ARGUMENT: The Priestly Celibacy requirement is responsible for Priests molesting children. Some people are called to a celibate life and therefore receive the gift from God. Others aren’t given that gift and end up trying to be celibate in the priesthood, but find they can’t hold to that requirement. In the end, they satisfy their natural urges by abusing children. If the Catholic Church would lift this requirement, many children would be protected.
First off, let’s establish something: Eastern Rite Catholics don't require celibacy. Celibacy in the Western Rite is not a declared Dogma--it's a practice, a discipline. It could, potentially, be overturned (though this is most unlikely).
The idea of celibacy comes from a long line of Biblical examples, of which Jesus was the foremost. Priests are encouraged to be celibate so they can focus on the family of God and not be pulled in a thousand different directions by their own family responsibilities--it's just as Paul writes "I wish all men could be like me...."
The point is to free the Priest up to fulfill his vocation to the fullest without sacrificing the needs of his family. Also, there are married priests--Anglican Priests for example, who convert to Catholicism are allowed to maintain their priesthood while remaining married.
Secondly, let’s look at the logic of the argument. At first, it seems to make sense--it seems to be a valid argument, but when we look at it and weigh it, we quickly see that it doesn’t hold water.
Let’s start with the accusation: the Catholic Church has a problem with children being molested by Priests because the Priests were forced into celibacy but weren't called to a celibate life. These men couldn't live up to the requirement (without having the gift of celibacy) and therefore started molesting children.
That’s the argument. Now, according to this logic, these same people would have apparently been fine, upstanding members of society if they had been allowed to marry. After all, the argument is against celibacy. So, if they had been allowed to marry, so the argument goes, their sexual desires would be satisfied by their wives and they would leave children alone.
Really? This would POSSIBLY make sense if these people were having sexual liassons with adult women. That is a natural sexual urge that these men would be satisfying in a natural manner. But that’s not what happened with the priestly sex scandal. (And, I’d argue that it’s not even a valid argument in and of itself.) The priestly sex scandal involved sexual abuse of children. And, sex with children is NOT a normal, natural sexual urge. Sex with little boys is even more repugnant.
These men who have committed these things are struggling with something we in the Christian world used to call SIN. It is SIN that makes a man rape a boy, not a celibacy requirement. SIN makes a man rape a girl--not a celibacy requirement. SIN makes a man lie, steal, oppress, injure, use and abuse others.
The argument that celibacy CAUSED the problem is, frankly, misguided. And it can be proven in a matter of seconds with this: If celibacy is causally related to the rape and molestation of children--CAUSALLY RELATED--then we would owe it to our children to round up all singles. But that’s taking it too far. Rather than rounding up ALL singles, we should instead round up only those who are living according to biblical standards and are not engaging in pre-marital sex. These are the people who are the ticking time bombs according to our argument against celibacy. These are the predators who are apparently just looking for a chance to start raping and molesting children. If they’d only abandon their moral stance against pre-marital sex and slake their lust, then maybe they’d be capable of working near children without molesting them--but as long as they remain pure, they’re dangerous.
Does that make any sense? ALL single, celibate, people are predators? The neighbor guy across the street? The young, unmarried teacher? They’re all predators? And not because they might have disordered desires, but because they are living their life without sex?
It sounds ridiculous, but that’s exactly what we’re saying when we argue that the Celibacy requirement CAUSED the abuse scandal. Because these men couldn’t have sex, they found it necessary to rape children? And, conversely, if they’d been allowed to have sex, then they’d be free from the “driving need” to rape children.
Let’s think that through for a second: If the priests were willing to break their celibacy vows and RAPE A CHILD--why wouldn’t they have instead satisfied their urges by having affairs with adult women? I mean, an affair with an adult woman is bad for the ministry, but it’s not illegal. There’s far less danger in releasing your “pent up frustrations” that way than in raping children. Why didn’t these oppressed priests do that?
They didn’t seek relationships with women because they were homosexuals and were drawn to young boys. Period. This is a problem and needs to be snuffed out completely and severely--but it’s not a result of a Celibacy Requirement. It’s SIN. Pure and simple.
First off, let’s establish something: Eastern Rite Catholics don't require celibacy. Celibacy in the Western Rite is not a declared Dogma--it's a practice, a discipline. It could, potentially, be overturned (though this is most unlikely).
The idea of celibacy comes from a long line of Biblical examples, of which Jesus was the foremost. Priests are encouraged to be celibate so they can focus on the family of God and not be pulled in a thousand different directions by their own family responsibilities--it's just as Paul writes "I wish all men could be like me...."
The point is to free the Priest up to fulfill his vocation to the fullest without sacrificing the needs of his family. Also, there are married priests--Anglican Priests for example, who convert to Catholicism are allowed to maintain their priesthood while remaining married.
Secondly, let’s look at the logic of the argument. At first, it seems to make sense--it seems to be a valid argument, but when we look at it and weigh it, we quickly see that it doesn’t hold water.
Let’s start with the accusation: the Catholic Church has a problem with children being molested by Priests because the Priests were forced into celibacy but weren't called to a celibate life. These men couldn't live up to the requirement (without having the gift of celibacy) and therefore started molesting children.
That’s the argument. Now, according to this logic, these same people would have apparently been fine, upstanding members of society if they had been allowed to marry. After all, the argument is against celibacy. So, if they had been allowed to marry, so the argument goes, their sexual desires would be satisfied by their wives and they would leave children alone.
Really? This would POSSIBLY make sense if these people were having sexual liassons with adult women. That is a natural sexual urge that these men would be satisfying in a natural manner. But that’s not what happened with the priestly sex scandal. (And, I’d argue that it’s not even a valid argument in and of itself.) The priestly sex scandal involved sexual abuse of children. And, sex with children is NOT a normal, natural sexual urge. Sex with little boys is even more repugnant.
These men who have committed these things are struggling with something we in the Christian world used to call SIN. It is SIN that makes a man rape a boy, not a celibacy requirement. SIN makes a man rape a girl--not a celibacy requirement. SIN makes a man lie, steal, oppress, injure, use and abuse others.
The argument that celibacy CAUSED the problem is, frankly, misguided. And it can be proven in a matter of seconds with this: If celibacy is causally related to the rape and molestation of children--CAUSALLY RELATED--then we would owe it to our children to round up all singles. But that’s taking it too far. Rather than rounding up ALL singles, we should instead round up only those who are living according to biblical standards and are not engaging in pre-marital sex. These are the people who are the ticking time bombs according to our argument against celibacy. These are the predators who are apparently just looking for a chance to start raping and molesting children. If they’d only abandon their moral stance against pre-marital sex and slake their lust, then maybe they’d be capable of working near children without molesting them--but as long as they remain pure, they’re dangerous.
Does that make any sense? ALL single, celibate, people are predators? The neighbor guy across the street? The young, unmarried teacher? They’re all predators? And not because they might have disordered desires, but because they are living their life without sex?
It sounds ridiculous, but that’s exactly what we’re saying when we argue that the Celibacy requirement CAUSED the abuse scandal. Because these men couldn’t have sex, they found it necessary to rape children? And, conversely, if they’d been allowed to have sex, then they’d be free from the “driving need” to rape children.
Let’s think that through for a second: If the priests were willing to break their celibacy vows and RAPE A CHILD--why wouldn’t they have instead satisfied their urges by having affairs with adult women? I mean, an affair with an adult woman is bad for the ministry, but it’s not illegal. There’s far less danger in releasing your “pent up frustrations” that way than in raping children. Why didn’t these oppressed priests do that?
They didn’t seek relationships with women because they were homosexuals and were drawn to young boys. Period. This is a problem and needs to be snuffed out completely and severely--but it’s not a result of a Celibacy Requirement. It’s SIN. Pure and simple.
No comments:
Post a Comment