I think the decline he was mentioning is the lack of priests in the Catholic Church. Not too many people find it appealing anymore to become a priest.
As per what you should do, HeroOftime, do whatever you want. If you can see yourself being a priest in a nice community, then go for it. If the life of a priest doesn’t appeal to you, then back off and do something else.
As for the Church, I’d rather not get into discussing it. (For many many reasons…)
I’d take what’s been mentioned above and keep it in mind.
But in my personal opinion, if you’re asking us about all this, you might want to really think about what you’re really getting into.
There’s nothing ridiculous about it. The sheer size of the Church’s molestation problem should show that. Living a celibate life in a cloister is an existence only a very small percentage of people can handle in a healthy manner. Not all priests are closeted gays or child molesters, but a significant percentage of them are.
I understand everything about faith and all that, but at the end of the day, a person becomes a priest because it makes him or her feel emotionally good. I think anyone considering being a priest should think long and hard if there are other things, not as socially restrictive, that can give you the same feeling.
The vast majority of the people that posted in this thread are either atheist, agnostic, or believe some form of deism. However, they did not mock Hero’s belief in God. You speak of delusions; fine, you believe God is a delusion. Whatever. However, when one is considering becoming a man of the cloth, it is quite insulting to claim he has an overdeveloped religiosity and needs help for his delusions.
Well, you’ll have to explain this to me. How does the inability to marry lead to an interest in young boys? Maybe the young because they’re vulnerable and won’t say anything, and maybe because the priests have never developed an adult sexuality. But where does the homosexuality come from? Surely (forgive this crassness), if priests were just biologically desperate for sex, they would at least prefer to have <i>actual</i> sex with females.
So what explains the higher rate of molestation by priests? I think many people who fail to come to terms with their sexuality are attracted to the priesthood, because it offers them a convenient explanation for their failure to reach self-understanding (or to have sex). “Of course I feel uncomfortable about sex. I’m meant to be a priest! I’m not a failure at life.” The frustration they’ve built up from years of negative experiences associated with sex makes the purity and simplicity of the priestly life look extremely attractive. In short: priest !-> molester, but molester -> priest.
There’s also the question of whether priests are actually more often molesters than ordinary people. It’s possible the abuse scandals led to a domino effect: hearing so many other people sharing stories of abuse convinced those who had kept silent for years to reveal their stories, all in a short time. This sudden deluge, combined with the fact that priests are expected to be morally superior individuals, created a false impression that a high percentage of priests are active pedophiles. In fact, I’ve read that 0.2% of American priests have molested children, which is more or less in line with the percentage of male adults who do so. See <i>Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis.</i>
And, last, I think you’re being selective in what you warn against, in a way that’s totally unfair and stereotype-producing. Imagine I said, “Don’t associate with black people. They have a high crime rate. You’re more likely to become involved in criminal activity as a result,” or, “Don’t join a band. You’ll probably start taking drugs like so many rock musicians do,” or, “Don’t play video games, or you’ll get fat and socially awkward and geeky like so many video gamers,” or, “Don’t talk to Muslims. They may convince you to become a terrorist.” I doubt you’d reject any of the above innocent groups just because some greater percentage of their members misbehaved.
If you reject Catholicism because you disagree with its principles, fine. But I think the molestation argument is a despicable one that mixes up correlation with causation, exaggerates empirical reality, and unfairly associates beliefs held by many innocents with the practices of a guilty few.
I understand everything about faith and all that, but at the end of the day, a person becomes a priest because it makes him or her feel emotionally good. I think anyone considering being a priest should think long and hard if there are other things, not as socially restrictive, that can give you the same feeling.
I don’t think many people would call faith an “emotion” exactly. But I get where you’re coming from. Everything that happens inside us is the product of chemical processes, including the experience of faith. Because it can be explained by chemical processes, there is no need for the “divine” explanation to which people once resorted. Faith is just old, bad science, under this view.
I too believe that science can explain our life experience. But the key difference is, I believe that life is a <i>manifestation</i> of a deeper principle or entity behind it. I believe this world has the same relation to that entity as sunlight has to the sun: not a simplistic creation/creator relationship, but more like an emanation to its source. Just as you can learn about the source of light by studying its reflection on an object, one can learn about that entity through fully experiencing and understanding this life. So the response to “science already explains everything” is, “Of course it does. And by improving science we <i>learn God’s nature</i>.”
I will leave explaining why I believe this, rather than the also-viable atheism, for another thread.
Don’t listen to the people in this thread trying to promote their own agenda regarding religion in general. That isn’t why you’re here.
If there are indeed pieces of the Catholic Church that are distasteful (and I’m no expert in this field), there are multitudinous break-offs and separate Christian faiths that may be more up your alley. If you do accept the criticisms of Catholicism you may want to look into something similar but not identical.
I don’t think many people would call faith an “emotion” exactly. But I get where you’re coming from. Everything that happens inside us is the product of chemical processes, including the experience of faith. Because it can be explained by chemical processes, there is no need for the “divine” explanation to which people once resorted. Faith is just old, bad science, under this view.
It is an emotion, though. and when someone does something religious, they can’t ignore the fact that they’re doing it to make themselves feel better in some way. And I’m saying, would it be possible for Hero to do something else that would create the same sort of feelings of fulfillment that becoming a priest would, that would be less socially restrictive? For instance, perhaps just becoming involved in a church group. Joining the Peace Corps. Other forms of volunteer work for the Catholic Church.
Also, I don’t think that Hero shouldn’t become a priest because of some agenda against religion. My opinion is based on the simple idea that living in a church, without sex or probably access to computers much of the time, being limited mostly to other priests for your social circle, is really hard for most people. This isn’t a religious criticism, its a psychological one. Hero needs to think long and hard if he’s the small minority who can find such a life not only tolerable but also fulfilling.
I’ll comment later on the child molestation thing.
That last point is why I mentioned that there are other aspects of Christianity that may be good to look into… not everyone says that priests need to be celibate. Certainly your points are well regarded in Judaism, which makes a point of making the physical sacred, rather than forsaking it altogether.
However, even if you are a Catholic priest, that doesn’t mean you belong in a monastery. I thought that priests had to deal with their parishes and their community, not get locked up in a church somewhere outside civilization.
My response was my answer to the OP’s question. I shared my thoughts, and I believe them to be extremely helpful. Hopefully they will spare the OP from spending his life in slavery to an organized child molestation ring that has committed uncountable atrocities against humanity over its sickening and disgusting existence.
I did, and I question the source of the metrics he posted (I’m not going to buy the book). From looking around, it seems the only data regarding the number of reported molestation incidents was gathered through the church’s own internal investigations. How could anyone accept that data as accurate?
How many non-Catholic churches have filed for bankruptcy because they can’t afford to pay out the monetary damages due to the insane amount of child abuse problems? I just don’t see any evidence that Baptist or Mormon or other US religious institutions have faced allegations approaching anything near what the Catholic church has.
If you have a sexual preference for children, church is the easiest place to be around children. People generally won’t question your motives. But in most religious organizations, it’s still not easy - there’s no “alone” time. Priesthood, however, makes it simple to get a children alone with adults. That, along with the celibacy thing and the sanctuary is just a match made in heaven for a predator and his victim. And as those Catholics like to say, design implies a designer. It’s just wrong.
Thank you all for your views, 984; I’d never join another church (I’m yoshmeister btw). My main concern is with the decline, and also, I would be good at it (getting an occasional tri to rome as well). Thanks, friends.