Newsgroup: it.cultura.religioni.cristiani
Titolo: Tempi duri x un prete...

For Priests, Celibacy Is Not the Problem
By ANDREW GREELEY - NYT di oggi
-----------------------------------------------
The logic of the argument is simple: 4 percent of Roman Catholic
priests have been sexual abusers. Priests are committed to celibacy.
Therefore, the frustrations of the celibate life led to the abuse.
Therefore, celibacy should be abolished.
While perhaps not quite so starkly stated, this is the line of
thinking that has been used by many to explain the sexual abuse
scandals shaking the church. It will also shape the response to two
reports issued by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
last week. Leave aside for a moment the fact that 96 percent of
priests are not abusers - is this portrayal of widespread frustration
an accurate description of American priests?
The picture presented by the two reports 
-  one a statistical study by researchers at John Jay College of the
abuse cases and the church's reactions to them,
-  the other a report on the causes and context of the crisis by a
review board appointed by the bishops ...
 is horrific and tragic.
 But as a priest and as someone who has been writing about the evil
of sexual abuse by priests for two decades, I must also point to a
substantial body of data collected over the last 35 years that
presents another story, one which ought to be heard. 
These surveys of attitudes among priests and parishioners have shown
that most don't consider celibacy the problem with the priesthood;
the problem is that many priests don't do their job well.
Over the last 30 years, The Los Angeles Times and the National
Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago have each made
repeated and comprehensive studies of attitudes among the priesthood
and the laity. The polls have consistently shown that a vast majority
of priests say that life in the priesthood is better than they
expected it would be.
For instance, the most recent Los Angeles Times study, 
completed in 2002, found that 93 percent of the more than
 1,800 priests surveyed said that they would become priests if they
had to choose their careers again. 
Only 2 percent said that they would probably leave the priesthood. 
In general, priests are more likely to affirm that they are happy in
their lives and satisfied with their work than are doctors, lawyers,
teachers, professors and even married Protestant clergy.
 Priests, on average, seem to be about the happiest men in the
country. Abusers, it seems clear, aren't being driven to crime by
celibacy but by their own demons.
On measures of personality traits by the National Opinion Research
Center - including the capacity for intimacy - priests compare
favorably with married laymen of similar educational backgrounds.
Despite the call by a few priests for abolishing the celibacy rule,
there is no evidence that priests are more likely to be frustrated,
unhappy misfits than are married laymen. 
Priests like being priests; they like doing the work that priests do;
and they recognize that celibacy is part and parcel of that work.
Like all humans, however, we are far less then perfect: 
we must offer sacrifice for our own sins as well as
 the sins of our people, as the Epistle to the Hebrews observes.
So where does today's negative picture of priests come from?
 In part, it's a relic of the anti-Catholic, anti-celibacy sentiment
of 19th century nativism. In addition, priests themselves tend to be
silent when their vocation is attacked, either by men who have left
the priesthood or by the public over the crimes of the abusers.
 Indeed, their response to the latter is pathetic:
 my colleagues tend to feel sorry for themselves, 
to blame the news media, to assert that it is the bishops' problem,
and to argue that it is not the most serious crisis facing the
church.
Denial, research shows, is a major factor in clerical culture 
- the dark side of the priesthood. Just as teachers stereotype their
students and doctors their patients, priests stereotype their
parishioners. In response to an open-ended question in the 2002 
Los Angeles Times survey about why the laity was growing 
disaffected with the church, 13 percent of priests said parishioners
were suffering from moral decline, 10 percent cited loss of faith, 
7 percent secularism, 5 percent apathy, 5 percent materialism, 
4 percent lack of responsibility and 4 percent lack of "personal
leadership."
Only 13 percent saw problems arising from failures of the clergy -
sexual abuse, decline of confidence in leadership, poor sermons
 and liturgy, and clerical authoritarianism. Only 19 of the more than
1,800 thought that poor sermons were a problem. 
The mindset is clear: if the laity have religious problems, the fault
is either their own or cultural trends over which priests have no
control.
When asked in the survey why congregants leave the church,
 a quarter of priests (and only 16 percent of the younger clergymen)
accepted some personal responsibility - insensitivity, inadequate
leadership, poor sermons and liturgy, and the sexual abuse scandal.
The rest cited the usual litany of horrors: individualism,
secularism, no faith, poor prayer life, no commitment, media bias,
hedonism, sex, feminism, family breakdown and apathy. 
In essence, three-quarters of the priests surveyed
 washed their hands of responsibility for Catholics who leave
 the church and excused themselves from an obligation to respond.
On the other side of the steel door that seems to separate priests
from parishioners, the laity give their clergy, on the average,
scores only about half as high as what Protestants give their
ministers on preaching, liturgy, sympathetic counseling, respect for
women and work with young people. 
In the 1950's, according to a study by Ben Gaffin Associates, 40
percent of Americans (Protestants and Catholics alike) rated the
sermons they heard as "excellent." In 2002, according to the National
Opinion Research Study, 36 percent of Protestants still found their
sermons excellent, compared to just 18 percent of Catholics.
In addition to the abuse cases, the big problems in the priesthood,
then, are not celibacy or sexual frustration, but the constraints on
excellence in an envy-ridden, rigid and mediocre clerical culture
that does a poor job in serving church members.
If priests really want to improve their image, they should not bother
to write letters demanding that celibacy be made optional 
- which will be dismissed by their bishops and the Vatican - but to
make every effort to upgrade their work - especially their sermons.
These are hard times for priests. They are under attack as perverts.
More people are making more demands on fewer priests. Yet, in
parishes where the pastor is reasonably open and reasonably secure,
the lay response is enthusiastic commitment and dedication.
People ask me what kind of a priest I am 
- meaning Jesuit, Dominican or Franciscan
 (Jesuit being the answer most want to hear).
 I usually respond,
 "Not a very good one, but I try."
 Now, in the wake of these new reports, we must all try harder.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Greeley is the author of "Priests: A Calling in Crisis" and
the forthcoming novel "The Priestly Sins."

 By ANDREW GREELEY - NYT di oggi
[cut]
Una critica non tanto velata, caro Pietro.
Lo sai che ci sono gruppi moderati il cui manifesto vieta esplicitamente di
pubblicare brani di articoli in inglese, senza proporre una traduzione? 
Ciao.
-- 
Natanaele
e-mail: natanaele(at)
despammed.com
«Misericordia cerco, non sacrificio» Osea 6,6 / Mt 9,13
«La lettera uccide, lo Spirito dà la vita.» 2 Cor 3,6

pubblicare brani di articoli in inglese, senza proporre una traduzione? 
lo sai che senza inglese oggi.. ndo' vai???????
pit BUM

 wrote:
cmq in estrema sintesi dice che i preti sono motivati e 
non costituisce probl x loro il celibato o altro.
Mi verrebbe da dire che sono <autoreferenti>
((l'autore e' un prete.....^__^)))
ciao
pit

 lo sai che senza inglese oggi.. ndo' vai???????
Si, è una vita che cerco il tempo per mettermi a studiare.



una parola al giorno, in un anno fanno 365 parole, in due anni piů di 700,
molto di piů di quanto serva per poterlo parlare e capire correttamente :-))
Saluti uno al giorno
Forex

sermons excellent, compared to just 18 percent of Catholics.
Traduzione veloce: Negli anni '50, secondo uno studio della Ben Gaffin
Associates, il 40% delgi Americani (egualmente cattolici e protestanti)
qualificata le omelie che udivano come "eccellenti". Nel 2002, secono il
National Opinion Research Study, il 36% dei protestanti trova ancora le
loro omelie eccellenti mentre lo stesso giudizio è dato solo dal 18% dei
cattolici.
=========
Credo che non tutti nascano predicatori però, ogni tanto almeno, uno
sforzillo potrebbero farlo.
Andando a messa, a seconda del Vangelo ascoltato, uno potrebbe già
sapere che cosa dirà il celebrante di turno.
Ho i maristi vicino a casa, Turoldo era marista ed a leggere le sue
omelie si sente fuoco, questi se va bene sembrano un cerino.
A me viene in mente Tom Sawyer che gioca con lo scarafaggio: la
sensazione è quella di un santo relax, magari di un po' di noia se il
sermone si protrae. Non bisogna dimenticarsi che alcune celebranti
sfiorano i 45 minuti di omelie.
Ora se si tratta di un'omelia interessante, che spiega il senso di
quanto ascoltato mi piace, potrei anche prendere appunti.
Se si tratta di sentire per l'ennesima volta di non litigare col vicino,
per quanto i repetita juvant e basta vedere una riunione condominiale,
si viene presi da un leggero sopore.
Un'altra cosa che mi lascia sempre perplessa è come molte messe siano
tirate li' senza gioia e senza preparazione. Quasi un obbligo e non un
momento di festa.
E' vero che magari una messa alle 18 è meno frequentata e non è solenne
ma pur sempre di una celebrazione liturgica si tratta.
Ben venga il taglio del numero se ciò porterà anche ad un miglioramento
della cosa.
              Annarella

 molto di più di quanto serva per poterlo parlare e capire correttamente :-))
Una parola al giorno, facile a dirsi, ma manca il metodo.
Ciao e grazie.


There Must Be Consequences
Published: March 5, 2004-NYT
 
Stessa fonte, continuazione....	
Sintesi x NAT:
'se x i preti si e' passati alla zero-tolleranza....
non si dovrebbe usare lo stesso metro anche con i Vescovi????'
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Catholic bishops' painful report on the sexual abuse of children
was a chilling tally of thousands of victims and thousands of
predators. But the report lacked an equal measure of candor about
holding accountable not just abusive priests but also the bishops and
cardinals who covered up their crimes. It was distressing to hear the
suggestion by Bishop Wilton Gregory, the prelate charged with
directing the inquiry, that the "terrible history" is just that
history.
This is not the case for many of the faithful, and Bishop Wilton did
not have to go far to hear it. The layman who led the inquiry, Robert
Bennett, called for the resignation of the prelates who sheltered
predatory priests. "There are bishops who have totally failed as
pastors and as shepherds of their flock," said Mr. Bennett, a former
prosecutor who led the review board appointed by the bishops.
The board itself said there "must be consequences" for bishops who
led the cover-up. These views can hardly be dismissed, considering
the board's conscientious work in delving into the scandal on behalf
of innocent children as well as demoralized churchmen. Perhaps the
most telling statistic in the catalog of abuses is that in just the
past two years, more than 700 priests had to be dismissed. That
speaks volumes about the huge cover-up carried out by church leaders
before the scandal fully burst into public view.
One suggested remedy - "fraternal correction," in which the
independently powerful bishops would somehow track one another's
accountability - seems an ecclesiastical placebo, considering how
fiercely some church leaders worked to hide the scandal by buying off
and intimidating victims. A few ranking leaders were singled out for
criticism by the review board, including Cardinals Edward Egan of New
York and Roger Mahony of Los Angeles, who have defended their past
management of rogue priests.
The board pointed to various causative factors, from the tolerance of
immature and sexually dysfunctional candidates for the priesthood to
the Vatican's delay in facing the problem. Critics are understandably
demanding a listing of predatory priests. At a minimum, a central
clearinghouse is needed to track promised reforms and suspect
priests. It is not up to church leaders alone to decide how far
beyond this "terrible history" they must travel. The bishops,
emphasizing atonement, have taken an important step. But the review
board, emphasizing vigilance, has posed the right question:If zero
tolerance is the policy for wayward priests, why not for failed
bishops? 

sempre dal NYT di oggi:
E' uscita in America, a Chicago, una piece teatrale dal titolo:
"Sin: A Cardinal Deposed,"
Come si vede gli effetti devastanti di quei fatti
non si sono ancora esauriti:
Il Card. Sin ad es. e' vero che si e' dimesso
(sempre troppo tardi e x costrizione?)
ma NON ha MAI ammesso le proprie responsabilita'
(costo x la Chiesa finora pari a 100 milioni di USD.)
pietro B.