Rome's Gay Priest Scandal Makes Everyone Look Bad

I believe that the Catholic Church should change its rules regarding the adherence to celibacy. That is where the problem stems. It goes against our very own human nature. Lift that ridiculous rule and you might see some happier, healthier, clergymen. There are very, very few of us who can commit to a life completely dedicated to Christ like the Apostle Paul. He seems to have written the most on this topic -- single vs. marriage (and therefore, sexual relations). If the adherence to a man-made rule that runs counter to human nature were lifted, then a vow to celibacy would have greater honor and those who choose to have relations would be honored too. I don't know that it says anywhere in the Bible that a pastor cannot marry. That's a Catholic Rule, not a biblical one. Having said this, however, there is absolutely no excuse for abuse and practicing ways that counter what a religion preaches. Practice what you preach, and if you cannot, then get out. It's no different from performing a job in any other line of work. If you do not follow company policy, then you are likely to get fired. If a priest is required to commit to celibacy as a condition of his employment with a Church and he does not obey that, then let him go. If he is required to teach a doctrine that admonishes homosexuality, and then practices it himself, then let him go. This might go a long way to weed out priests that bring embarrassment to the Church. Change the rules or get tough. That's what I say.

Read the John Jay Report issued in 2004 if you need proof that the Church sez abuse scandal is a gay sex scandal.

Of all the cases of sex abuse reported between 1950 and 2002, 10% of the cases were with pre-pubscent boys or pedophilia, 80% to 90% of the abuse cases were with adolescent males. When an older male is having sexual relations with an adolescent or teenage male, that is homosexual, gay sex. There's no other way to describe it. These individuals are perverting themselves on innocent young men and they should be removed from the priesthood. The Church is not going after the gay priest who is chaste and obedient to his vows, but you can't ignore the facts. There is a proclivity of some gay men to prey upon younger males and there is no room in the Church for those individuals.

Sex is a human instinct. When the Vatican begins to understand that issue, they will be able to re-think their views of celibacy and poverity in the face of a sexually active male and his subsequent family - the reason Man was put on earth) and will go a long way in rehabilitating their image. A lot of their man-made rules about celibacy and poverty do not reflect human nature. And the vows they make priests say are man-made, not God-made. Remember Adam and Eve?

Interesting that so many folks are willing to say "all clergy" or "all Christians" are evil or guilty or whatever. Next time you want to say something like that take it out "all priests" and insert "all (ethnic group of choice)" Is it appropriate to say then? I didn't think so... Are there people out there who identify with a particular religion that behave poorl? You bet. But making it a stereotype is no more accurate than any other stereotype. Think a little. Thanks.

I disagree with your title; I am not made to look bad at all. I have nothing to do with priests, gay or not, Italy, Italian politics, the Vatican or its faith teachings. In fact, I am kinda of tired of hearing about its troubles and would really rather wait. To hear it had solved them before its next round of scandals. There are other churches out there if reporters cared to look. Otherwise, it was an interesting article I read, because you included the word “everyone.”

I am not sure God would run his church this way. Wrong, Wrong, Wrong.

Actually, Ken, we Catholics *do* teach that those who have faith will be saved with no other prerequisite, and that salvation is eternal. However, we believe (with St. James) that "faith without works is dead" and that good works are the outward sign of good faith (not in the sense of, "do good works to prove your faith" but in the sense of "if you truly have faith, it is impossible *not* to show it in your works"). His great condemnation in the parable of sheep and goats was not, "You failed to call me Lord," but "When I was hungry, you did not give me food (etc.)" and when they protested that they had never rejected Him in His need, He told them, "Whenever you did it to the least of my brethren, you did it to Me." They are damned not because feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc. are prerequisites for salvation, but because anyone who truly loves the Lord would care for His people, so their failure to do good works was *evidence* of their lack of faith, but that lack of faith was still ultimately what damned them.

Also, we avoid believing that we *are* saved, and rather continue to *hope* to be saved - not because we don't trust Christ's promise that we need only have faith and we will be saved, but because it is not for us to decide whether our faith is true. "Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord," will be saved." It is easy to *say* "I accept you, Jesus, as my Lord and Savior," but He did not command us merely to *say* we believe in Him, but rather, to truly believe, and to "Keep My commandments". Who are we to say, "My faith is sufficient, and has saved me, because I have declared myself born again, or have been baptized into Church X, Y, or Z"? To say so implies (though, I'm sure unintentionally) that "salvation" is just some magic formula that we can recite and force God to accept us.

Rather, we *hope* that God will find our faith pleasing in His sight, and thereby save us by His grace, but the ultimate decision of whether we have truly been faithful, or have merely deemed ourselves faithful belongs to Him alone. We bear in mind the story of Samuel and the sons of Jesse, and the parable of the obedient and disobedient sons - the sons who *seemed* most worthy were rejected, while the one who *seemed* unworthy was chosen. Who is the more pleasing in the sight of God? The one who says, "Yes, Father, right away," then fails to do as he is told, or the one who says, "No, Father, I will not," but then does his father's will anyway? The Gospel tells us the answer...

For years, not only the Catholics but Wesleyans and others have insisted that teaching salvation by faith alone together with eternal security encourages folks to "live like the devil" because they don't worry about consequences of sin. Their formula for "holy behaviour" of never being certain you're saved by Christ and always believing your "good works" or "bad works" play a part in the final judgment certainly doesn't seem to work well here. Get back to the Bible. Please!

It seems to me that many of us Christians have an easier time being judgmental than in being spiritual. We seem to have lost the fundamental principle that as people of God, we are not expected to be perfect. The notion that "if you're not perfect, you have no right to my respect" is modern, and truly one of the most perilous to the future of Christianity.
Humans are not perfect, never will be, but as Christians we strive to follow the teachings of One Who was.
To blame God for human failings is easy to do but absurd. Would we throw off learning a subject because one has some bad teachers?
Christianity for some of us is the subject of ultimate Freedom, despite what has historically sometimes been done in its name. We believe that Christ conquered Death, the only inevitability most people fear.
To fear and hate are related in the human psyche. Bad behavior ought rightly to be punished, but it's not sensible to throw the baby out with the dirty bathwater.

Pope Clement VII saw nothing wrong with three to five thousand boys being castrated per year. Sometimes your history tells it all.