On NBC's Today, Robin Williams Smears Critics of His Anti-Catholic Jokes -- Including NB

Photo of Tim Graham.

On Thursday’s Today, NBC’s Meredith Vieira interviewed Robin Williams, introducing him jokingly that he "has always made people look to the heavens and say what was he thinking? So it's only appropriate that in his latest film, License To Wed, he plays a man of the cloth. And his character, Reverend Frank is more than a little unorthodox." He’s playing an Episcopalian minister, but all his trouble lately has been by making harsh jokes about Catholic priests and pedophilia.

On the June 18 Tonight show, Williams unfurled a whole routine suggesting there were pedophiles everywhere among the Catholic priesthood, a smear on the vast majority of serious and celibate priests, as well as mean-spirited jokes about priests being sexually aroused in the confessional. Ten days later, he smeared his critics – specifically, without citing names, Michael Chapman on NewsBusters -- suggesting they didn’t care whether child-abusing priests were exposed, that keeping it quiet was okay. About halfway into the interview, Vieira steered into his mockery of priests:

Vieira: "We watched you on the Tonight show talking about the movie-"

Williams: "Sorry for noticing."

Vieira: "No, and you started making jokes about priests and pedophiles. Next thing you know the Church is up in arms."

Williams: "Yeah but they should have been up in arms, basically after the children's crusade. I think it started there. All of a sudden the Catholic Church went, 'Oh look! They're everywhere!'"

Vieira: "Well do, do you ever worry about offending people?"

Williams: "Oh, all the time. But it's my job as a comic, sometimes to keep going, you know? If you read it and go, it's not like it didn't exist. And I love his defense was, 40 percent of the, 40, 40 percent of the victims were under 14 years of age. It was, oh, oh thank you. That makes it okay then. Because I was using the word children, saying that under, 14 and under were only children. 40 percent, and the rest were still illegal but that's okay."

Vieira: "So what, the fact, that you don't care what they say?"

Williams: "You care if its really, really, should, no. I was basically going if you're noticing it, it's, you can't ignore it. If you do, it's like, then why live in this world?"

William Donohue at the Catholic League was the first one to draw attention to the comedian’s harsh anti-priest routine: "Williams suggests that most molesting priests are pedophiles, when in fact they are homosexuals. But to make a joke about gay priests could get him into trouble. So it’s better to lie. This is justice – Hollywood style."

It's easy to make jokes about priests being pedophiles, but it's completely unacceptable in Hollywood to make jokes about priests being gay. The controversy over terms, then, is: Is "pedophilia," defined as an adult attraction to sex with children, a term that applies when men seek sex with post-pubescent males? (Personally, I would define my children as still "children" until 18, but the libertine left certainly doesn't.)

In his NB post, Michael followed up on that point: "Williams essentially smeared all priests, ignoring the fact that 81 percent of the victims in the Catholic Church were males abused by priests and that more than 40 percent of these victims were males aged 11 to 14. The majority of the victims, according to the official reports on the cases, involved people who were past puberty, i.e., young teenagers." Michael did not say, as Williams mangled it, that 40 percent were under 14, but that 40 percent were between 11 and 14.

To follow up with more numbers, the John Jay study for the bishops' National Review Board estimated 14 percent of accusations of child sex abuse were of children under 10. But over 50 percent of them were aimed at children 13 and over, suggesting that the majority of the problem centered on post-pubescent males.

Catholics who fight with anti-Catholics on this matter are NOT saying "Oh, that makes it okay, then." It's not only a horrible scandal when priests are engaged in sex with children. It's a horrible scandal when priests are engaged in sex with anyone. I remember Brent Bozell lamenting a priest in nearby Manassas who engaged in adultery with a married woman and then left the priesthood to marry her. Catholics find that offensive, destructive of the church community. Hollywood would probably make it an uplifting love story of the week.

Also, in his Today show appearance – as he has with Rush Limbaugh – Williams began by callously making drug jokes about Ann Coulter:

Vieira: "And Robin Williams good morning. What a morning you chose to come here. Huh?"

Williams in French accent: "I come here on crazy morning. The liberation of Paris [Hilton]."

Vieira: "Yes. Steroids."

Williams: "Steroids and Ann Coulter. Kind of redundant really."

My question is: how on Earth is it that Robin Williams, who left his first wife for the nanny, who had a serious cocaine addiction – how does a man who’s messed up his personal life on multiple occasions think he has the slightest moral high ground to condemn others? Vieira mentioned the comedian's marriage, hailing it for lasting 18 years, without mentioning the scandalous way it began. Vieira also sensitively asked Williams about rehab and his latest trip there. Hollywood celebrities are given a much more sensitive platform than little-known priests in little-known towns, who are mocked as perverts for laughs.

In effect, with these jokes, Williams is telling the Catholic priests of the world "I am holier than thou." Priests aren’t making screwed-up Robin Williams jokes from the pulpit. Perhaps he ought to reflect on how he would be smarter to follow that moral example. Comedian, heal thyself.

—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The truth about Robin Williams...

While there are plenty of things to jump all over the Catholic Church over how they handled, or mishandled the child sex abuse scandals. Yes, by trying sweeping it under the rug by transfering abusive clergy to other parrishes in the dead of night in a fassion that would be admired by the Indianapolis Colts. That was wrong, & those in charge should have been held to account to the full extent of the law, & some were. Trust me, I shed no tears when the news of John Geoghon was killed in prison, & I have no respect for Cardinal Law for KNOWINGLY covered it up. But Williams was over the line with his comments, & his lack of respect is only too obvious by his reaction to the reaction.

But as for Robin Williams, he follows in the footsteps of other comics legends like George Carlin & Richard Pryor, he quit being funny when he quit getting high. I almost feel sorry for him, but like so many in entertainment who screw up, I can't. They "souled" out so long ago that I could'nt be bothered. Why, because Williams, like so many others in Hollywood, don't give a damn. They show nothing but contempt for the masses who pay their way time & again.

"A goverment big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away"        Barry Goldwater

Yes, the Catholic Church wa

Yes, the Catholic Church was beyond wrong in covering it up. But still, the elephant in the room is that 99% of the offenders were homosexuals. That's why they had to "change" the crime to pedophilia.. a pretty universal taboo that it's not politically incorrect to abhor. You'll notice that when Robin Williams goes after the priests, he only wisecracks about the "kid" thing...there are never any "gay" digs.

MBThe following is a part of

MB

The following is a part of an article on this topic which I believe illuminates some of the issues involved

In other words, a society that denies the existence of objective morality has nothing to back up its claims that any type of behavior is necessarily and always bad. Will we get to the point where child abuse is actually considered a personal right? I don’t think we’re far away

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.   

A society that has no colle

A society that has no collective sense of morality will eventually stop talking about morality and only talk about what is "legal." Since legality involves getting enough people to vote to make a law, the standard becomes what a majority of people can be convinced to accept. Then the others who don't get classified as "bigots" or other names.

If gay marriage becomes legal, there won't be any grounds on which to object to it. And the push is already on by gay groups (the same ones who convinced the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from its list of disorders) to stop referring to pedophilia, and instead start calling it "intergenerational sex", a much milder term. How long before that too is removed from the disorders list?

One article by a prof at the University of Minnesota claims that children are generally not hurt by these relationships, and in some cases may have even benefitted from them. And NAMBLA has the same agenda.

If we accept that trend, we are a sick, sick, country.

motherbelt: Excellent point!B

motherbelt: Excellent point!

Bull****! You are not a virgin. You are assigned to the kitchen. - - Gatekeeper at Islamofascist heaven disappointing another female suicide bomber

It's a worldview of post-mode

It's a worldview of post-modernism thing.  Nevermind that relativism can not (and is not) be actually lived out by it's proponents. 

A portion from William Lane C

A portion from William Lane Craig found at topic #12 here (requires free registration so i can't go directly to the article for you)

 The contemporary Western intellectual world,” declares the noted philosopher Alvin Plantinga, “is a battleground or arena in which rages a battle for men’s souls.”1  Three schools of thought struggle against each other in the competition to win the minds of thinking men and women:  Enlightenment naturalism, post-modern anti-realism, and theism, typically Christian theism.  It is in the field of philosophy that the decisive battles are taking place, and the outcome of these contests will reverberate throughout the university and ultimately Western culture.  In recent decades the battlelines have dramatically shifted, and I’ve been asked to talk today about some of the changes that have transpired in Anglo-American philosophy over the last generation. 

...cept that Jesus has alrea

...cept that Jesus has already won no matter what happens:)!

But then Jesus IS the ultimat

But then Jesus IS the ultimate reality

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts 

}}----> Motherbelt

We could do an exclusive thread on the dilution of a national morality.

One man's limit is another man's playground.

God tells one man no, to the other he says "you better"

Lysdexics untie!

If we kept all other aspe

If we kept all other aspects of the story but changed the victims
to female, do you think for a minute the media would have referred to it as “Pedophilia”. Not on your life. It would have been portrayed as heterosexual rape
by the oppressive white male heterosexuals.
In order to dodge any discussion of gay priests, the press neatly
changes the charges to Pedophilia and then reminds us whenever they can that
gays are not pedophiles. While I am
dismayed about how the Church handled the scandle I am tired of all the
potshots against the Catholic Church that would never be tolerated if the
clerics involved were Jewish, Hindu or Moslem.

ThomasYou make some 'Common S

Thomas

You make some 'Common Sense'   

Should have said, You make so

Should have said,

You make some 'Common Sense'

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts 

I agree Tom you make sense to

I agree Tom you make sense to me too.

Understood

Most Christians understand the pedophlia scandals of the Church and the origin of it. Satan stalks around like a roaring lion, looking to devour (an off the head, somewhat inaccurate quote from The Bible). This is Satan's work, and those who use it to discredit the Church as a whole are equally subject to God's fearful judgement, if not more, than the pedophiles.

I am not a Catholic but we are ALL Christians and we grieve for the tribulations of the Catholic Church and we pray for it's repair.

 Non-believers take great pleasure in things such as this but their pleasure will come at eternal costs for they have joined the legions of the fallen that belong to THE FALLEN ONE.  

A quite rich target environme

A quite rich target environment for jokes and mocking for Williams would certainly be Islam and their insidious mullahs. But has little Robin ever mocked a mullah?

Well, little Robin, have you? C'mon tough guy....make fun of Islam.

What'sa matter, little Robin....no guts? Afraid someone might cut your head off?

Rochester, Minnesota: A Fem_Leftist City!

Williams supports Islamic te

Williams supports Islamic terrorists - that's the problem...

Minnesota is a fem left city my friend...

Take my life for Islam . . 

Take my life for Islam . . . Please!  - - - Henny Islamofascist

two suicide bombers walk into

two suicide bombers walk into a cafe...one says to the other...etc, etc...

BOOM!!!!

Williams: hahahahahahahaha...so have you heard the one about the evil isreali settler and the pedophile priest? hahahahahahah...

Knock, knock. Who's there?

Knock, knock.

Who's there?

Boom!!

(Later, on CNN) "In other news, an Al Qauda suicide bomber blew himself up today killing four others."

--This insensitive remark brought to you be Free Stinker.

Boom!! who?

Boom!!  who?

What do i know I'm just a freakin islam-fascist canary!

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts 

To be FAIR, and conservatives

To be FAIR, and conservatives are inherently fair I just yahooed "Robin Williams" + "islam."

He's more than made fun of Islam, he's ripped it. here's the first entry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4BEQCEuLfQ&NR

Conservatives shouldn't exhibit the same gross faults of leftists in only hearing what they want to hear, and being selectively offended.

You've seen the spoof. Now see the spoof of the spoof on YouTube: The Clintpranos: Bada Bong

Thanks, Jack.

I thought I recalled something like that, but I couldn't recall if he was the comic, and Islam's been a pretty easy target the past few years. Thanks, Jack.
JMR

Williams is certainly a lib**

Williams is certainly a lib***l whose basic politics I really disagree with, but he's always struck me as an equal opportunity insulter and defamer.

And you gotta be fair in recognizing that. Doesn't mean you have to like him -- but he is (imho) a comic genius, in small doses.

You've seen the spoof. Now see the spoof of the spoof on YouTube: The Clintpranos: Bada Bong

Much like Dennis Miller, ac

Much like Dennis Miller, actually. This exchange actually gives me an idea for a show. Neither of them would be at all interesting alone for an entire half hour comedy-show, IMO....But...Handcuff 'em together & put neither one in charge, with maybe a hot chick to moderate the debate and distract everyone, and that's a show I'd want to watch. Both of them can talk so fast it'll be hard for the other to get a word in edgewise, which will lead to conflict, which will lead to a GREAT show. :) Nothing like 2 comics at eachother's throats!! :) Plus, the 2 of them, off the tops of their heads, would come up with better material than Fox's lame "Half Hour News Hour" at a drastically-reduced cost to Fox compared to their current strategy of trying to fake being SNL crossed with a conservative version of Stewart's Daily Show.
But what do I know about comedy?
JMR

I like Red Eye... it's not tr

I like Red Eye... it's not trying to BE "conservative," it's just a bunch of people around a table riffing away at what they find funny -- just not a bunch of the usual suspect lefties.

I hate issue comedy. I like funny people being funny with nothing off limits. Like "socialists"  and their weird amoral ideas.

You've seen the spoof. Now see the spoof of the spoof on YouTube: The Clintpranos: Bada Bong

I like 'em depending on the

I like 'em depending on the guest. I'd say Kerry Howley of Reason is my favorite.
JMR

While I think Williams remark

While I think Williams remarks are out of line and really not necessary. I have always thought him to be a comedic genius. I don't agree that he quit being funny when he quit drugs, I have seen fairly recent interviews and other programming that was hilarious (although I havent seen any recent movies of his). The real problem with him is, (just like many in the entertainment field) is they are out of touch liberals who can no longer relate to regular folks. That is why liberal regular folks seem to know all of the TV shows and Movies and can ID all of the starlets. They idolize these folks to the point of agreeing with every sentiment. But then again,what do I know? I also agree that Williams and Miller would make for some fun

}}----> Williams and Miller

Hank Williams and Roger Miller?  Yeah, I can see that.

Lysdexics untie!

I stand corrected.Perhaps he'

I stand corrected.

Perhaps he'll make an entire movie on the subject?

Rochester, Minnesota: A Fem_Leftist City!

Doubtful Alger.But National L

Doubtful Alger.

But National Lampoon: 72 Virgins are running an online poll to decide whether to turn a 12 minute skit into a full blown(up) movie.

Then there's aways us South Park conservatives fave flick: Team America.

You've seen the spoof. Now see the spoof of the spoof on YouTube: The Clintpranos: Bada Bong

William's next film - he play

William's next film - he plays a gay Muslim cleric and jokes about"ragheads having sex with sheep" as they "train their kids to strap on bombs and blow up" a daycare center - hahahahahahaha!

Wasn't it the libtards that say make love not war?

So which is worse Williams old pal - love makin' peds or kid exploding terrorists:)? Just asking is all...

}}----> TruthMonger

The scene where the men crowd around the mother and child waiting to see who gets to be the first to rub himself against the infant after weaning is particularly hilarious.

Lysdexics untie!

two thumbs up!- fayed and j

two thumbs up!

- fayed and jibril, film critics, homicide bomber daily news

And, another one bites the

And, another one bites the dust.

Do these people (and I am really shocked Williams seems to have gone so far off the deep end on this one) not care how they sound to the vast majority of Americans that don't go in for that brand of humor, or bias, or prejudice? Or, is it that they're "Hollywood" and they can say anything untoward, or do anything untoward, and never be held responsible, in any manner, shape, or form, for the things they have said and done?

Do these people have no civility? So rude and crass and base and unfunny was Mr Williams (from reading the transcript posted), I am actually wincing. Remember when, not even twenty years ago, you couldn't say the words "stretch marks" on late-night television? Now it is perfectly acceptable to discuss pedophiles and sex with underage children? As schtick? On a MORNING news program? When did this happen? When did this become an "okay" topic for those viewing the show with their families from the breakfast tables of America?

Add to that the complete lack of basic and simple comprehension about any subject matter. They could read or hear the words, "The sky is blue," and what they repeat, as your words verbatim is, "Giant mastadons are now dating freckled, left-handed Amazon women with fur in the hot spots around the globe." Not even close. But, that's the norm when dealing with "that" crowd.

Pathetic.

Well, just like Michael Jackson and a slew of other moral-compass-missing celebrities, Williams isn't getting another penny from me.

I only wish I could be even

I only wish I could be even 1/100 as effective against antilibertarian media bias as Mr. Donohue is against anti-Catholic bias.
JMR

libertarian, liberal - what's

libertarian, liberal - what's the diff really? he's doing a great job:)...

Small, big -- what's the di

Small, big -- what's the difference when it comes to a philosophy of government, really?

But I can agree on Donohue's effectiveness, even as I make fun of your alleged confusion over the terms...
JMR

...yes the "small govern

...yes the "small government" of 3 times the number of social programs we have now cleaning up after your libertarian legalization of pot smoking, drug use, prostitution, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc....

...my gosh you poor libertarians - only getting your message out through hollywood, prime time tv, music industry, books, npr, pbs, "art" museams, all of the public schools, most of our universities - but yes, Donahue is certainly kicking your 900,000 lbs gorrilla ass:)...

Dimwit alert

What are you ON, anyway??? Crappy scotch??? Where have I (or ANY libertarian) proposed any social program to "clean up" after anything, much less three times the failure your "solution" is producing?? Let's face a fact, here, you're not all that bright if you think that's what I've been advocating, dude...Argue the facts of what I've said/advocated, or expect continual trips to the intellectual woodhouse.
JMR

Sarc's woodhouse:)...

what am i on? it's called crappy western socialism resulting from legalized debauchery - where have i (or any conservative for that matter) claimed that you've proposed any social programs? I know you don't give a rats ass about civic responsibility...

Yes, facing facts is fun. For starters it seems that you're too tragically short sighted to see the inevitable civic costs of all yer grand libertarian weed-growin, abortion fest, online porn, gambling addiction good-times, bud...can't blame you as the dubes have probably burned up quite a few of your braincells over the years...

how it works is you fine "libertarian" folks get everything legalized - and then your fine liberal cousins create the bloated nanny state to fix it - but first of course to line their own pockets with sweet cushy do-nothing social service careers - and then maybe "clean up" social disaster you've brilliantly engineered..most likely not...oh well - more big government for you to blame on me and my crazy penchant for locking up drugged-out criminals, right...?

so what ya got next here in your pathetic intellectual woodhouse...?

Not even worth a reply...JM

Not even worth a reply...
JMR

suh-weet:)! heh-heh-heh

suh-weet:)! heh-heh-heh

sad spectacle

It's not at all a matter of free speech or whatever. To me, it's the tragedy of watching our millenia-old traditions being eroded, and seeing our history rewritten by nihilists who by definition have nothing to offer in their place.

There's nothing new in our Church having wicked members. Since Augustine, we've seen ourselves as a mixture of saints and demons and we trust God to sort it all out at the end.

What's new is mass communication which is brutally manipulated to construct and sell the narrative that the Church is nothing but pedophiles, and therefore cool people don't have anything to do with religion.

Which brings me back to what upsets me about Williams. He's participating in the overthrow of the one institution left that could possibly save Western Civilization, which, if you haven't heard, is under attack. And if you look back at the 20th century, you'll notice that atheist-materialism didn't do such a hot job as an alternative.

Nihilism is not the answer, yet people like Williams are leading honest, innocent people, by a sinister emotive appeal, to conclude in despair that since an honest man can't be found anywhere, in any church, therefore nihilism must be the answer.

God have mercy on his soul.

I don't think with Williams i

I don't think with Williams is claiming he's better than anyone. Comedians are flawed people making fun of others it's their job.

Styles of comedy

There are many styles of comedy and the one that Robin Williams is using here requires the comedian to feel the above the people being attacked. The comedy is best when it is based on the truth not cultural misperceptions like Williams'.

Our real problem, then, is not our strength today; it is rather the vital necessity of action today to ensure our strength tomorrow. Dwight Eisenhower

I’ll object to the argument

I’ll object to the argument, “It’s their job.” (Note - I object to the argument, not balboa) Why should priests have to swallow being publicly insulted so that Robin Williams can make millions of dollars at his job? Nice job. Let’s insult all comedians, and then tell us where we can pick up the paycheck. The bank holdup guy has a job, too, but I don’t let him get away unscathed just because he’s chosen an unusual profession. Besides, Jay Leno makes jokes against about it, and no one complains. Why not? In the first place, it’s because no one senses that Jay Leno is trying to harm anyone. Second, Jay Leno is not a sex-obsessed pot calling the kettle black. The “it’s my job” argument doesn’t cut it.

However, here we have another case of cowardly liberals, hiding behind some excuse, taking potshots at will. It’s another case of “drive-by” liberalism. Cindy Sheehan can spout the most offensive things, but no one can criticize her because her “moral authority is absolute.” I wish Ann Coulter hadn’t called them harpies, but Ann was correct in her point: just because they lost husbands in 9/11 doesn’t give the Jersey Girls a free pass. And here again, Robin Williams doesn’t get a free pass just because he’s a comedian. Jon Stewart and Bill Maher and Dave Letterman throw haymakers in front of their own sympathetic audience, but they rarely expose themselves to any audience that they don’t already know is on their side. Maher occasionally does an O’Reilly interview, but that doesn’t mean he’s facing honest criticism. Stewart is a little better, but when do you see him in an environment where he has to answer fairly?

The premise of this website is opposing liberal bias, because that’s how liberals operate. Liberals can’t win against honest debate, so they try to win by influencing people through media manipulation. Liberals consistently attack but then they run and hide. They won’t engage in honest debate. They’re intellectual cowards.

Again, my point is that Willi

Again, my point is that Williams wasn't trying to engage in debate, he was taking a jab at the trouble some priests have gotten into and those who appear to be trying to make lemonade out of lemons. Priests have to "swallow being publicly insulted" because, quite frankly, of a few bad apples. That's life.

True, and of course, priests

True, and of course, priests do accept the sarcasm against them. They're not stupid. They know they're in for a tough time because of this, and they accept it. They know they have to rebuild respect for the priesthood because of this. 

The scandal involved, overwhelmingly, homosexuals taking advantage of the moral authority of the priesthood to pressure vulnerable boys into having sex. It further involved the bishops being so afraid of lawsuits and reputation that they protected the wolves instead of the sheep. (Hey, as far as I’m concerned, make all the jokes you want about that.) But Williams blamed it on celibacy. “Williams went on, placing his hand over his groin, saying, ‘You have to realize that if you are a Catholic priest, you have retired this. That's it--no more sex.’” Then his “joke” was that Catholic priests are guiltily enjoying it while people confess about their sex lives. Basically, it plays into an adolescent prejudice against priests that they’re really all secretly neurotic, naturally because they’re deprived of sex. Of course, the church’s teachings on sex or celibacy have nothing to do with the scandal. It has much more to do with reconciling homosexuality with the priesthood. (Most mature homosexual priests do find a way to reconcile their identity with their priesthood, but when they don’t, it creates a flammable situation. Pardon the pun.)

So, why do we laugh when Jay Leno makes jokes, but not what Robin Williams did? It's because what Williams did was different. Williams took the politically correct route by saying nothing about homosexuality. Instead, he attacked the target that liberal Hollywood thinks they can insult with impunity: the Catholic church. That’s not comedy. That's cowardice.

}}----> Not fair KC

You fail to address the demographic makeup of the priesthood if celibacy had not been the law of the Church.

I submit a more wholesome mix of applicants would have been attracted rather than the heavy mix of sexually troubled applicants during the last century.

You can't tell me there weren't well adjusted heterosexual males who would have loved to join the priesthood were it not for a completely artificial sin created by the Vatican.

It's as if the Church said in its heart "I shall ascend to the throne of the Almighty, I shall decide what is evil and good"

Celibacy was not the only sin created by the Church, but by far the most destructive.

But you're right,  we should be well past laughing.

Lysdexics untie!

Cool Arrow, I'm probably the

Cool Arrow, I'm probably the worst guy to ask. Talk about bias ... I'm completely biased here. I would love to agree with you. I would re-enter the priesthood within hours if they dropped the celibacy rule. Seriously. Within hours. But even so, I don't think that would be the magic formula for fixing this problem. Some people think this would solve every problem. Not me. I’ll disagree with you that this is a manufactured sin. I don't like the rule, but I don’t think it’s a sin. A mistake, maybe, or a different vision of a sacrament, but a sin? Nah, I won’t go that far.

Balboa’s comment that follows here is correct, but only half and half. It isn’t homosexuality itself, or the repression of celibacy. It’s the repression of homosexuality that causes a special problem. Homosexuals who join the priesthood are joining a church that teaches that their very sexual identity is disordered. Not only that, but when they become priests, they have to teach that to others. They have to teach that their own identity is inherently disordered. How’s that for a self-contradiction?

However, here’s the part that’s hard to hear sometimes. Grace works miracles. From my own experience, I know homosexual priests. I know that people find this hard to believe, but almost all of the homosexual Jesuits that I know are good priests. I would trust my children with them. Somehow, they’ve reconciled their sexual identity and their priesthood. If it wasn’t for grace, I wouldn’t believe it myself. I’ve seen the grace they have, and somehow it makes all the difference.

But when a repressed homosexual doesn't have the grace, and his authority as a priest disarms vulnerable boys from defending themselves ... that's the nightmare scenario.

Cool Arrow, I basically agree with you, except for the sin part. But let’s be under no illusions. Dropping the celibacy rule won’t solve every problem.

KC,I believe you totally when

KC,

I believe you totally when you post on this topic.

I have no horse in this race.  But I find it fascinating.

IMO, the Catholic church totally blew it by trying to cover up its failures.  Pure and simple.  If it had just been a casting out of bad apples....done deal.

But as with any monolithic entity....guilt must be spread around, and those whom were the most guilty (those in the know) had to assuage their guilt.

Having said that....I find the nastiness that goes on in these threads, over religion, totally cast aside.   The same thing I'd same on the "Mormon-bashing" threads.

I truly appreciate your contribution here.  So thanks, KC.

}}----> A question KC

Having taken a vow of celibacy, is it not sin to walk away from it and marry?

Who created the celibacy requirement?

Lysdexics untie!

You asked for it …Unlike ma

You asked for it …

Unlike marriage, the church retains the right to release you from those vows at any time. Still, no one merely walks away. I didn't. I went through a process (formal interviews and endless meetings) where the church agreed to release me. I wasn't ordained, so that was no problem. No sin there.

Again, I'm biased about the celibacy history. (At least I admit my biases ...) Also, I'm not an official spokesperson for the Roman Catholic church. Take what I say with a huge grain of salt ...

There were strains of celibacy since the beginning, but it really took hold when the church became legal in the 300s. History has never see a bureaucracy like the Roman bureaucracy, and when Constantine made Christianity legal, all those bureaucrats used the church to jockey for position. Needless to say, corruption was suddenly rampant. Revolted by the disgrace, some Christians went off into the desert and became monks. The monks were soon popular for being pure and uncorrupt. They were the original Untouchables.

The monks were also celibate. (After all, if you intended to live in the barren desert, it didn’t sit well with the chicks, ya know?) The monks were chaste and weren’t corrupt. Pretty soon, wherever it was possible to elect the local priest (which they did in those days), the people elected monks. The monks brought their celibacy with them. It didn’t take long for the church in those years to connect celibacy with purity. It was especially true in the west.

Originally, celibacy was just a common practice, but it wasn’t necessarily a church law. Later, in the 1100s, it became law for a different reason. The primogenitor laws of Europe gave the property of the father to the eldest son. Of course, if the priest was married, all of the church property went to the son, not the parish. To prevent that, wherever the primogenitor laws were in effect (most of the west), the priest was forbidden to marry. It’s been there ever since.

Hey KCThanks for the history

Hey KC

Thanks for the history

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts 

}}----> When a vow is not a vow

So celibacy is not a binding vow?  I was under the impression it was a solemn promise taken before God.

Marriage vows are different because...?

Now that Priests are not owners of the Church property, can it be said the original purpose of the rule (inheritance) is since passed?

Since breaking a vow of celibacy is not punishable by excommunication, (priests do have affairs without excommunication, don't they?) what is its purpose than to add burden to those whose calling is to serve a flock.

I still maintain celibacy as a condition of priesthood is a created sin contrary to the teachings of the bible and has been the source of much pain to Church members.

celibacy n. Abstinence from sexual intercourse, especially by reason of religious vows.

Lysdexics untie!

No. Regular parish priests do

  • No. Regular parish priests don't take those same formal vows. It sounds like a technicality, but the pope is in the details (pun intended).
  • Priests do not “marry” the church. We all take that as an analogy, but it’s a different deal entirely. The priesthood isn’t marriage. It’s a different sacrament. You can’t apply the same rules.
  • I think celibacy is a mistake, but not a sin. You’re right, the inheritance rules certainly don’t apply. Is there any need for it anymore? In my opinion, it shouldn’t be required for every priest. By the way, religious order priests who live in community, like Jesuits, will still have the vow. I wouldn’t be allowed to go back to the Jesuits. But I would go back to the priesthood.
  • However … it’s not my call. My argument makes perfect sense to me, but the church says no. Guess what? I hear no all the time. I’m used to it. I can live with it.

I hear no all the time. I’m

I hear no all the time. I’m used to it. I can live with it.

Sounds like your married  : )

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts 

LOL! You're not kidding. Mar

LOL! You're not kidding. Married with four kids. No is my life.

Just thought of something ... maybe that's why they demanded celibacy in the first place. Have to think about that one ...

KC: re: Your first point. I t

KC: re: Your first point. I think you're mistaken. Parish priests do take a vow of celibacy.

1579 All the ordained ministers of the Latin Church, with the exception of permanent deacons, are normally chosen from among men of faith who live a celibate life and who intend to remain celibate "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven."70 Called to consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and to "the affairs of the Lord,"71 they give themselves entirely to God and to men. Celibacy is a sign of this new life to the service of which the Church's minister is consecrated; accepted with a joyous heart celibacy radiantly proclaims the Reign of God.72  - Source: The Catechism of the Catholic Church

We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria

My apologies. My Latin stinks

My apologies. My Latin stinks, and I went a-Googlin' for a good translation. Couldn't find one.

There are all different types of vows and oaths and promises in the church. The regular diocesan parish priest takes a vow that's different from the vows of a religious order priest.  These sound like technicalities, but it makes a difference over who can dispense from them, and what the authorities can do about violations of the promise/oath/vow.

For example, a parish priest takes a vow of celibacy, which means that he isn't allowed to attempt marriage. That's about it. It says nothing about any spiritual commitment to sexual purity or anything. He just can't get married. Chastity, however, builds the commitment to sexual purity into the vow itself. Or, to put it another way, if a Jesuit and a parish priest are both dancing seductively with a stripper, the one with the vow of chastity is in a lot more trouble with God. (Ok, you have to have a sense of humor here ...)

By the same token, Jesuits take a vow of poverty. Diocesan priests don't. They can own property, sell stocks, etc. If a Jesuit hits the jackpot in Atlantic City, he has to turn it over immediately. The diocesan priest can spend it.

We all know what the married priest would have to do with it.

}}----> So, KC

If a parish priest fornicates, it's a sin but not breaking a vow?

You're sure about this?

Lysdexics untie!

Uh oh, I've had a flashback t

Uh oh, I've had a flashback to my days as a religion teacher. It's like a dream, where I'm presented with a never ending series of what ifs .... the horror, the horror ...

Celibacy includes the expectation of sexual abstinence. In that sense, fornication does violate the vow. But the vow of chastity includes a commitment to consecrate one's thoughts and passions in a way that celibacy doesn't.

On the other hand, do you really think it's OK to sin, so long as you don't break a vow? (Sorry - had another flashback to the classroom again.)

}}----> KC, we are in agreement

You might check your previous posts on this issue.  Intended or not, I thought you were tiptoeing.  That is why I thought it necessary to nail down this concept of celibacy.

Lysdexics untie!

Yeah, and you were right to d

Yeah, and you were right to do so. On the other hand, you have me at a disadvantage, I want the rule dropped. Someone else should probably be fighting for this concept rather than me.

I thought I had a good

I thought I had a good grasp of God. He is kind and created the heavons and the earth. What you guys are talking about sounds like code. It must be deep stuff.

}}----> must be shawn

I was Catholic for 22 years and I'm just finding out everything Sister Mary Dyphtheria taught me in Catechism is wrong.

Lysdexics untie!

Here is one for you, Ch

Here is one for you, Christians out there, When you die, what happens?. The good people go to heaven, before the rapture and tribulation. The four forseman of the apoclypse come Famine, strife. happens.  The anti christ invades the earth.blood in spilled in the battlefield. The Mesiah has come back. Yes it is Doomsday.  When God defeats the Devil and  more good people are sent to heaven What happens to the gay ones, the ones that don;t believe the gospel, the people that have abortions, the ones that fornicate. What happens to them? Will it be over for them in an instant? Or will they be tormented for eternity?

I've long since learned not t

I've long since learned not to speak for God. It's his (or her) universe, not mine.

or her???::: shakes head :::

or her???

::: shakes head :::

No, it's just what happens wh

No, it's just what happens when the rubber hits the road. All the scriptures sound wonderful until you have to apply them in the real world. When we start applying religion to real life, we find that "taking up the cross" sounds easy until you discover that it's heavy and has splinters. We take it up anyway.

How then do you interpret thi

How then do you interpret this passage from 1 Corinthians, CA?

 8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

I also don't see how you can call a vow of celibacy a sin. Did Jesus sin then? Or are you one of those who believe he had a wife or mistress? How can it be a sin to give up a human pleasure in the name of consecrating oneself to God? Can you offer specific biblical evidence that such a vow is contrary to the teachings of the Bible?

We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria

}}----> Yes, Mum

Timothy 3:2:   A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach

The teaching of one's freedom to take the vow is not in question.  The requirement of such a vow is sinful in that The Church had no right to contradict scripture.

Lysdexics untie!

CA: Are you saying that this

CA: Are you saying that this passage instructs that a "bishop" aka "overseer" must be married? That a single man cannot hold such a position?

Or rather that if a "bishop" be married, he must be a faithful husband to one wife? Methinks your interpretation is a bit weak as a defense of your belief that requiring a vow of celibacy is sinful based on this particular scripture.

We are not interested in the possibilities of defeat. - Queen Victoria

}}----> Weak, Mum?