The Church Of Satan

[thesometimesaint]

Homo-eroticism is unrelated to child molestation. The vast majority of child molesters are heterosexuals.

[Robert F. Smith]

Homo-eroticism is unrelated to child molestation. The vast majority of child molesters are heterosexuals.

Sounds reasonable and very politically correct, but it is not true.  Within Roman Catholic clergy, it was specifically male clergy molesting young boys in over 80% of cases.  Engendering a homoerotic culture within RC seminaries worldwide was also a major problem, and caused a good many applicants to the priesthood to self-select for homosexual tendencies -- even though the priesthood is supposed to be celibate.

 

It has also been a constant feature in homosexual culture that adult men sought sex with minors.  Moreover, for both lesbians and gay men, virtually all were first introduced to homosexual sex by an adult.  Per capita molestation among homosexuals is far higher than among heterosexuals, and the rates of recidivism among molesters is so high that they must be put on sex offender registries.  That is also why Boy Scout troops must not be led by homosexuals, and I can name important cases in which such leaders were allowed and the molestations began.

[3DOP]

Hi Rory,

The LDS Church and other churches have been affected by the same molestation problem which has affected the Roman Catholic Church, even though the size of the RC Church has meant that it is far more well-known due to many more instances being reported publicly.  Then too, the extent of the problem has been described by the RC National Review Board appointed by the U. S. Catholic Bishops as the bishops' fault for allowing the “smoke of Satan” to enter the Church, and for allowing some seminaries to be taken over by “a homoerotic culture,” which led to a tidal wave of child molestation (fully 10% of priests graduating from seminary in 1970 were subsequently accused of molestation).

 

The most insightful criticisms were levelled by loyal RC priests and canon lawyers, e.g., Thomas Doyle, Richard Sipe, and Patrick Wall, Outline of a Canonical History of Clerical Sexual Abuse (Precept Press, 2004), which covers 1,700 years of abuse by priests, and was based on Vatican records.   Thomas Doyle (canon lawyer and Dominican priest) attributed the failures to “medieval and monarchial” governance of the Church (National Catholic Reporter online at http://www.ncrnews.org/abuse 2005), and members of the LDS hierarchy and its legal staff should by now have learned a great deal from the pain suffered within Roman Catholicism.

 

1,700 years of covers up of sexual abuse by pedophile priests would make me leave the Catholic Church. I tried to access your link and it didn't work. Anyway, I am as you might guess, disturbed at the idea of attributing the predator priest scandals of recent times to "medievalism" or "monarchialism". I would have thought that in medieval times, pedophile priests would have been dealt with swiftly, perhaps not in the same way as buggerers in the British Navy, but I had never see that period of history as being excessively tolerant of homosexual abuse of minors by priests or of adults by sailors. 

 

I can distance myself from the form of Catholicism in the 1970's that produced priests, who were 1 out of 10 accused of molestation. Wild numbers. It leaves one almost incredulous. But I need help  to remain a Catholic if there is evidence pointing to similar proportions of predatory Catholic priests and episcopal cover ups going back to the Council of Nicea. If that is now proven, it will not fail to shake my faith in the Roman Catholic Church. I will quit the church as soon as I discover that the abuse of the late 20th Century is only a mirror of similar abuse that goes back 17 centuries. I cannot distance myself from 1700 years of continual abuse of little boys by predatory priests. I cannot distance myself from 1700 years of cover up by popes and bishops of crimes that cry to heaven for vengeance.

 

Maybe you can provide another link? If not, I'll find the book from Precept Press. You say the book is written by a Dominican? He still calls himself Catholic while believing in 1700 years of sexual abuse of minors by predatory priests? I am very happily attached to the Catholic Church as many here have probably recognized, but my attachment would not survive if the claims that you say this Dominican priest makes are true. I don't know what I would do. I would be utterly confused. How would I reconcile miracles that seem to point to Rome with clear evidence that the Roman church has been hiding hideous secrets about her priests for 1700 years? I guess I would just forget about the miracles as hoaxes...I don't know though. They would be so hard to dismiss. At any rate, be assured that I will be very deeply troubled, if I should be convinced that this Dominican is correct. 

Edited October 16, 2015 by 3DOP

[mfbukowski]

From the same author, Doyle.

 

We Mormons have problems with history and so does everyone.  We need to mentally confront these issues and understand that the truth of our faiths is not dependent upon what human beings have done with it.

 

But not facing the history is another matter.

http://www.awrsipe.com/Lectures/2004-11-07-VOTF.html

 

And from Swipe, a formula for forgiveness

http://www.awrsipe.com/Lectures/2004-11-07-VOTF.html

Edited October 16, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

1,700 years of covers up of sexual abuse by pedophile priests would make me leave the Catholic Church. I tried to access your link and it didn't work. Anyway, I am as you might guess, disturbed at the idea of attributing the predator priest scandals of recent times to "medievalism" or "monarchialism". I would have thought that in medieval times, pedophile priests would have been dealt with swiftly, perhaps not in the same way as buggerers in the British Navy, but I had never see that period of history as being excessively tolerant of homosexual abuse of minors by priests or of adults by sailors. 

 

I can distance myself from the form of Catholicism in the 1970's that produced priests, who were 1 out of 10 accused of molestation. Wild numbers. It leaves one almost incredulous. But I need help  to remain a Catholic if there is evidence pointing to similar proportions of predatory Catholic priests and episcopal cover ups going back to the Council of Nicea. If that is now proven, it will not fail to shake my faith in the Roman Catholic Church. I will quit the church as soon as I discover that the abuse of the late 20th Century is only a mirror of similar abuse that goes back 17 centuries. I cannot distance myself from 1700 years of continual abuse of little boys by predatory priests. I cannot distance myself from 1700 years of cover up by popes and bishops of crimes that cry to heaven for vengeance.

 

Maybe you can provide another link? If not, I'll find the book from Precept Press. You say the book is written by a Dominican? He still calls himself Catholic while believing in 1700 years of sexual abuse of minors by predatory priests? I am very happily attached to the Catholic Church as many here have probably recognized, but my attachment would not survive if the claims that you say this Dominican priest makes are true. I don't know what I would do. I would be utterly confused. How would I reconcile miracles that seem to point to Rome with clear evidence that the Roman church has been hiding hideous secrets about her priests for 1700 years? I guess I would just forget about the miracles as hoaxes...I don't know though. They would be so hard to dismiss. At any rate, be assured that I will be very deeply troubled, if I should be convinced that this Dominican is correct. 

Sorry, the Abuse Tracker system of the Bishops was moved to another location in intervening years.  The phrase used by Father Doyle (with the Papal Nunciature in Wash DC then), "medieval and monarchial," was focused on outdated modes of governance in the RC Church which exacerbated the problem.  For the quote,  now see Rita Ciolli, Newsday, Mar 20, 2005, online at http://www.johnm.multiline.com.au/ethics/ethcont110.htm .

 

You shouldn't be too concerned with past misdeeds.  That was par for the course then, and we haven't improved much in the interim.  The same applies to human frailties among leaders within the Mormon Church.  The vast majority of clergy are generally good, sincere, well-intentioned people.  Don't give up the ship, Rory -- the Gospel Ship.  That's what really matters, and you are such an excellent exponent of it.

[Tacenda]

Sorry, the Abuse Tracker system of the Bishops was moved to another location in intervening years. The phrase used by Father Doyle (with the Papal Nunciature in Wash DC then), "medieval and monarchial," was focused on outdated modes of governance in the RC Church which exacerbated the problem. For the quote, now see Rita Ciolli, Newsday, Mar 20, 2005, online at http://www.johnm.multiline.com.au/ethics/ethcont110.htm .

You shouldn't be too concerned with past misdeeds. That was par for the course then, and we haven't improved much in the interim. The same applies to human frailties among leaders within the Mormon Church. The vast majority of clergy are generally good, sincere, well-intentioned people. Don't give up the ship, Rory -- the Gospel Ship. That's what really matters, and you are such an excellent exponent of it.

So true..

[3DOP]

Sorry, the Abuse Tracker system of the Bishops was moved to another location in intervening years.  The phrase used by Father Doyle (with the Papal Nunciature in Wash DC then), "medieval and monarchial," was focused on outdated modes of governance in the RC Church which exacerbated the problem.  For the quote,  now see Rita Ciolli, Newsday, Mar 20, 2005, online at http://www.johnm.multiline.com.au/ethics/ethcont110.htm .

 

You shouldn't be too concerned with past misdeeds.  That was par for the course then, and we haven't improved much in the interim.  The same applies to human frailties among leaders within the Mormon Church.  The vast majority of clergy are generally good, sincere, well-intentioned people.  Don't give up the ship, Rory -- the Gospel Ship.  That's what really matters, and you are such an excellent exponent of it.

 

I appreciate the encouragement Robert. But I said the truth. I am not Catholic by accident.  I have looked into fantastic claims such as those Bobbieaware has seen this week, and have concluded that they are false. But they are serious claims. They would be "dealbreakers". If I believed the Catholic Church has a long history of murder and oppression, I would leave. If I believed in the sexual abuse of minors and a cover up that has lasted for 17 centuries by Latin Rite priests, I could not be a Roman Catholic anymore. If in 1970, Catholic seminaries were doing what they had done for 1700 years, it would be a dealbreaker. I would tell my grown and married children about it. I would tell their in-laws. I would tell my pastor and the people in my little parish. I would buy a ticket for our unmarried son who is teaching in a Catholic school in the Phillippines and tell him to get back home immediately. I would gently try to suggest to our unmarried daughter that she break off her engagement with a Roman Catholic and the wedding scheduled for next June in a Roman Catholic church. I would stop lighting candles for more priestly vocations. It would be impossible to practice my Catholic faith.

 

I fear that I have alarmed some of you. But think about it. Of course I could not stay. I don't mind emphasizing that it is no small thing to accuse dead Catholic prelates and priests of being directly guilty or indirectly cooperating with heinous crimes against humanity, whether it be murders or statutory rape. Such hideous behavior on a large scale for century after century would be completely incompatible with the Church Christ founded. By their fruits you shall know them. That said, I am relatively confident that any such new charges I have never heard until now, are like the Black Legend, wildly exaggerated or even completely false. I find it very suspicious that someone could believe such a thing, and remain a Roman Catholic, much less a Roman Catholic priest. That part doesn't add up at all.

 

Does it make sense to you, Robert, that finally, in the 21st Century, after 1700 years of raping and cover up, Catholic priests have now stopped and therefore Fr. Doyle is happy to be a priest with such a history behind him?

 

Rory

Edited October 17, 2015 by 3DOP

[MiserereNobis]

Don't give up the ship, Rory -- the Gospel Ship.  That's what really matters, and you are such an excellent exponent of it.

 

The Barque of Peter, Rory.  The gates of hell shall not prevail against Her

 

(My Mormon friends, I so appreciate how you have approached this topic -- thank you)

[3DOP]

I appreciate the encouragement Robert. But I said the truth. I am not Catholic by accident.  I have looked into fantastic claims such as those Bobbieaware has seen this week, and have concluded that they are false. But they are serious claims. They would be "dealbreakers". If I believed the Catholic Church has a long history of murder and oppression, I would leave. If I believed in the sexual abuse of minors and a cover up that has lasted for 17 centuries by Latin Rite priests, I could not be a Roman Catholic anymore. If in 1970, Catholic seminaries were doing what they had done for 1700 years, it would be a dealbreaker. I would tell my grown and married children about it. I would tell their in-laws. I would tell my pastor and the people in my little parish. I would buy a ticket for our unmarried son who is teaching in a Catholic school in the Phillippines and tell him to get back home immediately. I would gently try to suggest to our unmarried daughter that she break off her engagement with a Roman Catholic and the wedding scheduled for next June in a Roman Catholic church. I would stop lighting candles for more priestly vocations. It would be impossible to practice my Catholic faith.

 

I fear that I have alarmed some of you. But think about it. Of course I could not stay. I don't mind emphasizing that it is no small thing to accuse dead Catholic prelates and priests of being directly guilty or indirectly cooperating with heinous crimes against humanity, whether it be murders or statutory rape. Such hideous behavior on a large scale for century after century would be completely incompatible with the Church Christ founded. By their fruits you shall know them. That said, I am relatively confident that any such new charges I have never heard until now, are like the Black Legend, wildly exaggerated or even completely false. I find it very suspicious that someone could believe such a thing, and remain a Roman Catholic, much less a Roman Catholic priest. That part doesn't add up at all.

 

Does it make sense to you, Robert, that finally, in the 21st Century, after 1700 years of raping and cover up, Catholic priests have now stopped and therefore Fr. Doyle is happy to be a priest with such a history behind him?

 

Rory

 

As I sometimes do, I waxed overly dramatic in the post I have quoted. A reason to sometimes take me with the proverbial "grain of salt". While I essentially hold to what I said, I need not have talked about how it basically would rip up the fabric of my life to believe Fr. Doyle. Of course there have probably been abuse cases all through history, and there are records of it. But presumably the late 20th Century was unique. I don't suppose Robert or Fr. Doyle were attempting to say that the situation of the Roman Catholic seminaries in the 1970's has a long and equally sordid history going back to Nicea. I was overly defensive and ran off on a probable tangent before investigating what was meant by the "1700 years".

 

I am glad to be able to offer my apologies before someone pointed it out. So...there it is...Sorry about that, to Robert especially, and to all who have followed the discussion.

 

R

Edited October 17, 2015 by 3DOP

[Tacenda]

As I sometimes do, I waxed overly dramatic in the post I have quoted. A reason to sometimes take me with the proverbial "grain of salt". While I essentially hold to what I said, I need not have talked about how it basically would rip up the fabric of my life to believe Fr. Doyle. Of course there have probably been abuse cases all through history, and there are records of it. But presumably the late 20th Century was unique. I don't suppose Robert or Fr. Doyle were attempting to say that the situation of the Roman Catholic seminaries in the 1970's has a long and equally sordid history going back to Nicea. I was overly defensive and ran off on a probable tangent before investigating what was meant by the "1700 years".

 

I am glad to be able to offer my apologies before someone pointed it out. So...there it is...Sorry about that, to Robert especially, and to all who have followed the discussion.

 

R

I get what you were saying.  And it's my hope that you have an inkling of what it feels like for LDS that have a faith crisis after learning about something in history that wasn't taught. 

[saemo]

1,700 years of covers up of sexual abuse by pedophile priests would make me leave the Catholic Church. I tried to access your link and it didn't work. Anyway, I am as you might guess, disturbed at the idea of attributing the predator priest scandals of recent times to "medievalism" or "monarchialism". I would have thought that in medieval times, pedophile priests would have been dealt with swiftly, perhaps not in the same way as buggerers in the British Navy, but I had never see that period of history as being excessively tolerant of homosexual abuse of minors by priests or of adults by sailors. 

 

I can distance myself from the form of Catholicism in the 1970's that produced priests, who were 1 out of 10 accused of molestation. Wild numbers. It leaves one almost incredulous. But I need help  to remain a Catholic if there is evidence pointing to similar proportions of predatory Catholic priests and episcopal cover ups going back to the Council of Nicea. If that is now proven, it will not fail to shake my faith in the Roman Catholic Church. I will quit the church as soon as I discover that the abuse of the late 20th Century is only a mirror of similar abuse that goes back 17 centuries. I cannot distance myself from 1700 years of continual abuse of little boys by predatory priests. I cannot distance myself from 1700 years of cover up by popes and bishops of crimes that cry to heaven for vengeance.

 

Maybe you can provide another link? If not, I'll find the book from Precept Press. You say the book is written by a Dominican? He still calls himself Catholic while believing in 1700 years of sexual abuse of minors by predatory priests? I am very happily attached to the Catholic Church as many here have probably recognized, but my attachment would not survive if the claims that you say this Dominican priest makes are true. I don't know what I would do. I would be utterly confused. How would I reconcile miracles that seem to point to Rome with clear evidence that the Roman church has been hiding hideous secrets about her priests for 1700 years? I guess I would just forget about the miracles as hoaxes...I don't know though. They would be so hard to dismiss. At any rate, be assured that I will be very deeply troubled, if I should be convinced that this Dominican is correct.

It was written be a priest and two former monks. Church defenders, pointing out that the three authors are allied with or paid by lawyers representing molestation plaintiffs, charge that the report is a ploy to strengthen their hand in court.

[saemo]

I get what you were saying. And it's my hope that you have an inkling of what it feels like for LDS that have a faith crisis after learning about something in history that wasn't taught.

For myself, the shock at the Bad of Mormon history, was because I was taught and had this idea that the LDS Church was led by peopie who were different than ordinary people, paricularly Joseph Smith. Something special and above everyone else and all churches. The huge let down for me, was discovering this was plainly not true. To further the unraveling of myself, Mormonism continues to defend, what in my core I find to be immoral. If it were just history, I could probably just learn to deal with it.

In Catholicism, everyone understands the leaders of the Church are just ordinary people, each with different gifts, as St. Paul describes. None without sin. The Church itself, protected by the Holy Spirit from those who would seek to change doctrine, even when their personal actions are immoral and highly questionable. If prominent Catholic leaders were expounding on the virtues of sexual abuse, and how we know it was something God wanted, we just don't know why? I'd be the fastest runner outta here.

Edited October 18, 2015 by saemo

[hagoth7]

...To further the unraveling of myself, Mormonism continues to defend, what in my core I find to be immoral. If it were just history, I could probably just learn to deal with it....

If you don't mind me asking, what do you find immoral? (Feel free to launch a separate thread if the discussion might get lost in the OP of this one.)

[saemo]

If you don't mind me asking, what do you find immoral? (Feel free to launch a separate thread if the discussion might get lost in the OP of this one.)

It's been hashed and rehashed to death.

[mfbukowski]

As I sometimes do, I waxed overly dramatic in the post I have quoted. A reason to sometimes take me with the proverbial "grain of salt". While I essentially hold to what I said, I need not have talked about how it basically would rip up the fabric of my life to believe Fr. Doyle. Of course there have probably been abuse cases all through history, and there are records of it. But presumably the late 20th Century was unique. I don't suppose Robert or Fr. Doyle were attempting to say that the situation of the Roman Catholic seminaries in the 1970's has a long and equally sordid history going back to Nicea. I was overly defensive and ran off on a probable tangent before investigating what was meant by the "1700 years".

 

I am glad to be able to offer my apologies before someone pointed it out. So...there it is...Sorry about that, to Robert especially, and to all who have followed the discussion.

 

R

You cannot ever allow the words of men to hurt your faith when God himself has told you otherwise.

[mfbukowski]

For me, evidence of human misbehavior does not condemn a church, but it strikes me as odd that it would matter if the evidence came from before or after 1970

[3DOP]

For me, evidence of human misbehavior does not condemn a church, but it strikes me as odd that it would matter if the evidence came from before or after 1970

 

It seems to me like seventeen centuries of misbehavior would be about fifty times worse than one third of a century. It seems more difficult to defend bad behavior that was arrested and corrected only after 17 centuries had passed, as against something that was only a brief phenomenon chronologically speaking. Seventeen centuries of holiness followed by a half a lifetime of sordid behavior vs. seventeen centuries of sordid behavior followed by...ten or fifteen years of whatever you want to say the priests are like now? 1969, 1966, 1945, 1899, even...maybe 1899. I doubt if I could defend that. But 325 AD? I wouldn't defend a church that had been training filthy priests for 85% of its existence. The predatory priests ordained from 1970-2000 can be attributed from my perspective to the spirit of Vatican II, which isn't limited to clergy sexual abuse among its ways of murdering souls. (See what they are trying to do with the anti-family "Synod on the Family")

[mfbukowski]

It seems to me like seventeen centuries of misbehavior would be about fifty times worse than one third of a century. It seems more difficult to defend bad behavior that was arrested and corrected only after 17 centuries had passed, as against something that was only a brief phenomenon chronologically speaking. Seventeen centuries of holiness followed by a half a lifetime of sordid behavior vs. seventeen centuries of sordid behavior followed by...ten or fifteen years of whatever you want to say the priests are like now? 1969, 1966, 1945, 1899, even...maybe 1899. I doubt if I could defend that. But 325 AD? I wouldn't defend a church that had been training filthy priests for 85% of its existence. The predatory priests ordained from 1970-2000 can be attributed from my perspective to the spirit of Vatican II, which isn't limited to clergy sexual abuse among its ways of murdering souls. (See what they are trying to do with the anti-family "Synod on the Family")

Honestly I ascribe the problem to celibacy. To me that is a policy of the church which is wrong, analogous to our policy of not allowing certain ethnic groups to receive the priesthood.

The length of time the erroneous practice was/is in operation is irrelevant. The Catholic church, I think could change the policy on celibacy virtually overnight.

I certainly do not judge Catholics or Catholicism based on errant priests no matter how long it has been going on. For me the issue is doing what needs to be done to stop it.

Yes, one judges a path by its fruits but those fruits cannot be judged by few- or many- who do not actually travel the path.

[3DOP]

Honestly I ascribe the problem to celibacy. To me that is a policy of the church which is wrong, analogous to our policy of not allowing certain ethnic groups to receive the priesthood.

The length of time the erroneous practice was/is in operation is irrelevant. The Catholic church, I think could change the policy on celibacy virtually overnight.

I certainly do not judge Catholics or Catholicism based on errant priests no matter how long it has been going on. For me the issue is doing what needs to be done to stop it.

Yes, one judges a path by its fruits but those fruits cannot be judged by few- or many- who do not actually travel the path.

 

Marriage is one of the seven Sacraments. Consecrated celibacy is traditionally undertaken only with great care and scrutiny by both spiritual directors and the candidate. If one wants to marry, nobody is forced to be a priest or nun or a religious brother.

 

It sounds like you think these child predators are normal guys who would make great husbands? Would you want your daughter to be married to a man who would be a predator of little boys if marriage was in some way forbidden? I don't want him for a priest. I don't want him for a son-in-law either. Such a person is neither fit for Holy Orders nor for Holy Matrimony.

Edited October 19, 2015 by 3DOP

[mfbukowski]

Marriage is one of the seven Sacraments. Consecrated celibacy is traditionally undertaken only with great care and scrutiny by both spiritual directors and the candidate. If one wants to marry, nobody is forced to be a priest or nun or a religious brother.

 

It sounds like you think these child predators are normal guys who would make great husbands? Would you want your daughter to be married to a man who would be a predator of little boys if marriage was in some way forbidden? I don't want him for a priest. I don't want him for a son-in-law either. Such a person is neither fit for Holy Orders nor for Holy Matrimony.

No I do not think that. Obviously this is an issue difficult to discuss.

Thanks for responding at all.

If I was a Catholic at this time, and the situation was serious to me (I don't think it would be serious to me as I see it now, but who knows) I would probably consider becoming Orthodox since they have valid orders and certainly a similar historical chain back to Christ.

I admire the Orthodox tradition a lot and think it is quite close to Mormonism from what I have seen, closer perhaps that the Roman church

Edited October 19, 2015 by mfbukowski

[3DOP]

No I do not think that. Obviously this is an issue difficult to discuss.

Thanks for responding at all.

If I was a Catholic at this time, and the situation was serious to me (I don't think it would be serious to me as I see it now, but who knows) I would probably consider becoming Orthodox since they have valid orders and certainly a similar historical chain back to Christ.

I admire the Orthodox tradition a lot and think it is quite close to Mormonism from what I have seen, closer perhaps that the Roman church

You wrote regarding predatory Catholic priests: "Honestly I ascribe the problem to celibacy. To me that is a policy of the church which is wrong, analogous to our policy of not allowing certain ethnic groups to receive the priesthood."

 

It seems like you were suggesting that these priests would be okay if only they could be married to grown women. I am suggesting they would not be okay in any scenario imaginable. If in some weird world, I was forbidden to have had a wife, my thoughts would have gone to something like...having a wife? These people are/were maladjusted, even if you accept homosexuality as a moral lifestyle, and for the record, I don't. Consecrated celibacy can be discussed on other grounds, but I cannot be convinced that if only these child predators could have been married to adult women, they would have been okay.

 

I fail to see any parallel between LDS denying the priesthood to Negroes, and predatory Catholic priests. If inability for priests to marry (even though the priesthood is optional), results in deciding to go after little boys what happened to blacks being denied the priesthood? Did black Mormons who were called by God to be priests, but denied by the hierarchy somehow pervert the priestly functions in the way these predator priests while being supposedly denied marriage perverted the marriage act? I just don't follow your line of thinking at all.

 

And also for the record, in over ten years of regular participation here, you will never find anything from me where I criticise the so-called "priesthood ban". I have noted a shift in this short time where Mormons who once defended their church on the grounds of revelation, now say it was just simple bigotry. I don't even believe that. Anyway, it was generous in a way for you to offer that Mormons made a mistake and fixed it. But I am not going to deny the value of consecrated celibacy or the Scriptures that emphasize it as a gift not given to all. Consecrated celibacy is no mistake. The mistake was in the formation and in the candidates who were accepted at Roman Catholic seminaries in the immediate post Vatican II era.

 

As for the Orthodox? They may have more married priests. We have some you know. Roman Catholics don't think it is an absolute impediment to Holy Orders. But I thought Orthodoxy shares our respect for consecrated celibacy. Besides the practical aspect of pastors being distracted with family, celibacy is regarded as a great sacrifice, a very fragrant and noble love offering to God. Sacrifice is the essence of all priestly activity. Priests get called at every hour of the day and night, and who would want to have to explain to the wife that her husband is needed. A married priest is going to be torn between two worlds and not able to do justice to either. I could be wrong about modern Orthodoxy. When we were one, for the first ten centuries or so, I know they agreed with us. I would let Spammer tell us what modern Orthodoxy thinks. Anyway I would be pretty surprised to learn that they think marriage is the best vocation. Do not bishops need to be celibate? Maybe not. I thought they were a lot closer to us than you on this question.

 

3DOP

Edited October 19, 2015 by 3DOP

[Robert F. Smith]

For myself, the shock at the Bad of Mormon history, was because I was taught and had this idea that the LDS Church was led by peopie who were different than ordinary people, paricularly Joseph Smith. Something special and above everyone else and all churches. The huge let down for me, was discovering this was plainly not true. To further the unraveling of myself, Mormonism continues to defend, what in my core I find to be immoral. If it were just history, I could probably just learn to deal with it.

In Catholicism, everyone understands the leaders of the Church are just ordinary people, each with different gifts, as St. Paul describes. None without sin. The Church itself, protected by the Holy Spirit from those who would seek to change doctrine, even when their personal actions are immoral and highly questionable. If prominent Catholic leaders were expounding on the virtues of sexual abuse, and how we know it was something God wanted, we just don't know why? I'd be the fastest runner outta here.

Ah, but the folklore of infallibility is as false for the Mormons as it is for Roman Cathoiics -- and any other hoity toity organizational claims.  It is easy for someone from either side to claim that "the grass is greener" in their newfound faith, but it is really just more of the same need for the false claimants of infallibility to eat crow, lots of crow . . . 

[saemo]

Ah, but the folklore of infallibility is as false for the Mormons as it is for Roman Cathoiics -- and any other hoity toity organizational claims. It is easy for someone from either side to claim that "the grass is greener" in their newfound faith, but it is really just more of the same need for the false claimants of infallibility to eat crow, lots of crow . . .

I wonder how long I need to be a Catholic, to not be new found?

I've found no evidence given by Mormons of a "great apostasy". I see it as a matter of faith, on both sides. One having faith in the failure of Christ's Church, the other that Christ's Church cannot fail.

Edited October 19, 2015 by saemo

[Robert F. Smith]

..............................................................................

 ...............I am not going to deny the value of consecrated celibacy or the Scriptures that emphasize it as a gift not given to all. Consecrated celibacy is no mistake. The mistake was in the formation and in the candidates who were accepted at Roman Catholic seminaries in the immediate post Vatican II era.

 

As for the Orthodox? They may have more married priests. We have some you know. Roman Catholics don't think it is an absolute impediment to Holy Orders. But I thought Orthodoxy shares our respect for consecrated celibacy. Besides the practical aspect of pastors being distracted with family, celibacy is regarded as a great sacrifice, a very fragrant and noble love offering to God. Sacrifice is the essence of all priestly activity. Priests get called at every hour of the day and night, and who would want to have to explain to the wife that her husband is needed. A married priest is going to be torn between two worlds and not able to do justice to either. I could be wrong about modern Orthodoxy. When we were one, for the first ten centuries or so, I know they agreed with us. I would let Spammer tell us what modern Orthodoxy thinks. Anyway I would be pretty surprised to learn that they think marriage is the best vocation. Do not bishops need to be celibate? Maybe not. I thought they were a lot closer to us than you on this question.

 

3DOP

I think that you are correct, Rory, in that there are some very august traditions of celibacy which do not accept homosexuality.  The Buddhist tradition for example.  On the other hand, we are also confronted by the very long and powerful Jewish tradition of marriage for all priests and rabbis, which does not in any way seem to prevent great accomplishments in religious and intellectual areas.

 

The central problem with being "special," and having great power in a religious community is suggested by Lord Acton on the corruptibility of those who have power, something which Joseph Smith also spoke to in saying that "We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion" (D&C 121:39).

[mfbukowski]

You wrote regarding predatory Catholic priests: "Honestly I ascribe the problem to celibacy. To me that is a policy of the church which is wrong, analogous to our policy of not allowing certain ethnic groups to receive the priesthood."

 

It seems like you were suggesting that these priests would be okay if only they could be married to grown women. I am suggesting they would not be okay in any scenario imaginable. If in some weird world, I was forbidden to have had a wife, my thoughts would have gone to something like...having a wife? These people are/were maladjusted, even if you accept homosexuality as a moral lifestyle, and for the record, I don't. Consecrated celibacy can be discussed on other grounds, but I cannot be convinced that if only these child predators could have been married to adult women, they would have been okay.

 

I fail to see any parallel between LDS denying the priesthood to Negroes, and predatory Catholic priests. If inability for priests to marry (even though the priesthood is optional), results in deciding to go after little boys what happened to blacks being denied the priesthood? Did black Mormons who were called by God to be priests, but denied by the hierarchy somehow pervert the priestly functions in the way these predator priests while being supposedly denied marriage perverted the marriage act? I just don't follow your line of thinking at all.

 

And also for the record, in over ten years of regular participation here, you will never find anything from me where I criticise the so-called "priesthood ban". I have noted a shift in this short time where Mormons who once defended their church on the grounds of revelation, now say it was just simple bigotry. I don't even believe that. Anyway, it was generous in a way for you to offer that Mormons made a mistake and fixed it. But I am not going to deny the value of consecrated celibacy or the Scriptures that emphasize it as a gift not given to all. Consecrated celibacy is no mistake. The mistake was in the formation and in the candidates who were accepted at Roman Catholic seminaries in the immediate post Vatican II era.

 

As for the Orthodox? They may have more married priests. We have some you know. Roman Catholics don't think it is an absolute impediment to Holy Orders. But I thought Orthodoxy shares our respect for consecrated celibacy. Besides the practical aspect of pastors being distracted with family, celibacy is regarded as a great sacrifice, a very fragrant and noble love offering to God. Sacrifice is the essence of all priestly activity. Priests get called at every hour of the day and night, and who would want to have to explain to the wife that her husband is needed. A married priest is going to be torn between two worlds and not able to do justice to either. I could be wrong about modern Orthodoxy. When we were one, for the first ten centuries or so, I know they agreed with us. I would let Spammer tell us what modern Orthodoxy thinks. Anyway I would be pretty surprised to learn that they think marriage is the best vocation. Do not bishops need to be celibate? Maybe not. I thought they were a lot closer to us than you on this question.

 

3DOP

Obviously I said something again which offended you. I apologize that was not my intention. It has never been my intention Rory.