A good plan for Catholic ratbags

Melissa Iaria suggests the church should rid itself of celibacy:

The Catholic Church should get rid of celibacy as a way of preventing clergy from preying on children, an inquiry has been told.

Former clinical director of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Health, Professor Paul Mullen, says celibacy has no basis in theology and is just a form of discipline in the priesthood.

Prof Mullen added the issue is a financial one for the church.

“I’ve have heard a Catholic bishop say that the reason celibacy is maintained is that they could not afford to pay priests, they couldn’t afford to pay them pensions, they couldn’t afford to pay them enough if they had a wife and children,” he told the Victorian parliamentary inquiry on Friday.

“This is entirely discipline and its main motivation is money.”

Prof Mullen said he was not sure what would spark the church to change.

But he said the problem of clergy preying on children would remain for as long as they are required to remain celibate.

He said for this reason, fewer people were joining the priesthood, leading some to be selected who were not cut out for it.

“As long as there are increasing numbers of priests who are not intellectually, culturally, socially of the highest calibre, let alone spiritually, you’ve just got to prevent them any access to children. Simple as that,” he said.

“There will come a point where financially, it is cheaper to have married priests than to keep on being sued.”


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • PlanetOrphan

    If priests join the human race it’d be a good thing.

  • peterwn

    The supply of potential monks and nuns dried up 30+ years ago forcing the RC Church to go cap in hand to the government for money to pay lay teachers.

  • Phar Lap

    Hasn’t stopped Anglicans, Teachers or Muslims,especially Mohammed who had a six year old for his concubine,and married her at Nine years of age.She died young at twenty.five app go figure.All of that lot were in the state of marriage??.

  • Rodger T

    Can`t quite see how ending celibacy for priests would stop the ones that are paedophiles from molesting children.
    That appears to be a common logic fail for catholics as it pops up regularly .

    • P1LL

      It would stop the pedophiles seeking refuge behind the collar .

    • Bunswalla

      Sadly, that’s not the only thing…

  • cows4me

    What a load of horseshit. I’m pretty sure I could go without and escape the urge to jump on the first kid that walked by. There are many reasons for celibacy in priests, you can be assured paying them is not one of the them, the bishop is talking through a hole in his arse.

  • Lion_ess

    The vatican is the largest organized pedophile ring on the planet. That people still support this depraved enclave of perverted old child raping men in skirts hiding behind god is beyond my comprehension.

  • Michael

    My theory is a most of these kiddie fiddler priests are gay – they didn’t want to marry, and didn’t want to leave the Church, so became Priests. If, instead of choosing Holy Orders, these men left Catholicism and joined a more liberal church or just decided to be sinners outside the Priesthood then the Church would have had to make this decision 50 years ago.

  • No basis in theology, huh?

    Chastity (celibacy) for the Sake of the Kingdom

    According to the Second Vatican Council, the precious gift of “perfect continence, out of desire for the kingdom of heaven,” is outstanding among the evangelical counsels. This is a gift of divine grace, “given by the Father to certain souls, (cf. Mt 19:11; 1 Cor 7:7), whereby they may devote themselves to God alone the more easily, due to an undivided heart (cf. 1 Cor 7:32-34)…. Perfect continence for the love of God is an incentive to charity, and is certainly a particular source of spiritual fecundity in the world” (LG 42).

    Traditionally, three vows are usually spoken of–poverty, chastity and obedience–beginning with the discussion of poverty as detachment from external goods, ranked on a lower level with regard to the goods of body and soul (cf. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., II-II, q. 186, a. 3). The Council, instead, expressly mentions consecrated chastity before the other two vows (cf. LG 43; PC 12, 13, 14), because it considers chastity as the determining commitment of the state of consecrated life. It is also the evangelical counsel that most obviously shows the power of grace, which raises love beyond the human being’s natural inclinations.

    Its spiritual greatness stands out in the Gospel, because ,Jesus himself explained the value he placed on commitment to the way of celibacy. According to Matthew, Jesus praised voluntary celibacy after he asserted the indissolubility of marriage. Since Jesus forbade husbands to divorce their wives, the disciples reacted: “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.” Jesus answered by giving a deeper meaning to the phrase, “It is not expedient to marry”: “Not all can receive this precept, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it” (Mt 19:10-12).

    In stating this possibility of understanding a new way, which was that practiced by him and the disciples, and which perhaps led those around them to wonder or even to criticize, Jesus used an image that alluded to a well-known fact, the condition of “eunuchs.” They could be such because of a congenital imperfection or because of human intervention. But Jesus immediately added that there was a new category–his!– “eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.” It was an obvious reference to the choice he made and recommended to his closest followers. According to the Mosaic law, eunuchs were excluded from worship (Dt 23:2) and the priesthood (Lv 21:20). An oracle in the Book of Isaiah had foretold the end of this exclusion (Is 56:3-5). Jesus opened an even more innovative horizon: the voluntary choice “for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” of this situation considered unworthy of man. Obviously, Jesus’ words did not mean an actual physical mutilation, which the Church has never permitted, but the free renunciation of sexual relations. As I wrote in the Apostolic Exhortation Redemptionis Donum, this means a “renunciation therefore–the reflection of the mystery of Calvary–in order ‘to be’ more fully in the crucified and risen Christ; renunciation in order to recognize fully in him the mystery of one’s own human nature, and to confirm this on the path of that wonderful process of which the same apostle writes in another place: ‘Though our outer nature is wasting away, our inner nature is being renewed every day’ (2 Cor 4:16)” (RD 10).

    Jesus was aware of the values renounced by those who live in perpetual celibacy. He himself had affirmed them shortly before when he spoke of marriage as a union of which God is the author and which therefore cannot be broken. Being committed to celibacy does indeed mean renouncing the goods inherent in married life and the family, but never ceasing to appreciate them for their real value. The renunciation is made in view of a greater good, of higher values, summed up in the beautiful Gospel expression of the “kingdom of heaven.” The complete gift of self to this kingdom justifies and sanctifies celibacy.

    Jesus called attention to the gift of divine light needed to understand the way of voluntary celibacy. Not everyone can understand it, in the sense that not everyone is “able” to grasp its meaning, to accept it, to practice it. This gift of light and decision is only granted to some. It is a privilege granted them for the sake of a greater love. We should not be surprised then if many, who do not understand the value of consecrated celibacy, are not attracted to it, and often are not even able to appreciate it. This means that there is a variety of ways, charisms and roles, as St. Paul recognized. He spontaneously wished to share his ideal of virginal life with everyone. He wrote: “I wish that all were as I myself am. But each,” he adds, “has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another” (1 Cor 7:7). Moreover, as St. Thomas observed, “The Church derives a certain beauty from the variety of states”.

    For his part, the individual is required to make a deliberate act of will conscious of the duty and the privilege of consecrated celibacy. This does not mean simply abstaining from marriage, nor an unmotivated and almost passive observance of the norms imposed by chastity. The act of renunciation has a positive aspect in the total dedication to the kingdom, which implies absolute devotion to God “who is supremely loved” and to the service of his kingdom. Therefore, the choice must be well thought out and stem from a firm, conscious decision that has matured deep within the individual.

    St. Paul states the demands and advantages of this dedication to the kingdom: “The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord, but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. The unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit, but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband” (1 Cor 7:32-34). The Apostle does not mean to condemn the married state (cf. 1 Tim 4:1-3), nor “to lay restraint” on anyone, as he said (1 Cor 7:35). But with the realism of experience enlightened by the Holy Spirit, he speaks and counsels–as he wrote–“for your own benefit…to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord” (1 Cor 7:35). This is the purpose of the evangelical counsels. Faithful to the tradition of the counsels, the Second Vatican Council states that chastity is “the most suitable means by which religious dedicate themselves with undivided heart to the service of God and the works of the apostolate” (PC 12).

    Consecrated celibacy has been criticized over and over again in history, and many times the Church has had to call attention to the excellence of the religious state in this regard. One need only recall the declaration of the Council of Trent, which Pius XII cited in the Encyclical Sacra Virginitas because of its magisterial value. This does not mean casting a shadow on the married state. Instead we must keep in mind what the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “Both the sacrament of Matrimony and virginity for the kingdom of God come from the Lord himself. It is he who gives them meaning and grants them the grace which is indispensable for living them out in conformity with his will. Esteem of virginity for the sake of the kingdom and the Christian understanding of marriage are inseparable, and they reinforce each other”. The Second Vatican Council warns that accepting and observing the evangelical counsel of consecrated virginity and celibacy requires sufficient “psychological and emotional maturity”. This maturity is indispensable.

    Hence, the conditions for faithfully following Christ on this point are: trust in God’s love, and prayer to him stirred by the awareness of human weakness; prudent and humble behavior; and above all, a life of intense union with Christ.

    This last point, which is the key to all consecrated life, contains the secret of fidelity to Christ as the one bridegroom of the soul, the only reason to live.

    • Rodger T


      I will concede Lucia ,that your church declaring the perfectly natural act of sex that ensures our species continued survival a SIN , was a masterstroke .

      I am in awe of the way your priests have managed to keep the gullible in line for so long.

      • It’s only a sin if it’s outside of marriage, Rodger, thus constraining men, on the pain of sin, to be faithful to their wives.

        • Rodger T

          Must just a technicality surely L? The pain of sinning did not constrain your god from knocking up an unmarried woman.

          He must be the ultimate deadbeat dad,nowhere to be seen before conception never to be seen since.

          • Bunswalla

            Wasn’t even there during conception, apparently. How stupid do you have to be to believe that?

        • Bunswalla

          If only they were, Lucia, if only they were.

        • Bunswalla

          Sorry, I should state Rodger’s position more clearly. it wasn’t so much that it was too long, although it indisputably was; it’s more that it was as boring as bat-shit. Full of made-up positions from fictional characters written by people that weren’t there some decades after the “events” they purport to describe.

          Now. I have a lovely bridge I’d like to sell you and all your incredibly gullible cohorts.

          • ZenTiger

            Yeah, very keen to buy it. Fly over to Papua New Guinea where my lawyer will read your one line contract (any longer and it would be boring), and we’ll make a quick decision.

    • P1LL

      “According to the Second Vatican Council, the precious gift of “perfect continence, out of desire for the kingdom of heaven,” is outstanding among the evangelical counsels. This is a gift of divine grace, “given by the Father to certain souls, (cf. Mt 19:11; 1 Cor 7:7), whereby they may devote themselves to God alone the more easily, due to an undivided heart”

      Umm so why to the priests continue to rape boys and a few girls / women ?

      “It’s only a sin if it’s outside of marriage”

      Oh now I get it , men can not marry boys so therefore it can not be a sin .

      • ZenTiger

        So why do fathers continue to beat children, teachers continue to rape children, politicians continue to have affairs, policemen continue to beat prisoners? Perhaps because there will always be imperfect people in all parts of society, who shut out the grace offered by God.

        You don’t get it though do you, because you suggest becoming a priest should make you immune to sin, and you don’t appear to conceive the idea that some evil people might choose to become a priest or a teacher or a scout master simply because it puts them in a position of power.

        “Oh now I get it , men can not marry boys so therefore it can not be a sin .”
        No, this statement covers your faulty logic:
        “It’s only a sin if it’s outside of marriage”.

        So men cannot marry boys, and therefore it remains a sin because it is outside of marriage.

    • sandynobb

      Priestly celibacy is not scriptural, and therefore, not divine law. Celibacy is a discipline of the Latin Rite, and an unnatural one at that. Not only was St Peter married (Mt 8:14-17; Mk 1:29-31; Lk 4:38; 1Cor 9:5), but St Paul teaches that mandatory celibacy is the ‘doctrine of demons’ (1Tim 4:1-3). Mandatory celibacy was enforced by the Bishop of Rome as a worldy means of combating worldly nepotism and corruption amongst priests. As the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him” (Gen 2:18).

      • but St Paul teaches that mandatory celibacy is the ‘doctrine of demons’ (1Tim 4:1-3).

        That’s not what 1Tim4:1-3 says. Forbidding marriage is not the same thing as celibacy. Any man who wants to become a priest is giving up marriage, not being forbidden from it. And, if he’s made a mistake, he can give up the priesthood and get married – a number have done so.

        You need to put the verse you quoted up against Our Lord’s words about eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven to get their real meaning.

        • Bunswalla

          Is that Tim Nice-but-Dim?

  • ZenTiger

    Suddenly, celibacy isn’t a valid lifestyle choice or expression of sexuality? What typical bias and bigotry we see here from people who supposedly argue than how people choose to express and define their sexuality is something that should not be criticised.

    But if some-one declares celibacy, then it’s alright to suggest that that leads to pedophilia and put the boot in? Just shows how vacuous the arguments often are.