Secret mistresses of Italian priests call for Pope to scrap celibacy rule
Pope reaffirmed ‘the value of sacred celibacy’, technically an historic rule of the Church rather than an unchangeable doctrine, in the wake of the paedophile scandals that have rocked the Church.
It seems bizarre to me, that the Pope insists that priests remain celibate all their lives. It is not after all a doctrinal imperative, as he recently admitted; merely that it has its origins in history.
I don’t subscribe to the view that allowing Catholic priests to marry would improve the lamentable incidents of paedophilia, but it would surely make them more understanding of the problems of their congregations, and would go a long way towards banishing the misogynist attitudes of the Roman Catholic Church.
Nearly 40 Italian women who have been involved in sexual relationships with Roman Catholic priests have written to the Pope calling for an end to clerical celibacy.
In an open letter to Pope Benedict XVI, the women said that they could no longer afford to be ignored. And they urged the Pope to take compassion on the “painfully lonely being” that is the modern Catholic priest.
The 39 signatories headed by Antonella Carisio, Maria Grazia Filippucci and Stefania Salomone described their hurt at “the contempt” with which the Church has for centuries and in recent statements tried to silence “the cry of men and women who have suffered in the already tattered shroud of mandatory celibacy”.
The letter was issued after the Pope reaffirmed “the value of sacred celibacy”, technically an historic rule of the Church rather than an unchangeable doctrine, in the wake of the paedophile scandals that have rocked the Church.
Pope Benedict said: “Our limitations and weaknesses must prompt us to live out and preserve with deep faith this precious gift with which Christ has configured us to him, making us sharers in his saving Mission.”
The Pope intervened after one of his close friends and advisers and a favourite to succeed him, Archbishop of Vienna Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, said that the abolition of the celibacy rule could curb sex abuse by priests. Cardinal Schönborn then withdrew his remarks.
This angered the women, from all parts of Italy, who said that they had all lived or were still living in a relationship with a priest or monk.
Boadicea's Chariot 
Oops; sorry about the link. If you haven’t subscribed to the new Times site, you cannot see it!
I did sign up; it’s free a the moment but I think they are going to charge shortly, and I am not sure I will bother with it when they do.
The celibacy issue was one of the factors involved in the Great Schism with the Eastern Orthodox Church. A majority of Orthodox clergy are married men who treat their flocks like extended family.
Hello M.
Thanks for your comment. That sounds like a far healthier situation to me. I’ve just taken a look at your site; most interesting.
Signed up for the Times site but now all I can get is a ‘security’ page. I wonder if they’re using the same supplier as MyT?
I hope not Bravo! I didn’t have a problem but when I tried to log in today, I had to try a couple of times. It said the site is busy so they may be having problems coping with the rush!
Celibacy is an entirely unnatural state bound to bring problems and I agree that the rule should be revoked. In addition it may reduce the abuse of vulnerable children.
As an ‘outsider’ my view is that the Roman church has a number of ‘attitudes’ which fly in the face of common humanity, even decency. If people choose to sign up for such things, that’s their privilege. It’s unfortunate though (to say the least) that the celibacy ‘rule’ victimises women who are in thrall to priests and may exacerbate tendencies to paedophilia in the clergy.
Janus; “in thrall to priests”. Yes this is how one such affair started:
“Antonella Carisio, 41, had always been engaged in parish life and did not think that there would be a problem spending time with Edecir Calegari, the Brazilian priest with whom she ran the parish youth center. Then one evening in June 2006, when she was driving him back to the parish house, she said that Mr Calegari kissed her.
She said: “I wrote him a letter that night, telling him I was sure it had been a mistake, that we should forget about it,” said Ms Carisio. When they met again the next night, to “clarify” things, he kissed her again “and that’s how our relationship started”.
It lasted for two and a half years. After they were discovered and the affair ended, the priest returned to Brazil as a missionary.”
It is unnatural to be celibate and nowhere in the bible does it say you have to be.
I feel that celibacy is the reason for abuse of kids and other people amongst catholics. But then I also feel that the way the catholic faith dictates and orders its people around is not too far different from the muslim faith.
It is all about power.
Besides who said the pope is gods representative on earth? only the catholic clergy who rule by fear.
organised superstition, that’s all.
If nuns are spiritually married to Jesus, who the hell are priests supposed to give their fidelity to? 😦
God only knows, IS 😉
Minty – Spiritually married to God, Maybe? Oooh Matron 🙂
Well that could explain a few things about the nature of the priesthood, IS, but I’m just a mere woman, not an expert on religion, and I know my place! 😉
Minty – I think you’re chicken and don’t want to be labeled a Cuckoo Cuckoo by the powers that be 🙂
Hi Rick: I suppose that many forms of religion are hierarchic and prescriptive historically, although many followers of both Catholicism, and Islam do not necessarily find this to be so in everyday life.
Are you calling me a coward, IS? 😉
I actually find Bravo’s stance on religion quite extreme, but it doesn’t bother me unduly.
No, I called you a little pretty chook 🙂
Hm, ! 🙂
Going back to the subject, maybe it’s time for the priests to revolt and marry as they wish, they can have a civil ceremony and that way they have no need for the church to marry them, since the church doesn’t recognize civil marriages then everything would be OK!
Or perhaps not, IS.
Better ask the pope what he thinks, but I doubt he would fall for that one!
They should marry in between popes, just after this one dies and they are electing a new one, that way there be no one to complain 🙂
I think the problem for the Church is that were they to allow priests to marry, it would certainly lead to divorced priests, and that, from the Church’s point of view, would give scandal, because priests are supposed to set an example, and the Church is fully aware that these days, priests could not avoid divorce if a spouse wanted it. Marriage is a sacrament, and so once married and divorced, a priest would not be able to remarry – except that were marriage permitted, there would then be a call for a priest to remarry if he were the innocent party. I can see why, from the Church’s point of view, allowing priests to marry might be problematic, but so is not allowing marriage.
Araminta #17, that’s interesting. ‘If you don’t believe in my particular flavour of superstition you’re going to burn in agony for eternity – oh, and that includes your children if they die before I sprinkle magic water on them,’ is not extreme, but, ‘I don’t believe in any of them,’ is extreme?
Oh, and what’s the difference between ‘extreme,’ and ‘quite extrememe?’ Is there a similar difference between ‘celibate’ and ‘quite celibate?’
Extreme then, Bravo.
You do not believe in any of them; as you have pointed out many times. I don’t understand why you are so vehemently opposed to others who do believe in the existence of a God. Why does it offend you so?
Greeting Squarepeg.
Yes, I can see the objection on those grounds; it’s the thin end of the wedge, but then there are dangers in not doing so, and the Catholic Church is not renowned for making concessions of this nature, in my opinion.
I’m not sure if this is a good or a bad thing; but bad in respect of their view on contraception and the role of women.
Hi Araminta,
Have to say, that in all essence, I have to go with Bravo on this one. I am watching a wonderful series at the moment called ‘Big Love’ which is all about poligamy, and if that is extreme, then so are the catholics and their celibacy issues. I do believe that we are all animals and there are very few in the amimal kingdom that even take one partner for life, society dictates the fact that we remain faithful to one, and so it should be, if you love that person, but to deny that pleasure is surely asking for trouble.
Have to say though, that one of the best mini series I have *ever* seen is The Thorn Birds, I have never cried so hard for unrequited love in my life, even the book had me sobing and if that is an example of the church as it stands, then no thankyou.
xxxx
They are damned if they do not – and equally damned if they do. You have a very good point there regarding divorce, SP – one I had not thought of.
The difficulty has always been that priests have always had ‘women’, and that has meant that they have always been in the hypocritical situation of condemning sex outside of marriage for the laity while practicing the sin themselves.
Who was it who said “Better to marry than to burn”?
Hi Kate: yes, thanks for the reminder. I remember The Thorn Birds.
I think these Secret Mistresses were protesting about the unhappiness and distress that this policy causes. They well understand their dilemma and the immense strain it puts on the priests involved.
Kate
In earlier times the injunction to marry for life was far easier to conform to than now – for the simple fact that ‘life’ did not often mean 40/50 years or longer. In general people married at around 25 – 28, and few lived beyond 60. Moreover, many women died in childbirth – leaving the man free to marry again, and again – and again!
IS and Bravo – Don´t upset Detective Mouse. Trust me. I know and have learned.
😦
OZ
Araminta. Because it is childish, leads to extremism, conflict and oppression and, worst of all, irrational belief, instead of reason, in other spheres of life.
Really, Bravo?
It certainly can do but not always. Do you really believe that anyone who has a religious belief fits your pattern?
Most civilisations are based on some form of religion; it can be just a code of ethics, or it can mean more.
As I remember many a soldier died so that I could believe in whatever I want to. I guess they must have been children themselves 😦
Onward “Christian” soldiers 🙂
Armchair – Check!
Cushions – Check!
Lager – Check!
Nibbles – Check!
Bring it on, and don’t say I didn’t warn you. This I gotta see!
OZ
Holy grenades – Check
Cross – Check
Holy Water – CHeck
Bring it on 🙂
It’s that seemingly innocent, “Really Bravo?” bit of which you must be most afraid. On second thoughts, I might watch this from behind the sofa with a paw over my eyes.
OZ
Should I wear a camouflaged frock? 😦
Araminta
If there’s no God, there’s no religion… I don’t think anyone has a problem with societies being based on a code of ethics, but a society based on religion is an entirely different thing.
Don’t worry Oz: I’ll be gentle with them, it’s a Bank Holiday here. 😉
IS – No, mate. Just quit while you’re at least still level. Bravo might be a lost cause.
🙂
OZ
Ah; exactly Boadicea, but where did this code of ethics originate?
The Judeo–Christian tradition, in the case of the UK and the US. A society based on religion?
I would say that democracy and etc has largely ignored the existence of god and the separation of state and church surely means that yes, it has been reduced to a code of ethics largely, and those who have religious beliefs are free to follow them.
I think the problem occurs when there is no such separation and religious extremists have the upper hand; a theocracy.
Araminta @ #41 – I do worry about them sometimes.
OZ
Bravo: dodgy ground here, with your comment #42. Back soonest!
Meanwhile see my response to Boadicea.
PS: yes, I am aware of the meaning of ethics; it’s next to Sussex. 😉
I did warn you. You’re on your own, chum.
OZ
There have been many inputs into the development of UK society – one of them being the curbing of the influence of religion, the separation of church and state you refer to being one of them btw. If you look at the development of civilisation in these Isles, you can see the layers, and the mingling of earlier traditions with later, like layers in a sedimentary rock formation.
A society based on religion would be something like the Aztec empire, and what that boils down to is old men with beards saying ‘do this because god says so.’
There should be a comma after ‘…you refere to…’ in my last comment.
Right: don’t know where to start but first point is:
“Religion can be explained as a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”
OK: then ethics simplistically can be defined as I indicated previously as a moral code less the religion, or the devotion and ritual observances.
Now historically it is fairly true to say that it is difficult to separate the two.
History is all about religion. Or is it?
Bravo: your comment #48 is just agreeing with my premise but your last sentence is just another irrational statement. We are a society based on religion, as I said, but take away the religious observance it just becomes a valid system of ethics and nothing like a society run by old men with beards. You are being a bit illogical here.
Last shot.
I would suggest that religion is just a cloak. Most of the human race have their own philosophy about the meaning of life or death and most of them just want to survive this life, if they are lucky they may take a few moments to ponder this, but it’s a bit of a luxury.
Religion is a cloak in so far as that it provides a rallying point and a convenient mask. It is really always about politics and socio-economics; there is no such thing as a truly “religious” war. Would you really want to die for a doctrinal difference? I doubt it, there is always another reason.
I prefer to see religion as the remnants of a long ago forgotten truth 🙂
IS: are you a believer in moral absolutes then?
MInty – No, I have no morals, I simply do what God tells us is right, morals are for those who have no faith, belief or knowledge of God, they need something to hang on to. I don’t. 🙂
Oh.. er right, I think. I’ll have to ponder on that statement IS; it’s too late to work out the ramifications, but I think at first glance it sounds like very very bad news, religiously speaking that is 🙂
Minty – God is never wrong, therefore neither am I 🙂 Catch you later, I have to go and prepare, there is a cyclonic storm going to hit us today, we are expecting winds of 150 Km/h and up to 100-150 mm of rain.
Oh, yes that sounds a bit serious, batten down the hatches and pray! See you later, I hope. 🙂
I believe in the Orthodox church marriage and divorce are still acceptable. Marriage without divorce is the ideal but because of human imperfection divorce is understandable and sanctioned. When I lived in Greece ages ago, it was fairly easy to divorce and marry three times. After that you were supposed to have figured it out and made better decisions. And that includes priests, who are expected to marry.
Although there are devas and asuras in Buddhism they can’t really be thought of as God, as the West thinks of it. More like spirits, really. The prime moving force is some other thing altogether. So in some ways you could say that religion is primarily an ethical system.
Of course, I could have that all wrong. Not a religious practitioner myself, I suppose if I had to choose I’d be Buddhist, or perhaps Shintoist. I’m more of an animist, I suppose.
Why is it irrational? It gives an example, that’s all.
If we were a society based on religion, our laws and our cultural and social lives would revolve around the tenets of that religion, as was the case at times in the past, (and is still the case with some sects and in some countries.) Saying something does not make it so and your final statement rather contradicts your ‘as I said
It seems that
It can also be argued that religion grew, for the large part, from the codification of pre-existing social practice or useful social behaviours combined with the drive to explain natural events, as you infer in the first part of your #52, so it would seem that we are largely in agreement.
I would also largely agree with:
On your last sentence, however, which I guess is rhetorical – at least in the context of current Western culture – it is quite clear that there are people who will do exactly that – or, make someone else die for a doctrinal difference. Just the latest example:
Jaime
Interesting comments regarding the Greek Orthodox Church – I especially like the ‘three times’ and you must have got your act together by then!
Araminta, I was listening to a radio program last week where this very subject was being discussed.
It appears “celibacy” is one of the reason so much attention is drawn to Catholic priests. They are easy targets because of the glaring hypocricy between their vowes and actions.
In reality, the percentage of “Child abusers” is equal across the population and every denomination.
It’s not impossible to imagine that some Catholic priest basher, right here on this forum, is guilty of the same crimes they love to rail against.
Hi Cheech
Hear hear. Some of those who chuck their metaphorical stones remind me of the more enthusiastic members of the Taliban.
Cheechdog, are you our old mate Cheech? Welcome!
Thanks Cheech and Sipu for your comments.
I agree with you, and have heard the same facts and as I said in my post, I don’t think that celibacy of priests is directly responsible for paedophilia.
Some of these priests in question are having relationships with grown women, and although I agree that this is a betrayal of trust, I think allowing them to marry would sort this problem out, but wouldn’t necessarily reduce the instances of abuse of children. This is a different issue entirely.