"Celibacy in the Catholic Church" by Peter Berresford Ellis

[Gil]

Peter Berresford Ellis looks at the politics and philosophy behind the Catholic church's rules on marriage and celibacy

IN SPITE of the election of another conservative Pontiff, Benedict XVI in April of this year, liberal reformers in the Catholic Church are continuing their campaign for a return to a married priesthood.
However, the former Cardinal Joseph Alois Ratzinger, is clearly not some one who will look benignly on any attempts to liberalise the Church. He is known to be a firm supporter of Pope Paul VI's encyclical Sacerdotalis Caelibatus, which reaffirmed the prohibition on clerical marriages. Cardinal Ratzinger's Salt of the Earth: the Church at the end of the Millennium, published in 1997, showed no moderation of those views.
Some liberals argue that this attitude has been responsible for the rapid decline of members of the religious during the last thirty years. A month or so ago in Ireland, that fact that two young men were entering a seminary from one county was so unusual that it was reported as newsworthy.
In my opening I said 'a return to a married priesthood'. Yet many think that the Catholic priesthood has always been celibate one and that it was the Protestant movement in the sixteenth Century that allowed clergy to marry. Only from the twelfth Century AD did the Roman Church begin to enforce celibacy among its clerics.
In most religions, both ancient and modern, there have always been ascetics who believed that celibacy somehow brought them close to the deity. They have sublimated physical love, a natural life, in a dedication to whatever deity they worshipped. Celibacy within the western Christian movement was something that took many centuries to become a universally accepted idea; even then it was a means of causing schisms within that movement.
The first disciples of Jesus were, for the majority, married men: disciples such as Simon Bar-Jonah, nicknamed 'The Rock' (Petrus in Latin, Cephas in Greek), the man on whom Jesus is accepted as founding his Church and regarded as the first 'Pope'.
Evidence shows that many of the early Christian religious leaders were married men and women and, moreover, women often took a prominent role in the services. Even many centuries later, women in Gaul were officiating over the divine offices and other rituals and that called forth a rebuke from Rome.
One has to remember that the Christian movement, like most human movements from the religious to the political, was constantly changing and reforming. Indeed, it was with the third century that the teachings of Gnosticism began to argue that a person could not be married and be 'religiously perfect'. However, The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, lists no less than 39 Popes as being married. Even the most conservative of Catholic scholars will accept that seven Bishops of Rome were married. Moreover, some of the Popes were succeeded by their sons in office.
Some ascetics, as in other religions, became hermits, shunning society, and removing themselves from 'worldly temptation'. Such was the idea of St Anthony (born c. AD 250) who took up residence in a deserted fort in Pispir on the Nile.
It was from these first Christian 'monks'- Anthony and Pachomius - that inspired the former Roman soldier named Martin, born c. AD 315 in Pannonia. He became a hermit in Gaul. By AD 370 he was also a bishop and founder of an entire community. He built his monastery at Marmoutier, in Celtic Gaul, that still shows its original Celtic name 'mor munntir', meaning 'place of the great family'. Martin became 'Father of Celtic Monasticism' and his ideas spread from Marmoutier to Celtic Britain and then to Ireland.
Yet at this stage, the majority of priests were married and their children often rose to office in the Church. The Pope St Damascus I (AD 366-384) was the son of the priest St Lorenzo. St Innocent I, who was Pope from AD 401-417, was son of Pope Anastasius I (399-401). Popes Boniface (AD 418-422), St Felix (AD 483-492), Anastasius II (AD 496-498) and St Agapitus I (AD 535-536) were all sons of priests, while St Silverus (AD 536-537) and John XI were sons of previous Popes and at least three more Popes were also sons of priests.
Even St Patrick (a British Celt from near Carlisle whose original name seems to have been Sochet 'silent one') was the son of a deacon (Cualfornius or Calpornius) who, in turn, was son of a priest (Potitus). One interesting point, Diaconus (now translated in modern terms) at this point was an ordained priest (see Acts 6: 1-6).
Ireland was not unique within the wider Christian Church in having married clergy and mixed-sex religious communities were found not confined to Ireland but through western Christendom.
Yet the ascetic group, advocating celibacy, grew stronger as a political force within the Christian movement. In AD 308 the Council of Elvira in Spain issued a decree that a priest who slept with his wife on the night before Mass could not perform the ceremony. In AD 325 the Council at Niceae argued that, after ordination, priests should not marry.
One fascinating point is that the Council of Laodicea in AD 352, ordered that women should no longer be ordained as priests. So women were being ordained as priests at this time. Early Irish references show that St Brigid of Kildare, (who died AD 525) herself was ordained as a bishop. She founded her conhospitae, or mixed, house with Bishop Conláed. St Hilary in Northumbria is also referred to as being ordained bishop.
In AD 494 Pope Gelasius I (492-496) decreed that woman could no longer be ordained as priests. It is fascinating, therefore, that we find Bishop Pelagio, in the twelfth century, complaining that women were still being ordained in the western Church and hearing confessions. K.J. Torjesen's book When Women Were Priests, discusses the implications of this.
In AD 385, Pope Siricius (AD 384-399), supporting the ascetic lobby, abandoned his wife and children, and ordered that priests should no longer sleep with their wives. But he did not go so far as prohibiting marriage.
Clerics marrying remained an unchanging factor of religious life through the sixth century. In AD 567, at the second Council at Tours, it was decided to recommend that any cleric found in bed with their wives should be forbidden to perform church rituals and reduced to a lay state. However in AD 580 Pope Pelagius II (AD 579-590) was not so much bothered with married clergy but with inheritance to their offspring. He ordered that married priests should not bequeath property acquired in their office as a member of the church to their sons or other heirs.
The Roman Church was becoming conscious of the value of property and wanted what had been acquired to remain within the church. Throughout the seventh century there is much documentary evidence showing that in Frankia and Gaul the majority of clerics, priests, abbots and bishops, were married. In the following century, St Boniface of Crediton (c. AD 675-755), comments that almost no priest, including bishops, in Germany followed the idea of celibacy.
Well into the ninth century, it was reported at the Council of Aix-la-Chapelle that the inhabitants of monasteries and convents were living together and that where the bishops and abbots were trying to enforce celibacy there were a number of abortions and infanticides taking place to cover up these relationships.
St Ulric of Augsburg (890-973) argued that the Holy Scriptures and logic demanded that the only way to purify the western Church from these worst excesses was to continue to allow the clerics to marry. He pointed out "When celibacy is imposed, priests will commit sins far worse than fornication." His letter on this matter was later claimed to be a forgery by the pro-celibacy lobby. Ulric's stand is discussed in Married Priests and the Reforming Papacy: the 11th Century debates.
Pope Benedict IX was elected when he was fifteen years old in 1032 because he was connected with the powerful Counts of Tusculum. He resigned the Papacy in order to marry. Gregory VI took over but Gregory was banished after a few months. Re-elected in 1045, the married Benedict IX was deposed by Clement II who died shortly after and Benedict IX was re-elected for a third time before finally being deposed in 1048.
Peter Damian (AD 1007-72) was a high-ranking ecclesiastic and theologian who became the leading advisor to successive Popes and drew them firmly into the celibacy camp. Peter Damian called the wives of clerics "harlots, prostitutes... unclean spirits, demigoddesses, sirens, witches" among other vicious rhetoric. He found an enthusiastic pupil in Hildebrand di Bonizio Aldobrandeschi of Sovana.
When Hildebrand was elected as Pope Gregory VII (AD 1073-1085), he declared, in 1074, that "priests must first escape the clutches of their wives", and then take a pledge of celibacy. But it was Pope Urban II, in 1095, who decided to order that the wives of priests be rounded up and sold into slavery, the money used to boost the Papal finances.
Riots took place in Germany, Italy and France as priests rejected this order. So far, no research has been done on how Ireland reacted to this order. Pope Urban even allowed the nobles to forcibly abduct the wives of priests and sell them into slavery.
When the Count of Veringen took part in this, he found his own wife murdered in her bed. Pope Calixtus II (AD 1119-1124) at the Lateran Council of 1123 decreed that all clerical marries were invalid, a decree later confirmed by Pope Innocent II (1130-1143). But, by the fifteenth Century, it was reported that 50 per cent of Catholic priests were still married but, of course, this figure actually shows that the long transition from marriage to celibacy had finally begun to take effect.
The Popes themselves were hardly obeying their own rules on celibacy. We know that Popes such as Innocent VIII (AD 1484-1492), Alexander VI (1492-1503), Julius II (1503-1513), Paul III (1534-1549), Pius IV (1559-1565) and Gregory XIII (1572-1585), each had many illegitimate children. Of these, one of the most notorious was Alexander VI (1492-1503), a Borgia Pope, who had seven illegitimate children when he was a cardinal and, as Pontiff had an affair with Giulia Farnese, a 19 year-old married girl.
In Ireland celibacy was not an issue in the early Church. Indeed, the decisions in the documentary recounting 'The First Synod of Patrick' simply takes married clerics for granted and says that "any cleric from ostiary to priest ...whose wife walks about with her head uncovered shall be despised by the laity and separated from the Church." Dr Patrick Power, in Sex and Marriage in Ancient Ireland (Mercier Press, 1976), points to the fact that a later Brehon Law actually grades ecclesiastical marriages indicating that married bishops and priests were allotted only two-thirds of the honour price of an unmarried bishop or priest.
In spite of attempts to 'sanitise' things by those who want to present celibacy as a strict rule of faith from early times, the evidence to the contrary is absolutely clear. Attempts to reduce bishops and abbots in Ireland to semi-religious officials holding hereditary office, sort of like managers for the community shows no understanding at all of early Irish society.
One of the problems has been that the surviving literature comes from a period when the scribes were members of the accepted orthodoxy of late medieval Rome and were writing with a consciousness of their new dogma. Superficial readings could easily mislead just as one encounters the new religion influencing the bowdlerisation of the concepts and themes of the original versions of Irish mythological tales. But not all the records could be successfully expunged.
As writers have tried to 'sanitise' references to married religious, they have presented many curious arguments. Some even argue that the Irish terms for 'monk' and 'nun' were used strictly in the same way as they were used in the late medieval Roman church, implying that any union between them was forbidden. Of course, the Latin 'monachus' is taken from the Greek word for 'solitary' - 'he that dwells alone'. When one is talking about an entire community of 'monks' it is obvious that word has changed its meaning.
To overcome the clear references that many Irish monks and nuns were married, it has been argued that Ireland had 'religious monks' and these were celibates whereas references to monks who were clearly married was explained that they were not 'religious monks'.
Certainly, in the later period, this term 'manach' eventual made its way into the laws at a latter period as a 'a tenant of church lands' both as - 'sóirmanaigh' and 'doirmanaigh'.
One has to remember that word meanings were not cast forever in stone. There is, indeed, another definition of 'manach'. That was a name given to one who performs feats of skill such as bareback riders who appear at fairs. That conjures up an interesting picture.
The term 'nun' derives from the Latin 'nonnus' and 'nonna' originally applied as terms of respect for elderly people. For example, most Italian speakers will easily recognise the modern terms 'nonno' and 'nanna' (grandfather and grandmother respectively). The same idea occurs in Old and Middle Irish when the word 'caillech' was used for a nun. An abbess was a 'cenn caillech'. But the word also applied to an elderly Irish woman or a matron and the same word, in the sagas, applied to a hag, witch or crone. It also became used as the word for a 'veil'.
Those who tend to rely on claims that the words 'monk' and 'nun' have meant a celibate religious since the start of the Christian movement would do better to reflect on the changing linguistic values.
One important thing to remember is that from the 7th Century, Irish society was clearly in a state of flux, of tremendous stresses and changes. Nothing about the time can be regarded as static especially in the fluidity of church and social matters.
The conhospitae, or mixed sex houses, in which the religious lived, raising their children in the service of the Faith, existed at the very same time the more ascetic religious were founding solitary hermitages or single sex communities, to pursue the path to the deity. Attitudes were not uniform.
In Ireland, from the 8th Century, the changing Roman orthodoxy was having its influence on the changing religious practices. Many religious houses were adopting ecclesiastical rules and laws and displacing the native Brehon Law system. Indeed, even Brehon Law itself was being regularly amended and altered by the incoming ideas. But, as we have demonstrated, the changes with slow.
It was only in AD 494 that Pope Gelasius I, issued various decrees among which was banning women priests. Women were still being ordained and officiating at the mass. He ordered this to stop. What was the excuse given as to why women should not play a full and equal part in the religion? "Only man, through natural resemblance to Christ, can express the sacramental role of Christ in the Eucharist."
In spite of evidence to the contrary, Rome began to deny the early role of women in the priesthood.
Returning to celibacy, Dr Patrick Power, in Sex and Marriage in Ancient Ireland, points out that a Céili Dé Penitential does not order the excommunication and expulsion of any member who was married or had a sexual relational but prescribes only a penance.
The Céili Dé (Servants of God) monastic order, founded in Tallaght by St Mael Rúain (d. 792) certainly approved of celibacy and in the Martyrology of Oengus they believed that a priest could not baptise anyone if they had sexual intercourse beforehand. "Baptism comes not from him, after visiting his nun (nonna)." Professor Edward C. Sellner (The Celtic Soul Friend, 2002) actually picked up on the fact that in later years the Céile Dé, which movement had lasted into the 14th Century in parts of Gaelic Scotland, its members were often married. "This movement consisted of both lay people and ordained, many of whom were married, who wanted to recover the lost traditions of their spiritual ancestors, and thus bring new life into their own churches and monasteries."
In fact, the marriages among the Céili Dé had been remarked back in the late 15th, early 16th Century by Canon Alexander Myln (1474-1548) of Dunkeld who wrote his Dunkeldensis Ecclesiae Episcoporum, c. 1516. Myln wrote:

"In this monastery (Dunkeld) Constantine, King of the Picts, placed religious men, commonly called Kelldedei, otherwise Colidei, that is, God-worshippers, who, however, after the Eastern Church, had wives (from whom they lived apart when taking the sacred offices) as afterwards grew to be the custom in the church of the blessed Regulus, now called St. Andrews.'

When Dr William Reeves published his The Culdees of the British Isles as they appeared in history, Dublin, 1864, he, too, remarked on the marriage of the Céli Dé quoting from Myln and pointing to such married abbots as Crinan (sometimes Cronan) the Abbot of Dunkeld who married Bethoc, daughter of Maol Callum II (1008-1034) of Scotland, whose son was Duncan I (1034-1040). Duncan, after a disastrous reign, was overthrown by MacBeth, son of Maol Callum II's second daughter Doada. He reigned from 1040-1057 having married Gruoch, grand-daughter of Coinneach III (997-1005).
A century before this period, in Ireland, some Kings like Cormac mac Cuileannáin (836-908) were not simply Kings but, in Cormac's case was Bishop of Cashel as well as King of Cashel. He married Gormflaith, daughter of the High King, Flann Sionna mac Maelsechnaill (879-916). Indeed, he was not the first King at Cashel to fulfil a religious role. Fergus Scandal mac Crimthain Airthir Chliach (d. AD 583) was also abbot of Imleach (Emly). Cenn Fáelad gua Mugthigirn (d. 872) not only became King at Cashel but also was another abbot of Imleach, as, indeed, his uncle, Rechtabra (d. 819) had been. Cenn Fáelad's son Eoghan, was not elected to the kingship but succeeded his father as abbot of Imleach. However, Olchobar mac Cináeda (d. 851) succeeded as both King as well as abbot.
The Irish annals and chronicles are replete with references to the sons of abbots and bishops. As surnames began to emerge in 11th and 12th Century Ireland, we find that Mac an Mhanaigh (MacEvanny) was 'son of the monk'; that Mac an tSagairt (MacEntaggart) was 'son of the priest' (the same name as McTaggart in Scotland); that Mac Giolla Easpuig (MacGillespie) was 'son of the bishop' and Mac Giolla Iosa (MacAleese) was 'the son of the devotee of Jesus' - applied to the son of a religious leader.
The rights and education of children of clerical marriages, as given in Brehon Law, has been studied in papers printed in Studies in Early Irish Law, 1936.
While King Bishops or King Abbots might be explained as powerful men combining the secular and the religious functions, if anyone really thought that the abbots and bishops in Ireland were only 'semi-religious' figures then they should spend a few hours with the Irish Annals, Chronicles and other texts.
The law text the Córus Béscnai, 'the regulation of proper behaviour' dealing with the mutual obligations of clergy and laity, can be traced from at least the 8th Century. It becomes the third section of the Senchus Mór. It is quoted in both the Ancient Laws of Ireland (volume III) and in the Corpus Iuiris Hibernici, ed. by D.A. Binchy, Dublin, 1978. It states that the monks (manaigh) were of the fine erluma, of the kin of the founder of the monastery.
Professor Thomas Charles-Edwards, an expert on the laws, has no problem with this and sees this as a single kin-related tuath or tribe (clan). One writer has actually argued that this terminology should not be taken literally. That it was symbolic and the kingship was not blood related and that legal writers were employing familiar social and economic ideas of the times to explain things.
Yet it is perfectly clear that in many monasteries in Ireland, those habitants were families that were bound by blood as well as religion. As Professor Lisa M. Bitel, in spite of her later arguments, confessed in Isle of the Saints: Monastic Settlement and Christian Community in Early Ireland, (Cornell University Press, 1990):

"Abbots and officers openly supported wives, sons and other kin. They sent their relatives to become officers in nearby monasteries, or they kept sons, brothers, and nephews within their own communities to succeed to offices there. Successive generations of the Maicc Cuinn na mBocht, for example, controlled major monastic offices at Cluan Moccu Nois (Clonmacnoise) for about three centuries. Another family, the Uí Sinaich, battled for and won control of Ard Macha, remaining in power for generations. There is no reason to assume that other monks ignored the example of their abbots and officers."

Kathleen Hughes in her Church In Early Irish Society, argues that there was no reason to assume that the brethren in these abbeys remained celibate ignoring the example of their abbots, the officers of the religious houses and, indeed, the bishops and priests. The family within the monastic communities allowed knowledge as well as property to pass on to sons and other family members. T. O'Donoghue, examining the 10th Century poem, 'Advice to a Prince' shows that the writer argues that abbots could most efficiently be succeeded by their sons.
Indeed, this was happening in many religious houses throughout Ireland.
In the Annals of Ulster just for the year AD 793 we find recorded not only Dubh Da Leithi, the son of Sinaich, the Abbot of Armagh, but of Cinaed, son of Cumascach, the abbot of Demag, Flaithgel, son of Taichlech, abbot of Druim Rátha and so on. Sons of abbots certainly reached high rank in the Irish Church. For example, Bishop Flann, who died in AD 812, was the son of Cellach, abbot of Finnglas.
And even if one doesn't want to take Irish sources as evidence, let us take the evidence of St Bernard of Clairvaux (c.1090-1153) who knew St Malachy (Mael Maedoc ua Morgair- AD1094-1190) of Armagh. Now surely few intelligent people can claim that Armagh and its archbishopric was a 'lay' or 'semi-religious' house and its archbishop was a 'lay manager'? By the time Bernard was writing, the Irish High Kings and, indeed, the Bishop of Rome had accepted Armagh, as the primacy, or chief ecclesiastical centre in Ireland. This was mainly due to the political intervention of the High King, Brían mac Cennétig (d. 1014) perhaps better known as Brían Bórumha. According to the Annals of Ulster, in 1005, Brían acknowledged Armagh as the primatial jurisdiction of Ireland for the first time.
Yet Bernard points out that even 'this primatial Holy See' was "held in hereditary succession for they (the Irish) suffered none to be bishops but those who were of their own tribe and family". He mentions that the abbots and bishops of Armagh were married and fifteen bishops had succeeded by hereditary right at Armagh prior to the election of Archbishop Celsus.
In fact it was not until 1101 at a Council at Cashel, convened by the High King Muirechertach Ua Bríain (d. 1119), who was not only High King but King of Munster (Muman), that the first serious moves were made to enforced clerical celibacy in Ireland. It was at this Council that Muirchertach handed over the historical royal lands of Cashel to the church "without any claim of layman or cleric upon it, but to the religious of Ireland in general". It was, for Ireland, a point where church and state began a separation and, indeed, the pro-celibacy lobby began to have its most significant impact.
What many later scholars who attempt to square the circle, arguing for the tradition of celibacy, try to claim is these married religious were not ordained but were laymen. Such a claim was made for St Celsus, otherwise Cellach Mac Aodh (1079-1129) who inherited the bishopric of Armagh in 1105. Now if St Celsus was a laymen, we have a problem. How was he then able to ordained St Malachy (Maelmadoc ua Morgair) as a priest, commission him to reform the church, and then, as he lay dying, appoint him his successor as Archbishop of Armagh?
Those who attempt to deny that there was clerical marriage in Ireland and deny the existence of many mixed communities can only put forward their argument by distorting or ignoring the evidence.

[Hrvoje]

I am all for abolition of celibacy.

[Milesian]

What exactly will abolition of celibacy achieve?

[Hrvoje]

It is counter productive, it is not too harsh to say that with celibacy
Catholic Church has been practicing "dysgenics" for centuries now,
that is removing the best from European gene pool.

How many famous men from history of Holly Church didn't passed on their genetic legacy for the future, you name them, scientists, scholars, historians...
How many less known fine men and women haven't done so...?
...and are continuing to do so.

My second point would be low natality rate among Europeans,
it is she who complains the most about it ,
yet she is, unfortunately, contributing to it.

Third, well, I think abstinence is against human nature and it simply isn't for everyone.
Yes there are mentally strong priests who have no problem with it,
but this is obviously not issue with every and each one of them.
IMO abstitence can create mental problems, degeneracy, pedophilia...
as we, unfortunately, have witnessed it amongst our clergy.

I think Catholic priest family would been fine bastion of our values and tradition,
the possibility of founding a family would also more encourage youth
to join the clergy.

Call me a heretic, but this is how I currently stand.

[Wilkolak]

What exactly will abolition of celibacy achieve?

The end of the sodomy of altar boys.

Seriously, this one of the things that really make Catholicism ridiculous, what the hell could possibly be wrong with a priest getting married? Just one reason to explain this idiocy!

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by Hrvoje

It is counter productive, it is not too harsh to say that with celibacy
Catholic Church has been practicing "dysgenics" for centuries now,
that is removing the best from European gene pool.

How many famous men from history of Holly Church didn't passed on their genetic legacy for the future, you name them, scientists, scholars, historians...
How many less known fine men and women haven't done so...?
...and are continuing to do so.

Those people also had siblings. The genes were inherited from the same parents. Not to mention the fact that they were also highly educated within the religious system. There are plenty of intelligent people who didn't have smart parents and vice versa.

My second point would be low natality rate among Europeans,
it is she who complains the most about it ,
yet she is, unfortunately, contributing to it.

No, I disagree. Quite the opposite is true.
Overall, clergy make up a small fraction of the overall population. In fact, in the past there were far more clergy and yet there was no problem with birth rates. Negative birth rates are caused by not adhering to Church teachings on the family and sexual morality. In Ireland, only one or two brothers and sisters would have families and the rest would enter convents and seminaries.
Yet the population was growing and was many times what it is today.

Negative birth rates and a dying population is caused by sexual immorality and self-sterilisation, not the celibacy of a tiny percentage of the population.

Third, well, I think abstinence is against human nature and it simply isn't for everyone.

No, it isn't for everyone. Hence, St Paul said that celibacy was preferable only for those who were able to manage it.
Obviously for some people, the married life isn't for them either.

Yes there are mentally strong priests who have no problem with it,
but this is obviously not issue with every and each one of them.

Then I suggest that those people not enter the priesthood or the convent. they can still lead a religious life by belonging to secular orders or helping around the parish in other ways.

IMO abstitence can create mental problems, degeneracy, pedophilia...
as we, unfortunately, have witnessed it amongst our clergy.

No, this is an absolutely false myth and it is important to refute it wherever it rears it's head.

There's absolutely no evidence that priests are more likely to abuse children than are other groups of men. ....


....Pedophilia (the sexual abuse of a prepubescent child) among priests is extremely rare, affecting only 0.3% of the entire population of clergy......

.....While the total number of sexual abusers in the priesthood is much higher than those guilty of pedophilia, it still amounts to less than 2 percent -- comparable to the rate among married men (Jenkins, Pedophiles and Priests).....

.....There's no evidence that Catholic prelates are more likely to be pedophiles than Protestant ministers, Jewish leaders, physicians, or any other institution in which adults are in a position of authority and power over children....


Celibacy bears no causal relation to any type of deviant sexual addiction including pedophilia. In fact, married men are just as likely as celibate priests to sexually abuse children (Jenkins, Priests and Pedophilia). ....


....The profiles of child molesters never include normal adults who become erotically attracted to children as a result of abstinence (Fred Berlin, "Compulsive Sexual Behaviors" in Addiction and Compulsion Behaviors [Boston: NCBC, 1998]; Patrick J. Carnes, "Sexual Compulsion: Challenge for Church Leaders" in Addiction and Compulsion; Dale O'Leary, "Homosexuality and Abuse")....


....The plain fact is, healthy heterosexual men have never been known to develop erotic attractions to children as a result of abstinence...

[Source]

I think Catholic priest family would been fine bastion of our values and tradition,
the possibility of founding a family would also more encourage youth
to join the clergy.

Yet, youths joined the clergy with the same rules in their multitudes in days gone by.
It is rather that modern society offers distractions and dissaproval of the religious life

Call me a heretic, but this is how I currently stand.

Repent, heretic

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by Wilkolak

The end of the sodomy of altar boys.

Read my next post and educate yourself against repeating anti-Catholic myths and lies

Seriously, this one of the things that really make Catholicism ridiculous, what the hell could possibly be wrong with a priest getting married? Just one reason to explain this idiocy!

There is nothing "wrong" with it. In fact the eastern rites within Catholicism have married clergy. It is simply a tradition of the Latin rite to have celibate clergy, it isn't immoral.

Personally, I would prefer my priesthood to have their minds focused on the spiritual world, rather than thinking about the new clothes he has to buy his wife & kids, or what sexual position he is going to try out on her later that night

[Milesian]

Myth #1 - Catholic priests are more likely to be pedophiles than other groups of men.

This is just plain false. There's absolutely no evidence that priests are more likely to abuse children than are other groups of men. The use and abuse of children as objects for the sexual gratification of adults is epidemic in all classes, professions, religions, and ethnic communities across the globe, as figures on child pornography, incest, and child prostitution make abundantly clear. Pedophilia (the sexual abuse of a prepubescent child) among priests is extremely rare, affecting only 0.3% of the entire population of clergy. This figure, cited in the book Pedophiles and Priests by non-Catholic scholar, Philip Jenkins, is from the most comprehensive study to date, which found that only one out of 2,252 priests considered over a thirty-year period was afflicted with pedophilia. In the recent Boston scandal, only four of the more than eighty priests labeled by the media as "pedophiles" are actually guilty of molesting young children.

Pedophilia is a particular type of compulsive sexual disorder in which an adult (man or woman) abuses prepubescent children. The vast majority of the clerical sex-abuse scandals now coming to light do not involve pedophilia. Rather, they involve ephebophilia -- homosexual attraction to adolescent boys. While the total number of sexual abusers in the priesthood is much higher than those guilty of pedophilia, it still amounts to less than 2 percent -- comparable to the rate among married men (Jenkins, Pedophiles and Priests).

In the wake of the current crisis in the Church, other religious denominations and non-religious institutions have admitted to having similar problems with both pedophilia and ephebophilia among the ranks of their clergy. There's no evidence that Catholic prelates are more likely to be pedophiles than Protestant ministers, Jewish leaders, physicians, or any other institution in which adults are in a position of authority and power over children.



Myth #2 - The celibate state of priests leads to pedophilia.

Celibacy bears no causal relation to any type of deviant sexual addiction including pedophilia. In fact, married men are just as likely as celibate priests to sexually abuse children (Jenkins, Priests and Pedophilia). In the general population, the majority of abusers are regressed heterosexual men who sexually abuse girls. Women are also found to be among those sexual abusers. While it's difficult to obtain accurate statistics on childhood sexual abuse, the characteristic patterns of repeat child sex offenders have been well described. The profiles of child molesters never include normal adults who become erotically attracted to children as a result of abstinence (Fred Berlin, "Compulsive Sexual Behaviors" in Addiction and Compulsion Behaviors [Boston: NCBC, 1998]; Patrick J. Carnes, "Sexual Compulsion: Challenge for Church Leaders" in Addiction and Compulsion; Dale O'Leary, "Homosexuality and Abuse").




Myth #3 - Married clergy would make pedophilia and other forms of sexual misconduct go away.

Some people -- including a few vocal dissenting Catholics -- are exploiting this crisis to draw attention to their own agendas. Some are demanding a married Catholic clergy in response to the scandal, as if marriage would make men stop hurting children. This flies in the face of the aforementioned statistic that married men are just as likely to abuse children as celibate priests (Jenkins, Pedophilia and Priests).

Since neither being Catholic nor being celibate predisposes a person to develop pedophilia, a married clergy wouldn't solve the problem ("Doctors call for pedophilia research," The Hartford Currant, March 23). One has only to look at similar crises in other denominations and professions to see this.

The plain fact is, healthy heterosexual men have never been known to develop erotic attractions to children as a result of abstinence.




Myth #4 - Clerical celibacy was a medieval invention.

Wrong. In the Western Catholic Church, celibacy became universally practiced in the 4th century, beginning with St. Augustine's adoption of the monastic discipline for all of his priests. In addition to the many practical reasons for this discipline -- it was supposed to discourage nepotism -- the celibate lifestyle allowed priests to be more independent and available. This ideal also called diocesan priests to live out the same witness as their brothers in monastic life. The Church hasn't changed her directives for celibacy, because over the centuries she has realized the practical and spiritual value of the practice (Pope Paul VI, On the Celibacy of the Priesthood;, Encyclical letter, 1967). Indeed, even in the Eastern Catholic Church -- which includes a married clergy -- the bishops are chosen only from unmarried priests.

Christ revealed the true value and meaning of celibacy. Catholic priests from St. Paul to the present have imitated Him in their total gift of self to God and others as celibates. Although Christ raised marriage to the level of a sacrament that reveals the love and life of the Trinity, He was also a living witness to the life of the world to come. The celibate priesthood is for us a living witness to this life in which the unity and joy of marriage between a man and a woman is surpassed in the perfect, loving communion with God. Celibacy properly understood and lived frees a person to love and serve others as Christ did.

Over the past forty years, celibacy has been an even more powerful witness to the loving sacrifice of men and women who offer themselves in service their communities.




Myth #5 - Female clergy would help solve the problem.

There's simply no logical connection between the deviant behavior of a tiny minority of male clergy and the inclusion of women in their ranks. While it's true that most statistics on child molestation show that men are more likely to abuse children, the fact is that some women are also child molesters. In 1994, the National Opinion Research Center showed that the second most common form of child sexual abuse involved women abusing boys. For every three male abusers, there's one female abuser. Statistics on female sex offenders are more difficult to obtain because the crime is more hidden (Interview with Dr. Richard Cross, "A Question of Character,", National Opinion Research Center; cf. Carnes). Also, their most frequent victims (boys) are less likely to report sexual abuse, especially when the abuser is a woman (O'Leary, "Child Sexual Abuse").

There are reasons why the Church cannot ordain women (as John Paul II has explained numerous times). But that is beside the point. The debate about women's ordination is completely unrelated to the problem of pedophilia and other forms of sexual misconduct.




Myth #6 - Homosexuality isn't connected to pedophilia.

This is plainly false. Homosexuals are three times as likely to be pedophiles as heterosexual men. Although exclusive pedophilia (adult attraction to prepubescent children) is an extreme and rare phenomenon, one third of homosexual men are attracted to teenage boys (Jenkins, Priests and Pedophilia). The seduction of teenage boys by homosexual men is a well-documented phenomenon. This form of deviant behavior is the most common type of clerical abuse and is directly connected to homosexual behavior.

As Michael Rose shows in his upcoming book, Goodbye! Good Men, there's an active homosexual sub-culture within the Church. This is due to several factors. The Church's confusion in the wake of the sexual revolution of the 1960s, the tumult following the Second Vatican Council, and the greater approval of homosexual behavior in the culture at large created an environment in which active homosexual men were admitted to and tolerated in the priesthood. The Church also came to rely more on the psychiatric profession for screening candidates and for treating those priests identified as having problems. In 1973, the American Psychological Association changed its characterization of homosexuality as an objectively disordered orientation and removed it from the Diagnostic and Statistic Manual IV (Nicolosi, J., 1991, Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality, 1991; Diamond, E., et. al., Homosexuality and Hope, unpublished CMA document). The treatment of deviant sexual behaviors followed suit.

While the Church's approach to those who struggle with homosexual attractions has been compassionate, she has been consistent in maintaining the view that homosexuality is objectively disordered and that marriage between a man and woman is the proper context for sexual activity.




Myth #7 - The Catholic hierarchy has done nothing to address pedophilia.

While we can all agree that the hierarchy hasn't done enough, this claim is nevertheless false. When the Church's Code of Canon Law was revised in 1983, an important passage was added: "The cleric who commits any other offense against the sixth precept of the Decalogue, if the offense was committed with violence or threats, or publicly or with a minor who is under 16 years [now extended to 18 years], must be punished with just punishments, not excluding expulsion from the clerical state" (CIC 1395:2).

But that certainly isn't the only thing the Church has done. The bishops, beginning with Pope Paul VI in 1967, issued a warning to the Catholic faithful concerning the negative consequences of the sexual revolution. The pope's encyclical letter, "On the Celibacy of the Priests," addressed the question of a celibate priesthood in the face of a culture crying out for greater sexual "freedom." The pope affirmed celibacy even as he called on bishops to take responsibility for "fellow priests troubled by difficulties which greatly endanger the divine gift they have." He advised the bishops to seek appropriate help for these priests, or, in grave cases, to seek a dispensation for priests who could not be helped. In addition, he urged them to be more prudent in judging the fitness of candidates for the priesthood.

In 1975, the Church issued another document called "Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics" (written by Joseph Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) that explicitly addressed, among other issues, the problem of homosexuality among priests. Both the 1967 and 1975 documents addressed kinds of sexual deviancy, including pedophilia and ephebophilia, that are is especially prevalent among homosexuals.

In 1994, the Ad Hoc Committee on Sexual Abuse issued guidelines to the nation's then 191 dioceses to help them develop policies to deal with the problem of sexual abuse of minors. Almost all dioceses responded and developed their own policies (USCCB document: Guidelines for dealing with Child Sexual Abuse, 1993-1994). By this time, pedophilia was recognized as a disorder that could not be cured, and a problem that was becoming more prevalent due to the increase of pornography. Before 1994, bishops took their cue from experts in the psychiatric profession who believed pedophilia could be successfully treated. Priests guilty of sexual abuse were sent to one of several treatment facilities across the United States. Bishops often relied upon the judgments of experts in determining whether priests were fit for ministry. This doesn't mitigate the negligence on the part of some in the hierarchy, but it does offer some insight.

In response to the recent scandals, some dioceses are setting up special commissions on child abuse, as well as victims' advocacy groups; and they are officially acknowledging that any legitimate allegation of abuse must be dealt with immediately.




Myth #8 - The Church's teaching on sexual morality is the real problem, not pedophilia.

The Church's teaching on sexual morality is rooted in the dignity of the human person and the goodness of human sexuality. This teaching condemns the sexual abuse of children in all its forms, just as it condemns other reprehensible sexual crimes such as rape, incest, child pornography, and child prostitution. In other words, if this teaching were lived out, there'd be no pedophilia problem at all.

The notion that this teaching somehow leads to pedophilia is based on a misunderstanding or deliberate misrepresentation of Catholic sexual morality. The Church recognizes that sexual activity without the love and commitment found uniquely in marriage undermines the dignity of the human person and is ultimately destructive. As far as celibacy is concerned, centuries of experience have proven that men and women can abstain from sexual activity while living fulfilling, healthy, and meaningful lives.




Myth #9 - Catholic journalists have ignored the pedophile problem.

As any reader of CRISIS knows, this claim is patently false. Our October 2001 cover story featured "The High Price of Priestly Pederasty," an expose on the scandal that wouldn't erupt into the mainstream press for another three months. You can read our full article at: http://www.crisismagazine.com/october2001/index.html.

And we weren't the only ones who have covered the pedophilia/pederasty problem. Charles Sennot, author of Broken Covenant, Rod Dreher of The National Review, CRISIS co-founder Ralph MacInerny, Maggie Gallagher, Dale O'Leary, the Catholic Medical Association, Michael Novak, Peggy Noonan, Bill Donohue, Dr. Richard Cross, Philip Lawler, Alan Keyes, and Msgr. George Kelly have all covered the issue exhaustively.

Just because the mainstream media have chosen to ignore our work doesn't mean the work hasn't been done.




Myth #10 - Requiring celibacy limits the number of men as candidates for the priesthood, resulting in a high number of sexually unbalanced priests.

First of all, there isn't a "high number of sexually unbalanced priests." Again, the vast majority of priests are normal, healthy, and faithful. Every day they prove themselves worthy of the trust and confidence of those entrusted to their care.

Secondly, those who do not feel called to a life of celibacy are ipso facto not called to be Catholic priests. Indeed, most men are not meant to be celibate. However, some are -- and of those, some are called by God to the priesthood.

A priestly vocation, like a marriage, requires the mutual and free consent of both parties. Thus, the Church must discern that a candidate is indeed worthy and fit mentally, physically, and spiritually to commit to a life of priestly service. A candidate's desire for the priesthood does not constitute a vocation in and of itself. Spiritual and vocation directors are now even more attuned to the character flaws that would make an otherwise qualified man an unfit candidate.

http://www.catholicity.com/commentar.../tenmyths.html

[Cristoforo]

I have a couple of comments to share with you.

Being an atheist, I can take an outsider view of certain Catholic traditions, including this priest celibacy which I always considered a negative aspect for the Church's growth.

In both Judaism and Islam, rabbis and imams are usually considered the intellectual elite of the community and thus, are encouraged to bring in this world as many children as they can. The reasoning behind it is simple, more of the good guys.. less of the bad ones. No wonder both Judaism and Islam are still strong.

In Christianity, this important aspect was for some reason ignored and maybe the decline of the Church can be attributed to this fact too. I am pretty sure Europe would be different if the most faithful of the people, the priests, were allowed to marry and have children. Imagine how many generations of christian people were lost because of this tradition. If one keeps in mind that the low classes tend to adhere to communist/socialist ideas and they also tend to have more children, then this may be the reason why Christianity is so drastically in decline in Europe....

[Ederico]

Cristoforo has some good points secularly speaking, but I believe Milesian addressed them correctly. Moreover, I am sure that mental instability would surely result easier if a priest, apart from his love and dedication to God and the ecclesial community, had a wife and children to materially provide with. The current epoch puts tremendous strains on practically any family of any religious convictions. A Catholic family, especially with growing secularism, atheism and materialism, coupled with the universal problem for Europeans of a livelihood at risk due to external economic pressures, would be enough to hinder most in the concrete practice of their Faith as laity. Burdening the priesthood with their own families, rather than having them as semi-outsiders to familiar spiritual grooming and thus out of internal familiar controversies, is not an ideal or even better situation.

Morever, as a Catholic, I believe that having the clergy solely dedicated to religious, spiritual and social concerns is much more productive than adding the immense socio-economic and emotional-pshycological burden of a family. The next thing would be allowing divorce for the clergy as well.

By the way, Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, was perfectly clear on the question. It is not a matter of the Church not willing such priestly families, it is a question of the Church being unable to have them. There was some document on this, an official declaration.

Personally, most priests I know, look perfectly content with their vow of chastity and without being married. Don't know what all the fuss is all about really.