# Santorum - Boston liberalism cause of priest scandal. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 13, 2005, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-boston-liberalism-cause-of-priest-scandal/312333 "2005-07-13T13:58:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![yBeayf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/e274bd/32.png) [@yBeayf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yBeayf)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2005, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-boston-liberalism-cause-of-priest-scandal/312333/61 "2005-07-13T18:22:42Z")
> [@](#): > > So we can then say that “Not all Roman Catholic priests are required to be celibate, but all are required to be chaste.”, right? I suppose, then; any Roman-rite priest who is legitimately married was not ordained into the Roman rite and usage, but transferred over from another rite or usage. ---
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2005, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-boston-liberalism-cause-of-priest-scandal/312333/62 "2005-07-13T18:36:03Z")
> [@tdn](#): > > You’re splitting hairs. No, I’m not, because you’re taking my remarks completely out of context. They pertain only to the “‘celibate’ vs. ‘chaste’” subthread. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2005, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-boston-liberalism-cause-of-priest-scandal/312333/63 "2005-07-13T18:42:13Z")
> [@tdn](#): > > … hey certainly did not get permission from either the Pope or God to diddle children… Might have gotten permission from God, but the Pope could overule that. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ea5d25/32.png) [@Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Scrappy_Hero_Pup)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2005, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-boston-liberalism-cause-of-priest-scandal/312333/64 "2005-07-13T18:46:00Z")
OK, I got it muddled. A Roman Catholic priest is supposed to be chaste. He is not supposed to engage in sexual conduct of any kind. It is extraordinarily rare that a married man may be called to the priesthood, or, even rarer, for a priest to marry. Accommodation of such members (or potential members) of the priesthood must be made by the Holy See; I assume that, should a married man become a priest or vice-versa, that the standard conventions of marriage (including, but not limited to, sexual intercourse) would apply. ---
**Author:** ![Balle\_M](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/13edae/32.png) [@Balle\_M](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balle_M)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2005, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-boston-liberalism-cause-of-priest-scandal/312333/65 "2005-07-13T18:46:06Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Barney did no such thing. The guy he was banging did that without Barney’s knowledge. I remember the incident…Barney was shocked, shocked! to find out that this was going on in his own apartment. > [@](#): > > Not that there’s anything wrong with gay prostitution rings. Do you have a problem with that or something? If you’ll check, I never mentioned the gay angle. Why do you think it makes a difference? ---
**Author:** ![yBeayf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/e274bd/32.png) [@yBeayf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yBeayf)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2005, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-boston-liberalism-cause-of-priest-scandal/312333/66 "2005-07-13T18:53:48Z")
> [@](#): > > It is extraordinarily rare that a married man may be called to the priesthood, or, even rarer, for a priest to marry. In the Eastern rites, married men may become priests, and historically they have made up the majority of clergy in those rites. No clergyman at the level of deacon or above may marry after being ordained. The few Roman-rite priests who exist do so because they were either priests of a different rite who transferred to the Roman rite, or were a married priest before converting to Catholicism, and were received as a priest into the Catholic church (as has happened in the Anglican usage of the Roman rite). ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2005, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-boston-liberalism-cause-of-priest-scandal/312333/67 "2005-07-13T18:56:18Z")
> [@Balle\_M](#): > > I remember the incident…Barney was shocked, shocked! to find out that this was going on in his own apartment. Bitch, _please_! I can fully believe the man was so enamored of his boytoy with the extracurricular activities that he didn’t see the signs of what was really going on. I simply cannot believe the man was so stupid that he thought he, a prominent Democratic senator (and the only gay one at that), could get away with running a gay prostitution ring openly out of his apartment without the press and his colleagues finding out about it. You just want to find something to call Frank out on because your hero Rectal Sludge said something stupid and reactionary again. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2005, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-boston-liberalism-cause-of-priest-scandal/312333/68 "2005-07-13T19:01:17Z")
Nitpick! Nitpick here! Getcher nitpick here! Not a Senator. Representative. “Does it come with chips?” ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2005, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-boston-liberalism-cause-of-priest-scandal/312333/69 "2005-07-13T19:12:01Z")
> [@Balle\_M](#): > > I remember the incident…Barney was shocked, shocked! to find out that this was going on in his own apartment. Do you have any information that such was not the case? You intimated that Frank was “running” a prostitution ring out of his apartment. Can you back that up or can’t you? > [@](#): > > If you’ll check, I never mentioned the gay angle. So what? I never said you did. > [@](#): > > Why do you think it makes a difference? When did I say I thought made a difference? It makes no difference to me whatsoever. I have no problem with prostitution of either sort as long as no kids are involved and the prostitutes are willing. The question is do YOU have a problem with prostitution rings? You brought that into the conversation as though it meant something about Barney Frank’s character? Dop you think there’s something wrong with prostitution? ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2005, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-boston-liberalism-cause-of-priest-scandal/312333/70 "2005-07-13T19:12:17Z")
> [@Metacom](#): > > No, I’m not, because you’re taking my remarks completely out of context. They pertain only to the “‘celibate’ vs. ‘chaste’” subthread. Ah. Sorry. I guess today I’m having problems with concentr let’s go ride our bikes! ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2005, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-boston-liberalism-cause-of-priest-scandal/312333/71 "2005-07-13T19:14:17Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Nitpick! Nitpick here! Getcher nitpick here! > > Not a Senator. Representative. > > “Does it come with chips?” Sorry. I’d forgotten he was still a Congressman at the time. Having since Googled the story, I’d like to note that it was Gobie who claimed that Frank knew about it. Considering that his admitted motivation for shopping the story around to the media in the first place was money, I’m not inclined to believe him about a detail that would make the story all the more lucrative. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2005, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-boston-liberalism-cause-of-priest-scandal/312333/72 "2005-07-13T19:33:52Z")
He still _is_ a Congressman. ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2005, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-boston-liberalism-cause-of-priest-scandal/312333/73 "2005-07-13T19:42:37Z")
> [@tdn](#): > > I think you’re still off base. Catholic priests have never enjoyed sexual license and moral relativism. AFAIK Catholicism has always preached moral absolutes and priesthood celibacy. Actually, until > [@](#): > > the official and unilateral introduction of compulsory celibacy by Roman Catholicism some 900 years ago in the 1070’s, contrary to the decisons of the First Oecumenical Council of 325 Roman Catholic priests could and did marry, though the Church strongly preferred that they be celibate. Quote taken from [ON PRIESTLY CELIBACY AND THE PRESENT CRISIS IN ROMAN CATHOLICISM: OBSERVATIONS OF A MARRIED PRIEST OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH](http://www.orthodoxengland.btinternet.co.uk/celibacy.htm). ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2005, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-boston-liberalism-cause-of-priest-scandal/312333/74 "2005-07-13T19:53:20Z")
> [@EddyTeddyFreddy](#): > > the official and unilateral introduction of compulsory celibacy by Roman Catholicism some 900 years ago in the 1070’s, contrary to the decisons of the First Oecumenical Council of 325 Well yeah, by “always” I meant for hundreds of years. I didn’t include the 1070 decision because a) it was a gratuitous fact, and b) I had no idea what the date was. By the way, is it true that the real reason for forced celibacy was so that priests could not build large power bases with which they could tip the balance of power to their favor? I’ve heard someone make this claim, but I never got a goof cite. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2005, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-boston-liberalism-cause-of-priest-scandal/312333/75 "2005-07-13T19:54:04Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > He still _is_ a Congressman. Shhh. His mom thinks he _does_ run a man-ho ring. It would break her heart! ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2005, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-boston-liberalism-cause-of-priest-scandal/312333/76 "2005-07-13T19:57:33Z")
So Moto, these things only happen in such liberal bastions as Boston, [North Dakota](http://www.snapnetwork.org/news/otherstates/usa_apsurveys_page2.htm), and [Wyoming,](http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/2005/04/23/build/wyoming/60-priest-abuse.inc)right? ---
**Author:** ![DoctorJ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doctorj/32/2904_2.png) [@DoctorJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DoctorJ)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2005, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-boston-liberalism-cause-of-priest-scandal/312333/77 "2005-07-13T20:00:28Z")
> [@](#): > > I think he’s right, to a point. > > The problem is that the moral relativism and sexual license that he rightly rebukes aren’t a problem of the city of Boston. Besides, how can a city be condemned for what are moral failings that we, as individuals, commit? > > Rather, these were failings of certain clergy of his, and my, own church. > > So his remarks are misdirected, in my opinion. So you don’t agree that a _general_ climate of sexual license and moral relativism led these priests to do what they did, just those characteristics in these particular priests. And you certainly don’t agree that it was the climate of the city of Boston that led to it. Basically, you agree that the priests who did this were bad people. Shit, I would agree with Santorum up to _that_ point. Except that Sanorum is making almost the opposite point–this happened not because of the people who did it, but because of the society they live in. I thought it was us _liberals_ who blamed society instead of individuals for crimes. ---
**Author:** ![MsRobyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/90ced4/32.png) [@MsRobyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsRobyn)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2005, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-boston-liberalism-cause-of-priest-scandal/312333/78 "2005-07-13T20:10:30Z")
I’m just sitting at my desk here in Central Pennsylvania, rubbing my hands in politically-motivated glee at the thought of Santorum being shown the door. Casey isn’t doing much besides grass-roots campaigning and he’s still ahead 11% according to the Quinnipiac poll somebody else cited? WHOO-HOO!!! Happy to help vote this schmuck out of office, Robin ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2005, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-boston-liberalism-cause-of-priest-scandal/312333/79 "2005-07-13T20:56:04Z")
> [@tdn](#): > > Well yeah, by “always” I meant for hundreds of years. I didn’t include the 1070 decision because a) it was a gratuitous fact, and b) I had no idea what the date was. > > By the way, is it true that the real reason for forced celibacy was so that priests could not build large power bases with which they could tip the balance of power to their favor? I’ve heard someone make this claim, but I never got a goof cite. Heh. That “always” is a tricky word to use, isn’t it? I found [this](http://lore.moondance.org/scandals.html) online, can’t vouch for its accuracy, although it rings bells from the dim dark past of my college years when I majored in Medieval Studies: > [@](#): > > Priests began to take wives during the 5th and 6th centuries, despite the church’s demand of celibacy. In the 11th century, papal decrees, aimed at bringing more wealth to the church, commanded married clergy to abandon their wives and sell their children as slaves. This decree was strictly enforced because new laws permitted the priests to bequeath their property, and their wive’s property, directly to their children. You have to scroll about a third of the way down to find that bit. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2005, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-boston-liberalism-cause-of-priest-scandal/312333/80 "2005-07-13T21:02:34Z")
> [@EddyTeddyFreddy](#): > > Heh. That “always” is a tricky word to use, isn’t it? Yep. Yep. It’s always tricky. 🆒 Thanks for the cite. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-boston-liberalism-cause-of-priest-scandal/312333.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/santorum-boston-liberalism-cause-of-priest-scandal/312333.md?page=5)