M
Monkey Del
Guest
Should a BISHOP/ ELDER / PASTOR be married?
God's word says it is required to be married, What say you?
God's word says it is required to be married, What say you?
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
W
William Putnam
Guest
Monkey Del said:
The bible says nothing of the kind!
To be the "husband of one wife" means that if the candidate is a widower, he cannot remarry if he is to become a bishop!
Today, this rule applies only to the Orthodox/Eastern Rite Catholics who have a married priesthood (and who are good Catholics, "in union with Rome" and all that good stuff) in that when a priest's wife dies, he cannot remarry!
In the Western/Latin/Roman Rite, a priest be unmarried, period, a canon law imposed many centuries ago, to the advantage of the Church in her evangelization of the whole world!
:B-fly:
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
Regina Angelorum, ora pro nobis!
G
Gary
Guest
Roman Catholic errors
There is no Scriptural requirement for a minister or priest to be unmarried. Again, that is only Roman Catholic "Church" dogma with no Scriptural basis.
If they allowed married priests (which is Scriptural), we probably would not have as many Roman Catholic child molesting cases!
There is no Scriptural requirement for a minister or priest to be unmarried. Again, that is only Roman Catholic "Church" dogma with no Scriptural basis.
If they allowed married priests (which is Scriptural), we probably would not have as many Roman Catholic child molesting cases!
W
William Putnam
Guest
Re: Roman Catholic errors
You are right! There is no "scriptural requirement" as you state. But then read Matthew 16:18-19, especially verse 19 where it speaks of "binding and loosing."
That is what is called AUTHORITY, Gary! :o
Where is this "authority" in your particular Church community, Gary? :angel:
<Sigh!> Gary, if you continue to present your little pet bigoted statements, I will very soon ignore all of your posts!
It is that simple! :x
One more instance and I will ignore you!
Got it yet? (God loves you anyway! ) :angel:
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)
Gary_Bee said:
You are right! There is no "scriptural requirement" as you state. But then read Matthew 16:18-19, especially verse 19 where it speaks of "binding and loosing."
That is what is called AUTHORITY, Gary! :o
Where is this "authority" in your particular Church community, Gary? :angel:
<Sigh!> Gary, if you continue to present your little pet bigoted statements, I will very soon ignore all of your posts!
It is that simple! :x
One more instance and I will ignore you!
Got it yet? (God loves you anyway! ) :angel:
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)
G
Gary
Guest
The Roman Catholic scandal
Bill, then why don't you try explain why there are so many homosexual Roman Catholic priests and why there are so many child molestation cases against Roman Catholic priests?
Are you even aware of what the Roman Catholic "Church" tried to do here in South Africa w.r.t. child molestation accusations?
Bill, then why don't you try explain why there are so many homosexual Roman Catholic priests and why there are so many child molestation cases against Roman Catholic priests?
Are you even aware of what the Roman Catholic "Church" tried to do here in South Africa w.r.t. child molestation accusations?
G
Gary
Guest
Requirements for an elder
Requirement for an elder/bishop and deacon
Bill: "Where is this "authority" in your particular Church community, Gary?
Gary: Simple Bill. The Word of God is our authority. We find the requirement for an elder/bishop in Scripture:
No requirement for celibacy. In fact, the Scripture points more towards married men.
Again, no requirement for celibacy. In fact, the Scripture again points more towards married men with children.
Requirement for an elder/bishop and deacon
Bill: "Where is this "authority" in your particular Church community, Gary?
Gary: Simple Bill. The Word of God is our authority. We find the requirement for an elder/bishop in Scripture:
No requirement for celibacy. In fact, the Scripture points more towards married men.
Again, no requirement for celibacy. In fact, the Scripture again points more towards married men with children.
E
evanman
Guest
If a person is married paul is stating that they should have only ONE wife--in other words NOT be poligamous!
If marriage was the requirement the scripture would have stated "must be married", it does not.
In the time when this was written Poligamy was common both amongst Jews and Non-Jews, this disqualified a man from being an elder in the church, it did not disqualify him from being a Christian!
Poligamous men were not required to divorce wives in order to become followers of Jesus. This I write concerning those that become Christians not those that already are Christians! I do not believe that followers of Jesus should take multiple wives!
If marriage was the requirement the scripture would have stated "must be married", it does not.
In the time when this was written Poligamy was common both amongst Jews and Non-Jews, this disqualified a man from being an elder in the church, it did not disqualify him from being a Christian!
Poligamous men were not required to divorce wives in order to become followers of Jesus. This I write concerning those that become Christians not those that already are Christians! I do not believe that followers of Jesus should take multiple wives!
R
Rebecka
Guest
Bill, just because you think the pope and the RCC has authority doesn't make it so.
If the RCC did have authority, that authority would manifest itself because a city that is set on a hill cannot be hid.
Jesus said men don't light candles to place them under bushels, but to give light to all that are in the house. The RCC gives NO light to anyone, except in the minds of catholics.
ONLY catholics believe the pope, that is all. His so called authority is extremely limited to the vatican, but the world at large doesn't see him as serious or necessary.
Jesus told the people, "Whether is it easier to say, thy sins be forgive thee or take up your bed and walk?"
Jesus was showing them he had POWER AND AUTHORITY, but he spoke as man never spake, but the pope is simply full of hot air.
To Jesus, forgiving sins and healing a terminally ill man were the same thing.
The pope claims authority, but it is without proof.
He is like the queen of England, a tradition which is patronized daily, with no serious responsibility attached to him.
Literally millions and millions of people are saved and know Jesus Christ in a personal way and all without the so called authority of the RCC.
Millions are healed and set free by God's mighty power each day all in the Protestant churches.
All the great songs of the church are written by Protestants.
The RCC claimed at one time to not recognize marriage outside of the RCC, but did it matter, or have any authority? No because the church rolls on and on and the RCC has nothing to do with anything except what involves CATHOLICS.
If the pope had any authority in the least, he would do these things;
1.walk on water
2.raise the dead
3.open blind eyes
4.heal lepers
5.never die
6.curse fig trees
7.forgive sins
Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled.
Bill, you're a nice guy, but in serious error about the Bible.
A bishop must be the husband of one wife, and BLAMELESS
and the word "blameless" pretty much leaves everyone of the priests out.
W
William Putnam
Guest
Re: The Roman Catholic scandal
<sigh!>You didn't believe me, did you?
Goodbye, Gary.........
I intend to cease responding to your traffic in this forum!
Got it yet!
But I do reserve the right to respond to you once again, when you finally put down your "spray gun."
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
Not riches, but God.
Not honors, but God.
Not distinction, but God.
Not dignities, but God.
Not advancement, but God.
God always and in everything.
- St. Vincent Pallotti -
Gary_Bee said:
<sigh!>You didn't believe me, did you?
Goodbye, Gary.........
I intend to cease responding to your traffic in this forum!
Got it yet!
But I do reserve the right to respond to you once again, when you finally put down your "spray gun."
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
Not riches, but God.
Not honors, but God.
Not distinction, but God.
Not dignities, but God.
Not advancement, but God.
God always and in everything.
- St. Vincent Pallotti -
W
William Putnam
Guest
evanman said:
Are you serious! How could they even be a Christian in the first place if they were poligamous?
We agree here! I certainly does not say that, especially in the face that we know Paul was (gasp!) unmarried!
Paul is speaking about candidates for bishop, sir! thus the candidates must be Christian! And if they are true practicing Christians, they would either be unmarried, married, or a widow.
Poligamous men were not even given the sacraments, baptised or professed as Christians until and unless they agreed to one wife, (probably had to have that one union blessed before such a profession) and certainly not poligamous any more!
A Christian can have only one wife if married, period!
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
Not riches, but God.
Not honors, but God.
Not distinction, but God.
Not dignities, but God.
Not advancement, but God.
God always and in everything.
- St. Vincent Pallotti -
M
Monkey Del
Guest
1 Tim 3:
1: This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2: A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3: Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4: One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
let us define "must be" : Required.
he is required to be
1. Blameless
2. Husband of 1 wife. In order to have 1 wife..one "must be" Married.
3. vigilant
4. sober (serious minded)
5. of good behaviour
etc..
Hard to have children if you are not Married.
1: This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2: A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3: Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4: One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
let us define "must be" : Required.
he is required to be
1. Blameless
2. Husband of 1 wife. In order to have 1 wife..one "must be" Married.
3. vigilant
4. sober (serious minded)
5. of good behaviour
etc..
Hard to have children if you are not Married.
M
Monkey Del
Guest
Wrong.
Paul was not a bishop. He was an Apostle. Peter was a Bishop over Jeruselem and Apostle and WAS MARRIED.
W
William Putnam
Guest
Rebecka said:
You are soooooooooo right, Rebecka! I, as a Catholic layperson, have no authority in the church!
But I believe that the Church has the authority to do what it has done and is empowered to do! It is that simple, Rebecka!
Individual Christians, in their humility can "hide" but authority must be assertive, which cannot be hidden! Rome was a good spot, come to think of it!
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
Et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram
aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt
adversum eam et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum et quodcumque
ligaveris super terram erit ligatum in caelis et quodcumque
solveris super terram erit solutum in caelis.
(Matt 16:18-19 From the Latin Vulgate)
R
Rebecka
Guest
Revelation 13:1 "And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a great beast rise up out of the sea having seven heads and ten horns..." which is the beast who was given autority by the dragon.
Now Jesus spoke with authority and they knew it.
The mans sick of the palsy was told by Jesus, "Son, your sins be forgiven you. Take up your bed and go home."
They said who can forgive sins but God alone, but the Lord was letting them know that forgiving sins andhealing the man sick of the palsy were the same for him because he had AUTHORITY, and not authority in any vatican, but AUTHORITYper se.
His authority manifested itself in that case of the man sick of the palsy.
He asked something the pope can never ask anyone;
"Whether is it easier to say? Your sins be forgiven you, OR take up your bed and walk?"
For Jesus it was simply a matter of saying it because by his word, he cast out devils and healed sick folks and forgave sins.
WHY Bill? Because he had AUTHORITY ......PER SE
The pope's authority is limited to the RCC, but carries no weight with anyone else.
Nowhere in the earth does the pope have any authority. The words he speaks are taken seriously only by catholics.
Now Jesus spoke with authority and they knew it.
The mans sick of the palsy was told by Jesus, "Son, your sins be forgiven you. Take up your bed and go home."
They said who can forgive sins but God alone, but the Lord was letting them know that forgiving sins andhealing the man sick of the palsy were the same for him because he had AUTHORITY, and not authority in any vatican, but AUTHORITYper se.
His authority manifested itself in that case of the man sick of the palsy.
He asked something the pope can never ask anyone;
"Whether is it easier to say? Your sins be forgiven you, OR take up your bed and walk?"
For Jesus it was simply a matter of saying it because by his word, he cast out devils and healed sick folks and forgave sins.
WHY Bill? Because he had AUTHORITY ......PER SE
The pope's authority is limited to the RCC, but carries no weight with anyone else.
Nowhere in the earth does the pope have any authority. The words he speaks are taken seriously only by catholics.
W
William Putnam
Guest
Rebecka said:
Let's see, either ancient pagan Rome of perhaps Jerusalem, which was pretty bad in those times as well...
If Jesus had no authority, then how can His church upon which He gave authority?
Where does Jesus say "Vatican" in scriputres, Rebecka? Or are you rewriting scripture in your head as you read along?
I do call your attention to John 20:22-23 where Jesus did indeed, give the power to forgive or retain the sins of men to the apostles!
The pope is not Jesus! The pope is only His human representative here on earth, a man who will die like the rest of us.
He also gave the power to forgive sin to men per John 20:22-23!
Look at it this way, rebecka, if Jesus could forgive sins, He is indeed, God, and if He is God, then He has all the right to say what He says in John 20:22-23!
Per se, He is God. What did He say once? Oh yes, "...Before Abraham came to be I AM!"
Well, you don't accept him, but I do! Therefore, he carried weight with ME!
Did a little dove alight upon your shoulders and whisper that astounding bit of news into your ear, Rebecka? Do you deny that he has authority within his own Church? Within the walls of at least Vatican City?
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
- Anima Christi -
Soul of Christ, sanctify me.
Body of Christ, save me.
Blood of Christ, inebriate me.
Water from the side of Christ, wash me.
Passion of Christ, strengthen me.
O good Jesus, hear me;
Within Thy wounds hide me and permit
me not to be separated from Thee.
From the Wicked Foe defend me.
And bid me to come to Thee,
That with Thy Saints I may praise Thee,
For ever and ever. Amen.
S
Sower
Guest
And to the disadvantage of the victims of pedophilic and lecherous priests would be more honest!
"NOW THE SPIRIT SPEAKETH EXPRESSLY, THAT IN THE LATTER TIMES, SOME SHALL DEPART FROM THE FAITH, GIVING HEED TO SEDUCING SPIRITS, AND DOCTRINES OF DEVILS; SPEAKING LIES IN HYPOCRISY; HAVING THEIR CONSCIENCE SEARED WITH A HOT IRON: FORBIDDING TO MARRY, AND COMMANDING TO ABSTAIN FROM MEATS..." (1 Tim. 4:1-3).
W
William Putnam
Guest
Sower said:
Forum: The myth of the 'pedophile priest'
The trauma stemming from the Boston case should not be used to accuse the whole Roman Catholic Church
Sunday, March 03, 2002
By Philip Jenkins
The Roman Catholic Church in the United States is going through one of the most traumatic periods in its long history.
Philip Jenkins is Distinguished Professor of History and Religious Studies at Penn State. His book "Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis" was published by Oxford University Press in 1996.
Every day, the news media have a new horror story to report, under some sensational headline: Newsweek, typically, is devoting its current front cover to "Sex, Shame and the Catholic Church: 80 Priests Accused of Child Abuse in Boston." Though the sex abuse cases have deep roots, the most recent scandals were detonated by the affair of Boston priest John J. Geoghan. Though his superiors had known for years of Geoghan's pedophile activities, he kept being transferred from parish to parish, regardless of the safety of the children in his care. The stigma of the Geoghan affair could last for decades, and some Catholics are declaring in their outrage that they can never trust their church again.
No one can deny that Boston church authorities committed dreadful errors, but at the same time, the story is not quite the simple tale of good and evil that it sometime appears. Hard though it may be to believe right now, the "pedophile priest" scandal is nothing like as sinister as it has been painted -- or at least, it should not be used to launch blanket accusations against the Catholic Church as a whole.
We have often heard the phrase "pedophile priest" in recent weeks. Such individuals can exist: Father Geoghan was one, as was the notorious Father James Porter a decade or so back. But as a description of a social problem, the term is wildly misleading. Crucially, Catholic priests and other clergy have nothing like a monopoly on sexual misconduct with minors.
My research of cases over the past 20 years indicates no evidence whatever that Catholic or other celibate clergy are any more likely to be involved in misconduct or abuse than clergy of any other denomination -- or indeed, than nonclergy. However determined news media may be to see this affair as a crisis of celibacy, the charge is just unsupported.
Literally every denomination and faith tradition has its share of abuse cases, and some of the worst involve non-Catholics. Every mainline Protestant denomination has had scandals aplenty, as have Pentecostals, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jews, Buddhists, Hare Krishnas -- and the list goes on. One Canadian Anglican (Episcopal) diocese is currently on the verge of bankruptcy as a result of massive lawsuits caused by decades of systematic abuse, yet the Anglican church does not demand celibacy of its clergy.
However much this statement contradicts conventional wisdom, the "pedophile priest" is not a Catholic specialty. Yet when did we ever hear about "pedophile pastors"?
Just to find some solid numbers, how many Catholic clergy are involved in misconduct? We actually have some good information on this issue, since in the early 1990s, the Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago undertook a bold and thorough self-study. The survey examined every priest who had served in the archdiocese over the previous 40 years, some 2,200 individuals, and reopened every internal complaint ever made against these men. The standard of evidence applied was not legal proof that would stand up in a court of law, but just the consensus that a particular charge was probably justified.
By this low standard, the survey found that about 40 priests, about 1.8 percent of the whole, were probably guilty of misconduct with minors at some point in their careers. Put another way, no evidence existed against about 98 percent of parish clergy, the overwhelming majority of the group. Since other organizations dealing with children have not undertaken such comprehensive studies, we have no idea whether the Catholic figure is better or worse than the rate for schoolteachers, residential home counselors, social workers or scout masters.
The Chicago study also found that of the 2,200 priests, just one was a pedophile. Now, many people are confused about the distinction between a pedophile and a person guilty of sex with a minor. The difference is very significant. The phrase "pedophile priests" conjures up images of the worst violation of innocence, callous molesters like Father Porter who assault children 7 years old. "Pedophilia" is a psychiatric term meaning sexual interest in children below the age of puberty.
But the vast majority of clergy misconduct cases are nothing like this. The vast majority of instances involve priests who have been sexually active with a person below the age of sexual consent, often 16 or 17 years old, or even older. An act of this sort is wrong on multiple counts: It is probably criminal, and by common consent it is immoral and sinful; yet it does not have the utterly ruthless, exploitative character of child molestation. In almost all cases too, with the older teen-agers, there is an element of consent.
Also, the definition of "childhood" varies enormously between different societies. If an act of this sort occurred in most European countries, it would probably be legal, since the age of consent for boys is usually around 15. To take a specific example, when newspapers review recent cases of "pedophile priests," they commonly cite a case that occurred in California's Orange County, when a priest was charged with having consensual sex with a 17-year-old boy. Whatever the moral quality of such an act, most of us would not apply the term "child abuse" or "pedophilia." For this reason alone, we need to be cautious when we read about scores of priests being "accused of child abuse."
The age of the young person involved is also so important because different kinds of sexual misconduct respond differently to treatment, and church authorities need to respond differently. If a diocese knows a man is a pedophile, and ever again places him in a position where he has access to more children, that decision is simply wrong, and probably amounts to criminal neglect. But a priest who has a relationship with an older teen-ager is much more likely to respond to treatment, and it would be more understandable if some day the church placed him in a new parish, under careful supervision.
The fact that Cardinal Law's regime in Boston seems to have blundered time and again does not mean that this is standard practice for all Catholic dioceses, still less that the church is engaged in some kind of conspiracy of silence to hide dangerous perverts.
I am in no sense soft on the issue of child abuse. Recently, I published an expose of the trade in electronic child pornography, one of the absolute worst forms of exploitation, and my argument was that the police and FBI need to be pressured to act more strictly against this awful thing.
My concern over the "pedophile priest" issue is not to defend evil clergy, or a sinful church (I cannot be called a Catholic apologist, since I am not even a Catholic). But I am worried that justified anger over a few awful cases might be turned into ill-focused attacks against innocent clergy. The story of clerical misconduct is bad enough without turning into an unjustifiable outbreak of religious bigotry against the Catholic Church.
Yes, and besides Catholic priests who commit these dastardly deeds, be mindful of the fact that this happens in other Christian groups as well.
But the momolithic Catholic Church is the greater target, isn't it?
I will not tarry long on this subject, as I have been through this too many times in the past year or two. Keep your senses about you and be careful who you accuse when out of thousands of good and holy priests, a few are grave sinners, a percentage I understand to be less then the national average.
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!
G
Gary
Guest
RCC on abuse - May 2003
Roman Catholic "Church" in South Africa finally bows down to huge public pressure on the rights of abused children
This is the official statement below (finally) by the Roman Catholic "Church" in South Africa. This has taken months and months of pressure from all sorts of groups, including a threat from the Minister of Law and Order that the "Church" was even breaking the law in not, automatically, reporting cases of child abuse, EVEN IF THE "CHURCH" WAS AWARE OF THE ABUSE!!!
Up to that point, the Roman Catholic "Church" of South Africa was disobeying the law of the land. They insisted that it was up to the abused CHILD (or parent) to report the abuse.
How can this happen (in South Africa) when most of the children abused by Roman Catholic "priests" are totally disadvantaged; many times the only adult they have had so-called support from was the exact same "priest" who was molesting them!!!
Finally.... finally... after months and months of pressure from many NGO (non-Government Relief Organisations) including child welfare, other Christian church leaders, the Roman Catholic "Church" in South Africa released this statement:
May 2003!!!!! How many children were abused and continued to be abused by priests "protected" by this so-called "church"???
Many people challenged the Roman Catholic leaders on radio, in the press, in private telephone calls. EVENTUALLY, their moral conscience got to the RCC. However, I do think that it was the threat of criminal proceedings (against the "Church") by the Minister of Law and Order which finally made the "Church" issue this rather tame statement.
How sad!
Roman Catholic "Church" in South Africa finally bows down to huge public pressure on the rights of abused children
This is the official statement below (finally) by the Roman Catholic "Church" in South Africa. This has taken months and months of pressure from all sorts of groups, including a threat from the Minister of Law and Order that the "Church" was even breaking the law in not, automatically, reporting cases of child abuse, EVEN IF THE "CHURCH" WAS AWARE OF THE ABUSE!!!
Up to that point, the Roman Catholic "Church" of South Africa was disobeying the law of the land. They insisted that it was up to the abused CHILD (or parent) to report the abuse.
How can this happen (in South Africa) when most of the children abused by Roman Catholic "priests" are totally disadvantaged; many times the only adult they have had so-called support from was the exact same "priest" who was molesting them!!!
Finally.... finally... after months and months of pressure from many NGO (non-Government Relief Organisations) including child welfare, other Christian church leaders, the Roman Catholic "Church" in South Africa released this statement:
May 2003!!!!! How many children were abused and continued to be abused by priests "protected" by this so-called "church"???
Many people challenged the Roman Catholic leaders on radio, in the press, in private telephone calls. EVENTUALLY, their moral conscience got to the RCC. However, I do think that it was the threat of criminal proceedings (against the "Church") by the Minister of Law and Order which finally made the "Church" issue this rather tame statement.
How sad!
F
fatneckboy
Guest
WHY IS IT , WHEN A PERSON YOU CALL BISHOP, IN YOUR CHURCH, COMMITS THIS ACT AND THE CHURCH HAS KNOWN ABOUT IT, " ITS AN ERROR"?
1Cr 7:2 Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
this is why it is rampant in your church bill.!!!!!!!!
1Cr 7:2 Nevertheless, [to avoid] fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
this is why it is rampant in your church bill.!!!!!!!!
W
William Putnam
Guest
fatneckboy said:
Look ahead and read verse 8 and see what you think...
"Rampant"? I paste-in once again, the paper I previously offered:
Forum: The myth of the 'pedophile priest'
The trauma stemming from the Boston case should not be used to accuse the whole Roman Catholic Church
Sunday, March 03, 2002
By Philip Jenkins
The Roman Catholic Church in the United States is going through one of the most traumatic periods in its long history.
Philip Jenkins is Distinguished Professor of History and Religious Studies at Penn State. His book "Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis" was published by Oxford University Press in 1996.
Every day, the news media have a new horror story to report, under some sensational headline: Newsweek, typically, is devoting its current front cover to "Sex, Shame and the Catholic Church: 80 Priests Accused of Child Abuse in Boston." Though the sex abuse cases have deep roots, the most recent scandals were detonated by the affair of Boston priest John J. Geoghan. Though his superiors had known for years of Geoghan's pedophile activities, he kept being transferred from parish to parish, regardless of the safety of the children in his care. The stigma of the Geoghan affair could last for decades, and some Catholics are declaring in their outrage that they can never trust their church again.
No one can deny that Boston church authorities committed dreadful errors, but at the same time, the story is not quite the simple tale of good and evil that it sometime appears. Hard though it may be to believe right now, the "pedophile priest" scandal is nothing like as sinister as it has been painted -- or at least, it should not be used to launch blanket accusations against the Catholic Church as a whole.
We have often heard the phrase "pedophile priest" in recent weeks. Such individuals can exist: Father Geoghan was one, as was the notorious Father James Porter a decade or so back. But as a description of a social problem, the term is wildly misleading. Crucially, Catholic priests and other clergy have nothing like a monopoly on sexual misconduct with minors.
My research of cases over the past 20 years indicates no evidence whatever that Catholic or other celibate clergy are any more likely to be involved in misconduct or abuse than clergy of any other denomination -- or indeed, than nonclergy. However determined news media may be to see this affair as a crisis of celibacy, the charge is just unsupported.
Literally every denomination and faith tradition has its share of abuse cases, and some of the worst involve non-Catholics. Every mainline Protestant denomination has had scandals aplenty, as have Pentecostals, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jews, Buddhists, Hare Krishnas -- and the list goes on. One Canadian Anglican (Episcopal) diocese is currently on the verge of bankruptcy as a result of massive lawsuits caused by decades of systematic abuse, yet the Anglican church does not demand celibacy of its clergy.
However much this statement contradicts conventional wisdom, the "pedophile priest" is not a Catholic specialty. Yet when did we ever hear about "pedophile pastors"?
Just to find some solid numbers, how many Catholic clergy are involved in misconduct? We actually have some good information on this issue, since in the early 1990s, the Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago undertook a bold and thorough self-study. The survey examined every priest who had served in the archdiocese over the previous 40 years, some 2,200 individuals, and reopened every internal complaint ever made against these men. The standard of evidence applied was not legal proof that would stand up in a court of law, but just the consensus that a particular charge was probably justified.
By this low standard, the survey found that about 40 priests, about 1.8 percent of the whole, were probably guilty of misconduct with minors at some point in their careers. Put another way, no evidence existed against about 98 percent of parish clergy, the overwhelming majority of the group. Since other organizations dealing with children have not undertaken such comprehensive studies, we have no idea whether the Catholic figure is better or worse than the rate for schoolteachers, residential home counselors, social workers or scout masters.
The Chicago study also found that of the 2,200 priests, just one was a pedophile. Now, many people are confused about the distinction between a pedophile and a person guilty of sex with a minor. The difference is very significant. The phrase "pedophile priests" conjures up images of the worst violation of innocence, callous molesters like Father Porter who assault children 7 years old. "Pedophilia" is a psychiatric term meaning sexual interest in children below the age of puberty.
But the vast majority of clergy misconduct cases are nothing like this. The vast majority of instances involve priests who have been sexually active with a person below the age of sexual consent, often 16 or 17 years old, or even older. An act of this sort is wrong on multiple counts: It is probably criminal, and by common consent it is immoral and sinful; yet it does not have the utterly ruthless, exploitative character of child molestation. In almost all cases too, with the older teen-agers, there is an element of consent.
Also, the definition of "childhood" varies enormously between different societies. If an act of this sort occurred in most European countries, it would probably be legal, since the age of consent for boys is usually around 15. To take a specific example, when newspapers review recent cases of "pedophile priests," they commonly cite a case that occurred in California's Orange County, when a priest was charged with having consensual sex with a 17-year-old boy. Whatever the moral quality of such an act, most of us would not apply the term "child abuse" or "pedophilia." For this reason alone, we need to be cautious when we read about scores of priests being "accused of child abuse."
The age of the young person involved is also so important because different kinds of sexual misconduct respond differently to treatment, and church authorities need to respond differently. If a diocese knows a man is a pedophile, and ever again places him in a position where he has access to more children, that decision is simply wrong, and probably amounts to criminal neglect. But a priest who has a relationship with an older teen-ager is much more likely to respond to treatment, and it would be more understandable if some day the church placed him in a new parish, under careful supervision.
The fact that Cardinal Law's regime in Boston seems to have blundered time and again does not mean that this is standard practice for all Catholic dioceses, still less that the church is engaged in some kind of conspiracy of silence to hide dangerous perverts.
I am in no sense soft on the issue of child abuse. Recently, I published an expose of the trade in electronic child pornography, one of the absolute worst forms of exploitation, and my argument was that the police and FBI need to be pressured to act more strictly against this awful thing.
My concern over the "pedophile priest" issue is not to defend evil clergy, or a sinful church (I cannot be called a Catholic apologist, since I am not even a Catholic). But I am worried that justified anger over a few awful cases might be turned into ill-focused attacks against innocent clergy. The story of clerical misconduct is bad enough without turning into an unjustifiable outbreak of religious bigotry against the Catholic Church.
You might also be interested in the following links:
http://www.catholicleague.org/bishopmur ... report.htm
http://www.catholicleague.org/research/smear.htm
http://www.catholicleague.org/catalyst/ ... %20SCANDAL
http://www.catholicleague.org/research/lent.htm
Now, I don't know why you people want to "rub our nose in it" on a scandal that all Catholics are ashamed of. And I have yet to hear the hue and cry for Catholics, ready to point fingers when a similar case is reported in the non-Catholic Christian community. But then, this is seldom done, since they are a very small target compared to the monolithic Catholic community. We get more exposurel, even while the reports I see show that Catholic priests fall below the national average, and among married non-Catholic clergy.
Instead of point fingers, why don't we pray about it together? That is not to excuse any priest who commits such dastardly deeds - a prison is the only place for him!
Please remember Christ's words to the woman taken in adultary...
"He who is without sin, cast the first stone."
God bless,
PAX
Bill+†+
I believe in God,
the Father Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son,
Our Lord;
who was conceived by the holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died,
and was buried.
He descended into hell;
the third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
sitteth at the right hand of God,
the Father almighty;
from thence He shall come to judge
the living and the dead.
I believe in the holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Amen.
- The Apostles Creed -