Priests fornicating, bishops not removing them.

Great Debates
1

Are there Catholic priests fornicating, but still in the ministry and their bishops know it, but do not remove them?

First way of answering in the affirmative, from the nature of the Catholic Church as a human organization: Yes, because the Catholic Church is an organization of men; in every organization there are members working but not worthy of their membership yet their superiors for reasons of their own let them be.

Second way of answering in the affirmative, from the laws of the Catholic Church: Yes, because there are laws and penalties of the Catholic Church, from the beginning of the discipline of clerical celibacy and chastity to the present, against incontinent priests.

Third way of answring in the affirmative, from actual incidence of fornicating priests still in the ministry and their superiors let them be on reasons justifiable in their conscience.

However, if you have the first and second ways of proving the presence of fornicating priests, the third way is not necessary anymore.

Susma Rio Sep

2

Men being men, I’m sure there are cases that fit the description.

Apropos of nothing in particular (he said, whistling innocently) I’d point out that this isn’t the same as a priest being MARRIED and having his superiors turn a blind eye or two to the situation.

  • Rick
3

First way of answering on the SDMB - cite?

Second way of answering on the SDMB - horseshit.

The fact that a group is made up of humans means that it is possible that they have committed some fault or other.

The fact that there are laws against some sin or other means that it is possible to commit some fault or other.

The SDMB is made up of fallible humans. There are laws against cannibalism. Therefore, the SDMB is guilty of cannibalism.

That is not how it works.

Regards,
Shodan

4

To all readers here:

I have explained already that outside the knowledgeable circles of people versed in Canon Law of the Catholic Church and the theology of the Catholic Church on marriage, people not instructed in Canon Law and marriage theology very loosely or even routinely whether Catholics or not use the term ‘married priests’ for referring to priests:

  1. Married in some kind of wedding, without knowing that the wedding is not a Catholic sacramental and canonical marriage; for there is nothing to prevent a Catholic priest from contracting a purely civil marriage (unless the country concerned has an agreement with the Vatican to not allow priests to marry before civil officials);

  2. Priests living in common-law marriage, living as married people but without any wedding whatever, neither civil or religious.

  3. Priests having affairs with women.

(Vatican Roman Catholic Church has made it impossible for Catholic priests to enter into a sacramental marriage as understood in the Catholic Church, by a prior invalidative mechanism, namely, that priests are not valid subjects for sacramental marriiage.

That is why you will read the phrase ‘priests attempting marriage’ in legislative texts of Catholic canon law and literature.)

  1. Priests who were properly married before ordination to the Catholic priesthood or acceptance to the Catholic clergy, which ordination or acceptance usually is done by a special grant of the Vatican; and normally the condition is that they no more use the conjugal right of sex.
    In the two posts which stirred up this controversy (in the thread on Catholics and anal sex):

(Originally posted by Kalhoun)

I thought I saw something on 60 Minutes about priests in South America and possibly Africa who are married and actively having kids and are still Catholics. The church tends to look the other way because no one complains about it. I’m pretty sure that’s where I saw it.
(Reply post of Susma)

Closing both eyes.

Authorities decided that better a priest going to hell does his ministry to the boon of Catholic faithfuls, than that faithfuls be left without any pastoral care.

Or they send incontinent priests to other locations, hoping they will change for the better.

Which doesn’t usually work.

That’s how bad the scarcity of worthy priests is in the Catholic Church.

Susma Rio Sep

You will notice that the ‘married priests’ mentioned by Kalhoun in the 60 Minutes program does not make a distinction about what marriages the priests are in.

I will really look up that program to see the details of married priests mentioned there.

But I know that people not knowledgeable usually use the phrase loosely.

For the purpose of this discussion then, let us limit ourselves to fornicating priests, namely, priests having sex with women but not married in accordance with the strict requirements of the Canon Law and theology of marriage on the sacrament of marriage properly called matrimony.

Susma Rio Sep

5

Susma:

You keep saying that.

But you’re crazy if you think you can palm a card like that under our noses. Trained in theology or not, I am confident Kalhoun knows the difference between marriage and shtupping. We’re NOT talking about priests having affairs with women. Your feeble attempt to dodge this bullet by redefining terms isn’t going to fly.

Stop posting bullshit, and stop reposting the same dodges over and over.
Here is the question you must answer:

WHERE ARE THE MARRIED PRIESTS THAT THE CHURCH AUTHORITIES ARE TURNING A BLIND EYE TO?

No more BS. Answer the damn question.

6

Memo to Susma:

Horse puckey.

First off, the Catholic Church does not forbid priests to marry.

Rather, the Roman Rite forbids priests who marry from continuing to serve in the priestly office (without dispensation from the Rota). They are laicized, still priests but forbidden to use their priestly faculties except in an emergency.

Married priests of other churches who enter the Roman Catholic Church are often licensed to continue in both the married and priestly states. There are a fair number of married ex-Episcopalian priests in the Roman Church.

Eastern Rite priests may contract marriage before ordination, though an unmarried or widowed Eastern Rite priest may not marry.

Fornication refers to sexual intercourse for the purpose of personal pleasure outside the marital relationship. There may very well be priests who commit the sin of fornication. But that is for their confessors and superiors to judge.

If there are priests who have contracted a marriage and continued to serve as active priests without dispensation, there should be evidence of this available.

7

Invalid conclusion. Your logic is completely flawed.

The only thing that you can answer from the first two premises is that there is a possibility or a presumption of the activity. Without actual evidence, it is not possible to answer whether or not an activity is occuring, only speculate as to its likelihood of occuring.

8

Dear Brick:
About your keen desire to condemn me as a liar, let us go through the post of Kalhoun and my reply, in that thread on Catholics and anal sex, and the post where you stepped in to accuse me of lying:

(For readers interested to know more about the accusation and related matters , please refer to the thread on Catholics and anal sex, pages 2 and 3.)

(Originally posted by Kalhoun)

I thought I saw something on 60 Minutes about priests in South America and possibly Africa who are married and actively having kids and are still Catholics. The church tends to look the other way because no one complains about it. I’m pretty sure that’s where I saw it.
(Reaction post of Susma)

Closing both eyes.

Authorities decided that better a priest going to hell does his ministry to the boon of Catholic faithfuls, than that faithfuls be left without any pastoral care.

Or they send incontinent priests to other locations, hoping they will change for the better.

Which doesn’t usually work.

That’s how bad the scarcity of worthy priests is in the Catholic Church.

Susma Rio Sep
(Reaction post of Brick where he accused me of lying)

Susma Rio Sep is offering absolutely inaccurate information and dispensing it with calm surety. This really bothers me.

In addition to the mistake with respect to Jewish law, with which I have passing familiarity, there are serious errors concerning the Roman Catholic Church’s teachings. For example, in responding to Kalhoun’s question about married priests and if the Church is “looking the other way:”

quote:Closing both eyes.

Authorities decided that better a priest going to hell does his ministry to the boon of Catholic faithfuls, than that faithfuls be left without any pastoral care.

Or they send incontinent priests to other locations, hoping they will change for the better.

Which doesn't usually work.

That's how bad the scarcity of worthy priests is in the Catholic Church.

This is a lie.

The requirement that a priest not marry is not set in stone. The Code of Canon Law (Can. 1047 § 2) provides that if a man already married wishes to become a priest, the Holy See alone may grant permission.

Now, if you, Susma Sep Rio are talking about any case in which a priest has married without the permission of the Holy See and continues to exercise his office with the church “looking the other way” or “closing both [her] eyes,” please present it, and then I’ll glady retract my characterization of you as a stinkin’ liar.

But I see no reason to withdraw that characterization at present.

  • Rick

I really don’t know at this point what you are accusing me about?

Suppose you tell me at this point what exactly my lie consists in and where it is uttered.

All the time I had the idea that you were accusing me of saying in that reaction to Kalhoun, that namely that reaction is a lie. Suppose from that reaction post of mine to Kalhoun, you make a list of the lies there that I uttered.

You know in the Catholic Church, when someone is suspected of teaching wrong doctrines, the authorities pick out as many things as they can formulate into propositions which they can gather from his writings, and declare that such propositions are not in accordance with the Catholic faith.

Suppose you do something similar, formulate the things I uttered in that reaction post to Kalhoun into brief statements which you can accuse me of lying about.

I confess that I had all the time the idea that you and people here not happy with me are concerned namely with my saying essentially what I started in this thread, namely, ‘Priests fornicating, bishops not removing them’.

So at this point, I believe we owe it to all of us: you and me, and every reader here, to hear form your part what exactly and where exactly is the lie you accuse me of uttering.

In the next post, I will present that 60 Minutes text from CBS and also some materials from its website. I hope they will be instructive to everyone here in regard to the issue. And please read my thread on ‘What is a lie?’

Susma Rio Sep

9

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/17/60minutes/main525956.shtml

[Copyrighted text deleted. – MEB]

Please go to that website for more background information about the issue of priests and sex.

Susma Rio Sep

10

Susma,

Nothing in what you’ve posted, with the possible exception of Archbishop Marino’s story, is on point.

Your lie is: claiming church authorities “close both eyes” to married priests.

The only one of the stories above that might involve a married priest is Archbishop Marino. For that story to support you, you would have to show that church authorities knew Marino was married, and took no action. Marino resigned, and his resignation was accepted. That isn’t “closing eyes”. Moreover, the only one making the claim that there was a marriage involved is the putative wife. Was he married, in any legal or meaningful sense? Did Church officials know he was married? If the answer to both of those questions is ‘yes’ – then you will have shown a case that supports your claim.

You haven’t done that yet.

And you can stop posting the “priest has affair with woman” cites - they prove NOTHING about your claim of married priests ignored by the authorities. You can also quit posting about married priests licitly recognized, such as converted Anglican priests. While they are married priests, the church has not “closed both eyes” to them.

So, to recap, AGAIN:

**MARRIED priests, to whom the church has CLOSED BOTH EYES.

Cite?**

  • Rick
11

Suppose you point out where in the post whereat you first accused me of lying, where namely is that statement you quoted, reproduced blow:

“MARRIED priests, to whom the church has CLOSED BOTH EYES.”
A digression: I think I told Shodan that priests married prior to acceptance to the Catholic clergy need not be turned a blind eye to by their bishops; for they are in legitimate marriage and legitimately incorporated into the Catholic clergy. (Of course Church authorities have to inform ordinary faithfuls about the peculiar canonical status of such married priests.)
You seem to keep on adhering to ‘married priests’ and to keep on adhering to ‘closed both eyes’ for the sake of continuing on and on accusing me of uttering a lie.

Does it mean that much to you that you have to convince me that I uttered a lie and the whole world that I uttered a lie. But honestly at this point I really don’t know anymore what you are talking about. Your emotional attachment appears to impede you from seeing the real picture.

Anyway, for the record, I want to state here before the whole world that I did not utter a lie in that post of mine where you stepped in later to accuse me of lying; and I really don’t know at this point what you are referring to insisting on those two phrases.

Please do go over my post where you reacted to and see whether the phrase ‘married priests’ is there. Also do go over the exercise I suggested to make a list of statements from my written words there, and see whether you can say that each statement is a lie.

You are a licentiatus in iure canonico and also you tell me a lawyer in civil courts, you should not have a hard time doing that.

From the first moment of your reaction post to mine in reaction to the one of Kalhoun, I was immediately of the impression that I have here someone who is not happy with the mention of priests haviing sex with women and bishops not taking action against them.

Finally, I have noticed that you have a deficient knowledge of what essentially is a lie. That is why I asked you to do research in law, in ethics, and in moral theology on what is essentially a lie.

Susma Rio Sep

12

I have to go now, Brick.

But I was wondering from the beginning whether we might not have here an instance of a strawman.

I will back later.

God bless you.

Susma Rio Sep

13

Yes, you posted a lot of irrelevant drivel.

Again, I understand your allegations completely. There is no need to repost them. (And for heaven’s sake, learn to code, so I can tell what you’re quoting and what you are alleging. )

What I would like is some concrete examples, so we can tell what the dickens we are discussing.

Frankly, the OP leading off this thread is such ridiculous tripe that I am losing patience. If you want to have a discussion, let’s have one. If you are just trolling, keep up what you are doing and I will know which threads to skip.

Regards,
Shodan

14

Happily. Although goodness knows you are impervious to reason, I see no harm in trying agian.

Kalhoun claimed that priests were “…married and actively having kids and are still Catholics. The church tends to look the other way because no one complains about it.” You responded, “Closing both eyes…”

So - for what I hope is the last freaking time… WHERE are the MARRIED priests to whom the church authorities are CLOSING BOTH EYES?

Where? Where?

Married. Priests. Church authorities CLOSING BOTH EYES. Where?

  • Rick
15

Kalhoun claimed that priests were “…married and actively having kids and are still Catholics. The church tends to look the other way because no one complains about it.” You responded, “Closing both eyes…”

So - for what I hope is the last freaking time… WHERE are the MARRIED priests to whom the church authorities are CLOSING BOTH EYES?

Where? Where?

Married. Priests. Church authorities CLOSING BOTH EYES. Where?

  • Rick **
    [/QUOTE]

Dear Rick:

Please be calm.

Here is what Kalhoun said:

(Originally posted by Kalhoun)

I thought I saw something on 60 Minutes about priests in South America and possibly Africa who are married and actively having kids and are still Catholics. The church tends to look the other way because no one complains about it. I’m pretty sure that’s where I saw it.

He was not claiming but telling readers what he saw in the program 60 Minutes.

Maybe if Kalhoun is aware of this discussion we are having, he might be interested to tell us whether he was claiming anything. It seems obvious he was telling us about what he saw in the program 60 minutes.

The way I undersand his words: “I thought I saw something…”, he was not claiming but telling as in reporting what the saw in the said program.

Here is that 60 Minutes program again:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002...ain525956.shtml

In the meantime, I am trying to find out where this discussion got to be where it is now, and in its present state.

I want again to put on record here that I was not lying in that post you accuse me of lying.

So be calm and be patient. If I am a bit late in replying, it is because I really want to get to the bottom of this dissatisfaction on your part.

Would you care to do the exercise I request you to, namely, search through that post where you accused me of lying to see if you can make a list of statements which are lying ones.

And also I would like you to refer to our short exchange about what I think your idea of a lie is not very complete.
Susma Rio Sep

16

Dear Brick:

I had to attend to some chores; but I am back now.

You say:

Married. Priests. Church authorities CLOSING BOTH EYES.

That statement is not in the post of mine to which you reacted by accusing me of lying.

Would you have the patience to go over my other posts on our question, following that one, in order to locate the phrase: ‘married priests’. Show them to me; then I might be able to explain to you what I mean, and also try to explain to you that so far as my conscience is concerned I was not lying.

Now I would like to impose on your patience also in regard to your understanding of the words used in your written line:

Married. Priests. Church authorities CLOSING BOTH EYES.

Actually I am quite at a loss to see what you exactly understand in that line, in which according to you I am guilty of lying; whereas never have I ever uttered such a line.

Suppose you describe to me your meaning of the following terms:

  1. Married

  2. Priests

  3. Church authorities

  4. CLOSING BOTH EYES.

Afterwards, I will tell you what I understand and how I use these terms, if I indeed I use them all. We might be able to discover where we diverge in our idea and use of these words.

Hopefully, we can arrive at some conclusion on your accusation against me of doing an act of lying, namely, whether it is valid or not.

I know that this request will take patience, time, and concentration on your part; but just as in any other controversy where there is an accusation from one side and a denial from the other, an exposition of the words used by both sides is very necessary to solve the problem.

Have you noticed that I have been several times trying to explain what I understand and how I imagine people understand with some of the words appearing in our discussion, for example, what is ‘lie’, what is ‘married priest’.

Thank you for you continued interest in this discussion, and your patience in affording me the time and attention from your part, to explain why I am clear in my conscience, that I was not lying in that post to which you reacted by accusing me of lying.

And I want you to know that I am studying carefully our posts to each other on this matter here and but specially in that thread on Catholics and Anal Sex, to establish its progression or development, to find out how a persistent accusation came about against me in reaction to the post where I reacted to Kalhoun, and you reacted to me – by accusing me of lying.

I will be back much much later, tomorrow. Should I die before then, please keep in your mind, and all people reading these posts here, I want everyone to know that I am declaring here: that I did not lie in that post where you accused me of lying.

Susma Rio Sep

17

You unprintable …

Look, I’m not going to write an essay on English to facilitate your desperate search for a loophole.

Kalhoun asked if what he saw on “Sixty Minutes” was true - was the Church turning a a blind eye to married priests?

You responded that Church authorities were “closing both eyes.”

I’m going write an essay on each of the relevant terms above. It’s clear to me that, had you a defense to offer, you would have. If you had a shred of intellectual honesty, you would simply say, “I misspoke. Church authorities may be turning blind eyes to many problems with clergy, but, technically, marriage isn’t one of them.”

Instead, you repost long quotes that have nothing to do with the issue at hand, and you go off into long rambling exercises in stupidity.

I’m not playing that game. If you have different definitions to offer, YOU write the damn essay. Tell me how “marriage” actually just means “having sex”. :rolleyes:

  • Rick
18

Does anyone else find Susama’s posts extremely difficult to read in plain English?

Folks, if any of you are latecomers to this thread: Susama’s either lying or making unsupported allegations. Ignore it and let it die.

19

Dear Brick:

As I told you what I would do, I went through our posts, again, very carefully, starting with the one of Kalhoun and my reaction to his and your reaction to mine, in order to understand why you are insisting that I was lying in my reaction to Kalhoun’s post. Here are the three crucial posts again:

(Originally posted by Kalhoun)

I thought I saw something on 60 Minutes about priests in South America and possibly Africa who are married and actively having kids and are still Catholics. The church tends to look the other way because no one complains about it. I’m pretty sure that’s where I saw it.
(Reply post of Susma)

Closing both eyes.

Authorities decided that better a priest going to hell does his ministry to the boon of Catholic faithfuls, than that faithfuls be left without any pastoral care.

Or they send incontinent priests to other locations, hoping they will change for the better.

Which doesn’t usually work.

That’s how bad the scarcity of worthy priests is in the Catholic Church.

Susma Rio Sep

(Reaction post of Brick where he accused me of lying)
Susma Rio Sep is offering absolutely inaccurate information and dispensing it with calm surety. This really bothers me.

In addition to the mistake with respect to Jewish law, with which I have passing familiarity, there are serious errors concerning the Roman Catholic Church’s teachings. For example, in responding to Kalhoun’s question about married priests and if the Church is “looking the other way:”

quote:Closing both eyes.

Authorities decided that better a priest going to hell does his ministry to the boon of Catholic faithfuls, than that faithfuls be left without any pastoral care.

Or they send incontinent priests to other locations, hoping they will change for the better.

Which doesn't usually work.

That's how bad the scarcity of worthy priests is in the Catholic Church.

This is a lie.

The requirement that a priest not marry is not set in stone. The Code of Canon Law (Can. 1047 § 2) provides that if a man already married wishes to become a priest, the Holy See alone may grant permission.

Now, if you, Susma Sep Rio are talking about any case in which a priest has married without the permission of the Holy See and continues to exercise his office with the church “looking the other way” or “closing both [her] eyes,” please present it, and then I’ll glady retract my characterization of you as a stinkin’ liar.

But I see no reason to withdraw that characterization at present.

  • Rick

I studied all your posts and mine, again, very carefully, subsequent to these three posts, in the thread on ‘Catholics and Anal Sex’ and also in the present thread.

The way I see it, in accusing me of lying, namely from my part by again studying very carefully your posts, I seem to come to the conclusion that you don’t know what you are talking about.

I invite you to go to my new thread on “Married priests in ‘60 Minutes’”, where I invite readers to exchange views and contributions with me, on how to under that phrase there and also related materials.

Susma Rio Sep

20

Um, wouldn’t it be better just to get them Depends?

Susma Rio Sep, would you mind using the quote function? It’s almost impossible to tell where your posts end and the quotes begin.