I agree that the probable major causes of this sexual abuse which seems to be common in the Roman Church, is the non-existence of the married priest, and the lack of the priesthood being a ‘calling’ but rather a choice of a man to enter the seminary and ‘train’ to be a priest.

However, I would like to say this, and I truly believe it….a priest does not become a paedophile, but rather a paedophile becomes a priest because it provides him with a safe haven for his perverted lusts and gives him a position of trust with children.

So we shouldn’t be asking ourselves why these priests are doing these things, and lose faith in the vocation of priesthood, we should be asking ourselves how we can eliminate the paedophiles from falling through the cracks to ordination.

That is all…..

Oh it gets worse.

Anyway, thanks Abouna!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/15/AR2010041505072.html

The above article says, however, that the case in interest was that of the housing of an offending priest under the roman pontiff’s archdiocese for “therapy” for a single offence (though it would difficult to believe that only one would have occured), and that the priest still completed a prison sentence. So going from your insights and reading, I suppose the therapy was to help the “penitent” young priest (who wanted to leave his post) to reform, and continue his duties?

Yikes.

This analogy is disingenuous. We know that in at least one case, a priest who had abused children requested permission to leave the clergy. His bishop concurred and they both sought approval from the current catholic pope when he was an archbishop. The pope refused to make a decision for several years because he wished to avoid losing a young priest. Since we have letters the pope actually signed directing a bishop to retain a priest who had abused children, I don’t see how one can say that it is unlikely that the pope was involved. Isn’t the catholic pope responsible for the documents that he signs? Isn’t that the whole point of a signature?

Therefore, a better analogy might be that the pope’s responsibility is akin to that of a director of health who meets with one of his doctors. This doctor admits to intentionally murdering patients but the director refuses to fire him or inform the police. For years.

Anyway, is it right for us outside the Catholic Church to say that their fault is not allowing priests to marry?

Yes it is.

I mean its their expression of priesthood, and who are we to say how someone practices their tradition.

Anyone can practice any tradition they wish, but they must accept the consequences of their tradition. The catholic pope delayed removing some priests who admitted to abusing children because he was concerned about the shortage of catholic priests and did not want to lose a young priest. The cause and effect is clear: requiring celibate priests reduces the number of priests, which forces the church to be far less discerning about which priests to keep and which to remove.

But I think those who defend it on historical grounds, would find this shaky, since it clearly is not the most ancient practice. But if we argue in this point, we will find it harder to defend our on practice of monk-only bishops.

Given the overt political reasons for requiring celibacy (explicit concerns about priest children inheriting church land and property), I think we can safely dispense with any historical arguments.

As you said- this was a systemic, calculated, world-wide policy by the Catholic Church. One colleague, though, seemed reasonable, and said that though he doesn’t particularly have any likings for the Pope, he was an archbishop (not the bishop at the time) and would have “most very unlikely be involved personally in the {alleged} coverup”. He said his responsibility is akin to the director of health in the state for what is happening in the corridor of a hospital. He thought the pontiff was genuinely ascetic, and even said probably involved with the opus dei (I add this in for humour).

Further, Abouna, I met someone who was a Greek Orthodox person, who alleges that he was molested by a priest in Italy. I do not know their selection process. And I encountered a Copt overseas who had said the Bishop is doing nothing (but a warning) to a priest that abused him (do not know how, though). I agree that our Church is not protected entirely, but I think that we have some protective factors. I wonder why these scandals are not hitting other religous/moral authorities and institutions?

It is interesting- I was reading a book called “The Twilight of Atheism” by Alister McGrath, and he talks about how repulsed the French in particular and many Europeans were of the Catholic Church (and the CofE etc.) during the revolution; their abuses and scandals of the clergy, and how that was pivotal in creating Atheism as we know it today, or at least a secular society. Its an old lesson! He also showed the link between Protestantism (though an Evangelical himself), and Atheism.

Anyway, is it right for us outside the Catholic Church to say that their fault is not allowing priests to marry? I mean its their expression of priesthood, and who are we to say how someone practices their tradition. But I think those who defend it on historical grounds, would find this shaky, since it clearly is not the most ancient practice. But if we argue in this point, we will find it harder to defend our on practice of monk-only bishops.