Originally posted by Curtis
Yes, I think that an occupation that forces men to be chaste is going to attract a disproportionate amount of sexually disturbed men. Chastity doesn’t automatically cause or isn’t automatically a sign of sexual perversion, but in a lot of people it is/can be, especially when you’re dealing with chastity for life. Stable and resolute men? A stable and resolute man is one who is able to acknowledge his urges yet control them, not a man who pretends that they’re not there. Unfortunately, many priests are homosexuals who joined the priesthood to do precisely that.
Many in what sense? 1.8% does add up to many priests, on a nation-wide scale. What it doesn’t add up to is the distrust that the media has hyped up for the Catholic Church as a whole. It angers me that an organization that exists to help people is suffering, because a small percentage of its members have done terrible things. And people are actually thrilled by the scandal, if not what caused it. Are you Catholic? Do you know what good priests go through, when members of their own parishes start becoming afraid of them? I have some idea, since I’ve talked to them. Parents won’t let their kids go to confession, or spend time alone with priests, because the media has convinced them that priests are child-molesters. I don’t know what I can compare it to. Maybe if you were from a part of China where SARS has been running rampant, and then you visited the United States - and everyone there knew what circumstances you were coming from - and the flinching and glaring and backtracking that people did when they saw you lasted for the rest of your life.
I realize your argument is that this wouldn’t happen, if priests would let go of their old rules about chastity. Perhaps not, but that doesn’t mean they should. Do you know why priests are chaste in the first place? Do you know the theology behind chastity? I’ve heard a little, and it’s very convincing. You’re effectively telling a religion to give up its beliefs because they’re impractical. Your thought process is entirely out of order: beliefs are not subject to practicality, in an honest religion.
[b]A few years ago, Time magazine posted an article called the confession of Father X. I’m providing a link to a messageboard in which the article is posted(its at the very beginning of the thread).
http://forum.catholic-pages.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1378
Father X is only one man, and yet I could easily see how there are many, many men like Father X. Basically, Father X was gay, but he was ashamed of the fact. He thought that by joining the priesthood, he could somehow overcome what he considered to be the demon of his homosexuality, that his new spiritual relationship with god would somehow cleanse, that he could somehow find a noble purpose for his life, since he felt he could never live a normal life due to his homosexuality. Father X became a priest, and guess what? Not only was he still gay, but now he was a priest. Yes, there are some highly worthy men who join the priesthood. But there are also many, many men who join the priesthood because they’re ashamed of who they are, and because they think becoming a priest will somehow make them a better person. [/b]
I don’t doubt that there are many Father X’s out there, hidden secretly in the Church’s hierarchy. But what about Fathers A-W and Y-Z? Should they relinquish their honest chastity, due to Father X’s mistakes? Their beliefs, too? I cannot emphasize enough, that most of these priests want to be chaste, and believe wholeheartedly in the doctrine requiring it. If the burden of their belief causes 1.8% of them to break, should the rest of them drop it? For some priests who already struggle with chastity, the worst thing to hear is somebody encouraging them to let it go.
You say that 98% of priests have never been accused of sexual molesting. First, how many children could have been molested, but haven’t come forward? The percentage of priests who have ACTUALLY molested children could be a lot higher than the percentage that have been accused of it. Second, who says that 2% of accused priests is a low figure? What’s the percentage for protestant ministers who’ve been accused? Jewish rabbis? Muslim imams? etc. 2% could be incredibly high when compared to other religions, and as I just mentioned the percentage of priests who have actually molested children, and not just been accused of it, is a lot higher.
How many children ‘could have been molested’? What kind of question is this? I might ask how many children you could have molested. There’s no answer to this. It merely casts doubt on thousands of people’s reputations, with no reasonable basis. We only know that 1.8% of all American priests have been accused of misconduct. Given the massive sums of money being handed out to victims, I assume that most people would have come forward by now. You said, ‘. . .the percentage of priests who actually molested children. . .is a lot higher.’ Can you prove that? Or are you just stirring up the desire for reform?
If you think 1.8% is a relatively high number of priests, you’re free to prove it, since you’re the one looking for reform. Should you do that, be sure to account for all the people who ‘could have’ accused the priests of past molestation in order to make money, or to discredit the Church. It ‘could be’ that even 1.8% is far too high a number.
Lastly, have you ever thought that some priests molest children simply because of the fact that they’re lonely? That they need some kind of affection that in their confusion they end up molesting some little kid? At the very least, priests should be allowed to marry.
If you never marry, would you like people to think you have a better chance of molesting a child than an ordinary, married person?
I’m sure there are some men who can be strengthened by chastity, but most men aren’t this way, and by allowing priests to at the least get married, you could significantly decrease the amount of molestations. When you take an occupation like the priesthood, you’re going to attract some incredible individuals, but you’re also going to attract a disproportionate amount of fucked up individuals, and when we’re dealing with little kids being molested, you can’t afford to have that many fucked up individuals.
When you’re dealing with God, you can’t afford to throw away your beliefs just because you think you know better. You can’t afford to ignore theology that has been set in stone for hundreds of years, that nearly the whole Church worldwide supports, just because it might be expedient to one cause. Religion isn’t your tool, to accomplish what you think is best. If you really believe in it, then you’ll understand that it’s about bringing people to God, and that it’s His rules, not your ideas about them, that matter.
Xwing1056
Originally posted by Curtis
Yes, I think that an occupation that forces men to be chaste is going to attract a disproportionate amount of sexually disturbed men. Chastity doesn’t automatically cause or isn’t automatically a sign of sexual perversion, but in a lot of people it is/can be, especially when you’re dealing with chastity for life. Stable and resolute men? A stable and resolute man is one who is able to acknowledge his urges yet control them, not a man who pretends that they’re not there. Unfortunately, many priests are homosexuals who joined the priesthood to do precisely that.
Many in what sense? 1.8% does add up to many priests, on a nation-wide scale. What it doesn’t add up to is the distrust that the media has hyped up for the Catholic Church as a whole. It angers me that an organization that exists to help people is suffering, because a small percentage of its members have done terrible things. And people are actually thrilled by the scandal, if not what caused it. Are you Catholic? Do you know what good priests go through, when members of their own parishes start becoming afraid of them? I have some idea, since I’ve talked to them. Parents won’t let their kids go to confession, or spend time alone with priests, because the media has convinced them that priests are child-molesters. I don’t know what I can compare it to. Maybe if you were from a part of China where SARS has been running rampant, and then you visited the United States - and everyone there knew what circumstances you were coming from - and the flinching and glaring and backtracking that people did when they saw you lasted for the rest of your life.
I realize your argument is that this wouldn’t happen, if priests would let go of their old rules about chastity. Perhaps not, but that doesn’t mean they should. Do you know why priests are chaste in the first place? Do you know the theology behind chastity? I’ve heard a little, and it’s very convincing. You’re effectively telling a religion to give up its beliefs because they’re impractical. Your thought process is entirely out of order: beliefs are not subject to practicality, in an honest religion.
[b]A few years ago, Time magazine posted an article called the confession of Father X. I’m providing a link to a messageboard in which the article is posted(its at the very beginning of the thread).
http://forum.catholic-pages.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1378
Father X is only one man, and yet I could easily see how there are many, many men like Father X. Basically, Father X was gay, but he was ashamed of the fact. He thought that by joining the priesthood, he could somehow overcome what he considered to be the demon of his homosexuality, that his new spiritual relationship with god would somehow cleanse, that he could somehow find a noble purpose for his life, since he felt he could never live a normal life due to his homosexuality. Father X became a priest, and guess what? Not only was he still gay, but now he was a priest. Yes, there are some highly worthy men who join the priesthood. But there are also many, many men who join the priesthood because they’re ashamed of who they are, and because they think becoming a priest will somehow make them a better person. [/b]
I don’t doubt that there are many Father X’s out there, hidden secretly in the Church’s hierarchy. But what about Fathers A-W and Y-Z? Should they relinquish their honest chastity, due to Father X’s mistakes? Their beliefs, too? I cannot emphasize enough, that most of these priests want to be chaste, and believe wholeheartedly in the doctrine requiring it. If the burden of their belief causes 1.8% of them to break, should the rest of them drop it? For some priests who already struggle with chastity, the worst thing to hear is somebody encouraging them to let it go.
You say that 98% of priests have never been accused of sexual molesting. First, how many children could have been molested, but haven’t come forward? The percentage of priests who have ACTUALLY molested children could be a lot higher than the percentage that have been accused of it. Second, who says that 2% of accused priests is a low figure? What’s the percentage for protestant ministers who’ve been accused? Jewish rabbis? Muslim imams? etc. 2% could be incredibly high when compared to other religions, and as I just mentioned the percentage of priests who have actually molested children, and not just been accused of it, is a lot higher.
How many children ‘could have been molested’? What kind of question is this? I might ask how many children you could have molested. There’s no answer to this. It merely casts doubt on thousands of people’s reputations, with no reasonable basis. We only know that 1.8% of all American priests have been accused of misconduct. Given the massive sums of money being handed out to victims, I assume that most people would have come forward by now. You said, ‘. . .the percentage of priests who actually molested children. . .is a lot higher.’ Can you prove that? Or are you just stirring up the desire for reform?
If you think 1.8% is a relatively high number of priests, you’re free to prove it, since you’re the one looking for reform. Should you do that, be sure to account for all the people who ‘could have’ accused the priests of past molestation in order to make money, or to discredit the Church. It ‘could be’ that even 1.8% is far too high a number.
Lastly, have you ever thought that some priests molest children simply because of the fact that they’re lonely? That they need some kind of affection that in their confusion they end up molesting some little kid? At the very least, priests should be allowed to marry.
If you never marry, would you like people to think you have a better chance of molesting a child than an ordinary, married person?
I’m sure there are some men who can be strengthened by chastity, but most men aren’t this way, and by allowing priests to at the least get married, you could significantly decrease the amount of molestations. When you take an occupation like the priesthood, you’re going to attract some incredible individuals, but you’re also going to attract a disproportionate amount of fucked up individuals, and when we’re dealing with little kids being molested, you can’t afford to have that many fucked up individuals.
When you’re dealing with God, you can’t afford to throw away your beliefs just because you think you know better. You can’t afford to ignore theology that has been set in stone for hundreds of years, that nearly the whole Church worldwide supports, just because it might be expedient to one cause. Religion isn’t your tool, to accomplish what you think is best. If you really believe in it, then you’ll understand that it’s about bringing people to God, and that it’s His rules, not your ideas about them, that matter.
Xwing1056