeds trouble very predictably. Even if you assume that celebacy is in itself a good thing (obviously, I don't, but that is neither here nor there), it would be better to adopt Paul's dictum of "better to marry than to burn with passion", as opposed to the Church's position of "no sex at all". Much worse is that the Church has apparently extended all sorts of "understanding" (that is, covering-up for) priests who cannot keep to their vows - wouldn't it be better to allow priests the normal human solice of marriage if they want it?

This is another reason why the Catholic Church is in so much hot water over the pedophilia scandals - it's because from its perspective, all kinds of "vow breaking" - whether with a chick, a guy or a kid - has been so far perceived in pretty much the same light - i.e. a sin, but at the same time something that deserves compassion and understanding. Anyone who has more than two brain cells and is not a senile fool trapped in ancient ritual can see how much of a fucked up perspective this is.

[Martinus]

Btw, Sheilbh, thanks for completely ignoring my points made earlier.

[Martinus]

And the poor Cardinal resigns. 

[CountDeMoney]

So yes, sex scandals are a direct result of celibacy.

Sex scandals don't impact the priesthood at any greater percentage than in any other profession.

I hope you are being sarcastic.

No, I'm not.  But you're being your usual frothy faggity self with the same old hang-ups, so pointing out statistics won't work.

[Martinus]

It's not about statistics (although I wouldn't be surprised if the catholic church had more active pedophiles than other professions), it's about institutionalized systemic tradition of covering up criminal abuse, by an institution that pretends to be a moral guide for the masses.

I'm shocked I even have to spell it out for you. You are acting worse than derspiess defending the GOP.

[Sheilbh]

I hope you are being sarcastic.

No, he's entirely right.

Btw, Sheilbh, thanks for completely ignoring my points made earlier.

I think CdM answered them. They're based on a foundations of sand.

It's not about statistics (although I wouldn't be surprised if the catholic church had more active pedophiles than other professions), it's about institutionalized systemic tradition of covering up criminal abuse, by an institution that pretends to be a moral guide for the masses.

But it is about statistics. If celibacy makes sex scandals more likely to happen then the fact that there's less sex scandals suggests a minimal link to celibacy. Unless celibacy also makes institutions cover things up?

[CountDeMoney]

I'm shocked I even have to spell it out for you. You are acting worse than derspiess defending the GOP.

Meh, fuck you.  If I want to watch a discussion on the Catholic Church by two fags and a Jew, I'll go to my local free-trade coffee shop.

[Martinus]

Unless celibacy also makes institutions cover things up?

Oh, it definitely does. Parents feel much strongly, on a psychological level, about punishing child abuse than people who have no children (funnily enough you and CdM are the only people in this thread who think otherwise and you are both childless). So professional solidarity between celibate priests is definitely a factor contributing to the prevalence of cover ups in an organisation such as the catholic church.

Coming to think about it, it's another strong argument against compulsory celibacy (as it is against male-only priesthood) - any organization that gives power uniformly to representatives of a certain demographic is going to suffer from the lack of alternative perspective offered by people it excludes.

It is quite clear in this case that by excluding people with children from power, the catholic church is suffering from an attitude that is criminally dismissive of the severity of child abuse.

[dps]

Parents feel much strongly, on a psychological level, about punishing child abuse than people who have no children

Is that a good thing, though?  Viewing wrong-doing in an overly emotional manner, rather than dispassionately, leads to lynch mobs, not justice.

[Sheilbh]

I don't buy it Marty. I think the cover up was an institution trying to protect its own and a cultural failure, not because they weren't married. Something similar went on in numerous child homes in this country, and in the BBC. I think it's about power more than anything:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n21/andrew-ohagan/light-entertainment

[Valmy]

Parents feel much strongly, on a psychological level, about punishing child abuse than people who have no children

Man I don't know.  I am way to tired to care as much about child abuse in far away places now that I using up my energy raising kids.

[Razgovory]

Unless celibacy also makes institutions cover things up?

Oh, it definitely does. Parents feel much strongly, on a psychological level, about punishing child abuse than people who have no children (funnily enough you and CdM are the only people in this thread who think otherwise and you are both childless). So professional solidarity between celibate priests is definitely a factor contributing to the prevalence of cover ups in an organisation such as the catholic church.

Coming to think about it, it's another strong argument against compulsory celibacy (as it is against male-only priesthood) - any organization that gives power uniformly to representatives of a certain demographic is going to suffer from the lack of alternative perspective offered by people it excludes.

It is quite clear in this case that by excluding people with children from power, the catholic church is suffering from an attitude that is criminally dismissive of the severity of child abuse.

And this isn't idle fact, it's cold hard conjecture.

[Martinus]

Parents feel much strongly, on a psychological level, about punishing child abuse than people who have no children

Is that a good thing, though?  Viewing wrong-doing in an overly emotional manner, rather than dispassionately, leads to lynch mobs, not justice.

I think that the more diverse the background and the viewpoint of various people making up acollective body, the more likely such body is to arrive at a correct decision.

I am not saying that the decision should be given over to concerned mothers only but it is clear that giving it up entirely to single guys is a recipe to disaster as well.