Inequality before the law
As with homogamy, one of the real purposes behind eliminating the statute of limitations for child abuse has nothing to do with the purported ones, as it is intended to specifically target and damage the Church.
It would appear this is because the state governments don't want to be held financially responsible for the actions of their employees, and while they can often get away with excusing criminal behavior under the guise of it being committed in the exercise of the state employee's duties, it's not presently credible to claim that anyone's occupational duties require the commission of sexual abuse. So, the Church is expected to pay for the misdeeds of its priests, but the state intends to exempt itself from paying for the misdeeds of its teachers and other employees.
The potential problem in this is that if the state governments are permitted to get away with this two-tiered law concerning past crimes, there is no reason they cannot extend it to cover present ones as well. After all, the logic is identical, as exempting teachers and state employees from responsibility for the sexual abuse of children would also reduce the financial liability of the state and local governments.
While the first criminal trial of a Roman Catholic church official accused of covering up child sexual abuse has drawn national attention to Philadelphia, the church has been quietly engaged in equally consequential battles over abuse, not in courtrooms but in state legislatures around the country.Now, I don't have any problem with making it easier for genuine victims of child abuse to confront those who victimized them and receive reparations, but it is reprehensible to do so on the basis of the employer of the criminally culpable individual. This is a gross violation of the increasingly nonexistent concept of equality before the law; why should teachers and government employees be provided a free pass on molesting children?
The fights concern proposals to loosen statutes of limitations, which impose deadlines on when victims can bring civil suits or prosecutors can press charges. These time limits, set state by state, have held down the number of criminal prosecutions and civil lawsuits against all kinds of people accused of child abuse — not just clergy members, but also teachers, youth counselors and family members accused of incest.
Victims and their advocates in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and New York are pushing legislators to lengthen the limits or abolish them altogether, and to open temporary “windows” during which victims can file lawsuits no matter how long after the alleged abuse occurred....
In New York, the Catholic bishops said they would support a modest increase in the age of victims in criminal or civil cases, to 28. But their lobbying, along with that of ultra-Orthodox Jewish leaders, has so far halted proposals that would allow a one-year window for civil suits for abuses from the past. The bishops say the provision unfairly targets the church because public schools, the site of much abuse, and municipalities have fought successfully to be exempted.
It would appear this is because the state governments don't want to be held financially responsible for the actions of their employees, and while they can often get away with excusing criminal behavior under the guise of it being committed in the exercise of the state employee's duties, it's not presently credible to claim that anyone's occupational duties require the commission of sexual abuse. So, the Church is expected to pay for the misdeeds of its priests, but the state intends to exempt itself from paying for the misdeeds of its teachers and other employees.
The potential problem in this is that if the state governments are permitted to get away with this two-tiered law concerning past crimes, there is no reason they cannot extend it to cover present ones as well. After all, the logic is identical, as exempting teachers and state employees from responsibility for the sexual abuse of children would also reduce the financial liability of the state and local governments.
Labels: law
102 Comments:
But Vox! The government is broke.
Oh right! They have the FED.
My bad.
Congress routinely exempts itself from laws which they pass to regulate us benighted peons. This is not something to be lamented so much as to be fixed - though I confess I know not how. No, that is not true. I know how to fix it, but it won't be pretty. The real question is, do we have the stomach to do what is necessary?
I agree with your post that it is highly unfair for the governments to require from the churches what they refuse to do, but if the Catholic Church would just do two things they would find lawsuits limited:
1.) Stop with the BS of celibacy and let the priests get married. That would alleviate the vast majority of abuse cases, as well as give the priests more relevancy in marriage counseling to prevent divorce. That's as bad as childless social workers trying to impose child-rearing regulations on parents. They cannot be successful if they don't have the experience to back up the teachings.
2.) Police themselves: if they would spend as much money to investigate accusations from children with the will to prosecute the offenders as they do in fighting legislation that would essentially bankrupt the church, they would be held in much higher esteem and actually show the type of caring that the clergy are expected to have.
I'm sure there is more they should do, but if they would just do these two things, these types of lawsuits would all but vanish. Now, if we can just get law enforcement to police themselves... ahh, one thing at a time, I suppose.
"1.) Stop with the BS of celibacy and let the priests get married. That would alleviate the vast majority of abuse cases..." - Greatheart
Are you actually implying a lack of sex turns people into child-molesters?
Do you have any evidence to back this up? I know some married guys that I should probably keep an eye on...
Maybe the pervs that are priests are there because they found a place to infiltrate and thrive, whilst having a target rich environment, as opposed to the job itself causing their actions.
why should teachers and government employees be provided a free pass on molesting children?
They shouldn't be, of course.
As for the question of why they are or will be given a free pass, a large part of the answer is of course, powerful and privileged unions.
The drive for procreation is in the men. Women wanting marriage is more for status than sex. Women can be celibate far easier than men. Celibacy is a rare gift in men. Men are the hunters. Not just for sustenance but also for sex. Far more men become stalkers of women than women of men, and if you'll notice women stalkers have different reasons for their behavior than men do. Far more men rape women than vice versa because the drive (and control, if you will) rests in the men.
A lack of sex may not "turn people" into molesters, but the prevention of healthy sex does. Celibacy is not a natural thing. Don't delude yourself into thinking it is. God didn't make Adam and Eve, then Steve. He made them male and female. That's a plan, an example for us to follow.
What you say is about finding a place to thrive is a good point. The majority of people molesting children, when interviewed, usually relate abuse when they were children. How many of these priests were abused as altar boys, I wonder? It's a nasty existence. But the situation is exacerbated by "the job" itself in preventing a natural, healthy urge to merge (for lack of a better way to put it).
My evidence, I'm afraid, is just personal observations. I've been able to observe people in many different environments and while there are always exeptions to the rule, the behavior is consistent. You're also right about some married guys, but for different reasons.
Sorry I'm so long-winded, but I stand on what I said. Celibacy as a church policy is crap. Pure, unadulterated crap.
Greatheart -
If memory serves, it was reported by the Washington Times in 2004 that from 1950 until that point, just over 80% of child abuse in the RCC had been committed by homosexual men admitted into the clergy. Therefore, I'd imagine that a significant percentage of these lawsuits and related issues could likely be prevented by excising poufter priests from the church body where they should have never been in the first place. Less compromise, less need for policing. However, pointing out the correlation between pedophilia and homosexuality will result in severe shrieking from the Left, so solutions will be sought somewhere, anywhere, else.
The safety of children has been weighed against the delicate sensibilities of the homosexual community, and have been found wanting.
Of course this double standard should be properly legislated, otherwise it might engender contempt for the law, and then where would we be?
"1.) Stop with the BS of celibacy and let the priests get married. That would alleviate the vast majority of abuse cases, as well as give the priests more relevancy in marriage counseling to prevent divorce. That's as bad as childless social workers trying to impose child-rearing regulations on parents. They cannot be successful if they don't have the experience to back up the teachings."
Does this win the PC blinders award? Man-boy love is a homosexual variety; a beefy American broad isn't going to satisfy the particular homosexual male desire for beautiful little boys.
You've internalized the PC idea that - parents keep their heterosexual away from little girls because heterosexual men molest little girls, but same-sex pederasty is some black swan event that just randomly happens like a bolt from blue sky -- totally inexplicable and just a random chance that so many of those molesters happen to be gay.
It would be great if people didn't insist on clinging to ideas that run counter to what is readily observable. Somebody will shout "Inductive reasoning!" and then mention a chicken that eventually gets its head cut off.
" Therefore, I'd imagine that a significant percentage of these lawsuits and related issues could likely be prevented by excising poufter priests from the church body where they should have never been in the first place."
This is the secret. If we're told that one of the signs of life in unrepentant sin without grace is using the reproductive organs for things counter to their natural designed function (not inclination, the word is function), then by putting homosexuals in the clergy the RCC and all the degenerate protestants that do the same are enshrining an unrepentant sinner in a pastoral seat and will be judged harshly when the accounting comes due.
Strange Aeons, "...I'd imagine that a significant percentage of these lawsuits and related issues could likely be prevented by excising poufter priests from the church body where they should have never been in the first place."
Why can't the RCC take a stand against the homosexual lobby like they to do with abortion? One is just as egregious as the other.
You can bet that these state lawmakers are also going to attempt to make it an open jurisdiction, where anyone ever wronged by an entity with any real estate within its boundaries -- even if the wronging occurred outside the state -- can have standing to sue, and if there are tort limits or loser-pays laws, those are going to be removed as a special case.
Most of the sexual abuse was by homosexual priests of post-pubescent boys. It wasn't pedophilia, they weren't interested in little boys, they were going after very young men as they have throughout history. The Church has rotten elements, but it's started sawing them off. Pope Benedict started weeding out the homosexuals and now he's going after the feminist "nuns." It seems like the American Catholic leadership has woken up with Obama, but who knows. There are some very courageous leaders, but have to wait to see if they fold up again as soon as a Republican wins.
How about this... Pass laws that would change revenge of molesting a persons children from murder to justifiable homocide.
The hell with left and right political agendas. If someone who gets tempted to have sex with a child knows the parents of said child might come and literally kill them and no one will stop them nor punish them, well perhaps they might think it isn't a good idea.
Damn, sexual perverts just turn my anger button. Especially pedophiles. Someone please tell me why these particular perverts aren't executed? Even convicts can't stand these people. Example: How long do child molesters live in general prision population?
I also detest anyone who sympathizes with these degenerates.
"Poor thing can't help what God made attractive to him" I have actually heard people say this! I almost puked on that person I was so damned mad.
"Why can't the RCC take a stand against the homosexual lobby like they to do with abortion? One is just as egregious as the other.
I don't pretend to understand by what means an individual or an organization finds a comfortable spot on the slippery slope of moral compromise, all I know is that I typically find myself on the business end of accusatory fingers if I stand above or below said spot on said slope.
Mr. Green Man, I'm not sure I follow your reasoning (actually it don't make a lick of sense to me), but I'll try to respond as I can, then my shift is up I don't have a computer at home, so you'll just to go on without me after this...lol.
Pederasty is as old as society. It's a nasty state of mind that equates boys with women. Yes, it's as common as heterosexual abuse. And yes, it will be judged harshly at the appropriate time, and yes, those in authority will be judge most harshly, and yes, it's not endemic to the RCC.
But all that doesn't change my original point, which is let the priests marry. That will change the dynamic of the discussion. Those that practice homosexuality will be discovered more readily, and give the priesthood more legitimacy as they counsel the congregants. But, the church must also practice policing the priests more intently, because the priest's behavior is what gives the RCC black eyes in the eyes of the unsaved (besides other factors better suited in a religious discussion).
I hope that helps you understand what I'm trying to say. If not, then I don't know how else to explain myself. Good day.
> why should teachers and government employees be provided a free pass on molesting children?
Because right now we still have some memories and illusions of being citizens, and that must be done away with before we can be returned to our natural state of being serfs. Because the tendency of people who seek power over others simply for the sake of having power is always to drift towards some form of feudalism, and this two-tier system of "justice" is an essential step.
Eventually we can look forward to the re-institution of the droit du seigneur, in which the headmaster of the school gets first crack at the young boys, the headmistress the young girls, young Congressman gets the right to knock up the best-looking girls, and gang rape is a routine part of any police interrogation.
make that, your Congressman
My less sinister theory is that they're doing this as a job perk for local government employees. Budgets are tight and they can't afford more benefits. So they're doing what they did in WWII with bundling health insurance as an incentive during a period of stagnant wages. Clearly, you're just paranoid.
How about this... Pass laws that would change revenge of molesting a persons children from murder to justifiable homocide.The hell with left and right political agendas. If someone who gets tempted to have sex with a child knows the parents of said child might come and literally kill them and no one will stop them nor punish them, well perhaps they might think it isn't a good idea.
shiner, texas, last week? man saw someone molesting his four year old girl...beat him to death...news paper asked the sheriff if the man would be charged...sheriff says, "probably not"
How about this... Pass laws that would change revenge of molesting a persons children from murder to justifiable homocide.
Mmmm too big of a loophole. You'd need a trial. My suggestion would be a constitutional amendment allowing the jury to set aside the 8th amendment and let the victim, upon conviction of the defendant in a fair trial, choose literally any form of execution they can imagine with a $250k budget. The first child molester flown out to NE Afghanistan to be crucified upside down while Afghani children beat him like a pinata and fire ants sting his family jewels over and over again would be a true deterrent.
"1.) Stop with the BS of celibacy and let the priests get married." - Greatheart
As a staunch catholic I have to tell you something:
People who join the Catholic Church as priests do so for vocation, for divine call. They are free to leave the priesthood if they want to have a family. My Catholic Moral teacher in highschool was a former seminar student who decided that he wasn't meant to be a priest and decided to have a family, and the next year he married.
This bullshit that priests molest children because they can't have sex is the same freudomarxism that says people who don't please their sexual urges will become serial rapists.
Child molesters are sick people that should be executed when proven guilty.
Not the only ones who want immunity for bad behavior
Will this media outlet be targeted now for pointing out who really is culpable when illegal aliens commit murder?
The feds are immune anyway for anything they do
This idea of a temporary lawsuit window sounds like every con-man and crooked trial lawyer's dream. No wonder it's gaining traction in New York.
Maybe the Catholic Church should unionize. Then they'd be exempt like the government.
"...why should teachers and government employees be provided a free pass on molesting children?"
DUH! Socialization.
Perhaps slightly OT, but speaking to a larger point of accountability: Indiana just passed a law making it legal to use force to defend oneself against police who are breaking the law. This was in response to the state Supreme Court decision stating that citizens had no right to resist police under any circumstances. In other words if a cop was raping your wife, you didn't have the right to stop him.
Of course the police immediately threw a hissy fit, threatening to resign en mass if this heinous and evil law passed.
"1.) Stop with the BS of celibacy and let the priests get married." - Greatheart
I'll also chime in here as a Catholic. The priests are already married...to the Church. In fact, some priests...if you look...do wear a wedding ring to symbolize this bond between him and the Church. The Church is the Bride of Christ. Priests act in the Person of Christ....not hard to conclude what naturally follows. To ask for priests to be married is asking for the Church to approve polygamy.
I can begin to see the day where the American people welcome a foreign invader just because the invader's government will rest more lightly upon their shoulders.
"To ask for priests to be married is asking for the Church to approve polygamy."
considering polygamy is biblical and was practiced in the church literally for centuries... its a bit daft to play that card their chief.
re: Greatheart
Seriously? Otherwise heterosexual priests are necessarily tempted by young boys because they can't get married? They have pederasty higher on their list of tempting sexual escapades than say porn, or hookers, or lonely hot, single adult women?
Seriously? I disbelieve.....
"Mmmm too big of a loophole. You'd need a trial."
No... you need common sense peace officers who know the difference between justifiable killin' and murder.
And.. you need the "he needed killin' defense" codified into law.
"considering polygamy is biblical and was practiced in the church literally for centuries... its a bit daft to play that card their chief."
...Catholics are not bound by those OT laws, so it's not daft in the slightest.
so...what about the part where paul says that a pastor should be a husband?
...Catholics are not bound by those OT laws, so it's not daft in the slightest.
Nate, you should know by now that Catholics are only bound by those OT/NT laws they choose and ones they make up, of course.
and by whatever the pope says, because the pope is always right, unless a new pope says that an old pope was wrong...
DarrenL: "I'll also chime in here as a Catholic. The priests are already married...to the Church. In fact, some priests...if you look...do wear a wedding ring to symbolize this bond between him and the Church. The Church is the Bride of Christ. Priests act in the Person of Christ....not hard to conclude what naturally follows. To ask for priests to be married is asking for the Church to approve polygamy."
I'd like to see Biblical support for this idea that priests are married to the church. I doubt it's there to be found, but I'm not nearly as schooled on the Bible as I know I should be.
Greatheart,
So if teachers, day care workers, and nurses were only allowed to get married and have sex, we would never see pedophilia again?
You seem to think these guys were just doing the Lords work when *poof* they liked little boys. Priests don't become pedophiles. Pedophiles become priests. And teachers. And day care workers. And nurses. Just as 90% of necropiliacs will work in a morgue or funeral house.
Access, dude. There are pedophiles in non-catholic churches, where the priests are married and have children. They go where the children are.
Just out of curiosity....I know the "legal age of consent" is defined by man-made laws today.
What do you think the real age of consent should be be, whether it's a female or male? Is the age of the older "party" relevant?
I don't remember a specific age being proscribed in the Bible.
Careful Vox, if you don't specifically state you are against child molestation, PZ & such will be unable to figure it out.
/sarcasm
Aside from ignorance about what the Catholic church believes, I'd recommend caution with using the inconsistent claim that subjective individual interpretation determine what's "biblical". The same metric can be used to justify all kinds of things.
But speaking of biblical, the choice to be celibate is perfectly valid & even encouraged.
1) " For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." -Matthew 19:12
2) " I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided." - 1 Cor. 7:32
"women are batshit crazy. Don't trust em." 2 Corrinthians, 6:12
I'll also chime in here as a Catholic. The priests are already married...to the Church. In fact, some priests...if you look...do wear a wedding ring to symbolize this bond between him and the Church. The Church is the Bride of Christ. Priests act in the Person of Christ....not hard to conclude what naturally follows. To ask for priests to be married is asking for the Church to approve polygamy.
There are 23 churches sui juris that make up the Roman Catholic Church. 20 of them allow married priests. Ruthenian, Ukrainian, Melkite Catholics all allow married priests so there seems to be alot of polygamy already going on in the RCC by your measure.
The Supreme Court struck down retroactive statute of limitations extensions for those expired in criminal cases in Stogner v. California. It was 5-4.
But the court is fickle and they could easily change their mind as some of the judges ruled exactly the opposite on an ex post facto law in 2001 on the "year and a day" murder rule.
But speaking of biblical, the choice to be celibate is perfectly valid & even encouraged.
http://bible.cc/1_timothy/3-2.htm
And here I thought the Church was the Bride of Christ. Turns out the silly slut is running around behind his back with a bunch of cross-dressing kiddie-diddlers. Who knew?
Access, dude. There are pedophiles in non-catholic churches, where the priests are married and have children. They go where the children are.
And get married, if need be.
Just out of curiosity....I know the "legal age of consent" is defined by man-made laws today.
What do you think the real age of consent should be be, whether it's a female or male? Is the age of the older "party" relevant?
It was 11 for girls and 12 for boys under common law within, which may still stand in a few states with common law marriage. Colorado discovered this and changed it a few years back.
I find it bizarre as the outward society becomes ever more sexualized, the age of consent keeps getting raised and adolescence keeps getting extended into what used to be considered adulthood.
In whacked out California they'll take a high school field trip to a BDSM dungeon but have an age of consent of 18.
I would say 14 or 15 would be reasonable.
considering polygamy is biblical and was practiced in the church literally for centuries... its a bit daft to play that card their chief.
It couldn't have been too long, as Tertullian and St. Irenaeus were already writing out against it by 200 AD. Plus the Greeks and Romans were traditionally monogamist before conversion.
Maybe some scattered Jewish converts held on to it for a while, but I haven't seen anything that it was widespread and certainly not condoned by the Church Fathers.
Latest pedo-roundup:
Among those arrested were a referee, a pathologist, Government employees, a firefighter, an outdoor activities instructor and a computer programmer.
Now what career appears to be missing here? Rowan Williams must have put the fix in.
Wow Josh, I didn't know the bible said THAT!?!
Does that mean I have to sharpie-out all that other Corinthians & gospels stuff now?
I'm mean, Paul was arguably an "elder", as it is typically defined, but he said it was better to remain unmarried.
Which statement is right? Or was he schizophrenic? ADD? A con artist who couldn't keep his story straight?
Or could the while bible be correct, and things that seem to contradict each other are actually resolveable?
IMO, the verses I provided are correct, as is the one you did. However, I disagree on your subjective, personal interpretation of Timothy, which obviously contradicts other parts of the Bible.
MichaelMaier@work: "I'd like to see Biblical support for this idea that priests are married to the church. I doubt it's there to be found, but I'm not nearly as schooled on the Bible as I know I should be."
I'll extend the logic further.
Priests serve in the person of Christ. From scripture, we know that Christ was not married. By remaining celibate and devoting themselves to the service of the Church, priests more closely model, configure themselves to, and consecrate themselves to Christ.
That being said, it must be pointed out that priestly celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine, and so there is room for diversity on the issue according to the customs of the respective rites (Eastern v Latin...etc)
"here are 23 churches sui juris that make up the Roman Catholic Church. 20 of them allow married priests. Ruthenian, Ukrainian, Melkite Catholics all allow married priests so there seems to be alot of polygamy already going on in the RCC by your measure."
Also know as sui iuris -- excellent point with the additional comment in that these rites usually the priest has to be married before they are ordained. And its not just these churches --- Episcopal/COE transfers to the RCC has resulted in married priests as well.
Theres a concept that once something is considered legal in the church it never changes -- for the first approx 800 years of the Church there were married priests and bishops so its hard to argue that what was once leagal and allowed is no longer valid.
Finally -- I have not seen any data the connects homosexuality with pedophilia... most data I have seen indicated that its committed by close friends and family members. I have seen data connecting homosexuality with affluence and higher levels of education :) but thats a argument for some else to carry forward here...
Cherub's Revenge:
The Roman Catholic Church should be one of the churches on your list. It's the Latin rite of the Catholic Church. It's technically only correct to refer to the Roman Catholic Church if you mean the most common rite in the West. Ukrainian Catholics, Melkite Catholics and Catholic of other rites are also part of the Catholic Church but not the Roman Catholic Church.
I think most here would benefit from reading the John Jay report.
...and you are correct HH. Contributors to the John Jay report said this: “The majority of the abusive acts were homosexual in nature. That participation in homosexual acts is not the same as sexual identity as a gay man.”
Der Staat and their slave-power puppetmasters already have the two-tiered system in place when it comes to police killings, which are nearly 100% justified. In Las Vegas, the regime magistrates rubber-stamped the police murder of Eric Scott, ruling it justifiable. Scott's family is bringing a civil suit, which will be very difficult because it will be argued that the police cannot be sued for actions take in the course of their official duties - a longstanding legal doctrine.
It should come as no surprise whatever that the employees of Der Staat would be exempted from child-rapes carried out in the course of their official duties. It's part and parcel of the entire legal system of the Banksta Banana Republick. As Ilana Mercer pointed out some time ago, there is no rule of law - only law of rule. It's the Goldman rule writ large: He who has the gold makes the rules.
IMO, the verses I provided are correct, as is the one you did. However, I disagree on your subjective, personal interpretation of Timothy, which obviously contradicts other parts of the Bible.
I didn't offer amy interpretation, I just linked to the verse.
While Paul does day that being celibate can be a good thing, he apparently wants churches to be pastored by married men, not the celibate
While you can CYA by denying your implied interpretation, you are specifically offering that interpretation here, by stating what you believe Paul was saying.
As noted, I disagree with that interpretation, since it contradicts Paul's position and own words in other places of the Bible.
I am skeptical at best of the idea that Paul argued that churches should be solely be pastored by married men who would be less focused on serving the Lord.
Bored Devil's advocate question here:
If RCC priests are married to their church, when and how does the physical consummation (equivalent to that which seals secular marriages between men and women) take place? Without that consummation, no real marriage has yet been formed, as shown by the routineness of annulment for unconsummated "regular" marriages.
I have read descriptions of long-celibate uber-religious women having sudden religious experiences/trances that read like nothing so much as major-league/can't walk for hours after sexual orgasms, but don't think those would count...
I am skeptical at best of the idea that Paul argued that churches should be solely be pastored by married men who would be less focused on serving the Lord.
like it or not, that's what paul said
Luke: "If RCC priests are married to their church, when and how does the physical consummation (equivalent to that which seals secular marriages between men and women) take place? Without that consummation, no real marriage has yet been formed, as shown by the routineness of annulment for unconsummated "regular" marriages."
There are a couple ways to tackle this.
First on your premise. Physical consummation is not necessary for a marriage to be valid and binding. Indeed, there are couples...not many...who do marry and choose to forgo to physical consummation.
Second. When we talk of the Priest acting in the person of Christ, and the Church being the Bride of Christ, we are talking about Spiritual matters. This union is therefore a spiritual one, not a physical one. The Priest does not physically turn into Christ, nor does the Church physically and literally turn into a bride.
Josh: "like it or not, that's what paul said"
Provide the verse where he said the following he wants "wants churches to be pastored by married men, not the celibate".
Scroll fail. I see you're talking about 1 Timothy 3: 2.
I'll just summarize your interpretation: rubbish.
Now for the details.
This interpretation leads to obvious absurdities. For one, if "the husband of one wife" really meant that a bishop had to be married, then by the same logic "keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way" would mean that he had to have children. Childless husbands (or even fathers of only one child, since Paul uses the plural) would not qualify.
In fact, following this style of interpretation to its final absurdity, since Paul speaks of bishops meeting these requirements (not of their having met them, or of candidates for bishop meeting them), it would even follow that an ordained bishop whose wife or children died would become unqualified for ministry! Clearly such excessive literalism must be rejected.
The theory that Church leaders must be married also contradicts the obvious fact that Paul himself, an eminent Church leader, was single and happy to be so. Unless Paul was a hypocrite, he could hardly have imposed a requirement on bishops which he did not himself meet. Consider, too, the implications regarding Paul’s positive attitude toward celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7: the married have worldly anxieties and divided interests, yet only they are qualified to be bishops; whereas the unmarried have single-minded devotion to the Lord, yet are barred from ministry!
The suggestion that the unmarried man is somehow untried or unproven is equally absurd. Each vocation has its own proper challenges: the celibate man must exercise "self-control" (1 Cor. 7:9); the husband must love and care for his wife selflessly (Eph. 5:25); and the father must raise his children well (1 Tim. 3:4). Every man must meet Paul’s standard of "managing his household well," even if his "household" is only himself. If anything, the chaste celibate man meets a higher standard than the respectable family man.
Clearly, the point of Paul’s requirement that a bishop be "the husband of one wife" is not that he must have one wife, but that he must have only one wife. Expressed conversely, Paul is saying that a bishop must not have unruly or undisciplined children (not that he must have children who are well behaved), and must not be married more than once (not that he must be married).
The truth is, it is precisely those who are uniquely "concerned about the affairs of the Lord" (1 Cor. 7:32), those to whom it has been given to "renounce marriage for the sake of the kingdom" (Matt. 19:12), who are ideally suited to follow in the footsteps of those who have "left everything" to follow Christ (cf. Matt. 19:27)—the calling of the clergy and consecrated religious (i.e., monks and nuns).
Thus Paul warned Timothy, a young bishop, that those called to be "soldiers" of Christ must avoid "civilian pursuits": "Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier on service gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to satisfy the one who enlisted him" (2 Tim. 2:3–4). In light of Paul’s remarks in 1 Corinthians 7 about the advantages of celibacy, marriage and family clearly stand out in connection with these "civilian pursuits."
An example of ministerial celibacy can also be seen in the Old Testament. The prophet Jeremiah, as part of his prophetic ministry, was forbidden to take a wife: "The word of the Lord came to me: ‘You shall not take a wife, nor shall you have sons or daughters in this place’" (Jer. 16:1–2). Of course, this is different from Catholic priestly celibacy, which is not divinely ordained; yet the divine precedent still supports the legitimacy of the human institution.
Josh seems to subscribe to the idea that you can pick & choose among bible passages that are interpreted in contradictory ways (which gives a ton of ammo to the people that attack the credibility of the Bible by pointing out such contradictions...)
"That's what it says" is an intellectually lazy verbal shrug.
In the face of subjective interpretations that create inconsistencies & contradictions, my question then becomes, "If the Bible means whatever any particular individual claims it means, how its it any more authoritative than a gossip rag at the grocery store?"
I find it a bit odd that vigilante justice is not more commonplace as regards sexual abuse by anyone. Cannot imagine I'd have any compunction about taking out an abuser from my childhood once I was grown. Even after they're gone I would still be wounded---though not quite as sharply.
Josh seems to subscribe to the idea that you can pick & choose among bible passages that are interpreted in contradictory ways (which gives a ton of ammo to the
I posted a verse in response to someone who had posted two verses that supposedly give a biblical foundation for celibate priests. Of course, the verse I used was more directly related to the matter at hand, celibacy and the priesthood, than either of the two verses the other person used.
So, given that Paul allows for married men to be pastors, why does the catholic church contradict paul?
Josh seems to subscribe to the idea that you can pick & choose among bible passages that are interpreted in contradictory ways
Shame on you Josh - don't you know that the RCC has that market cornered?
You posted a verse in response to me, and the "issue at hand" was the Biblical validity & encouragement of the discipline of celibacy.
The Catholic Church doesn't contradict Paul's statements in 1 Tim 3, it contradicts your personal interpretation of them.
Your interpretation is also at odds not only with the two verses I posted, but also flatly contradicts Paul's statement in 1 Cor 7 that single people & widows should remain so, just as he was.
1) Christ himself noted that "For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." -Matthew 19:12
2) Paul stated that "I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided." - 1 Cor. 7:32
Did you notice darrenl's explanation of that verse?
You can disagree with it and call it just another subjective interpretation, which is fine, but then we come back to my question:
- In the face of subjective interpretations that create inconsistencies & contradictions, my question then becomes, "If the Bible means whatever any particular individual claims it means, how its it any more authoritative than a gossip rag at the grocery store?"
neither one of those verses are about church leadership or governance
There are some Pentecostal churches (there might be others) who require pastors to be married, never divorced, men with children. Not that I agree with that particular interpretation of scripture, but at least they are consistent.
So much stupidity!
People! Catholics are not obligated to formulate Christian doctrine according to the man made traditions of Luther and Calvin(ie. the Reformation doctrines of Sola Scriptura & perspicuity). Sola Scriptura is not taught in Scripture. Apostolic tradition is 2 Thes 3:6.
Jesus endorses celibacy as a religious lifestyle calling.
Matthew 19:12
Get over it!
The Church has the Power to Bind and Lose.
Matt 18:18
If in her prudent judgment she rules that a Bishop may only ordain to the office of Presbyter/Priest someone who is living out Matt 19:12 then so be it. That is not wrong. Also the nonsense about this being the sin of "forbidding marriage" is comical.
Nobody has to become a Priest. A Priest who thinks he has made a mistake and needs a the love of a woman can resign and get a dispensation to marry. In many cases if he outlives his wife he can return to the active Priesthood.
Married Catholic men of the eastern rite may be ordained priest & before someone bores the **** out of me by telling me Peter was married there have been at least 29 married Popes. Peter was the first & Adrian II was the last.
So there.
Now that having been said. Vox is right. The people who advocate for Laws that punish private and religious institutions to the exclusion of public ones are inconsistent.
How is a molested child "less molested" if it was done by a public school teacher vs a Priest, Minister or Rabbi?
Ironically it was the refusal of the American Catholic Church to enforce norms against ordaining homosexuals that caused them I think to flock to the Priesthood.
If stupid laws like this go threw my one solace is the pervs will mostly be driven out of the Church into the Atheistic Secular schools! HA! TAKE THAT COMMIE PUBLIC SCHOOLS!!!!!;-)
I should note that the majority of sex abuse cases in the Catholic Church have involved homosexuality.
>In the face of subjective interpretations that create inconsistencies & contradictions, my question then becomes, "If the Bible means whatever any particular individual claims it means, how its it any more authoritative than a gossip rag at the grocery store?"
Hey!!!! That's our argument against Private interpretation and Sola Scriptura and other Reformation errors!!!!
I cry copyright infringement! The Atheists and religious skeptics have no right to hijack our 500 year old polemic against Protestantism!!!
You will be hearing from our Jesuit Lawyers heathen!
Darrenl, re RCC priests and their unconsummated marriages to God:
Unconsummated marriages are easily cast aside, by RCC doctrine (note earlier comment on this), and (aside from infidelity) are expected to be barren. Not much of an example being set by the priesthood IMO...
======================================================
Agreed that the homoperv molestation of kids by RCC clergy mainly a problem of poufters that should never have been let in, or allowed to stay once identified. They were present in part BC of PC not letting them be reliably screened out, and partly BC of the RCC marriage ban making for too few hetero male priests. Latter situation both tempted RCC lower divisions into passing borderline/dubious cases, and not having normal-orientation priests displace homopervs more, as would have been far better.
Hi Josh,
"neither one of those verses are about church leadership or governance"
Paul was most emphatically a Church leader/governor (a bishop, in fact), but was single, and encouraged others to emulate him. As such 1 Cor 7:32 most certainly does connect the topics of Church governance/leadership and celibacy.
Celibacy in Church leadership, while not universally observed or mandatory, has been around since the apostles.
So, back to my question. I'll rephrase it:
If subjective individual interpretation of scripture is valid, and hundreds of not only different but contradictory meanings are pronounced as "biblical truth", then how does the Bible have any more authority than a tabloid?
Luke,
A reasonable enough question. I admit I don't personally understand the statement of the priest being "married to the Church", except in light of the imagery of the Church being Christ's bride, to which you could also pose that question. My guess is that the two concepts are not limited to the material, natural paradigm.
In any case, consummation is not required for a marriage to be valid, nor are unconsummated marriage "easily cast aside" by the Catholic Church. Unconsummated marriages may be dissolved by the Pope. The annulment process is not a quick and dirty "Catholic divorce" - Annulment is a finding that a valid marriage never existed. Grounds for such a finding include intentional refusal or inability to consummate a marriage, as is evidence of a lack of full knowledge and free consent, which may be determined by a quite thorough process.
Catholic doctrine holds that a valid, consummated marriage between two Christian spouses may never be dissolved.
The Catholic Church doesn't encourage persons to enter into marriage if they do not plan on consummating the union. Rather it generally recommends that two persons who desire to live in a state of consecrated virginity to enter religious orders or live alone.
Please dont stop there. Yes, there were married popes and priests. But the Rcc outlawed that and it had nothing to do with the BIBLE, as usual. Now w hy oh why was that done? Hmm..lets see if you answer that one.
Paul was an Apostle not a Bishop. And his support of celibacy is in response to questions by belivers who were living under monsterous persecution. Which is why he says that he is speaking in light of the present troubles. READ IN CONTEXT!
On this planet sex does have to occur for it to go from engaged to married, but I enjoy your fancy dance steps.
Provide this data please. I call utter bs on men raping boys having data saying there is no homosexuality involved and toss in how homosexuals are better educated and richer as well please.
It isnt contadictory unless you fail in reading comprehension, or as the rcc prefers, only read and think what they allow you.
Paul was most emphatically a Church leader/governor (a bishop, in fact), but was single, and encouraged others to emulate him.
Paul also traveled extensively starting new churches and visited established ones. It is much easier to travel as much as Paul when one isn't married. So it's not a contradiction for Paul to say that established churches should have leaders (men, that is) who are married since their families provide indication whether they are capable of leading, while also saying it's good to be unmarried since the unmarried are freer to serve a wider audience and go where they are needed.
As someone else said, Paul was an Apostle, not a bishop, so technically there is no contradiction. And he did make it plain his marital status was an exception.
But this really misses the point - its about the moral character of the person who is being considered for a leadership role. Stability in relationships is a symptom of the right kind of person.
Also - this "priests are married to The Church" idea raises the question of what such people mean when they talk of the "Church" - aren't the priests part of the church?
Aspostles were bishops, as stated in Acts 1:20 when Peter and the Church were looking for a replacement for Judas:
"And in those days Peter stood up in the middle of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,) 16Men and brothers, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spoke before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. 17For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. 18Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the middle, and all his bowels gushed out. 19And it was known to all the dwellers at Jerusalem; so as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.
20For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his position as bishop let another take."
Bishops (episcopoi) have the care of multiple congregations and appoint, ordain, and discipline priests and deacons. They sometimes appear to be called "evangelists" in the New Testament. Examples of first-century bishops include Timothy and Titus (1 Tim. 5:19–22; 2 Tim. 4:5; Titus 1:5).
Priests (presbuteroi) are also known as "presbyters" or "elders." In fact, the English term "priest" is simply a contraction of the Greek word presbuteros. They have the responsibility of teaching, governing, and providing the sacraments in a given congregation (1 Tim. 5:17; Jas. 5:14–15).
Deacons (diakonoi) are the assistants of the bishops and are responsible for teaching and administering certain Church tasks, such as the distribution of food (Acts 6:1–6).
In the apostolic age, the terms for these offices were still somewhat fluid. Sometimes a term would be used in a technical sense as the title for an office, sometimes not. This non-technical use of the terms even exists today, as when the term is used in many churches (both Protestant and Catholic) to refer to either ordained ministers (as in “My minister visited him”) or non-ordained individuals. (In a Protestant church one might hear “He is a worship minister,” while in a Catholic church one might hear “He is an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.”)
Thus, in the apostolic age Paul sometimes described himself as a diakonos ("servant" or "minister"; cf. 2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23; Eph. 3:7), even though he held an office much higher than that of a deacon, that of apostle.
Similarly, on one occasion Peter described himself as a "fellow elder," [1 Pet. 5:1] even though he, being an apostle, also had a much higher office than that of an ordinary elder.
The term for bishop, episcopos ("overseer"), was also fluid in meaning. Sometimes it designated the overseer of an individual congregation (the priest), sometimes the person who was the overseer of all the congregations in a city or area (the bishop or evangelist), and sometimes simply the highest-ranking clergyman in the local church—who could be an apostle, if one were staying there at the time.
Although the terms "bishop," "priest," and "deacon" were somewhat fluid in the apostolic age, by the beginning of the second century they had achieved the fixed form in which they are used today to designate the three offices whose functions are clearly distinct in the New Testament.
Although the terms "bishop," "priest," and "deacon" were somewhat fluid in the apostolic age, by the beginning of the second century they had achieved the fixed form in which they are used today to designate the three offices whose functions are clearly distinct in the New Testament.
Either the NT uses the terms fluidly, or they are distinct. Can't have it both ways.
"Either the NT uses the terms fluidly, or they are distinct. Can't have it both ways."
Well...go argue that point to the early Church then. They seemed to have no issues with it.
Ignatius of Antioch
"Now, therefore, it has been my privilege to see you in the person of your God-inspired bishop, Damas; and in the persons of your worthy presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius; and my fellow-servant, the deacon, Zotion. What a delight is his company! For he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ" (Letter to the Magnesians 2 [A.D. 110]).
"I cried out while I was in your midst, I spoke with a loud voice, the voice of God: ‘Give heed to the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons.’ Some suspect me of saying this because I had previous knowledge of the division certain persons had caused; but he for whom I am in chains is my witness that I had no knowledge of this from any man. It was the Spirit who kept preaching these words, ‘Do nothing without the bishop, keep your body as the temple of God, love unity, flee from divisions, be imitators of Jesus Christ, as he was imitator of the Father’" (Letter to the Philadelphians 7:1–2 [A.D. 110]).
Clement of Alexandria
"A multitude of other pieces of advice to particular persons is written in the holy books: some for presbyters, some for bishops and deacons; and others for widows, of whom we shall have opportunity to speak elsewhere" (The Instructor of Children 3:12:97:2 [A.D. 191]).
Hippolytus
"Over a deacon, then, let the bishop speak thus: ‘O God, who have created all things and have set them in order through your Word; Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, whom you sent to minister to your will and to make clear to us your desires, grant the Holy Spirit of grace and care and diligence to this your servant, whom you have chosen to serve the Church and to offer in your holy places the gifts which are offered to you by your chosen high priests, so that he may serve with a pure heart and without blame, and that, ever giving praise to you, he may be accounted by your good will as worthy of this high office: through your Son Jesus Christ, through whom be glory and honor to you, to the Father and the Son with the Holy Spirit, in your holy Church, both now and through the ages of ages. Amen’" (The Apostolic Tradition 9 [A.D. 215]).
...etc. History does not side with your "either/or" assertion.
>Either the NT uses the terms fluidly, or they are distinct. Can't have it both ways.
Nonsense! It would be stupid of me to tell Pope Benedict to his face "You are not a Priest". I have news for you frank. Pope Benedict is a Priest & yes is his a Bishop.
It's like saying with a straight face that a Cohen is not a Levite. Really? Who ever herd of a Cohen from the tribe of Gad?
Bishops are Priests, get over it people.
The Orthodox Jews have had a huge sex abuse problem. Their clergy is mostly married. The Anglicans and Eastern Orthodox as well.
Public School teachers are at least a 100 times more likely to abuse someone in their care than a Priest.
About that last one. I guess it goes to show if only women could be public school teachers and if only public school teachers, Rabbis and Ministers where allowed to marry none of this would happen.
Oh wait a minute......!!!!!!
BenYachov June 15, 2012 9:49 AM
>Either the NT uses the terms fluidly, or they are distinct. Can't have it both ways.
Nonsense! It would be stupid of me to tell Pope Benedict to his face "You are not a Priest". I have news for you frank. Pope Benedict is a Priest & yes is his a Bishop.
It's like saying with a straight face that a Cohen is not a Levite. Really? Who ever herd of a Cohen from the tribe of Gad?
Bishops are Priests, get over it people.
The examples you're giving are ones where you have to be X in order to get to be Y.
They don't appoint non-priests as bishops in the RCC, do they?
So old Ratzinger had to go up through the ranks - deacon, priest, bishop, archbishop, cardinal, if I recall it correctly.
Not everything is like that.
FrankNorman:"They don't appoint non-priests as bishops in the RCC, do they?"
They certainly did appoint non-priests to Bishop in the past...but not anymore. I think the practice was abandoned in the early 20th century. In fact, I think there was at least one Pope who was not even a priest before being elevated to the office...he was Innocent III.
>They don't appoint non-priests as bishops in the RCC, do they?
Technically you can ordain a Layman a bishop without first ordaining him a Priest or Deacon. Of course in so doing you make him a Priest. A Bishop is simply a Priest with the fullness of the NT ministerial Priesthood. He's a Priest with the power to make other Priest from baptized men via the laying of hands.
>So old Ratzinger had to go up through the ranks - deacon, priest, bishop, archbishop, cardinal, if I recall it correctly.
For the validity of the Sacrament that would not be required. It would be considered illicit and irregular to give Episcopal orders directly. Even in times past when a handful of Laymen where elected Pope they would take 3 days for the Bishop of Milan to raise the Papal elect to the office of Bishop.
day 1 make him a Deacon, day 2 a Priest then day 3 a bishop. But they could skip 1 & 2.
Frank you don't have to be a bishop to be a Cardinal.
Cardinal Newman was not a Bishop. He was a Cardinal Priest.
Darren, we are not talking the RCC's take on things. We are talking the Bible's take on things. Paul was an Apostle and called himself as such. He gave instructions for the Congreations that He planted to have overseers, Bishops, who met certain qualifications. One of the qualifications was NOT to be unmarried and celibate. And never was. Referencing a verse where he is answering questions regarding dealing with persecution has nothing to do with it. Citing your opinion for why a word was used is not good enough, and I could care less about extra Biblical sources.
RCCs seem to constantly want to fight with Christians that they base what they do on the Bible but can never actually back it up with the Bible.
Funny.
So, how unBiblical is it, then that people like Massachussets Kennedys can have a 2-decade marriage (joined in a cathedral) with 3+ children and have it annulled by their locally-owned RCC chapter?
"Darren, we are not talking the RCC's take on things. We are talking the Bible's take on things."
...who do you think gave you the Bible?
"Citing your opinion for why a word was used is not good enough..."
...so tell me why your opinion is good enough?
"RCCs seem to constantly want to fight with Christians that they base what they do on the Bible but can never actually back it up with the Bible."
For the record...Catholics are Christians.
...and you are correct. Catholics are not Sola Scriptura. You'll find we tend to avoid circular reasoning.
In the spirit of giving the benefit of the doubt, maybe Carlotta meant "RCCs" = "Roman Catholic Christians"...?
GFishing,
I don't believe we're disagreeing as much as you seem to think.
In the longstanding view of the Catholic Church, a marriage that has not yet been consummated, and is not "complete" per se, may be dissolved by the Pope. However, a consummated marriage can not be dissolved.
Sounds like we're both saying that consummation "completes" marriage to me.
That said, annulment and dissolution are two different things, so...
Luke,
I have no idea what the findings of the tribunal were in the Kennedy annulment you refer to, or anyone else's. Nor are those findings my responsibility to evaluate & judge, or even my concern.
That said, a Catholic annulment is not a "Catholic divorce", or "dissolution" of a marriage, but a declaration from a diocesan Tribunal that the marriage was not a valid/sacramental bond due to a lack of something necessary from the very beginning. Perhaps one or both entered the marriage with good will, but lacked the honesty, maturity, motivation, or capacity to be capable of providing the necessary full consent that the sacrament of marriage requires.
Oh. y'all get off the RCC. They don't beileve in "worshping idols" Saints are like the Customer Service: to God.
All this charges of "pedophilia" is misplaced. It typically involves teenagers (e.g. adolescents). TEENAGE BOYS to be exact. To be honest our society is one fucked up leftist regime. Men who touch teenage girls are harassed and seen as criminals (not to mention heterosexual) but men who touch teenage boys are not accused of homosexuality and if anything are seen as "heteros". Is our society upside-down or what? I though heterosexuality was touching the opposite sex, NOT the same sex. How is touching the same sex heterosexual activity at all? There is this HUGE PC cover-up going on. At least a majority of men touching teenage boys are homosexual-leaning and find the male form attractive. Sorry folks but liking teenage boys is NOT like liking women. You have to be a PC egalitarian, erroneous or highly delusional to believe this crap.
Of course the left doesn't want society to hone down on the degeneracy and the number of homosexual sexual predators. That's why they pretend that they're not even homos in the first place.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home