 |
|
|
I blog @ FRIENDLY FIRE read my LATEST COLUMN FRIENDS' BLOGS CATHOLIC LINKS  mater dei, ora pro nobis contact: @ weinkopf.com (C) 2001, - 2007. All rights are reserved. 
|
Thursday, January 03, 2002
THE FINAL COUNTDOWN With one week left in the Weinkopf.com Football Pool, only five points separate the first five positions. We have seen six game swings before, so, conceivably, anything is still possible. After all, who would have guessed that your's truly, the one-time pool bottom dweller who netted a mere 2 points in week 1, would be tied with the vaunted Hoboken Headhunters Cris for second place going into the final stretch? But miracle of miracles (the MMPF posted 9 wins last week, HHC only 6), it's a reality. The one to watch, however, is Lakewood Lancers Dave Coher. LLD started out the pool on top, stayed there for most of the season, but fell behind HHC for a few weeks. In the last two, though, he's regained the lead, scoring a steady 8 points in each. With a three-game cushion, the pool is his to lose, but he has faltered before ... His team, it's worth noting, has faltered badly. The Raiders seem to have peaked in, oh, October. Now with a loss to the Jests this weekend (who would have ever thought I'd be rooting for Gang Green) they can deliver the AFC's second seed and the bye to the Mighty Mighty New England Patriots. Talking about past-prime teams, how about Steel Man Joe's beloved Pittsburgh? A porous secondary gave up 400+ passing yards in a sad late-season loss to the hapless Bungles. And what about SMJ himself? For most of the season he had a lock on third place and an eye on the higher spots. Now, with another 6-game week, he's down to 7th place. ClevelandDawg Stacey's Browns, who earlier this season were talking about a division title, are now struggling just to reach .500. And VivaLas49ers Jason's Frisco boys blew it against the Cowpokes last week. But both Jason and Stacey remain in contention in the pool, despite dropping a few notches with a six-point performance last week. As for our collective wisdom, we all picked Jax over KC. Don't be the farm on our advice. It's been a fun season, and it will be funner still to see where this all ends ... Best of luck, Chris, the Mighty Mighty Pats Fan PRIESTLY CELIBACY My friend and fellow FrontPage columnist Jamie Glazov wrote an uncharacteristically thoughtless column on clerical celibacy today. Below is the response I just banged out and e-mailed to him: Dear Jamie, I'm usually a big fan of yours, but you're way off the mark this time. A few points: 1) To quote you: "Perhaps some people don’t need sex. Fair enough. But it needs to be a voluntary decision." Jamie, it IS a voluntary decision. No one is forced into the priesthood. It is a calling answered after much prayer and discernment -- with full appraisal of all the sacrifices that the vocation requires. 2) To quote you again: "The fact is that when women are demonized, pathology always emerges. It is so ingrained in many Catholic priests to believe that it would be dirty and evil for them to have sex with a woman, that some of them end up rationalizing that it is less sinful to molest a little boy -- or to have sex with a man." This is an insane bit of mind-reading and flawed logic. The Church does not teach merely that priestly sex with women is wrong (and it certainly does not demonize women), but that ANY sex outside of marriage is wrong (and priests cannot marry). Any priest trained in moral theology (which is to say, every priest) will know that the Church teaches that homosexual sex is no less sinful than unmarried heterosexual sex, and that pedophilia is even more sinful because it victimizes children. Your point is that obedience to Church teaching will inspire priests to violate Church teaching -- and that's self-evidently nonsensical. 3) Your big mistake is that you focus on sex, when the real issue is marriage. The Church by no means teaches that sex is dirty, but that it's holy, and thus belongs only in the holy sacrament of marriage. The Church denies that sacrament to priests on the logic that one vocation per person is plenty. Because you know so many priests, then you know also how very demanding their selfless dedication to the Church is. That sort of commitment would be exceedingly difficult to maintain while serving one's wife and family in the selfless, untiring way that the sacrament of marriage demands of husbands and dads. 4) We hear much about priestly pedophiles because the story plays well with the anti-clerical biases of the media. I don't for a second mean to minimize the horror of this scandal, but only to point out that this is a widespread problem affecting all segments of our society. When the mailman does it, we don't hear about it; when the priest does, it's on the front page of the New York Times. Pedophilia is not exclusive to priests, and in fact, there are many instances of it occurring among clergy of other faiths that don't demand celibacy. The reason? Perverts with a penchant for children are likely to gravitate toward positions of trust and authority where they have plenty of access to kids. (That's why many child molesters also tend to be camp counselors, scout leaders, etc.) 5) The real danger in priestly celibacy is not that it "causes" pedophilia, but that it might invite pedophiles to the priesthood. After all, for someone without a healthy sexual orientation, being a priest provides a great excuse for not dating or marrying, and it provides access to many trusting children. Ending priestly celibacy won't reduce the number of pedophiles, it will just shift them to other segments of society. From the Church's standpoint, the best way to safeguard against this horror is through closer scrutiny and psychological testing of would-be seminarians. 6) You seem to assume that male sexual appetites cannot be controlled, that they must be exercised some way or another. But what, then, would you say to the young (or even middle-aged or older) unmarried man who has yet to find a wife? Or do you think the Church, and, for that matter most other Christian denominations, should change their teaching on premarital sex, too? We are not slaves to our appetites. We have a free will and self control. And we know that God will deliver us the graces to withstand whatever temptations we may face. Pedophiles have no one to blame for their actions but themselves. Best, Chris PS--For more on the discipline of priestly celibacy, see Catholic Answers' excellent tract, Celibacy and the Priesthood. |