Levada claims celibacy was the problem in priestly abuse?
Hardly, but that's how it's spun....


Repeating it over and over doesn't make it any more true...  ::)

Quote:Cardinal Levada Blames Celibacy for Clergy Sex Abuse
Angela Bonavoglia

Given the numerous times that representatives of the Catholic Church hierarchy have denounced efforts to link compulsory celibacy to the terrible history of clergy sex abuse and cover-up, it was astonishing to hear Cardinal William Levada, head of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which handles abuse allegations, on the PBS Newshour last week do just that.

Responding to a visiting Margaret Warner's questions about the clergy sex abuse scandal, Levada at one point said: "I think the causes we will see go back to changes in society that the church and priests were not prepared for, particularly changes involving how to be a celibate person in a time of the sexual revolution." (what he actually said!)

That is a stunning and extremely noteworthy admission, ??? for several reasons. It meant, if we take Levada at his word and go the next step, that as a result of the sexual revolution, there were Catholic priests who became involved in all kinds of sexual acting out, from pedophilia (though that is a psychiatric condition with its own etiology) to sex with minors to the sexual exploitation of young -- and not so young -- vulnerable adults.

In fact, a perfect example of this acting out in at least two regards is the disgraced leader of the Legionaries of Christ--the powerful religious order of which the Vatican just took control--Marcial Marciel Degollado. He not only abused seminarians, some of whom were likely minors at the time, but also apparently sexually exploited women, fathering "several" children.

That acting out was a major problem in itself, inflicting horrendous suffering on the victims of those sexual exploits -- girls and boys, men and women. But the real way that celibacy caused this crisis is that it led the hierarchy to go to outrageous lengths to hide the truth: its failure to maintain a pristine celibate priesthood.

Indeed, a celibate Catholic priesthood has long been a myth rather than a reality. In his research, psychotherapist and former Catholic monk Richard Sipe found that an estimated half of all priests were involved in some kind of sexual activity at any one time. Of those, 15 percent were involved with men, 30 percent with women, and 6 percent with minors.

The National Lay Review Board established by the U.S. bishops made a similar observation, though it did not differentiate by gender. They reported having heard from "numerous witnesses" that there were "more incidents of sexual relationships between a priest and a consenting adult woman or man than between a priest and a minor." They characterized the women and men involved as "often vulnerable" and the priest's behavior as "gravely immoral."

According to a 2002 Los Angeles Times poll, only a third of priests surveyed in the U.S. and Puerto Rico said that celibacy was not a problem for them.

Despite the level of sexual activity that has existed among Catholic priests, charges Sipe, the Church has blatantly and belligerently refused to deal seriously with breaches in celibacy.
"The inherent duplicity between the stated norm, belief and practice thrives on the denial of sexual reality," Sipe has said of the Church and celibacy. "This communal dishonesty sets the stage for sexual corruption and abuse."

In other words, by forbidding priests who choose to be sexual in mature ways that include commitment, responsibility and respect, and by protecting them from the costs of their sexual exploits, the church has effectively condoned a clerical sexual free-for-all. That heterosexual and homosexual behavior may thrive in the Catholic priesthood does not reflect anything inherent about homosexuality or heterosexuality but is rather an indictment of the hypocrisy and duplicity of an elite, closed, all-male system, that condones, indeed, demands, lying about the reality of one's sexual life at all costs.

So Levada is right. The challenge of compulsory celibacy in a sexually charged world has been a major contributor to the Church's clergy sex abuse scandal. (That's not what he said  ::) ) Compulsory celibacy cloaked in a mantel of sexual superiority is very dangerous.

No compulsory celibacy means no hypocrisy, less duplicity, and hopefully, safer congregants and safer kids.

Angela Bonavoglia is the author of Good Catholic Girls: How Women Are Leading the Fight to Change the Church, soon to be released as an e-book. For more go to: www.goodcatholicgirls.com.
Levada said something ambiguous, but to say that he blamed mandatory celibacy is BS.  I'll paraphrase:  "The sexual revolution caught us by surprise.  The living out of celibacy took a hit."  What he said isn't incorrect, it's just incomplete. 
Imagine that the Huffington post spinning someting to sound liberal I am shocked SHOCKED!!
The problem is they think the sexual revolution is over and they won. Now it is on to new heights perhaps bestiality for kindergarten kids is next. All children should have pets, right??? Depraved is the descriptive.
This author is so laboring the argument that it is ridiculous.
And the punchline is the last paragraph that says she is the author of a book about women changing the church.
All I can say is "nice try..."
Naturaly our world is partial, accidental, and things are composite from zillions of reason,  but he has some right.

Until to belong to the clergy meant being wealthy and affluent, there were enough people who accepted the celibacy to get a safe  and good life, so the Church had a wide pool to select and call people for the priesthood. (In the traditional times the Church believed and tought the the assurance of God's call is the call of the bishop at the time of the ordination, to which the candidate answers : Adsum).

When the wealth and affluence was gone, the number of the candidates for the above defined vocation significantly diminished, so the Church lowered the standards, and admitted people to ordination who earlier were advised away from the seminaries at the beginning.
(05-03-2010, 09:32 AM)glgas Wrote: When the wealth and affluence was gone, the number of the candidates for the above defined vocation significantly diminished, so the Church lowered the standards, and admitted people to ordination who earlier were advised away from the seminaries at the beginning.

Priests weren't wealthy and affluent for a long time before V2 (probably since the French Revolution), and some, such as Jesuits and Franciscans, never so, at least personally.  Sure, some people saw the priesthood as a good career in that you got an education, 3 square meals a day, etc., but that was always the case and still is; so yes, some people join the priesthood as a career, but I think you are overstating the influence of wealth and affluence which was long gone before V2.

I think the perverts took over the seminaries, turned away the good men, and filled the Church with filth.  A lot of good men who managed to squeak in left the seminaries because they were filled with perverts and distorted thinking.
I have often wondered why people have names which are so completely wrong for them. Bona voigla is good will in Italian, and Angela is angel as we all know, so she is Angel of good will. As the hippies used to say unreal, man, unreal.
This theory proceeds directly from our society's idea that sexual desire is like a filling balloon: if you don't let off some pressure every so often, it'll pop.  Seinfeld of course had that famous episode "The Bet," where trying not to masturbate for a few days was nearly impossible and drove them crazy.  It's practically a trope now that if a TV character is in a dry spell (usually defined as more than a couple months without sex), he'll become irrational and obsessed until he gets some.  So naturally, if a man can't have a wife, it's only a matter of time until he grabs the nearest 15-year-old boy, right?

A lot of this comes from Kinsey, who used surveys of prison populations and male prostitutes to claim that men who didn't have women as an option would easily turn to other men for sex, and then switch back when circumstances changed, 'proving' that sexual preference is more malleable and opportunistic than innate.  But that ignores the fact that he was dealing with convicted felons and prostitutes, who just might not be the most psychologically balanced specimens to use when making claims about the general population.
Levada is the Trojan Horse in the Vatican, his selections for bishops out west here in Salt Lake City, Reno, San Jose, Santa Rosa and his successor in san francisco have all been modernists who seem to have a quiet acceptance of the gay lifestyle. I'm very troubled this man is in the position the Pope put him ( his terrible job running Portland and San Francisco didnt warrant it) He is also on the Congregation for Bishops and you can bet hes pushing the Liberal/modernist agenda. Mahoney is the outspoken modernist out here while Levada does his destruction quietly.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)