what about sexually active priests?

[Guest happyguy]

Hey Guys,

there has been a great discussion on pedophilia in another thread, but I was wondering if we could discuss the problem surrounding sexually active priests who have taken a vow of celibacy? This question has nothing to do with pedophiles, everyone seems to agree that this is wrong, out of the question and not permissible under any circumstances.

 

However, alongside that discussion comes the one about the hypocritical policies of the hierarchy on celibacy - homo or heterosexual activity. Do you know priests who are sexually active? Do you think we should feel sympathy for them and look the other way? Do you think we should "out" them in an effort to force the hierarchy to face up to the problem? My co-workers and I have concluded that this would hurt the innocent and that the men who cause the problem would remain unscathed?

 

I would really like to see a discussion on this or other aspects of the question I may have overlooked.

 

happyguy

[Guest jeffOH]

I've seen at least 3 priests, that I know of, as clients over the years. I don't think outing priests would do much good. Perhaps one day the Church will do away with the celibacy bullshit. I think strange things happen to some people who are celibate. Sex can be a doorway to God, I believe. Some religions have done the world a real disservice with their dysfunctional views on sex. I've gotten quite good at spotting that "Catholic guilt" in my clients. I was raised in the Methodist Church by a mother who was raised a Baptist and a father raised Methodist. I knew my parents had sex(5 kids), but they didn't talk to me about it until I was 16(a bit late, I had already

self-educated myself);-) For whatever reason, I've always had a real openness regarding sex. I've even gotten into some really sexually explicit talks with my landlady. If I'm not doing it, I guess my next favorite thing is discussing it.}>

 

JEFF

[email protected]

[Guest JON1265]

Here in Philly I knew a couple of gay priests - one actually had a lover.

 

I have no respect for the catholic church and basically think all religion is a joke. But these are good men and see no reason to oust them from their closets. Maybe they can do some good from within on changing some views - it is doubtful - but possible.

[Guest albinorat]

People who have been through a Catholic seminary are familiar with the "inside" debates about "celebacy". Usually the question is what exactly IS celebacy? Theoretically it means a vow not to marry and produce children. Theoretically it does NOT mean a vow to avoid all sexual acts (that is abstinence, which is something else entirely).

 

The monitor priest may ask the seminarians to think about which if any of the following violates the vow of celebacy:

Masturbation? Mutual masturbation (with male or female)? genital rubbing and contact (short of penetration)? Could oral sex be considered an exception to the vow of celebacy since it is non- reproductive sex?

 

There is no "correct" answer but there is much debate. Theoretically none of those things violates the vow of celebacy. None would produce children, and none amounts to marriage, a promise to marry or could be considered relations that can only occur within marriage.

 

Since priests do not take an explicit vow of sexual abstinence, consensual sexual acts do not violate a priestly oath.

 

Next issue is "sin". Is everything on that list above, automatically and inevitably sinful under all conditions? Or are there exceptions? Since a large number of studies show that masturbation is in fact a healthy and normal activity, it is not a sin unless indulged to excess. Are there some behaviors that are undesirable and show a lack of discipline (mutual masturbation) but are not sinful?

 

The other acts are harder to justify but the degree of sinfulness will depend. Acts of love, mutually consented to, engaged in with restraint and self control may not be considered sinful automatically. The priest's confessor will have an opinion but for a priest in the world (as opposed to one in a cloistered community, or one in an order where there is also a binding vow of sexual abstinence) it might be less negative than many here would think.

 

In any case, sins are there to be confessed and forgiven. Of course Priests sin. They have a right to privacy; so long as these sexual acts are mutually consensual and private (so the priest cannot be accused of leading the flock astray)the priest will do his pennance and go on with his ministering to the flock. In private circumstances (that is the priest has a discrete male or female lover in secret) the priest will not be rebuked, though he may be cautioned to be especially careful to keep the matter private, and to avoid "fornication" (penetrative sex), the risk of fathering children, and "excessive" frequency.

 

Teachings that women "are the gateway to Hell" (see Tertullian, one of the "great" Church Fathers and among the first Theologians) tend to make some confessors view heterosexual relations as more threatining to the integrity of the priesthood than same sex relations. The latter are sins, make no doubt, but they are forgiven when confessed. But a woman can scare a confessor and the priest might be transferred if he has an intolerant superior (transfer is less likely if the priest practices discrete same sex). Of course the priest is still forgiven his sin with woman so long as he has confessed and repented.

 

There is the question of law. However, until yesterday, Catholic heirarchy valued the laws of the church over those of any secular society. The highest authority in a given area (Bishop, Archbishop or Cardinal, depending) would decide in difficult cases whether secular law officers should be involved if at all.

 

That Authority may decide a priest who touches or physically engages consenting teenaged boys should be cautioned and enjoined to pray but not reported to police or punished.

 

If the priest targets younger children (of either sex) that Authority up until the mid 70's would be most likely to do nothing but caution with more fervor, or keep transferring the priest, or keep assigning him to communties with fewer children (they hoped).

 

Only when a priest was clearly out of control might he be "defrocked" and sent out of the priesthood, but that was very rare. Nor it would be likely the police would be told then.

 

Priests who were known or suspected with reason of molesting children were not neccessarily reported to higher Church Authority. The paster of the church would undertake to discipline his own priests (by doing nothing, by urging prayer and fasting, by removing the priest from duties involving the most access to children).

 

Like any corporation The Catholic Church affords young priests a ladder they can climb to greater responsibility and power. A paster or local bishop who is known to be unable to "control" his priests (even if that means largely ignoring what they get up to) is less likely to progress up the ladder than one who never involves high authority and fund raises effectively.

 

After the mid-70's there were greater efforts made to identity men with psychological and sexual problems before they were ordained. That is why most priestly molesters belong to an older generation or became priests just as greater sophistication came into play widely (by about 1980). Also, Authority, when invoked, after about 1975, might remand priests with problems to "safe houses" where they would get therapy, supervision and counseling. Therapists like confessors are also enjoined to respect confidentiality. Such interventions were usually not effective, simply because pedophilia in its most intense forms cannot be "cured" and after a period in that safe house the priest would once again to assigned to a parish with a school and various clubs that involved youngsters of the age he was attracted to.

 

Since many molesters are married, fathers, and molest their own children, celebacy, however interpreted, is not the "cause" of pedophilia. Imprinting of sexual habits, including those identified as undesirable, has usually occured by the time a child is seven if not earlier. Even if a test administered at 18 identifies a potential or actual molester and drums him out of the seminary, or that 18 year old is allowed to marry, you still will have molesters and some will be priests.

 

Al

[chrismac]

I don't think "outing" someone against their will is a good idea for anyone, preists included. Exposing someone for illegal child pornography or pediphilia is of course another issue. But priests have their own lives to live, and have to come to terms with their God in their own way - and it really isn't anyone else's business how they do it. A person's spiritual side is very personal, and should remain that way until or unless that person decides to open up about it.

 

Although it could certainly be construed as hypocritical for a supposedly celibate priest to engage in (very natural) sexual activity between two (or more) consenting adults, priests don't in fact preach celibacy to their parishoners. I would only consider them hypocrites if they held their brethren to a higher standard than themselves.

[Chuck50]

>Do you know priests who are sexually active? Do you think we should feel sympathy for them and look the other way? Do you think we should "out" them in an effort to force the hierarchy to face up to the problem?

 

I really am not sure where you are coming from on that one Would you want people to out you at your work? Where is your Charity. Don't you think that the priests are human Human as well? Aren't you suppose to be celibate as well if un married? Whow sets the rules, who follows them, are they in our favor? I'm glad that GOd is a just Judge and we dont have to rely on you and the hierachy to tell the priests that they are dammned.

[Guest happyguy]

Forgive me, but I was merely promoting the discussion... I strongly believe that we should not out priests, that we should have compassion for them. Of course, I would not want to be outed at work. But, the questions I raised are questions that people at work were raising and some people, because of the scandal rocking the church right not, are suggesting that active priests should be outed so that the hierarchy changes its teachings. I do not agree with this, but hope that we can discuss it. I really wonder what others on this site think. So far, I think that there is compassion for them, and I believe it is right!

happyguy

[Chuck50]

Al

 

Once again thank you for your detailed info and hope it will be a help to those who dont know Catholics' the issue the church, the myth's about celebicy and the Likes. Appreciate it HUGS Chuck

[chrismac]

You're right Happy - it's an interesting topic well worth discussion.

 

I don't think anyone here advocates "outing" anyone; that should be done by the person themselves if and when they choose, as you've made clear.

 

Interesting that talk around the "water cooler" shows some people could think that by forcing priests into the open they would actually be doing them a favor as a whole. With help like that, who needs the National Enquirer?

 

Clearly the Catholic Church needs to deal with this issue in an open and honest manner, even if the discussion must begin behind closed doors. I would imagine that anyone entering the priesthood today, however, is doing so in a much more open society than in the past - thus, are hopefully more prepared (and are being better prepared by the Church) for the issue of lifetime celibacy.

[Guest alanm]

I was in the Army in Vietnam in 1968-69. During most of that period,

I worked w/great priest who had a girl friend back in the states and

frequented the bar and message parlor scene in Saigon to meet other women. This was unusual 34 years ago. We becamevery good friends,

partly because he could not confide in the other priests. By necessity, my friends were cool about it, so they also became his friends. He handled it well and we talked about his situation frequently. But, I cannot over emphasis how isolated he was. Yet,

he was a wonderful priest. The Catholic Church will not survive aswe know it unless it changes the rules on celibacy and women priests.

[Guest Traveler]

Well, the absence of sexual activity is very unnatural, totally aberrant behavior not seen in nature. When the Catholic church asks its priests to refrain from sexual activity (sexual activity outside of marriage is still considered sinful by the Catholic church), it's asking its priests to do the unnatural. It's no wonder that problems arise under these circumstances. Since the Catholic church also condemns gay relationships, the priesthood has been a refuge for gay men, since the vow of celibacy removes the question for other Catholics as to why the priest isn't married and/or engaging in heterosexual relationships. It has also been a refuge for pedophiles, apparently.

The Catholic church used to benefit from being able to recruit gay men because of its condemnation of homosexuality. As gay relationships become more accepted by society, this leaves only pedophiles as those who need alibis for the absence of a relationship. What the Catholic church needs to do is allow its priests to have both gay and straight relationships (with adults, of course). This will eliminate the attraction of the priesthood for pedophiles, and improve the attraction of the priesthood for normal gay and straight men.

As for the question of outing, I believe outing is only appropriate in self-defense for those who attack gay people. Those who preach homophobia and hate should be outed. Those who are supportive or mute on the subject should have their privacy in this matter respected.

[Will]

Thanks to HappyGuy for an interesting topic; and thanks to Al for his wonderful, informative "lesson" on the subject.

 

Celibacy is a hot topic on many forums, whether you're talking about M4M or a forum for monks (there are such things). And the spectrum of opinions, most of which are voiced by individuals who are absolutely certain that they are right and everybody else is wrong, is wider than the spectrum of light visible to the human eye. It's no surprised that already, in ten postings, we are reaching the usual bandwidth.

 

Whether I can expand that bandwidth or not, I don't know. But I do know that it would astonish me to read a posting on any forum (other than one for people in religious vows) that supported celibacy, or treated it as something other than an aberration. It would also astonish me if a vocal critic were to acknowledge that his own background, education, spiritual inclination, and predispositions would prejudice him against celibacy and therefore qualify his remarks. In that light I wonder if anyone, referring to Judaism, would talk about that "circumcision bullshit;" or, in referring to Islam or Hinduism, would dismiss that "diet bullshit;" or regard Zen practice as that "sitting bullshit." Come to that, what about the celibacy of Buddhist monks? Compulsory marriage for Methodist and Baptist clergy? Are they "bullshit" too?

 

I think that we should respect the world's major religions, especially when we do not speak from inside them.

 

However "unnatural" it might be for people to live without sex, millions and millions of people do it. Don't think about priests. Think instead about the sexual lives of the people you will pass the next time you walk down the street: elderly people; single women; people deformed by nature or accident; and -- most of all -- the people who, from outward appearance, might seem to be leading "normal" sexual lives. What makes you think they're getting their nut on a regular basis? In any case, what's normal? Frankly, I don't think that in the best of all possible worlds most gay men (the ones whom I have known in sixty-two years, anyhow) would live alone or would have to seek episodic sexual experiences, whether they paid for them or not.

 

What's more, I know a hell of a lot of happy, normal, well-adjusted people who live without sex. Not because they want to, necessarily, but because they have to. That's a simple fact of life. The assumption that anybody can just go out there and get it whenever they want it is not only arrogant and unrealistic, it also trivializes the many creative possibilities of sex that go beyond its great value as the world's favorite recreational sport.

 

Among my best friends I can also count gay priests and monks who have chosen to live in vows of celibacy: they are happy, fulfilled, joyful and generous people, as far from neurotic or frustrated as you can imagine. I have also had very close gay friends, monks and priests, who could not sustain those vows without the occasional lapse. But I don't know that such lapses mean that they shouldn't be celibate, any more than an occasional lapse from marriage vows should indicate instant divorce.

 

But do I think that compulsory celibacy for the clergy is a good thing? I do not. Do I think that compulsory marriage for the clergy is a good thing? I do not. Do I think that sexually active priests should be exposed if they are not sexual felons? I do not, any more than I think it's any of my business who anybody else sleeps with, or why.

 

It's fun to be here again, now that we're all getting het up about subjects that are of genuine and legitimate concern to gay men! Thanks to all!

[Guest jeffOH]

It would also astonish me if a vocal critic

>were to acknowledge that his own background, education,

>spiritual inclination, and predispositions would prejudice

>him against celibacy and therefore qualify his remarks. In

>that light I wonder if anyone, referring to Judaism, would

>talk about that "circumcision bullshit;" or, in referring to

>Islam or Hinduism, would dismiss that "diet bullshit;" or

>regard Zen practice as that "sitting bullshit." Come to

>that, what about the celibacy of Buddhist monks? Compulsory

>marriage for Methodist and Baptist clergy? Are they

>"bullshit" too?

>

>I think that we should respect the world's major religions,

>especially when we do not speak from inside them.

 

Yes, I would describe all of those practices as "bullshit" because it is MY OPINION that those beliefs are irrelevant to pure spirituality and the pursuit of God. I don't believe God cares whether or not I am circumcised or whether or not I sat for 24 hours straight or whether or not I have sex. Human beings often get caught up in these anachronistic belief systems oriented around another human being's understanding of the world. I don't believe we should become slaves to a belief system. And I am grateful that my beliefs are my own and that I am not reliant upon a Church/religious leader for guidance.

 

I am anti-religion and I don't have blanket respect for religions. I do respect a person's right to believe whatever fairy tales he wants. Of course they are free to believe that I am a heathen and I am going to hell(which I don't believe exists).

 

JEFF

[email protected]

[chrismac]

Mathematics is the one true religion, and Stephen Hawking is my high priest. I can't agree with JeffOH more. Just think of how many people are killed daily in the name of one religion or another. How many people die defending a physics theorem?

 

In my opinion, religion is different than spirituality, and some "religions" are more individual and spiritual (and less evangelical and puritanical) than others. The real problems arise when some believe their way of thinking supercedes all others.

 

But we were discussing sexually active priests. In a nutshell, men join the priesthood knowing that it means celibacy. Of course knowing about it and acting it for the rest of one's life are two different things. Yes, some people can do it, and be happy. I think they are a precious few. The rest probably go into the priesthood with all the best intentions in the world, but the mind and body eventually wander elsewhere.

[Guest need2Btopped]

What a thoughtful and helpful post. Thank you.

[Guest albinorat]

Thank you Will. And no one needs pay attention to me. But it looks like my two or so points were buried under my usual verbiage and bad spelling.

 

Celibacy does not automatically equal abstinence.

Celibacy is only a vow not to marry and reproduce.

 

Many priests feel sincerely that the vow of celibacy can be honored and they can have honorable consensual sex, so long as the sex is not within marriage, does not produce children, and does not connote a relationship that makes their duties hard or impossible to perform.

Many priests would also add that decisions to have sex are a matter of conscience: sex that dishonors the priesthood, or risks dishonoring the priesthood is bad in all ways and to be avoided. But those same priests might accept that under some circumstances the sex is neither bad for the priesthood, nor dishonorable.

 

The vow of abstinence is not automatic for ordination. Some orders (Franciscans for example), which include ‘brothers’ or ‘monks’ as well as ordained priests, do take a vow of strict sexual abstinence. They must not have sex, period. But I must repeat that is not all priests. Many parish priests do not belong to an "order"; not all "orders" are as strict about abstinence.

 

Non-Catholics may not understand the difference between "sin" and secular law.

 

We are all sinners, including all priests and even the Pope (who has a confessor). We must confess our sins, repent, do an assigned penance. We are forgiven. Priests go to confession, confess sins, repent and do penance. Catholics promise not to sin again. But since we are born in sin as a result of Eve's sin in the Garden (!) we will sin again, we know it. The cycle is re-enforced through a Catholic lifetime.

 

A priest may "sin" sexually, may confess that sin, be forgiven and do penance and sin again.

 

By their nature, priests and Church Authority are more concerned with sin than they are with secular law. After all secular law has made practicing Catholicism a crime at many different times in many different places.

 

If sins, including sins by priests, including sexual sins, can be forgiven within the Church, then secular law is not relevant. Just how "wrong" a priest's behavior is, is decided by his confessor, immediate superior and if there are difficult questions by higher Church Authority.

 

Authority is concerned about sin but also about public relations. If sins can be confessed and forgiven and the law is lesser than the word of Authority among Catholics, and public opinion is crucial, then it makes no sense and does no good to open priests to investigation by the law.

 

It is worse that the priest sinned than that he broke the law (the Elizabethan priests who were arrested, tortured and executed horribly were breaking the law, not sinning), but any other priest can forgive him his sins and he can try not to sin again. Even if he does, that is only to be expected from the fallen sons of Eve for such are we all.

 

It's a point of view that most non-Catholics and it would appear many Catholics don't seem to understand.

 

Because of the terrible publicity surrounding these recent acts, Authority has bent and is cooperating with secular law enforcers in the USA for survival's sake. That is also condoned by much Catholic teaching. It is better to go along and bring Christ Jesus in the form of the Host to the believers than to risk or ensure banishment. However that will not (I suspect) change many minds among those in Authority.

 

This is not to cartoon all Authority at this or any time in the Catholic hierarchy. No doubt some Bishops have been shocked, horrified and repelled by obsessive pedophilia among priests in their jurisdiction and have taken severe measures against those priests who could be shown to be out of control.

 

However, as I mentioned in one of my longer, boring, un-Munroe posts, the culture of man-boy 'love' and its frequency in seminaries certainly into the early 80's tended to make many Catholic clergy less sensitive and more forgiving about this issue than "ordinary people" are.

 

However I know first hand of several cases where the Irish Catholic detectives in the parish let an investigation into possible pedophile activity among local priests slide. They believed it was up to Authority to complete the investigation and discipline the priests. This was after several conversations with the Cardinal, of course. (One detective did take his two sons out of Catholic school though).

 

The generalizations about pedophiles and celibacy continue but are foolish. "Paraphilias" (and pedophilia is a paraphilia) and indeed most sexual impulses are imprinted on children by the time they are seven if not earlier. People do not WANT to be Pedophiles; they can't help themselves and usually gravitate to that activity early and spontaneously. That is why it is very hard to impossible to 'cure'.

 

The priests who are pedophiles would have become pedophiles anyway.

Whether they went into the priesthood because it would afford them cover, or because they were molested by priests at a very young age and saw nothing wrong with that activity and meanwhile were devout must vary from priest to priest.

 

Someone who is celibate and/or abstinent is not inevitably anything sexually. Many have heterosexual or normal impulses they curb (or fail to curb) by will power.

 

Will's point that many people of both sexes live without sex either by necessity (I would if I were broke, and have when I've been broke) or by choice is of course only the truth.

 

The only issue then for a cleric is that of masturbation -- is it a sin or not?

 

The biggest problem with celibacy is that it robs priests who are "normal" men of crucial life experience. Not only for themselves, but also in equipping them to understand and counsel others in crisis.

 

I am not a Catholic; I detest Christianity, a soul killing false collection of preposterous myths none of them supported by anything verifiable or in history, IN MY OPINION I haste to add.

 

"Spiritual" beliefs are a matter of personal choice and need. But I'm a little suspicious of them too.

 

However, sadly enough, I know quite a lot about Catholicism.

 

Al

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>We are all sinners, including all priests and even the Pope

>(who has a confessor). We must confess our sins, repent, do

>an assigned penance. We are forgiven. Priests go to

>confession, confess sins, repent and do penance. Catholics

>promise not to sin again. But since we are born in sin as a

>result of Eve's sin in the Garden (!) we will sin again, we

>know it. The cycle is re-enforced through a Catholic

>lifetime.

>

>A priest may "sin" sexually, may confess that sin, be

>forgiven and do penance and sin again.

 

All of this sounds to me like the model for the original "Make Work" project.

 

>However I know first hand of several cases where the Irish

>Catholic detectives in the parish let an investigation into

>possible pedophile activity among local priests slide. They

>believed it was up to Authority to complete the

>investigation and discipline the priests. This was after

>several conversations with the Cardinal, of course.

 

This sounds so familiar and so very predictable.

 

>I am not a Catholic; I detest Christianity, a soul killing

>false collection of preposterous myths none of them

>supported by anything verifiable or in history, IN MY

>OPINION I haste to add.

 

I agree with you here. Religion to me is just a rubber crutch.

 

Thunderbuns

[+ imagooddog]

Al-

That was one of the most well worded, considerate, and

well thought out answers I have ever seen. You are to be

congratulated!!

Suntan4