https://www.cbsnews.com/news/catholic-church-secret-guidelines-priests-who-father-children-vatican-confirms/

Quote:

---

CBS News has confirmed that the Vatican has secret guidelines for priests who father children, despite their vows of celibacy. Vincent Doyle, the founder of a support group for children of priests, told CBS News that a Vatican official showed him the confidential instructions.

Doyle said he's been pushing the Church to publicly support those children, who often grow up living in shame and secrecy. CBS News correspondent Roxana Saberi spoke with him and other children of priests fighting for recognition from the Catholic Church.

---

I get that a lot of the other stuff going on is worse, but for some reason this one bothers me on a more personal level. I don't care about your calling or job or whatever. If you father a child and don't take the lead on supporting, raising, and caring for them then you're a deadbeat. The very idea that anyone would hide and abandon their own children to save their career makes me want to vomit, hit someone or both. I get this happens with Prostestant pastors all the time, but they all preach that they are as much sinners as anyone. The clergy of the priesthood quite literally projects a "holier than thou" image to the laiety, and this sort of thing just makes it into a farce.

Do as I say, not as I do.

btw..."guidelines"? I would think it would be dogma somewhere that a father has a duty to raise their own child.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

The guidelines were the first time the Catholic Church had publicly admitted that there even are priests' kids. But they are guidelines -- not requirements.

---

Yep. Straight from the article. Just guidelines. Seems to me if the whole point of celibacy is to prevent priests from having kids, then having a kid should be an instant defrocking, right?

---

I'm saying for any Christian, not just priests. You have a child, you raise the child. How is that not some sort of doctrine? Or is it such common sense that it's not codified?

Fair point. Protestants can use birth control

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

The guidelines were the first time the Catholic Church had publicly admitted that there even are priests' kids. But they are guidelines -- not requirements.

---

Yep. Straight from the article. Just guidelines. Seems to me if the whole point of celibacy is to prevent priests from having kids, then having a kid should be an instant defrocking, right?

---

yeah, the right thing to do when a man fathers a child is to make him unemployed.

Frankly, I don't know what the "right" thing to do when the "wrong" thing has happened.

As the lawyers are all fond of saying, "It depends".

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Fair point. Protestants can use birth control

---

Yet, do you really think that one who disregards teachings on adultery, lust, etc... really cares about teachings on birth control?

Quote:

---

Yet, do you really think that one who disregards teachings on adultery, lust, etc... really cares about teachings on birth control?

---

Probably not. Thing is that birth control is a mindset. It requires planning, trust and cooperation between partners. I would guess these are acts of passion, and Catholics aren't conditioned to think the same way in regards to birth control. So it's not that they wouldn't use it, but it either wouldn't occur to them or they woulnd't have made the right preparations

You'd be surprised, I've met a Catholic open marriage couple that doesn't use birth control. Odd ducks.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

Yet, do you really think that one who disregards teachings on adultery, lust, etc... really cares about teachings on birth control?

---

Probably not. Thing is that birth control is a mindset. It requires planning, trust and cooperation between partners. I would guess these are acts of passion, and Catholics aren't conditioned to think the same way in regards to birth control. So it's not that they wouldn't use it, but it either wouldn't occur to them or they wouldn't have made the right preparations

---

You'd be surprised at just how many of my co-religionists don't follow this teaching.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

The guidelines were the first time the Catholic Church had publicly admitted that there even are priests' kids. But they are guidelines -- not requirements.

---

Yep. Straight from the article. Just guidelines. Seems to me if the whole point of celibacy is to prevent priests from having kids, then having a kid should be an instant defrocking, right?

---

yeah, the right thing to do when a man fathers a child is to make him unemployed.

Frankly, I don't know what the "right" thing to do when the "wrong" thing has happened.

As the lawyers are all fond of saying, "It depends".

---

Right thing to do is marry the woman and raise the child. He would obviously be defrocked, but that would happen anyway, right?

---

it depends.

I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all answer.

Options.

1) she is already married and wants to try to salvage her marriage

2) she is not married and does not want to marry the Priest

3) she is not married, would like to marry the Priest, but has major issues making a marriage unlikely to succeed

4) He has major issues which would make any marriage unlikely to succeed

Adoption could be an option
He could be made to provide financial support for the next 18 years
He could be laicized and marry the woman

As with anyone in this situation, options need to be considered and the best overall set of decisions made for the sake of the child.

Laicization of the priest should not be automatic
Should not be a "shotgun wedding"
The Mother should not be pressured to marry against her will

The "right" thing to do depends...

k2aggie07 said:

---

Quote:

---

Laicization of the priest should not be automatic

---

How the heck do you justify this?

---

I think all "zero tolerance" policies are brainless.

May be the right thing to do in 99.9% of cases, but there needs to be the option for the Bishop to do something else in some rare case where it would make sense.

yah, what if he accidentally had sex or the woman stole his sperm while he was praying?

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

Quote:

---

Laicization of the priest should not be automatic

---

How the heck do you justify this?

---

I think all "zero tolerance" policies are brainless.

May be the right thing to do in 99.9% of cases, but there needs to be the option for the Bishop to do something else in some rare case where it would make sense.

---

The problem seems to be that they would turn that .1% into standard operating procedure.

I suppose some Bishops might. Some might ignore it altogether.

It would be up to the laity to hold them accountable.

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

I suppose some Bishops might. Some might ignore it altogether.

It would be up to the laity to hold them accountable.

---

It seems that the laity has been unable to hold them accountable due to the priesthood simply closing ranks and hiding the scandals.

---

I believe I am starting to see some signs of change in this arena.

powerbelly said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

Quote:

---

Laicization of the priest should not be automatic

---

How the heck do you justify this?

---

I think all "zero tolerance" policies are brainless.

May be the right thing to do in 99.9% of cases, but there needs to be the option for the Bishop to do something else in some rare case where it would make sense.

---

The problem seems to be that they would turn that .1% into standard operating procedure.

---

Something, something annulments in the United States.

Nope. That is not and has never been the standard for the Church.


Apostolic canons say:

Quote:

---

If a bishop, presbyter, or deacon be found guilty of fornication, perjury, or theft, let him be deposed, but let him not be excommunicated; for the Scripture says, "thou shall not punish a man twice for the same offence." In like manner the other clergy shall be subject to the same proceeding [or, in like manner with respect to the other clergy].

---

Further, the canons also say --

Quote:

---

If any accusation be brought against a believer of fornication or adultery, or any forbidden action, and he be convicted, let him not be promoted to the clergy.

---

In other words, even if you commit a sin of this nature before you are a candidate, you can't be a priest. This goes all the way back to Nicaea--

Quote:

---

If any presbyters have been advanced without examination, or if upon examination they have made confession of crime, and men acting in violation of the canon have laid hands upon them [i.e., ordained them], notwithstanding their confession, such the canon does not admit; for the Catholic Church requires that [only] which is blameless.

---

St Basil the Great writes:

Quote:

---

On the matter of priesthood, if you fell into a sin of the flesh fornication, adultery, sodomy, bestiality and were above 13 years old, even if you didn't know that these sins are impediments to the priesthood, you are not allowed to become a priest examine yourself well, and if you fell even once even out of ignorance you cannot become a priest. No matter how great a need the Church has. God will care for His Church. If there are no priests and lay people, then the Lord may destroy everyone. If you have an impediment to the priesthood, you are able by repentance and confession to perform miracles and to become a saint, but not a priest.

---

I would be fascinated to be a fly on the wall for those support groups. How confusing must that be..especially if you grew up in the church. Total train wreck fascination.

It shouldn't be surprising that it is most commonly hidden, but defrocking is the only answer, especially until priests are allowed to marry. Timothy seems pretty clear on this subject.

I applaud these priests. Our populace doesn't have enough children anymore and they are just doing their part to benefit the future.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Nope. That is not and has never been the standard for the Church.


Apostolic canons say:

Quote:

---

If a bishop, presbyter, or deacon be found guilty of fornication, perjury, or theft, let him be deposed, but let him not be excommunicated; for the Scripture says, "thou shall not punish a man twice for the same offence." In like manner the other clergy shall be subject to the same proceeding [or, in like manner with respect to the other clergy].

---

Further, the canons also say --

Quote:

---

If any accusation be brought against a believer of fornication or adultery, or any forbidden action, and he be convicted, let him not be promoted to the clergy.

---

In other words, even if you commit a sin of this nature before you are a candidate, you can't be a priest. This goes all the way back to Nicaea--

Quote:

---

If any presbyters have been advanced without examination, or if upon examination they have made confession of crime, and men acting in violation of the canon have laid hands upon them [i.e., ordained them], notwithstanding their confession, such the canon does not admit; for the Catholic Church requires that [only] which is blameless.

---

St Basil the Great writes:

Quote:

---

On the matter of priesthood, if you fell into a sin of the flesh fornication, adultery, sodomy, bestiality and were above 13 years old, even if you didn't know that these sins are impediments to the priesthood, you are not allowed to become a priest examine yourself well, and if you fell even once even out of ignorance you cannot become a priest. No matter how great a need the Church has. God will care for His Church. If there are no priests and lay people, then the Lord may destroy everyone. If you have an impediment to the priesthood, you are able by repentance and confession to perform miracles and to become a saint, but not a priest.

---

---

I suppose you are correct; but I still think "zero-tolerance" policies are brainless. Someone should have the ability to override the policy if conditions warrant it.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Nope. That is not and has never been the standard for the Church.


Apostolic canons say:

Quote:

---

If a bishop, presbyter, or deacon be found guilty of fornication, perjury, or theft, let him be deposed, but let him not be excommunicated; for the Scripture says, "thou shall not punish a man twice for the same offence." In like manner the other clergy shall be subject to the same proceeding [or, in like manner with respect to the other clergy].

---

---

What scripture verse is that?

I found a footnote, looks like from Nahum 1:9 in the LXX.

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

---

Dad-O-Lot said:

---

I suppose some Bishops might. Some might ignore it altogether.

It would be up to the laity to hold them accountable.

---

It seems that the laity has been unable to hold them accountable due to the priesthood simply closing ranks and hiding the scandals.

---

I believe I am starting to see some signs of change in this arena.

---

I hope so.

We get hung up on our divisions (non-denominational vs Catholic) but out there, in the real world, they don't see much of a difference between us. Your scandal is my scandal in the eyes of the world.