Celebrity priest in sex scandal

[Lance Uppercut]

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1896581,00.html

His last name is Cutie? And he's a total mack?





oh god what is this i don't even :confused:

[Chris_D]

I don't necessarily understand the whole celibacy thing but it doesn't seem like he did anything particularly bad. As the article points out, it's nice to have a priest actually going after someone of legal age for once.

[Lithium Flower]

I may not necessarily approve of celibacy vows but regardless of my position but it's a fundamentally immoral thing to violate an oath you've taken voluntarily. If he felt he could no longer keep it, he should have renounced his priesthood. He made a vow and he broke it. I don't think it should be condoned. He should resign from whatever position of authority he holds.

[Ancalagon]

This is why the vow of celibacy is stupid. So what if he wants to have a relationship with a hot woman? So long as he conducts himself in a manner fitting to his religion, whats the harm?

I agree with some of the statements in the article, that a relationship or marriage would make it easier for him to understand what others go through and be a more balanced person. Being celibate unfortunately cuts him off from humanity.

[Chris_D]

Aren't there priests who have committed pedophile acts (or at the very least are strongly suspected to have done, incident covered up by the church, settled out of court, etc.) that still wear the cloth? Makes barring this guy for simply expressing innocent and natural urges seem kind of wrong. I guess he is so well known and the media are so interested in him that it was too much trouble for the church to cover up so they just cut him loose.

[Lithium Flower]

That's the thing. He did not behave in a manner befitting his religion or his office. It doesn't matter that worse ethical breaches have been committed by those in his position. It doesn't matter that they have been condoned in the past (which is separate lapse on the part of other people). None of that excuses the simple fact that he made a promise to the people of his community - that he would pursue a course of behaviour in return for a position of moral and religious authority and he attempted to deceive them by breaking that promise and violating a vow he took voluntarily. That is unethical and immoral.

If he wanted to pursue a relationship with that woman, he should have renounced his priesthood. He became a priest of his own volition and as far as I know, you can resign. He didn't. He wanted to have his cake and eat it too. That's clearly unethical in its own right.

[Ancalagon]

yeah, look what he did was wrong, I'm not suggesting he didnt break a vow.

but the question is why was he forced to take the vow of celibacy in the first place? Look what it leads to - priests abuse young boys, this guy was forced to lie rather than engage in healthy and normal courtship, and for what? Does it make him a worse Catholic if he gets married one day?

[Johan]

I find the biblical/textual foundation for celibacy to be shaky/tenuous at best, and outright wrong at worst. I'll leave that tenet to the Catholic church, as far away from my own faith as possible.

[ShivaX]

yeah, look what he did was wrong, I'm not suggesting he didnt break a vow.

but the question is why was he forced to take the vow of celibacy in the first place? Look what it leads to - priests abuse young boys, this guy was forced to lie rather than engage in healthy and normal courtship, and for what? Does it make him a worse Catholic if he gets married one day?

I don't think celibacy has anything to do with priests being pedos. They were that before they became priests.

Its a tenant of the faith. I don't agree with it and a lot of other denominations don't either, but thats irrelevant. He signed up to be a Catholic Priest, which means he signed up for celibacy. If he disagreed with it he should have become a denomination that didn't have that restriction. If he truely believes in Catholicism and was willing to make the sacrifice then this shouldn't be an issue.

If the clergy of a church can't follow the tenants of said faith, then one has to ask why they're members of the clergy. If a rabbi wants to eat bacon and shellfish, maybe he shouldn't be a rabbi.

[Ancalagon]

Dont you think perhaps you should also consider whether the rules should be changed?

I mean, what if he really is a Catholic, really believes in it, and its really right for him, and he really cant be a part of any other religion, but at the same time hes human and wants a life partner. Is it wrong for him to suggest that the rule be changed?

After all, it has more to do with how Catholics interpret the Bible than the Bible itself.

EDIT: Also why is it that a disproportionately high amount of Catholic priests abuse young boys?

[ShivaX]

Dont you think perhaps you should also consider whether the rules should be changed?

I mean, what if he really is a Catholic, really believes in it, and its really right for him, and he really cant be a part of any other religion, but at the same time hes human and wants a life partner. Is it wrong for him to suggest that the rule be changed?

After all, it has more to do with how Catholics interpret the Bible than the Bible itself.

EDIT: Also why is it that a disproportionately high amount of Catholic priests abuse young boys?

Then he shouldn't be a priest.

Theres lots of people out there who are Catholic and really believe in it (half my family for example), but they don't become men-of-the-cloth. All any organized religion consists of is a interpretation of their holy book. Saying they should change because people don't like the interpretation is silly. Thats why theres so many denominations, if you don't agree with the Catholic viewpoint, be something else. Hell found your own Church.

As far as the Catholic priests and abuse, a lot of that is the fact that the Church covered things up and moved priests around. Also its a position of power thats going to involve children. If you're a pedo and want to fondle little boys, one of the best positions to be in is the clergy. People will trust you with their kids and you can use your position to keep things covered up fairly well (at least until recently, but this has been going on for decades so the point stands).

Just like people with inferiority complexes are going to be attracted to say, law enforcement. You get a badge and a gun and get to tell people what to do. If you break the law you're in an ideal position to try to cover it up.

I don't see any relation between celibacy and pedophilia. In fact thats somewhat insulting to even suggest on a lot of levels. I know people who haven't had sex in years, does that mean they're on the road to pedophilia? That anyone could start molesting children just because they aren't getting laid? Or is pedophilia a scenario where someone is just inherently fucked up? I tend to think you're a pedo or you aren't, you don't become one because you aren't getting any. Shit I'm not getting any and I have no desire to look at naked kids. I even avoid the "teen" porn out there for the most part.

[Ancalagon]

Then he shouldn't be a priest.

Theres lots of people out there who are Catholic and really believe in it (half my family for example), but they don't become men-of-the-cloth. All any organized religion consists of is a interpretation of their holy book. Saying they should change because people don't like the interpretation is silly. Thats why theres so many denominations, if you don't agree with the Catholic viewpoint, be something else. Hell found your own Church.


So you dont think religion should ever change? Once a religion is made, cast in stone by some Ancient Men, thats how it is and it never changes.


As far as the Catholic priests and abuse, a lot of that is the fact that the Church covered things up and moved priests around. Also its a position of power thats going to involve children. If you're a pedo and want to fondle little boys, one of the best positions to be in is the clergy. People will trust you with their kids and you can use your position to keep things covered up fairly well (at least until recently, but this has been going on for decades so the point stands).

Just like people with inferiority complexes are going to be attracted to say, law enforcement. You get a badge and a gun and get to tell people what to do. If you break the law you're in an ideal position to try to cover it up.

I don't see any relation between celibacy and pedophilia. In fact thats somewhat insulting to even suggest on a lot of levels. I know people who haven't had sex in years, does that mean they're on the road to pedophilia? That anyone could start molesting children just because they aren't getting laid? Or is pedophilia a scenario where someone is just inherently fucked up? I tend to think you're a pedo or you aren't, you don't become one because you aren't getting any. Shit I'm not getting any and I have no desire to look at naked kids. I even avoid the "teen" porn out there for the most part.

True, yeah I guess getting none wont make you any more likely to wont to fondle young boys. You are either like young boys or you dont.

That being said, clearly something is wrong if either so many paedophiles are drawn to become priests or so many priests are drawn to young boys.

[Lance Uppercut]

There's several reasons why the church instated celibacy, and for the most part it has relatively little to do with the bible. The possibility of the orphaned children of priests and their widows claiming church property as inheritance is a main one. And while there are several biblical passages favoring celibacy, it's only encouraged at most, not mandated.

I'm just glad he's messing around with beautiful women, and not altar boys.

[ShivaX]

So you dont think religion should ever change? Once a religion is made, cast in stone by some Ancient Men, thats how it is and it never changes.
I think religions are a giant pile of horseshit. But if you're going to believe in them and be part of an organized one, then you don't get to make the rules.

True, yeah I guess getting none wont make you any more likely to wont to fondle young boys. You are either like young boys or you dont.

That being said, clearly something is wrong if either so many paedophiles are drawn to become priests or so many priests are drawn to young boys.

I wont disagree with that. I think theres likely a lot of factors that figure in. You have those pure predators that actively seek it out because they know its the best way to get what they want. You'll likely have those who have the urges and join the church to find salvation and then join the clergy, but then fall to their base desires.

Add with the organization as a whole covering it up and moving people around and its going to be an issue. If they had taken care of them immediately it might not have been so bad. Instead they take Father Molester and move him to a new town, where odds are pretty damn good hes going to do it again. Repeat for God only knows how long, decades at the least likely even centuries.

[ShivaX]

There's several reasons why the church instated celibacy, and for the most part it has relatively little to do with the bible. The possibility of the orphaned children of priests and their widows claiming church property as inheritance is a main one. And while there are several biblical passages favoring celibacy, it's only encouraged at most, not mandated.

I'm just glad he's messing around with beautiful women, and not altar boys.

Well the Catholic Church is a big ball of man-made bullshit for the most part anyway. I'd even call it idol worship myself, but if you're going to be part of the faith and even preach that faith, I think don't think its unreasonable that you follow it. If you don't think its right, don't become a Catholic, theres a hundred other denominations out there.

[Ancalagon]

I think religions are a giant pile of horseshit. But if you're going to believe in them and be part of an organized one, then you don't get to make the rules.


I disagree. All organisations change over time, without exception, that includes religions.

Look at the Catholic Church's new commandments, and its new acceptance of evolution.

They do change, and as a priest, the guy was in fact a (small) part of the authority of the Church, and therefore ought to have some say in how it is run.

Yeah, it would have been better if he had expressed his views with his superiors and attempted to change the Church from the inside than breaking his vows, I'm not saying that means breaking his vows is justified. But equally I think the Church should change its position on marriage.

As for inheritance and Church property...I would think the Church would retain ownership so there isnt anything to inherit?

[Ox]

Being celibate unfortunately cuts him off from humanity.
I hope it's possible to stay in touch with humanity without using your penis to do the touching.

That being said, clearly something is wrong if either so many paedophiles are drawn to become priests or so many priests are drawn to young boys.
While it's certainly concerning because being in the priesthood offers ample opportunity, it's actually the outgrowth of a good effect. Many of the pedophile priests were aware that their urges were evil and wrong, and they entered the priesthood with its vow of celibacy to remove themselves from the temptation. That's a good motive. After all, if you have an innate urge to pedophilia, I think we'd all ask you to take a vow of celibacy, Catholic or not. Unfortunately, very few people always obey their vows.

As for whether the vow of celibacy should be rethought: it is. There's currently a very sub rosa debate going on about exactly what "celibacy" means. I know priests who believe it means only that marriage is forbidden; sexual activity, however, is not. Personally, I find this theory to be, ah, in tension with the general Catholic prohibition on nonmarital sex. In the past century or so, it's been relaxed slightly, with already-married Protestant ministers who wish to convert being permitted to remain married if their wives consent.

[Ox]

Look at the Catholic Church's new commandments, and its new acceptance of evolution.
What's new about the Church's acceptance of evolution?

They do change, and as a priest, the guy was in fact a (small) part of the authority of the Church, and therefore ought to have some say in how it is run.
Well, now, that's just not how the Church is structured. But the Pope could change it: it's not doctrine, it's just an ecclesiastical law.

As for inheritance and Church property...I would think the Church would retain ownership so there isnt anything to inherit?
Depends. Many Catholic churches are legally owned by the bishops. This has created some problems when, for example, victims of abuse have sued the bishop (http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2005_07_12/2005_08_21_Burke_AsLawsuit.htm).

[Ancalagon]

I hope it's possible to stay in touch with humanity without using your penis to do the touching.

I intentionally didnt mention sex, I mentioned relationships and marriage. I'd value the advice of a relationship counsellor more if he had actually ever had a relationship than if he had been celibate his entire life.


What's new about the Church's acceptance of evolution?


I thought they had previously denied it, for centuries? They made a special announcement of it a while back, I dont think they would have done so if it were not a change in policy.


Well, now, that's just not how the Church is structured. But the Pope could change it: it'
s not doctrine, it's just an ecclesiastical law.

Again, organisations change, current structure is irrelevant. The Pope may have the power, but he would listen to influences such as his own... um people calling for change.

[Ox]

I intentionally didnt mention sex, I mentioned relationships and marriage. I'd value the advice of a relationship counsellor more if he had actually ever had a relationship than if he had been celibate his entire life.
There's no rule that says a priest can't have had romantic or even sexual relationships prior to ordination, and most of them did. But I actually think advice is often most useful if it comes from someone without personal baggage. He's less likely to view your problems through the prism of his own experiences. I wouldn't expect my doctor to have had cancer or my lawyer to have been imprisoned.

We all have dozens of friends and family who can offer advice from the perspective of having been in a romantic relationship. There's no dearth there. So I can hardly see why it would be so important to get the priest a romantic relationship too.

I thought they had previously denied it, for centuries? They made a special announcement of it a while back, I dont think they would have done so if it were not a change in policy.
You're right it was a change in policy, but the Church never denied evolution. The first real statement mentioning evolution came in 1950, when the Church specifically said there was no conflict between evolution and Catholicism. In 1996, the Pope said evolution was "more than a hypothesis."

[Ancalagon]

There's no rule that says a priest can't have had romantic or even sexual relationships prior to ordination, and most of them did. But I actually think advice is often most useful if it comes from someone without personal baggage. He's less likely to view your problems through the prism of his own experiences. I wouldn't expect my doctor to have had cancer or my lawyer to have been imprisoned.


People learn wisdom from experiences, not from books.


We all have dozens of friends and family who can offer advice from the perspective of having been in a romantic relationship. There's no dearth there. So I can hardly see why it would be so important to get the priest a romantic relationship too.


For a lot of Christians and Catholics, as far as I know, the priesthood often acts as counsellor. A lof of people ask their priests for advice, and I know for a fact that they offer marriage counselling.

I'm not saying that priests need to be married, just that they should have the option. Some might find it easier to give advice if they can understand better what the person is going through.

[Ox]

People learn wisdom from experiences, not from books.
The only thing we learn from experience is that we do not learn from experience.

[Superman's Dead]

I'm not saying that priests need to be married, just that they should have the option. Some might find it easier to give advice if they can understand better what the person is going through.

I think the whole crux of the argument is that 'should' doesn't matter, because the Catholic Church is, well...much older than all of us. It's who they are. Those are their beliefs. It may be irrational for Americans to take school off on Columbus day (for those states that still do), or irrational to have no term-limits for Senators...but that's who the country is. And that might change, and so will what we do...but the Catholic church is pretty resilient. This isn't the first case of this in their history, and they've made it this far...

[headhunter228]

I'm not saying that priests need to be married, just that they should have the option. Some might find it easier to give advice if they can understand better what the person is going through.

I don't agree with the Catholic Church on a great number of things, and this is one of them. I have seen nothing in the Bible suggesting that priests are required to take a vow of celibacy. I have seen some regulations regarding the marital relations of priests in the Bible. All the Bible really says is that priests should belong to one woman only. In other words, he should only be married to one woman at a time, and not go after other women. They aren't even required to marry. Even so, this man made a sacred vow to God, and he broke it. In addition, he was getting it on with his woman in public. That is not the proper conduct of a priest, and the archiodese was right to punish him for what he did.