News-Record.com

The issue of celibacy will continue to grow, I expect. It might have been one possible way to handle problems in the church when instituted 1000 years ago, but it's not necessary nor smart.

It might have, as Sagan pointed out, one positive evolutionary effect -- it helps weed out of the gene pool a propensity for religious fanaticism. So long as the vows are actually in fact kept...

Required celibacy is one of those things for which there is absolutely no biblical warrant. And yes, Eric, it is in fact neither necessary nor smart. The Eastern Church does not require its priests to be celibate - although they do require their bishops to be. Proestantism reinstated the Israelite love of wife and family, seen as a true blessing from the Lord - for both clergy and laity.

Celibacy is an option, and St. Paul does point out the advantages of it - IF one is actaully called to it by the Lord. It is beneficial, perhaps even necessary, in some niche or triage ministries; but the norm is certainly, from a biblical standpoint, the holy union of one man and one woman.

The RCC is so entrenched in its doctrinal errors that it cannot seem to see the handwriting on the wall when it comes to sexual sin in the clergy - and other issues. I am not ANTI-catholic - or anti-catholics - but it would be great if the RCC could experience a true, modern day reformation, eliminating its deficits and maintaining and purifying its strengths. Ditto for liberal Protestantism.

It does seem to be kind of an extreme punishment for an indiscretion from a quarter of a century in the past, doesn't it?

Religious leaders are expected to be "superhuman" it seems. One wonders if the hierarchy ever heard of this value mentioned in the Bible called "forgiveness"?

I mean, some priests were forgiven for raping little boys, but this guy gets raked over the coals for this? Oy... vey!

i'm not convinced that religious leaders (Christians in general) are expected to be superhuman - but....... they should be expected to be held to a higher/different standard. Christians should not embrace what the world in general embraces but rather should be seeking the kingdom work which God has set forth for His people. it is very easy to "speak about" forgiveness but it isn't quite as easy to practice it.
i was wondering what was extreme about the removal of this priest from his post ? my quess is they will hush it up, give it some time, then simply place him in another parrish in the future. imo there are many policemen who enforce the law but they themselves have little regard for adhering to it. this is somewhat like many in the rcc heirachy, they will preach it to you and condemn you for your shortcomings but they will not apply the same measure to themselves. what many lose sight of in our faith is that the saved person is no longer subject to the penalty which sin carries but certainly they are subject to the consequence which sin brings - like the old Berreta theme song " if you can't do the time, don't do the crime."

"i'm not convinced that religious leaders (Christians in general) are expected to be superhuman - but....... they should be expected to be held to a higher/different standard. Christians should not embrace what the world in general embraces but rather should be seeking the kingdom work which God has set forth for His people."

I think we're seeing this in pretty much the same light, buz. A leader for a group is expected to "walk the walk," not just "talk the talk." Unfortunately for the Catholic church, the line they paint for their priests to toe is both unreasonable and tends toward self-destruction. Of the church, I mean.

The evidence for this is a long history of sexual abuse by priests, failure to abide by celibacy guidelines (as in this man's case) and a steady decline in the number of religious zealots willing to sign up for such onerous arrangements.

“but....... they should be expected to be held to a higher/different standard.” Exactly, Buz. Both OT and NT stress the fact that those called to the priesthood, ministry, prophetic office, kingship, etc. are CALLED by God to be leaders and examples. “

7 Remember those who rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, WHOSE FAITH FOLLOW” (Heb. 13.7)
For you yourselves know how you ought to FOLLOW US.” (II Thes. 3.7)

In these passages it is clear that those who lead the flock of God must be exemplary, although not PERFECT! Paul certainly admits his shortcomings. In the OT the priests are held to a higher standard of orthodoxy and conduct. David, though the king of Israel, sins greatly, but is forgiven by God on a personal level. Objectively and publicly, however, his sins have grievous, ongoing consequences.

The RCC hierarchy did the right thing for sure! The priest should be helped to find personal forgiveness from God, but objectively he is now unworthy to LEAD any flock as a presbyter (elder, minister). Example, although never perfect and fraught with human weaknesses in every case, must not be found guilty of grievous sin and error. It is up to the church courts/council involved to judge in these matters. Some cases are open and shut; others not easy to judge. This was a no-brainer. Yeah, the priest may have been chastised a bit harshly (maybe), but in the light of the abuse scandals, one can certainly understand a desire to be seen as taking care of the problem.
“Religious leaders are expected to be "superhuman" it seems. One wonders if the hierarchy ever heard of this value mentioned in the Bible called ‘forgiveness’?”
Eric, as I pointed out, this is NOT a matter of personal forgiveness but of church discipline: two related, but disparate things. Imus was forgiven by the Rutgers team, but he still received objective, public sanction from CBS. Case in point.