RSS
News



One thousand in Britain and Ireland are children of priests

Celibacy an issue for pope’s visit



Bookmark and Share

Pope Benedict XVI waves to the crowd
Pope Benedict XVI waves to the crowd

It has been estimated that at least 1,000 people in Britain and Ireland are the children of Roman Catholic priests according to the Guardian Newspaper.

The issue of celibacy in the church will come up during the pope’s visit to Britain says the Guardian who quotes the children of priests saying that it must be addressed.

There are three common Irish names,", "McEntaggart, McAnespie and McNab, that translate as 'son of the priest', 'son of the Bishop' and 'son of the Abbot', so it's been around for some time." says former Catholic priest Father Pat Buckley of Northern Ireland who left the church in part because of celibacy issues.

It already has in Italy. In May of this year dozens of Italian women banded together and sent an open letter to the Vatican calling for the abolition of celibacy.
 
This Italian women had been in relationships with priests of lay monks and argued that a man “needs to live with his fellow human beings, experience feelings, love and be loved,” according to the Guardian.
 
Their letter also pleaded for sympathy for those who “live out in secrecy those few moments the priest manages to grant [us], and experience on a daily basis the doubts, fears and insecurities of our men.”
 
The topic of celibacy has also been a topic of constant debate as clerical abuse scandals have swept across even corner of the Catholic Church and critics link sexual frustration to pedophilia.
 
There are also those who defend celibacy in the early Christian Church. Pope Benedict has said that celibacy “is made possible by the grace of God . . . who asks us to transcend ourselves." He believes that abstaining from marriage shows a commitment to the Church.
 
For those women who have been involved with men in the Church and children who are denied by their father’s there is a lack of financial support and recognition. There are very few support groups to help their cause and they make little headway with the Church.
 
In Larne, Northern Ireland there is what Pat Buckley, an excommunicated gay priest and the organizer calls an “independent ministry to disaffected and alienated Catholics and Christians". He has been running this group since the 1980s and also runs a support group for women who are in relationships with priests.
 
He said "These problems have been hidden for centuries, but there's been so much in the news that people are getting a bit more courage to come forward."
 
For example, in Ireland, in 1992, there was the case of Eamon Casey, the much loved Bishop of Galway, who had used diocese funds to pay maintenance for his American child.
 
Buckley believes the Catholic Church plans to "hang on to celibacy for reasons of power and control. St Paul said in one of his letters that a bishop should be the husband of one woman. If a man does not have the experience of running a human family how can he run a church? Celibacy was unusual during the first 12 centuries of the Catholic Church. It was introduced [in the Middle Ages]. It's often very sad for the women and children in these relationships. A lot of them want some form of resolution, to sort out the baggage. Anybody who is abandoned by a parent suffers a
very large injustice.”
 
Of course there is the other side of these argument, those who defend celibacy in the Church. Father Stephen Wang is the Dean of Studies at Allen Hall seminary in London. On his blog earlier this year he wrote “there are practical aspects to celibacy. You've got more time for other people, and more time for prayer. You can get up at three in the morning to visit someone in hospital without worrying about how this will affect your marriage . . . But celibacy is something much deeper as well. There is a place in your heart, in your very being, that you have given to Christ and to the people you meet as a priest."



Most recent of 36 comments - See all comments

It may take several minutes for your comment to appear.
GuinnessGrrl - you seem incessantly shocked that some Catholics have sinned...I don't know where you ever got the idea that the Catholic Church is only open to saints...If you're really interested in whether or not this story was mentioned on the DVD, then why don't you bother to go and look at the videos; they are online after all. P.S. I've left a challenge for you on the page that you linked in your last post. Enjoy.
I wonder if this was made mentioned of in the "Feel-Good" DVD the Catholic Bishops put out? http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Catholic-bishops-fight-back-with-a-feel-good-DVD---SEE-VIDEO-100970484.htm I'm betting that it didn't! LOL!
That would surely apply to the pedophile priests and pastors.
"By their deeds shall you know them!!"
2BorNot2B: It's pointless to try to persuade Protestants to see things the same way as Catholics do and vice versa, no matter how much the word "right" is used. If you're a devout RC, why should you care what Protestants think? There are many devout Protestants who are content in their faith which is their perogative. In the end, it's God who decides, not us.
"A house divided against itself will not stand"(not my words) You have to honestly ask yourself who (or what) is the cause of the current divisions that have caused so much damage. Not me, thats for sure, or millions of others around the world like me. The writings of Pio from so many years ago certainly have a resonance now. The earthly church has gotten too big for its boots in many respects. It continues to demand blind obedience from me and many like me despite the fact that I find the actions (and inaction) of so many, from Pope to Bishop to Priest in respect of Clerical Abuse and other matters so repugnant, objectionable and inexcusable. In these matters I am obliged to be guided by the Holy Spirit through my conscience which tells me that all these things which have been done by the collective church are wrong. And I will therfore not be obedient in respect of these matters, and I will speak out against them for that very reason. The article which started this thread is for me wholly indicative of the rank hypocracy to which the Church institution is now inextricably linked. I am prepared to take my cue from Christ himself, who in the course of his Ministry challenged the established spiritual social and political mores of his day to such an extent that he forfeited his life by doing so. Sometimes I reflect on whether or not I will be called to do the same?
Says JamieLM: **2BorNot2B: I wasn't trying to make any comparisons between Catholics & Protestants. I'm not interested in engaging in why Catholics and Protestants belive and interpret Scripture the way they do.** -- Sorry to hear that to you 'truth' might be a relative concept. Language is clear and the writings in the bible do not leave much room for 'personal or sectarian interpretation.' That, unfortunately, is done due to convenience, ignorance and even through malice. protestants might 'interpret Scripture'; Catholics in contrast, follow the Magisterium of the Church, which throughout 2000 years has preserved and, by rigorous and exhausting study, has discerned the 'canon' of the bible. That means, it was the CC which decided which books belonged in the bible, put it together and handed it to the world. -- The original canon, or structure, survived intact for some 15 centuries, until Luther decided to alter it by excising 7 books from the OT, to follow the Pharisaic canon (written around the year 90 AD at the Council of Jamnia or Javneh by members of the remnant of the very Jewish sect that had killed Jesus). The 7 books Luther did not accept were those that 'coincidentally' refuted his own ideas on salvation by 'faith alone.' Luther intended as well to remove from the bible several other books he considered unworthy or in error, according to his theories; books like Revelations, Hebrews, and especially James who said that 'Faith without works is dead.' Luther might have succeeded, except for the diligence of others who did not agree with him and replaced them, ultimately resulting in what is the present version of the KJV. And I say, 'the present version' because even the orginal KJV had the same 73 books the Catholic bible has. -- I hate to let a 'teaching moment' go to waste.
Dead right barneyjo - The Church always had its good and bad popes and good and bad advisors but at least it acknowledges that. Father Gabriele Amorth, the Vatican's Chief Exorcist, says there is a satanic force at work even in the Vatican that needs to be exorcised (Google ‘Chief Vatican Exorcist’ for info). The devil will never stop trying to undermine the Church from within and without. The devil constantly tried to ‘turn’ St. Pio; heck, he even tried to turn Jesus. But Christ said: "Not even the gates of hell will prevail..." against His Church. Anyone unjustifiably (note 'unjustifiably') criticising the Church would do well to consider that the devil is using them as his tools and mouthpieces for his evil purposes but should know they are wasting their time, given Christ’s promise. The Church has lasted two millennia so far, despite wrongs within it and will be around for many more – with or without married priests and their children.
The late Cardinal Cody once remarked "you wont run a church on Our Fathers alone" The Church like any organisation requires a funding structure; and that is fair enough. However, to deny that throughout its history there are many examples where scripture was "bent" towards a given truth in order to appropriate funds. Pope Leo 10th is a good example who sold plenary indulgences to the Italian Nobilitly in order to raise money for the building of Basilicas in Rome. Curiously also, his namesake, Leo 9th who was not averse to justifying the initiation of wars to grab land and territory in Holy Scripture. Humanity has invariably left its imprint on the Christian message, and not all of it is good. To deny that is silly, and suggestive of a totally immature view of Faith and of the church in the world. That continues right to the present day. Even Saint Pio in his visions reported Christ's condemnation of the Church hierarchy "Butchers; see what they have done to my Church. Were it not for the Angels, I would have destroyed them long ago." (in Pio's writings - which kind of makes you wonder why the Church would elevate one of its arch critics on the face of it.
I agree with you, jacersisityourself. It's political and they want to keep that American money flowing their way. It's not because they've had a "change of heart" about being tolerant of Christians.
pardon the mis-typos in my last post pls but don't lose the message.
jamieLM - All Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox churches have ultimate leaders. I see Orthodox Patriarch, Bartholomew I, had a memorable Mass at a time-honoured Christian shrine in Turkey recently, after all the centuries of Christians being denied it through Islamic forces. Why has Turkey suddenly relented and allowed a Christian Mass and tribute after all this time? – for political reasons... because Turkey, a country of relatively poor people and an Islamic State right now, trying to join the European Union and suck it of money that is not there and also force young student women and professors in universities to wear niqabs or burqhas), is wooing the Western world in the time-honoured surreptitious manner of Islam.
2BorNot2B: I wasn't trying to make any comparisons between Catholics & Protestants. I'm not interested in engaging in why Catholics and Protestants belive and interpret Scripture the way they do. Each side thinks they're right and have God on their side, so I'm not going there. Every Protestant denomination has its own history and perspective on doctrine, so I can't speak for them. I was just citing sources that believed celibacy could be a positive thing in avoiding the problems of inheritance. These sources were historical/political books, not religious, and were neither pro nor con about celibacy and weren't attempting to disparage the early Christian church. I wasn't criticizing the RCC about the right to acquire, or not to acquire, wealth over the centuries. In regard to Protestant ministers & pastors, I was talking about today. They get a modest salary and the USE of a house, and they can't be described as "rich." The TV evangelists are something else. All churches depend on their members to pay for the maintenance of their churches, salaries, supplies, utilities, charity work, etc. Some churches have more money in their budgets than others. Needing money from its members is common to both Catholics and Protestants. In my city, the ELCA Lutheran churches and some of the Episcopalian churches contribute financial support to the Humility of Mary, the Catholic Worker House, and St. Vincent's (unwed mothers) and the Catholics and Protestants run a food pantry together. They pool their resources in order to help more people. I intended no disrepect toward the RCC. Catholics have a right to their opinions and so do the Protestants. As Christians, we're under attack by "radical" Muslims. When they kill us, they don't ask or care if we're Catholics or Protestants. We've got more things to worry about than arguing about doctrinal differences.
@ jamieLM – “For them, there is no wealth to pass on, so marriage presents no problems in regard to heirship” – Catholic priestly celibacy has absolutely nothing to do with your premise. – The overwhelming majority of those who enter the priesthood do so knowing what is asked of them and give it up willingly. In Mat. 19: 3-9 Jesus tells the Pharisees that marriage is FOREVER and whoever marries a divorced man or woman commits adultery. To that His disciples conclude that ‘it’s perhaps BEST NOT TO MARRY’ v10; to which Jesus replies: “Not all are capable of receiving this precept, but ONLY to those to whom IT IS GIVEN. For there are EUNUCHS who are so from their mother’s womb (Here clearly Jesus recognizes congenital homosexuality), and there are EUNUCHS who are made so by men (the ‘castrati’ who lived among the concubines of the wealthy in biblical times), and there are EUNUCHS who have made themselves eunuchs (who are able to forsake the sex life) FOR THE SAKE OF THE KINGDOM. HE WHO IS ABLE TO RECEIVE THIS, LET HIM RECEIVE IT!” Could Jesus have made it clearer? --- No one forces a priest to be a priest – Which, however, does not mean that some, -a very few of those who do enter the priesthood- are immune to temptation, or to going back on their vows. There are dishonorable men, whether pedophiles, homosexuals, embezzlers, philanderers, adulterers, etc. in every profession and calling, and every church, sect, synagogue and mosque has and has had its share of them.
@JamieLM -- Protestantism ,by contrast, was not invented until 15 centuries later; its initial impulse was to be iconoclastic and austere. Though I'd be at pains to believe that Calvin, who tried to impose his religious will by amassing the political power of a dictator, or Luther who depended on German princes to establish himself and keep his 'reform' going were living in poverty. -- Nowdays Anglicans, Episcopalians and even Lutherans manage to exercise their 'calling' in a quasi-corporate manner receiving an adequate salary which nonetheless must provide so their children won't be uneducated or destitute upon their passing. But their churches are so small (compared to the CC), and the number of their clergy even smaller, therefore not as big a charge on the finances of their church. Even so, protestant clergy too depends on the generosity of the more wealthy parishioners in order to make ends meet.-- This practice is shown clearly in the Jane Austen movies (set in the 1800's, hence already by then a well established tradition of some 300 years). We see in those movies parsons coveting certain prominent posts, attaching themselves to some noble family, and depending on their generosity, housing and assigned salary. In consequence, it is logical to conclude that they were doctrinally compromised since, lest they offend their patrons and find themselves without a job or home, they had to preach according to whatever theological leanings their 'benefactors' chose to follow. Continues…
@ jamieLM -- The first two sons of wealthy families were born with ‘duties.’ One inherited the title, the other was assigned to be in the clergy. These were the most powerful families and their will was not contested except through wars and power struggles. If this sounds like a worldly path to what was intended to be a divine mission for the Church, it is clear that Jesus being God, was quite aware of what the process would be, and was perfectly OK with it. He decided to build a Church that ‘evolved’ with the times, not an organization which magically sprouted already functioning within a corporate/ecclesiastical business model -- The second child, then, used to living in a princely manner with all comforts and privileges he might have enjoyed had he stayed at home, built palaces which were later donated to what is called 'the patrimony of the Church.' That may be incomprehensible to present mentality, but there's little evidence anyone complained at the time, this was a common occurrence.— Such was the start of the ONLY Church Christ founded. – continues…
@jamieLM -- "Protestants hierarchies are elected by the people and paid a salary," by this you must be implying the Vatican has a centralized wealth gathering mechanism charged with ‘hording the wealth to support such splendor,’ hence with how much priests are paid, or not, forcing them as a result to deal with the issue of celibacy. That is hardly the case. The facts are that most Catholics tend to be fairly stingy; we are not forced to tithe; and, there is only one 'general collection that goes directly to the Vatican, called 'Peter's Pence,' gathered once a year and totally voluntary. -- The answer to your implied accusation then, is longer and more or less as follows: First, the purported Vatican wealth was not acquired in a few years, it is the product of generations of people who either contributed their labor, talent, and their own wealth willingly, starting from the time of Acts.-- Wealthy families not only donated their entire possessions, but many (though not all) of those in the hierarchy were members of those families who, through their contribution, promoted the growth of the Church. continues..
moygannon -- This may be a simplistic analogy regarding your claim that "anything contrary to nature is immoral," but if that is the case, and 'nature' and all that is in it was created by God, Who after seeing it declared it "good," then those people, like vegetarians and vegans, who willingly shun an important part of God's creation which is animal flesh, are guilty of immorality as well, you think? -- Further, if voluntary celibacy in your view is such an immoral thing then you should start by asking yourself why some of the figures of the OT, such as Jeremiah chose it; and most important, why Jesus Himself did not marry, nor did John and Paul? Are they to be considered 'reprobate' in your estimation?
Norinalundy- you admonish Catholics to study the Bible closer than they have in the past. I would suggest that you do the same and look into some history as well. The Bible was compiled by the Catholic Church and the full canon of Scripture was finally decided upon in the late 4th century. Of course the Protestant "reformers" left out some books which didn't suit their doctrines. Anyway, by the time the Church gave us the canon of Scripture - the exact same set of books which the Church uses today, clerical celibacy was widely practiced. The Council of Elvira around 305 required all who ministered at the altar to be celibate, whether or not they were married. So if there was a contradiction between Scripture & the dicipline of celibacy, surely the Church could have remedied that when it came to compiling the canon of Scripture by simply omitting the passages which contradicted the practice- the Protestants had no problem doing this in the 16th century after all. The fact is that there is no contradiction. Matthew 19:11-12: Jesus praises celibacy; 1Cor 7:7: Paul says that celibacy is a gift from God, wishing that all were celibate like he, but realises that people have different gifts; Matt 19:29; Matt 22:30; 1Cor 7:1; 1Cor 7:27; 1Cor 7:32-33,38; 1Tim 3:2; 1Tim 4:3; 1Tim 5:9-12; 2Tim 2:3-4; Rev 14:4. And I would disagree with you that change (i.e. time) is the only constant: we Catholics believe that the ultimate constant is the unchanging word of God, so perhaps you can forgive the Church for not bending Christ's teaching to suit present-day morality and fleeting human trends.
A priest (Catholic) who fathers a child must be cast out leaving his child (possibly) to live a life of scorn and poverty . Should the R.C. child not have the same rights as an Anglican child whose father has been fully accepted into the church. The Vatican museum have plundered booty on display, items stolen in there ancient wars, as do most museums especially the major European countries.
Anything to contrary to nature is immoral. The natural law is inviolate and should not be broken. One can judge from this simple remark what is right and what is not.
Aargh! If celibacy was established/introduced in the Middle Ages, then it does not jibe with the original Christian doctrines as Christ presented it to the people in Israel and beyond when the apostles preached the good word. It is not in the Bible. Perhaps it was necessary for the apostles and disciples to leave their families early on when the faith was in its infancy, but it is time to get a grip on the realities of celibacy (there is no need to go into this now, we all know it). Also, if a priest needs to visit a sick person at 3 a.m., well his wife should understand that this is his job. If he feels he needs to pray, again, it is his calling. The only thing that is constant is change; it is time! It is also time that Catholics studied the Bible a lot closer than they have in the past. Every Catholic I know is not at all familiar with the scriptures. Again, it is time.
Protestants don't have a Vatican and their Bishops and other members of their hierarchies are elected by the people and paid a salary. For them, there is no wealth to pass on, so marriage presents no problems in regard to heirship.
I've read in several sources that the Church had problems with property and money going to the heirs of married priests when they died, so the Church went to celibacy in order to keep everything in the hands of the Church. The Church felt that the property and money rightfully belonged to it, and not to the families of the deceased priests. Celibacy was a practical way to hold onto wealth and enrich the Church. My comment is not meant to disparage the Church - just a plausible explanation.
Relfering- you ask how could the Church have gotten all its art, suggesting that it was down to misdeeds and "shady dealings". Might I suggest that it got it's art because it gave such people as Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Raphael, Fra Angelico, Giotto (and countless others) jobs. As for your charge that it has amassed this artwork while letting those they minister to go hungry and homeless: is that why the Church is the single biggest charitable organisation in the world? Is that why the Church runs more soup-kitchens, hospitals, schools and orphanages than any other institution on the planet? Perhaps the cleaning of the Church which you refer to could begin with people such as yourself finding out what the Church actually teaches, what it actually does in the world, and realising that the Church is actually full of...guess what: sinners. By the way, the Vatican state operates on an annual budget of 1/4 that of Harvard University- do you give out as much about how little Harvard is doing to alleviate suffering in the world? Surely it's not just an issue that falls to the Vatican to solve.
Krissangel- you claim that celibacy is unnatural. What about the many people who, through no particular choice of their own, are living celibately - there are many who would like to be married, but it hasn't worked out that way for them. Priests, on the other hand, FREELY CHOOSE celibacy - what's more, they have a minimum of 6 years at seminary to discern whether or not they can live celibately. You should note too that the requirement for celibacy doesn't extend to all rites of the Catholic Church - it is, however, a discipline which is practiced in the Latin Rite. The Church doesn't claim that celibacy is required for leadership, but the Bible (if that is your only source for Christian truth) prizes celibacy very highly. Celibacy certainly isn't an "invention" of the Catholic Church - though if you are convinced that it is, perhaps you can tell us exactly WHEN it was invented? I would suggest that it was somewhere in or around A.D. 33, when many of the Apostles gave up everything to follow Christ [Matthew 19:27].
Needless to say, the "estimation" doesn't allow for the numerous Anglican ministers with children who converted to the Catholic faith and were ordained priests (indeed, there is no source for the statistic on I.C. or in The Guardian) - there have been scandals certainly, but not to the extent that I.C. and the Guardian would like us to believe. Pat Buckley is hardly an impartial source: why should he have a say in how the Church operates when he rejected that same Church. Note too that he doesn't tell the full story about St Paul: St Paul did not give an order that a bishop has to be married. He said that a bishop should be married ONLY ONCE, i.e. if the bishop's wife died, he could not remarry. It is very different from saying that bishops have to be married. St Paul highly praised celibacy (as did Christ); many of the Apostles lived celibately although they had been married, so the discipline is nothing new. It hasn't always been compulsory, but has been widely practiced since the Church's earliest days. Also, Pat Buckley's listing of Irish surnames, implying that the "scandals" have been around a long time is utterly ridiculous and misleading. They are very old surnames - but the logical explanation wouldn't have crossed Buckley's mind, that they date from before celibacy was universally enforced. As I said, he's hardly an impartial source when it comes to the Cathoic Church (hence he fits the I.C. profile perfectly, I guess).
Cathy Hayes, could you have found a more grotesque and unattractive picture of the Pope to plant on your obvious hit piece??? -- Your intent is plenty clear by the posting of that picture alone: to vent your own feelings about the Church, which have been in evidence on several other pieces like this you've written for IC, as well as to attract the acrowd of bigots with an ax to grind, along with the usual anti-Catholic long-neckers, all too eager to slam the Church and tell it how to run its ecclesiastic and theological business because... well, she has not learned anything after 2000 years, after ONLY preserving Western culture from invader after invader, Hun to muslim; from being the civilizer and teacher of generations that formed the foundation for the present development of arts, science, and the concepts of law and human rights. --- You, and those who eagerly answer to your intended wish of casting aspersions and piling up every form of unsupported slander on the CC should have gotten your wish realized around 1771 at the Battle of Lepanto, when the muslim world, with an overwhelming amount of amassed power was poised to conquer the rest of Europe. Fortunately, just by sheer Providence - 'coincidentally' aided by the prayers the Pope asked of the civilized world- the winds miraculously shifted... Had that not happened, you Cathy, and those you attract by your slam-pieces might now be sporting a burkha or an exploding vest, arse up over a prayer mat in the air 8 times per day crying 'allahu akhbar!' Being the sour beatch you portend to be... then you'd have something to complain about.
Sad to saw, the Church refusing to allow priests to marry goes much deeper than the issues already discussed. It is primarily about one thing MONEY. If the Church has to support, a wife and kids it will put a huge burden on the already strained finances of the Church. Going back to medieval times when a woman was viewed only as a homemaker and mother, (two very demanding and much misunderstood roles) it was thought that a woman had little capacity to do much more. I now live in San Francisco and attended an all boys boarding school in Ireland. I knew many priests who came from Ireland to attend the School of Theology in Berkeley. Quite a few of these priests have since left the Church. Mother Ireland has always had a strong 'grasp' on members of the Church but I can recall as a child in Cavan my mother telling me that when she was a child if she met a priest on the road she would cross over the road to avoid meeting him, such was the reverence given to the Church.
I seldom hear of see discussion of how the requirement for celibacy began. The LOVE OF MONEY is the root of all evil.


Click to learn more from DiscoverIreland.com.
IrishCentral Mobile QR code


Connect to IrishCentral with your Facebook account


or sign-in directly

Welcome to IrishCentral!
Please provide the following information in order to create your account

Username:
E-Mail Address:
Password:
Confirm Password:
I agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy


Welcome to IrishCentral!
All we need is the following information and you will be part of the #1 Irish community in the US

E-Mail Address:
First select a unique username:
Username:
Now choose a password:
Password:
Confirm Password:
I agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy
Thank you!

Just one more step and you will be part of the largest Irish community in America! Tell us a little more about you to start enjoying all the features of IrishCentral.

Additional Information:

First Name:
Last Name:
Date of Birth:
Zip:
Gender: Male  Female 
Country:

Degree of Irishness:
Household Income:
Level of Education:

Subscribe to our newsletters:

The Best of IrishCentral - Daily Newsletter
Special Offers from our sponsors

or
Skip

You can edit your information at any time, just go to "my account" when you're logged in.

Log into IrishCentral with your Facebook account


or sign-in directly

E-Mail:
Password:
 Remember me Forgot my password