Good bye to the Roman Catholic church

[PAC]

The number of priests is decreasing because they can be presidents and senators and congressmen now, with the same power, but also with the nookie

I'm not sure if you mean after leaving the priesthood. I believe that Pope
John Paul forced priests to leave elective office. If my memory servers me I think that his rule forced a congressman to resign with an interesting result.
Barney Frank won the seat that was open bringing what I beleive to be the first openly gay man to Congress.

 

[RobRoy]

Although I can't find the source right now, I believe the vow of chastity was instituted in the Middle Ages in large part to keep property in the hands of the Catholic church. There were a lot of rich bishops living in virtual palaces and the church wanted to keep the property from passing to heirs instead of being left to the Catholic church.

Quick history: The Benedictine vow, following the Rule of St. Benedict add the vow of chastity in the 6th century CE. In the 12th and 13th centuries, the Franciscans and the Domincans also add the vow of chastity. In the 16th century, the clerks regulary, such as the Jesuits, add the vow.

This is why many enter the priesthood, to fix their problems not seek out children to abuse.

I can agree with this. However, the number of abusive priests, suggests that the "many" either deal with their "problems" or find some other outlet. That leaves the few who do not, and I suggest that they deliberately did not, whether maliciously or simply from lack of will doesn't matter. The position appealed for the reasons I cited, the same as they appeal in other areas to other sexual predators.

Many were probably abused by their priest and think it is just the way of the world?

Statistic please.

This is why there is such a high percentage in the priesthood.

I assume you mean "a high percentage" of peodphiles or sexual abusers. This is a symptom of the media scandals revolving around this issue. There is no "high percentage" of abuses among priets. Sexual Abuse in Social Contect found that the abuse percentages were the same in other areas, such as education (Catholic League, 2004). The John Jay Report found accusations (mind that word please) against 300 U.S. priests (Jay, 2004). Even if all of the accusations are true (I have no reason to doubt that the majority are) that's something like half a hundreth of a percent (0.005%).

 

[rjh01]

Sexual Abuse in Social Contect found that the abuse percentages were the same in other areas, such as education (Catholic League, 2004). The John Jay Report found accusations (mind that word please) against 300 U.S. priests (Jay, 2004). Even if all of the accusations are true (I have no reason to doubt that the majority are) that's something like half a hundreth of a percent (0.005%).

This cannot be right. 300 / 0.005% = 6,000,000 Are there 6 million priests in USA? Maybe you meant 0.5%?

Since many accusations are old, I wonder how many priests who sexually abuse are never caught?

 

[Denver]

One thing to note from the OP: it was the Catholic Church itself that published these numbers. They certainly are not sitting back and ignoring the issue: they have been tracking it, reporting on it, and trying to deal with it. It's that attitude I think that will keep it going.

 

[DOC]

A small point: A priest and a monk are two different things. Also (I want to point this out before Cardinal ceo_esq rides in on his snow-white mule to champion Mother Church), the majority of priests don't take vows of poverty.

And DOC, I love your syntax: "There are will be always be plenty of public school teachers around...."

Yes, I always don't proofread every post. But do you have any comment on the actual message of post # 6 which was that the problem of child abuse in public schools is even worse than past Catholic priest abuses.

 

[joobz]

Yes, I always don't proofread every post. But do you have any comment on the actual message of post # 6 which was that the problem of child abuse in public schools is even worse than past Catholic priest abuses.

The irony hurts.. you are demanding someone address the context of your argument when you always use semantics to avoid fault.

This claim can only be addressed when you answer Tanstaafl's question. IT seems he has pinpointed several errors in the study which can easily give erroneous conclusions.

 

[ceo_esq]

Also (I want to point this out before Cardinal ceo_esq rides in on his snow-white mule to champion Mother Church), the majority of priests don't take vows of poverty.

Apparently when you do it, it's helpful fact-checking for the sake of accuracy. When I do it, it's "championing Mother Church". Thank you Cardinal Sackett.

At any rate, my understanding is that secular priests (the ones who don't belong to a particular religious order, i.e. most priests) don't take any vows at all, they just make promises to the bishop of obedience and adherence to the rule of celibacy. Members of religious orders (whether priests, monks or nuns) take vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. If I'm not mistaken, the vow/promise distinction has something to do with whom it's made to (a vow being a promise made directly to God) and who can release it.

 

[RobRoy]

This cannot be right. 300 / 0.005% = 6,000,000 Are there 6 million priests in USA? Maybe you meant 0.5%?

Math has never been my strong suit in research, so, yeah, I'm wrong. I didn't move the decimal point correctly. Mea Culpa and thanks for keeping me straight.

Since many accusations are old, I wonder how many priests who sexually abuse are never caught?

I'd like to think damn few. And I mean every word of that.

 

[RobRoy]

One thing to note from the OP: it was the Catholic Church itself that published these numbers. They certainly are not sitting back and ignoring the issue: they have been tracking it, reporting on it, and trying to deal with it. It's that attitude I think that will keep it going.

But this attitude was mostly prompted from the outside in. By that I mean it was the laity finally fed up with the shuffling of priests and the seeming lack of concern on the part of the bishops and dioceses that led to outcry and public scandal.

 

[Denver]

But this attitude was mostly prompted from the outside in. By that I mean it was the laity finally fed up with the shuffling of priests and the seeming lack of concern on the part of the bishops and dioceses that led to outcry and public scandal.

Maybe I wasn't clear. I meant the publishing of the numbers in the OP regarding declining religious orders, not about the abuse scandal numbers.

 

[RobRoy]

Maybe I wasn't clear. I meant the publishing of the numbers in the OP regarding declining religious orders, not about the abuse scandal numbers.

Ooops, sorry. That's two for two today. Perhaps I should crawl back in bed!

 

[sackett]

Always glad to tune into Radio Station WCEO

Apparently when you do it, it's helpful fact-checking for the sake of accuracy. When I do it, it's "championing Mother Church". Thank you Cardinal Sackett....

Yeah, well you were the one who took me up on a little joke I once made about the wealth of the Church and vows of poverty.

So: Most Catholic priests aren't to be trusted farther than their bishops can throw them. Got it.

 

[six7s]

Math has never been my strong suit in research, so, yeah, I'm wrong. I didn't move the decimal point correctly. Mea Culpa and thanks for keeping me straight

Developing your numeracy skills will ward off teh gay? Wow!

I wonder... does that tie in with teh book saying "go forth and multiply"?

 

[ceo_esq]

So: Most Catholic priests aren't to be trusted farther than their bishops can throw them. Got it.

You're inferring this from ... what? The fact that most don't take the vows? Neither did you, presumably. Are you trustworthy?

 

[RobRoy]

Developing your numeracy skills will ward off teh gay? Wow!

It's worked for me all these years.

I wonder... does that tie in with teh book saying "go forth and multiply"?

Actually, isn't the quote "be a fruit and multiply", which is something of a contradiction.

 

[Polaris]

Per the title:

Don't let the pearly gates hit you on the ass.

 

[fuelair]

deleted

Wow!!!If only!!!!

 

[sackett]

You're inferring this from ... what? The fact that most don't take the vows? Neither did you, presumably. Are you trustworthy?

Am I trustworthy? I hope so; after all, I must answer to myself, not to a bishop; I can’t be absolved or indulged by another person; my conscience is my own burden, and can’t be lifted off me by some man with a miter and a ring.

Conversely, no one has promised me that he’ll be obedient or celibate. I feel no obligation to protect such people; my prestige isn’t involved in their trustworthiness, and if they step sideways my standing among my peers isn’t lessened.

I think, given human nature, that the rather feudal relationship between a priest and his bishop will incline the latter to protect the former. Consider it in Mafia-esque terms:

“Hey, Bish! You man been puttin’ moves onna altar-boys! ‘At’s notta nice! What, you can’ keep you boys in line? You can’ deliver on you own turf?”

Now what’s Bish likely to do? What’s his boy going to expect from him? A move to another parish, a letter or two lost in the files – that’s not much between master and man.

 

[ceo_esq]

Am I trustworthy? I hope so; after all, I must answer to myself, not to a bishop; I can’t be absolved or indulged by another person; my conscience is my own burden, and can’t be lifted off me by some man with a miter and a ring.

I'm not sure I understand the connection you're drawing between those things and your trustworthiness. In fact, what's the relevance of the distinction you're presumably trying to draw between yourself and a priest? A priest must answer to himself just like you do; he also has to answer to a bishop - just like you and I have other people and institutions we must answer to in various contexts. Moreover, a priest's conscience is presumably his own as much as ours are. His conscience isn't lifted simply by a mitre and a ring; according to what they believe, it requires contrition, confession and satisfaction - which doesn't seem much different from what I daresay most people believe ought to be prompted by a guilty conscience. (If there's a difference in that respect, it might be that the priest has an additional external duty to do so, that you and I don't have.)

Conversely, no one has promised me that he’ll be obedient or celibate. I feel no obligation to protect such people; my prestige isn’t involved in their trustworthiness, and if they step sideways my standing among my peers isn’t lessened.

Yet presumably there are people who do make explicit or implicit commitments to you in your line of work or in your life generally, people for whom - all things being equal - you feel inclined to look out, whose conduct might be seen to reflect on you, and so forth. Just a different context. Where are you going with this point? And how does this relate to the issue of clerical trustworthiness?

I think, given human nature, that the rather feudal relationship between a priest and his bishop will incline the latter to protect the former. Consider it in Mafia-esque terms:

“Hey, Bish! You man been puttin’ moves onna altar-boys! ‘At’s notta nice! What, you can’ keep you boys in line? You can’ deliver on you own turf?”

I'm not sure that's an accurate characterization of the relationship between a priest and his bishop; and of course the bishop has an independent set of duties to the altar boys too.

Now what’s Bish likely to do? What’s his boy going to expect from him? A move to another parish, a letter or two lost in the files – that’s not much between master and man.

By and large, while there is abundant evidence that this occurred in some dioceses with certain priests, there is little to suggest that it would be Bish's likely response in any era (and strikes me as highly improbable now). [ETA: Now, if you'd made Bish a public school superintendent, that might be a slightly different story ...]

How does this relate to the question of the untrustworthiness of priests? And is clerical sexual abuse even an appropriate context to make a general evaluation, given its rarity and the extreme unlikelihood that this would be an issue for any given priest?

 

[ceo_esq]

Quick history: The Benedictine vow, following the Rule of St. Benedict add the vow of chastity in the 6th century CE. In the 12th and 13th centuries, the Franciscans and the Domincans also add the vow of chastity. In the 16th century, the clerks regulary, such as the Jesuits, add the vow.

Wait a second. If I'm not mistaken, the centuries you say those orders added the vow of chastity are actually the centuries in which they were founded. So were the orders adding the vow, or was the Church simply adding orders? The history you've given suggests that religious orders had the vow from the beginning.