No one knows with any certainty the percentages of homosexually-inclined or abusive men in the various churches. On the surface it would seem that celibacy would be a cover for someone who does not want to admit his homosexual inclinations to himself or to others. But the Anglicans have had big problem with homosexual molestation of teenage boys, often by married clergy.
The clergy, in addition to attracting people with good or at least not harmful motivations, would tend to attract narcissists who love the attention and who enjoy manipulating people. Even worse, some of the rhetoric that has been used to exalt the Catholic clergy could attract megalomaniacs like Maciel and Karadima.
Of course politicians are narcissistic and megalomaniac, and molesters occur in all occupations. But priests are carefully observed for years. Occasionally a psychopath might slip through, but why so many? And once they are in the clergy, they have access to vulnerable people who have been taught that priests are super-Christians, because they are so close to the sacraments.
Also, if the sacraments help to sanctify a person’s life, why do priests at least not show a reasonable attainment of virtue? They have the closest association to the sacraments; why do the sacraments fail to lead to ordinary human virtue in almost all priests?
Because none of this Skye Fairey nonsense is true.
Shovels dont dig holes, people do.
The sacarments are tools for spirituality but are not necessarily magical in themselves. I feel it is entirely plausible that men in the Church are going through the motions of being spriritual without being personally committed to that growth.
One topic that intrigued me in the catechism was that of Sanctifying Grace. I recalled that the Church always taught that Jesus Christ instituted the Sacraments as a means to resist temptation by providing Sanctifying Grace.Why then is the world including the members of the institutional church both clergy and laity, accepting and participating in serious sin in apparently greater numbers?
Answer? Well obviously according to the Church’s own teachings,there must be widespread absence of Sanctifying Grace!
One requirement for valid reception of the Sacraments is Proper Intention.The focus has always been that of the laity in reception of the sacraments, but Holy Orders is also a sacrament which requires the Proper Intention.
After becoming aware some twenty plus years ago of active sodomite clergy, I wondered if they were really even valid priests.When posing this question to priests I knew the pat answer always came by means of a story wherein St Francis kissed the hands of a well known fornicating priest.The same story was even relayed by way of several homilies from the pulpit as a means to squelch any thoughts of validity that popped into the minds of people like myself. “As long as they did what the Church intended” then everything was alright, I was assured. I was not alone in my doubts. Several Catholic friends expressed the same concerns to me.One retired priest who is a Canon Lawyer told me ,” It looks like the Vatican needs to redefine Proper Intention.”
Researching further , I found the following on a Catholic Answers website. the responsibility for Ordaining Responsibility for valid priests rests on the Bishops.
““Ex opera operato” has to do with the state of soul of the priest or bishop and his ability to confect sacraments. Should he be in grave sin or should he have great doubts regarding the faith, the sacraments he confects are still valid—so long as he intends what the Church intends by such confection. The sacraments perdure ex opera operato.
The term “faculty” has to do with permission to confect a sacrament and not the POWER to confect a sacrament. When a priest is given faculties to hear confessions, it is permission (a kind of license) to hear confessions that he receives. But the power to absolve sins comes from his ordination to Holy Orders and not from the faculties for hearing confessions.
If a man (heterosexual or homosexual) living a sinful way of life that is completely contrary to the Church should present himself for ordination, the ordination would be invalid as the result of his intention to deceive the ordaining prelate.
It is unlikely that a bishop with full knowledge of such a situation could have the appropriate intention needed to validly ordain such person.
Ludwig Ott’s “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” might be of interest to you regarding the sacraments and their ministers. It’s available at catholic.com and by phone: 888 291 8000.”
Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.
The question is, do we have the Bishops we deserve?
I think we have to look at this the way an economist might. As a matter of supply and demand.
As I said in a comment below, only allowing men who have chosen celibacy to become priests creates an imbalance in the kind of men who will be candidates.
Also, you say that candidates are “observed for years,” but since the church is desperate for priests, they have to have lowered their standards.
Your last paragraph raises a very hard question. It’s all well and good to speculate about these invisible, mystical, abstract things like grace in the sacraments, but where’s the evidence?
It’s hard to improve on Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, ch 11, v 27 for the explanation you seek: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.”
From Paul’s Letters, especially chapters 4 of both Letters to the Corinthians, we see the ministers elected from among the weakest Christians. That being said, and it covers the great majority of priests, we also have a few sociopaths in the ranks. The principal characteristic of sociopaths is lack of conscience; no guilt feelings, no remorse. In sum, a con-artist. In seminaries, this goes easily undetected, just as it does in most institutions. Ordination invites the meek and submissive candidate to spread his wings and fly. In spite of this, I think the final statement in your article “….in almost all priests” is an enormous exaggeration.
The only study with which I am familiar seems to point to the idea that there are more pre-pubescent boys molested than girls in the Anglican Church because there is greater access to boys. These cases are not related to the molesters’ adult sexual orientation.
But, there is no information available on older boys and the adult sexual orientation of their molesters.
It would be very helpful for experts to come together to map the clerical abuse field in order to plan out what studies are needed.
What, for example, about the incidence of group and ritual abusers who are clerics as compared to the general population?
What about situational or cultural pederasty? I understand US troops in Afghanistan are shocked at the frequent misuse of boys by Afghan soldiers – as if by assembly line. Another example are the over 2,000 eye brow tweezers found among the ruins of a camp of Roman soldiers in Iberia. Do male-restricted societies, or even male-dominated societies, albeit heterosexual in terms of adult relationships, foster homosexual behaviors and pederasty?
Anglican abuse study:
http://www.anglican.org.au/docs/Study%20of%20Reported%20Child%20Sexual%20Abuse%20in%20the%20Anglican%20Church%20May%202009%20Full%20Report.pdf
Also, if the sacraments help to sanctify a person’s life, why do priests at least not show a reasonable attainment of virtue? They have the closest association to the sacraments; why do the sacraments fail to lead to ordinary human virtue in almost all priests?
Excellent questions, Leon. They don’t seem to lead to human virtue in the laity, either.
Perhaps it’s because sacraments aren’t “magic bullets” but instruments of God’s grace. Receiving them doesn’t relieve us of moral or ethical responsibility. Indeed, the purpose of God’s grace is to lead people to repentance through His Son. But too many Catholics seem to buy the “magic bullet” theory.
Here’s another interesting question: If those receiving the Sacrament of Confirmation supposedly receive the Holy Spirit, then why do so few Catholics understand the implications of that? I don’t mean just in terms of ethics or morals but in terms of the Holy Spirit being an
Advocate or Counselor to each believer? Why does the Catholic Church seem to confine the Holy Spirit to “charismatic” activities?
You are on the right track!
Thank you, Dr. Podles, for prompting this discussion, the most troubling of questions. Sanctifying grace, we were taught, came from the sacraments, most of which only priests could perform. By the time they are ordained, most boys/men have been programmed into believing that the “onotological change” that occurs during ordination, guarantees the efficacy of the sacraments despite the state of their souls. There need not be any decency for a man to call himself priest. Men who started out with the intention to serve Our Lord, often become sociopathic and no longer have visceral reactions even to crimes against children.
The all -male, removed from the world clergy, cannot possibly be what Jesus intended. The notion of Sanctifying Grace is reduced to hooey by men without conscience.
AW
Saceaments work “ex opere operato”, that is, God is faithful to the sign celebrated and gives grace. They take effect “ex opere operantis”, meaning, onlyy to the extent that the one receiving the sacraments is open to, and cooperates with the grace given. Psychopaths, narcissists and megalomaniacs are probably not all that open. It is not without reason that St. Paul warns the Corinthian Chrisitains to carefully examine themselves befor receiving the Eucharist. Some were receiving with a bad spirit and Paul says “This is why some of you have become sick and even died.” St. Alphonsus (who I’ve heard recommended castration of clergy who abused minors) recounts an incident where a wayward priest was actually executed by a demon.
While I object to homosexuality as a sin, I want to point out that your article works on the assumption that men tempted to homosexuality are also conscience-less pedophiles that prey upon children, and that is not true. Believe me, there are heterosexual men in the ministry who also prey upon children. And certainly, most men who live a homosexual lifestyle are NOT child molesters.
You’re talking about two different things: homosexuality and child molesting (predation). Child molesting occurs among both homosexual and heterosexual clergy, and it has strong ties to power and manipulation. It’s a distinct sin if you like: predation upon the innocent, no matter the sexuality of the predator that is expressed. Indeed, many child molesters will molest either gender, especially if the favored one is not available.
Second, you must have very little comprehension of Christian doctrine. Partaking of the sacraments without faith is actually condemnation for the person who so partakes, not blessing. A sacrament cannot cleanse a faithless person.
“..why do the sacraments fail to lead to ordinary human virtue in almost all priests?”
The problem is not with the Sacraments, that are based in Scriptures, but with people blinded by what they want them to mean, to serve their worldly agendas. Sure, there is a problem of virtuous governance in the Church. All too often, canon laws are removed, twisted, re-written or ignored, to serve and protect favored constituencies with “influence” (bishops, the Maciels and similar “movements” with their supporters, etc…). But do you have any data to support such a broad claim against the majority of priests? Almost all priests I met in my life were and are good people, period. Many made great sacrifices, including putting their lives are risk (vs. armchair pontificating). It is not by making outlandish sweeping statements against priests in general that there will be any progress, imo.
A friend of mine’s aunt and uncle both died in the odor of sanctity – smelling like roses. Her aunt used to have wild animals follow closely behind her when she worked outside. They were Methodists…sweet, gentle, humble midwesterners, accepting Christ as their savior and living quiet, just lives. A renewed vision of what is holiness is needed.