|
 |
Mike
Koepl wrote: |
Interesting site.
I may find answers to questions here, like:
- Why is Cardinal Law still so rooted in
the Church, as to be voting for a new Pope,
when he was the center of such a great
sex scandal?
- How do I explain him to my non-Catholic
friends?
- Having seen the History Channel documentary
on the Papacy, and knowing it has been
rocked by scandal and politics, how do
I explain the need for priestly celibacy?
Mike
|
{ How
do I explain Cardinal Law voting for a new
Pope, and the need for priestly celibacy, to my friends? } |
Eric
replied:
Hi, Mike —
Thanks for the question.
Being a cardinal, and hence being
able to vote for the Pope, is a privilege
that virtually cannot be revoked.
There is no provision to "un
appoint" a bishop or cardinal.
It would be like stripping a former
President of his privileges. It just
isn't done.
One question that is useful to ask
is, Whether Cardinal Law was:
- just
a negligent manager, or
- whether he
was malicious in what he did.
In
other words, was he evil, or just
weak?
The Church makes a huge distinction
between those who are intentionally
evil and those who are merely weak
or incompetent. However strongly
you feel about Cardinal Law, he is
not an evil person. He does not deserve
to be totally stripped of his priesthood
and cast out into the streets without
a pension, which is about the only
way he could be stripped of his right
to elect the Pope.
Remember, the Pope didn't even want
to accept his resignation, and only
did so at Cardinal Law's insistence.
Without a Pope to make a decision
concerning him, there is no way that
Cardinal Law could be stripped of
any rights.
You said:
- Having seen the
History channel documentary on the
Papacy, and knowing it has been rocked
by scandal and politics, how do I
explain the need for priestly celibacy?
- What does being rocked by scandal
and politics have to do with priestly
celibacy?
- Are married people free of scandal
and politics?
- Is there some way that celibacy
makes the Papacy more scandalous
or more political?
I'm confused.
Priestly celibacy is a need because
we need single-minded men who have
totally dedicated their lives to
the service of others, to lead the
Church. If you knew the life of a
Catholic priest, you would see that
they have no time whatsoever to dedicate
to raising a family (and remember,
from a Catholic perspective, to get
married, at least to a woman below
the age of menopause, is to expect
a family). Raising a family takes
a lot of time to do right, and is
a full-time job. The life of a priest
in a typical parish is just too busy
to juggle both ministering to a parish
and raising a family.
You might argue that if we had more
priests, the workload would be lighter,
and the priests would have time for
their families, but the permanent
diaconate has been around for a while.
You'd think that if there were a
pent-up demand of married men wanting
to be clerics, they'd be rushing
into the permanent diaconate, but
that is just not happening.
Eric Ewanco
|
Mary
Ann replied:
Mike —
First, he is a cardinal. Cardinals
are bad and good. Cardinals vote
if they are under a certain age.
It's sort of like Rostenkowski (a
scandalous politician) still voting
while being disciplined. I think
he should have had the good graces
to resign (if that's possible). Also,
he has seniority, just as Rostenkowski
did. So you see his face. The Church
has sinners in it. There are probably
a lot of cardinals a lot worse than
he is. Praise God that the Holy Spirit
will guide them!
Second, the History channel story
was not the full story, but institutions
reflect the age they serve, and are
made up of men from their culture.
There have been bad Popes. They prove
the point of the guidance of the
Holy Spirit in the Life of the Church.
Priestly celibacy is a charism so
that a priest might be totally devoted
to the Church, as was Christ to the
Bride. It is a discipline, not a
dogma, and can be changed. Married
priests will not, I think, appreciably
affect the amount of sexual deviance
and misbehavior. To see that, all
you have to do is look at the record
of married people.
- How much
sex abuse and misbehavior goes on
there?
Most pedophiles are married,
even those who abuse boys. Homosexuals
are 12-19 times more likely to be
pedophiles than are heterosexuals.
(At 2-5 % of the population, they
account for 33% of the abuse cases.)
Mary Ann
|
John
replied:
Dan Rostenkowski?
I thought only political junkies,
like me, remember him!!
Now let's get down to some business.
From my understanding of the facts,
most of the sexual abuse was not
pedophilia, which is sex with children
who are younger than the age of puberty.
Hence, I'm sick of hearing about
pedophilia:
- it was abuse
- it was
shameful
- it was sinful
- it was
predatory
- but it was, for the
most part, not pedophiliac.
Now as to Cardinal Law, I can't
help but notice that most of the
people I hear complaining about his
participation in the conclave, and
celebrating one of the Novena Masses,
are the same ones praising the Pope
for rightly taking a stand against
capital punishment. So I find it
amusing that these folks think it's
terrific to show mercy to murderers,
but don't believe in showing
mercy to a bad administrator.
I might add that most of these folks
are the same ones who support abortion.
Hence, they are all a party to mass
murder. They are also the same pundits
clamoring for the Church to change
Her teaching on birth control, which
also makes them deviants.
Speaking as one who has always favored
a liberalization of the celibacy
discipline, I'm sick and tired
of people trying to link the sex
scandal with celibacy.
Think about the warped logic. According
to them, abstinence causes men to
become homosexual predators! Well,
as a single male who has been celibate
for the past 16 years, I resent the
implication!! What's more,
these are probably the same people
who say homosexuality is a genetic
condition and not a behavior, so
how do they reconcile their positions?
A married clergy is not going to
help root out predatory sex practices
amongst those who have that inclination.
If anything, it will encourage deviants
to enter into marriages for the wrong
reasons.
Finally, I have to wonder what would
have happened if Cardinal Law had
driven the deviant priests out of
the priesthood, rather than shipping
them out to different parishes. These
same folks, who continue to vilify
him, would have been screaming that
he was discriminating against homosexuals.
I'm not defending Cardinal Law, but
I'm fed up with people trying
to find a reason to perpetuate Catholic
bashing, especially during the Pope's
funeral and subsequent period of
mourning.
John DiMascio
|
|
|
|