As a Christian, I take no pleasure in writing this, but think it needs to be brought up and dealt with:
When the subject of sexual predators in the Catholic church comes up, one naturally thinks of priests molesting underage boys, however....for over 1000 years the practice of nuns taking sexual advantage of their younger, shapely subordinates has been at least as big of a problem. Little has been reported on this for a number of reasons: 1. There is no physical evidence (i.e. sperm) to prove this. 2. The young women answered only to their superiors, and their complaints to law enforcement were frequently dismissed as an issue best dealt with by the church. 3. Young women were easier to dominate and "train" by their superiors than were young men. For many years, the practice of senior nuns bedding down with their young apprentice girls on those cold winter nights has been the worst kept secret in the Catholic church. Most young women who join the Catholic church want only to live a simple life and to serve God. Maybe it's time to hold predatory nuns to account as well as priests.
@mchill saidOf course you are correct. If there is no reporting or little, then one must assume that it is not major issue. Any sin or evil with not dealt with in this life will be dealt with in the afterlife. It would be wrong if younger nuns complained and they were ignored. That would fall on the shoulders of those in authority.
As a Christian, I take no pleasure in writing this, but think it needs to be brought up and dealt with:
When the subject of sexual predators in the Catholic church comes up, one naturally thinks of priests molesting underage boys, however....for over 1000 years the practice of nuns taking sexual advantage of their younger, shapely subordinates has been at least as big of a ...[text shortened]... simple life and to serve God. Maybe it's time to hold predatory nuns to account as well as priests.
@mchill saidWhy did you specify that the victims were "shapely"?
As a Christian, I take no pleasure in writing this, but think it needs to be brought up and dealt with:
When the subject of sexual predators in the Catholic church comes up, one naturally thinks of priests molesting underage boys, however....for over 1000 years the practice of nuns taking sexual advantage of their younger, shapely subordinates has been at least as big of a ...[text shortened]... simple life and to serve God. Maybe it's time to hold predatory nuns to account as well as priests.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
The Apostle Paul warned that legalized celibacy would be a damage to the truth of the Gospel. There should be no "forbid[ing] marriage" among serving ones in the church. He said it was a demonic teaching.
"But the Spirit says expressly that in later times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and teachings of demons by means of the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, of men who are branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron, who forbid marriage and command abstaining from foods, which God has created to be partaken of with thanksgiving by those who believe and have full knowledge of the truth." ( 1 Timothy 4:1,2)
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Is not Jesus supposed to be a model for Christian clergy?
Christ is a model to every single believer in Him. There should be no clerical class and a layman's class.
There should not be a clergy or a laity in the normal church life.
There is only the universal priesthood of all believers in Christ.
There should not be a class of clerical mediators to a larger majority of "laymen".
There should be all serving believers,
some with greater capacity because of longer and deeper experience and some with lesser.
The clergy / laity system is a detriment to the normal building up and proper functioning of all the members of the mystical body of Christ. Today the Lord is recovering the universal priesthood of the believers in Christ.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
@Duchess64
I'll address the second thought first.
Given that Jesus was celibate, why should Christians reject celibacy as a spiritual path for at least some Christian clergy?
Neither Jesus nor His apostle said a Christian should not be celibate.
What I quoted said celibacy should not be made legal - "who forbid marriage"
Paul was not married by his own choice.
Other's who wanted to dedicate their lives in service chose celibacy voluntarily.
What he said was a teaching of demons was the legal forbidding of marriage.
There's a difference in the voluntary choice of remaining unmarried and
the forced requirement forbidding marriage.
Briefly to your first comment:
Sonship writes from an anti-Catholic perspective.
"The normal definition of laity is that given in the Code of Canon Law: By divine institution,
I write from a pro-scriptural perspective.
"But the Spirit says expressly . . . some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and teachings of demons . . . who FORBID marriage." (see 1 Tim. 4:1-3)
The same New Testament has Jesus saying some will voluntarily make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of the heavens.
" . . . and there are those who made themselves eunuchs because of the kingdom of the heavens." (See Matt. 19:12)
The New Testament is balanced in its treatment of celibacy.
The RCC went lopsided in forbidding marriage to serving Christians.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
there are among the Christian faithful in the Church sacred ministers who in law
are also called clerics; the other members of the Christian faithful are called lay persons."
I do not doubt that this is true for a moment.
Of course some caught in the unscriptural system, in spite of it, were and are
faithful to the Lord.
Jesus, speaking after His resurrection to the seven churches in Revelation said that there was something that He hated - that was the "works of the Nicoliatans" and "the teaching of the Nicolaitans".
"But this you have, that you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate." (Rev. 2:6)
"In the same way you also have some who hold in like manner the teaching of the Nicolaitans." (2:15)
The word we believe has the meaning of Nico - to conquer or to overcome or to be a victor. And laitans - the common people, the laymen, the laity.
The Nicolaitans refer to a group of people who esteem themselves higher than common believers. This attitude was against Christ's teaching that all the believers were equally brothers and no matter how spiritual one was she or he was only another brother rather than they building up a hierarchy organizationally limiting the function of other brothers.
This hierarchy of those conquering the common believers was not restricted to Roman Catholicism. It was carried over by Protestantism as well.
Jesus said He hated this hierarchical behavior and teaching in His church.
And Christians should love what Jesus loves and hate what Jesus hates.
A Christian may receive education perhaps in reading and writing Hebrew and Greek or be an expert in church history. But in the local church they are still just a brother with no hierarchical elite status over other believers.
See Matthew 23:9. But that some dear Christians caught in that system of clergy / laity love the Lord faithfully and serve God is not disputed. The operative word there is "some".
The post that was quoted here has been removedPaul, who authored the most books of the Bible, said he would prefer all Christians be like him and not marry. He also said, right after, that it's better to marry than to "burn with passion".
Given these texts, there's no reason for Catholicism to require celibacy of anyone.