Married clergy in Latin rite: Pros and Cons

[zeno]

Just a friendly note since you are new here: Obi-Wan's rank indicates he is a Catholic priest.

Ahh, I see! But that just means we both feel strongly about protecting the Church.

Thank you!

It also means he is highly educated on Church matters, as well as having a lot of direct experience in them, and should be respected as such.

[JanetM]

Just a friendly note since you are new here: Obi-Wan's rank indicates he is a Catholic priest.

Ahh, I see! But that just means we both feel strongly about protecting the Church.

Thank you!

It also means he is highly educated on Church matters, as well as having a lot of direct experience in them, and should be respected as such.

Yes, I was not aware before, so I understand now that he has some further insight than I might otherwise assume. However, his superior knowledge does not necessarily put him above debate, I trust.

[zeno]

Not above debate, but I certainly wouldn't take the tone you have with him. That's is why I wanted to make sure you knew who were speaking to - I certainly would want to be advised were I in your shoes.

(BTW Father has not complained. He has pretty thick skin as far as that goes. Speaking on my own behalf for the reason I just stated).

[Doom]

The problem is not celibacy

The problem is not celibacy itself, but I feel that the rule of celibacy compounds the issue by excluding married men who might otherwise discern.

Married men would: 1) dilute the population of and more importantly, the culture of homosexuals in the priesthood; and 2) as actual fathers to children, take sex abuse more seriously and so be more likely to act as whistleblowers when they recognize a sex offender among the clergy.

If celibacy contributes to the problem, how do you explain sexual abuse scandals that erupted from the Boy Scouts, the Penn State football program, and among Protestant and Jewish clergy?

[peregrinator]

I agree that we will see increased pressure to admit married men to the priesthood under the guise of alleviating the priest shortage, but I don't think it will actually help, should it come to pass.

I'm curious to know why you don't believe that would help much if at all?

I just don't think there's a large cohort of men out there who would become priests if not for celibacy.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

For the record, I took no offense at anything JanetM said. I just think she's proceeding from a host of assumptions whose factual basis is questionable.

[JanetM]

If celibacy contributes to the problem, how do you explain sexual abuse scandals that erupted from the Boy Scouts, the Penn State football program, and among Protestant and Jewish clergy?

I actually think that Boy Scouts and sports programs are similarly hotspots and prime hunting ground for homosexual predators.

As for non-Catholic clergy, sexual abuse happens in all walks of life. There is sadly no way to eliminate it entirely, but I feel that it is especially prominent in the Catholic Church (but then again, I guess I would feel that way).

I might be doing the math all wrong, but take this article:

in 2007, said they receive about 260 reports of sexual abuse per year from Protestant churches, and about 228 from Catholic churches. [...]
About 48.9% of Americans identify themselves as some version of Protestantisim, whereas 23% identify themselves as being Catholic.
https://stopabusecampaign.org/2018/01/0 ... ic-church/

If that's the case, 228 cases for the Catholic 23% of America vs 260 cases for Protestants' 48.9% makes the proportion significantly worse in the Church.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

It is not more pervasive in the Catholic Church than elsewhere. There's more money to be made suing the Catholic Church than there is in suing most Protestant groups, and misperceptions of celibacy reinforce the narrative.

The simple fact of the matter is that most children are abused by relatives, and quite often the families cover it up. That doesn't make it right when we do, but it does call into question the idea that biological fathers would be more likely to report.

[Kage_ar]

I might be doing the math all wrong, but take this article:

in 2007, said they receive about 260 reports of sexual abuse per year from Protestant churches, and about 228 from Catholic churches. [...]
About 48.9% of Americans identify themselves as some version of Protestantisim, whereas 23% identify themselves as being Catholic.
https://stopabusecampaign.org/2018/01/0 ... ic-church/

If that's the case, 228 cases for the Catholic 23% of America vs 260 cases for Protestants' 48.9% makes the proportion significantly worse in the Church.

Even back decades ago when your statistics were published, there were questions about the accuracy of the data:

http://stopbaptistpredators.org/article ... lergy.html

In the decades following, every US Diocese has put in place strenuous guidelines (in my Diocese, one has to be background checked to become an EMHC or Usher, let alone enter formation as clergy) and regulations. The youth minister cannot give a teen a ride home from a youth meeting, the confessional is the only place where one can privately speak with a priest, teens cannot babysit kids during a prayer group because teens can't be background checked are a few examples.

There is a prominent page on the Website for those who wish to report, links to this are in our bulletin, posted on flyers, if you have not seen enough being done maybe visit your Diocesean website to find out what is being done in your area.

[Doom]

If celibacy contributes to the problem, how do you explain sexual abuse scandals that erupted from the Boy Scouts, the Penn State football program, and among Protestant and Jewish clergy?

I actually think that Boy Scouts and sports programs are similarly hotspots and prime hunting ground for homosexual predators.

.

There is zero evidence of a connection between pedophilia and homosexuality. Homosexuals are attracted to adults of the same sex, not children

[Doom]

It is not more pervasive in the Catholic Church than elsewhere. There's more money to be made suing the Catholic Church than there is in suing most Protestant groups, and misperceptions of celibacy reinforce the narrative.

The simple fact of the matter is that most children are abused by relatives, and quite often the families cover it up. That doesn't make it right when we do, but it does call into question the idea that biological fathers would be more likely to report.

Part of the reason for the emphasis on the Catholic Church is anti-Catholicism, both secular and religious. There is a long tradition in the United States of anti-Catholicism, especially of the idea of alleged sexual exploitation in convents. The "Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk", written by a mentally ill Protestant woman who made false claims of being a former nun who was raped by priests, was once a best seller, if there had been a New York Times Best Seller list at the time, Maria Monk's alleged memoirs would have been at #1 for years uninterrupted.

In 1834, there were riots in Boston that burned down a convent due to rumors that a young Protestant girl had been kidnapped from an orphanage and was being imprisoned there against her will. This false rumor gained steam after a young novice fled the convent but returned after one of the older nuns persuaded her to return. A supposedly "moderate" reform was a proposed law that would have required periodic "inspections" of convents by the state in order to assure that no one was being held there against her will. This insane clearly unconstitutional idea nearly became national law.

The obsessive nature of the media and public on sexual abuse in the Catholic Church to the exclusion of abuse nearly anywhere else is just a continuation of the long Protestant tradition which originated with Martin Luther of seeing celibacy as unnatural and encouraging perversion

[JanetM]

There is zero evidence of a connection between pedophilia and homosexuality. Homosexuals are attracted to adults of the same sex, not children

I would generally agree. However, in the case of clerical sex abuse, the victims tend to be boys going through and past puberty, as well as young men discerning in seminaries. So while the adolescent boys may not be adults, I view this as more an issue of homosexual predators than typical pedophilia.

This report analysing child sexual abuse in the Church notes:

According to victimization studies of sexual abuse, more females than males are sexually victimized, but this differs in the clergy population. As Figure 3 shows, priests abused significantly more boys (81%) than girls (19%). The majority of victims (51%) were between the ages of 11 and 14, 27% were 15–17, 16% were 8–10 and 6% were under age 7. About 40% of all victims were males between 11 and 14. The mean age of male victims was older than the mean age of female victims.



Figure 3. Age and gender of children sexually abused by priests (at the time the abuse began).

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Age ... _247523934

And this is a study on child sex abuse, so the abuse of seminarians hasn't even yet been counted. The victims are then, largely "older" young males.

[JanetM]

The simple fact of the matter is that most children are abused by relatives, and quite often the families cover it up. That doesn't make it right when we do, but it does call into question the idea that biological fathers would be more likely to report.

Fair point and undeniable.

However, I am disappointed (but used to it) whenever other Catholics point out the lawsuits as if the victims were the ones exploiting the situation for their own financial gain. I understand that is not what you mean, but that is a sentiment that I have seen repeatedly expressed among Catholics defending the Church. I used to bring up that point myself before realising the extent of the Church's internal problems, but these days, I find the Church completely indefensible, at least in regard to this issue.

[Kage_ar]

At the same time, I am disappointed (but used to it) when the same priests, many of whom are now dead, are held up as if they are picking up kids at the playground this afternoon.

[peregrinator]

The Church has definitely been moving backwards on the abuse issue since Benedict XVI renounced the Papal office.

[Vern Humphrey]

Here's a shocker:

Either (1) celibacy doesn't cause abuse or (2) an astonishing proportion of public school teachers are celibate. Which do you think is the case?

I will point out that Boy Scout adult leaders are not celibate -- and the Boy Scouts have their own sex scandal.

If it is possible to identify those with a propensity toward sexual preditation and screen those people out, we should do that. And for those who get through, we should be alert to detect such behavior and react swiftly.

But the bottom line is, Catholic priests are not more prone to be sexual preditators than any other large group of men. The scandal was in the Bishops failing to take action -- instead, they covered it up and made it worse. We should emphasize choosing better men to be bishops.

[thejack]

I agree that we will see increased pressure to admit married men to the priesthood under the guise of alleviating the priest shortage, but I don't think it will actually help, should it come to pass.

I'm curious to know why you don't believe that would help much if at all?

I just don't think there's a large cohort of men out there who would become priests if not for celibacy.

That's a good empirical question that is worth a proper study if it's decided that the issue of the priest-shortage is relevant to the discussion. If it's not relevant in principle, no reason to object to or entertain the suggestion. Assuming it is relevant, I suspect all anyone has on this point is personal perspective and confirmation bias.

For the literal nothing it's worth (nothing on multiple grounds), I personally know and worked for two men who went to seminary and were discerning for the priesthood. Both left and took jobs in Catholic healthcare doing missions work (as in, the department, not in the sense of "being a missionary") primarily because they wanted to get married. They still went on and got doctorates. They also have lots of kids now! *shrug*

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

Deacon Karl Keating says that men who go to seminary and discern out properly may be the salvation of the family, since the formation they received gives them a better understanding of what it is to be a father and a man than most (certainly not all) men get.

[thejack]

And to Keating's point, my own (non-Catholic) seminary experience, especially flavored by my introduction and then commitment to natural law and classical metaphysics, did a lot (alongside my clinical pastoral education) to help me be a better father. I wouldn't be the man I am without that experience, for better or for worse. So affirming Keaton's point, it still remains to my mind an interesting empirical question as to whether a meaningful contingent of men have not discerned for the priesthood precisely because they wish to marry. I can imagine a pro-priestly-marriage advocate appealing to Keating's point via an a fortiori argument: if priestly training might be the salvation of the family, how much greater might not the priestly service?

To be clear, I'm not arguing either way, as I obviously don't have a dog in this fight. I just have a relatively straightforward human interest in the conversation.

[Doom]

I'm curious to know why you don't believe that would help much if at all?

I just don't think there's a large cohort of men out there who would become priests if not for celibacy.

That's a good empirical question that is worth a proper study if it's decided that the issue of the priest shortage is relevant to the discussion. If it's not relevant in principle, no reason to object to or entertain the suggestion. Assuming it is relevant, I suspect all anyone has on this point is a personal perspective and confirmation bias.

For the literal nothing it's worth (nothing on multiple grounds), I personally know and worked for two men who went to seminary and were discerning for the priesthood. Both left and took jobs in Catholic healthcare doing missions work (as in, the department, not in the sense of "being a missionary") primarily because they wanted to get married. They still went on and got doctorates. They also have lots of kids now! *shrug*

But there is nothing wrong with that, nor is it a sign of a problem. There is nothing wrong with dropping out of seminary because you determine that you are called to married life and not the priesthood. This is not a failure. That is why it is called 'discernment'. In a healthy Catholic culture (which hasn't existed for decades) most serious Catholic men will probably at some point in their youth consider the priesthood, and at least 99 out of 100 will conclude they aren't called to the priesthood. Indeed, if there was a healthy Catholic culture, there would be a lot more seminary dropouts than there are. A first-year seminary class would be 50 men, and of them, maybe 5 would stay in long enough to get ordained.

Moreover, mainline Protestant churches suffer from an even more severe clergy shortage than Catholics, which is the main reason why there have been so many mergers and church-sharing agreements made in the last 20 years. You might not realize this but all of the biggest mainline Protestant denominations, namely the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Episcopal church, the Presbyterian Church in America, and the United Methodist Church, are all in inter-communion and share clergy. if getting rid of celibacy would somehow allow for more priests, why doesn't that work in those mainline churches that never had a rule of celibacy?

And you seem to be forgetting that since Vatican II, married men have been allowed to be ordained to the permanent diaconate, there is in fact an option for married men in the Catholic Church and it has existed for over 50 years. How many permanent deacons are there, surely every parish must have half a dozen, right? Nope, most dioceses have at most 3-4 permanent deacons. And many have none. If married men aren't interested in serving as a deacon, what reason do we have to think there would be a ton who want to be priests? And do we really want a ton of priests who are only half committed to the priesthood, or who want to be priest but only if they don't have to make any sacrifices to get there?