[continued]

the Church (etc.) must have the freedom whether or not to recognise what they consider to be a marriage. What the State recognises is up to IT: it should not be able to dictate to churches who they can or can't recognise as 'married', IF we are to maintain that separation.

On another matter, Catholic clergy child abuse, why not let priests get married ? That might have avoided so much abuse and misery over the last thousand years. Orthodox priests marry. Protestant clergy marry. Why this idiocy ?

Just saying :)

Cheers,

Joe

This is completely off-topic but I'll respond anyway. I support married clergy (as well as clergy of all genders), but not for the argument you named. That argument has two fatal flaws:

(1) Child abuse does not happen more frequently in the Roman Catholic church than in other comparable religious or secular organizations.
(2) Celibate clergy abuse children at lower rates than non-celibate clergy.

This should of course not be taken as any kind of excuse for the horrific acts of sexual violence against children by Catholic priests, or for the horrific cover-ups and enabling undertaken by Catholic dioceses and bishops etc. It's just that those inexcusable acts are not unique to the Catholic church. They're also undertaken by other people who work with children, and by other organizations.

So this means married priests wouldn't solve the child abuse problem inside or outside the Roman Catholic church. (It would solve a few other problems, though. And I think the theological argument is open-and-shut in favor of making celibacy optional ... it's just the weight of tradition holding them back from changing that).

G'day Elcalebo,

I agree with you, that of course child abuse is not confined to any one church, or even to churches alone. I'm not suggesting that allowing priests (in the Anglican as well as the Catholic Church) to marry will eliminate child abuse everywhere - of course, some non-celibates, both religious and secular, commit child abuse, a tiny few (I hope) of fathers even abuse their own daughters.

I'm not suggesting that such dreadful abuse can be eliminated by some one-shot remedy. But I suspect that it could greatly reduced.

In the nineteenth century, non-Catholic mission societies were often reluctant to appoint single men to work on Aboriginal missions. Perhaps it should be a requirement that anybody working closely with children be married. No, it's not a 100% sure-fire cure-all, but again it may go some way to minimising child abuse.

Currently churches would refuse to marry priests or nuns - in a couple of successful marriages that I know of, both priest and nun had to renounce their vows of celibacy, and leave their position. But of course, their union was recognised by the State, I.e. by the Office of Births, Deaths and Marriages. But whether churches recognise such marriages is an internal matter. However, in order to maintain the separation of Church and state, there would be no bar to the State's recognition of such a union - and to call it a marriage.

I'm puzzled how you would know that

(2) Celibate clergy abuse children at lower rates than non-celibate clergy.

Cheers,

Joe

Well, I can't find what I thought I previously read, and I'm thinking maybe I remembered it wrong. It seems like there aren't the stats to make the sweeping claim the way I made it. Sorry about that!

Here are some articles making similar points, though:
http://blogs.denverpost.com/hark/2010/05/25/scandal-creates-contempt-for-catholic-clergy/39/
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/15/priests-marry-catholic-church-paedophile-pope-francis
http://www.newsweek.com/priests-commit-no-more-abuse-other-males-70625

A lot of people in various articles note that 4% of Catholic priests between 1950-1992 were alleged to have conducted sexual misconduct towards children, while 10-20% of the American male population has committed sexual violence/abuse in general. This is obviously not a fair comparison. (It's also not clear whether the latter figure is actual abuse or reported abuse, which is much lower. If it's actual abuse, that's another reason why it's not a fair comparison).

Hi Elcalebo,

I guess the bigger crime is that the employer covered up for the offences that their employees committed, and simply moved them to another site, often more than once, surely knowing that yet more crimes would be most likely committed. That what makes the actions of the major churches so reprehensible.

Like domestic violence, child abuse has much to do with control, of gutless stronger people over more vulnerable people - men over women, carers over people in their care.

Perhaps two proposals might help: that priests should be able to marry; and that anybody caring for others should be married. It won't solve the whole problem, but it might be a start.

Cheers,

Joe

While I backtracked from my previous strong claim, it's still true that there is no evidence suggesting child abuse is caused by (or made more likely by) celibacy. This explanation has a ring of truth to it to non-celibates, but it's unproven and cannot be made a basis for the argument for married priests (which I support, but for other reasons). Married men and women can and do abuse children - their own and others' - a requirement for marriage definitely wouldn't solve the problem, and there's no proof that it would decrease it. It may increase it.

I agree that the employer cover-up is unconscionable, and is at least as horrific a crime as the abuse itself. Sadly, these Catholic dioceses are far from the only employers who do such things. (This should not be taken as me saying "it happens everywhere; it's unavoidable." It is very avoidable - we know some of the steps that can be taken to reduce this kind of behavior by both violent people and violence-enabling organizations. This makes it all the more unconscionable.)

I would say that what makes the actions of the church's representatives worse than similar violence (and similar institutional enabling/cover-ups) elsewhere is the hypocrisy. The churches do not claim to be perfect, but they do claim to be - in some sense - experts in morality. Clearly, they are the opposite when they act like this.