Celibacy is Nonsense...

But don't let them have much contact with normal people, and certainly essentially no contact with children (that much seems absolutely imperative, given the horrible betrayal of trust of the laity by the celibate clergy that has brought such disgrace to the Body of Christ on Earth."

As opposed to the sexually active clergy in other faiths? Or sexually active government school teachers? The rates of child molestation in the latter two camps is how different from the non-queer celibate priesthood?

In regards to Bible verses, consider also, Genesis 2:18
“It is not good for man to be alone.”

Also, Hebrews 13:4, “Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.”

I am not a Roman Catholic but don’t have much sympathy for people who join a religion and then try to change its rules. The priests knew when they signed up that celibacy was part of the faith. I imagine the agenda goes a lot further than the celibacy thing; they are probably trying to undermine lots of the basic tenets of Roman Catholicism.

But I have a hard time with phrases characterizing celibacy as “a sign of absolute commitment to God,” as though those people who aren’t celibate can’t be absolutely committed to God as well.

It seems to me, from Scripture, that some of us are called to celibacy and some aren’t; but the ones called to celibacy aren’t necessarily the super-holy.

What odd "history" book taught you this?

Probably the writings of Maria Monk or Loraine Boettner.

Are the above your sources?

Are the above your sources?

No, catholic.com.

EC: With "Catholics" like you, who needs heretics?

You seem to suppose that there is something strange about celibacy.

Quick quiz: Name the spouses of Jesus Christ, each apostle (if you use the Scriptural reference to Peter's mother-in-law, be sure to prove he was married AFTER he became a priest), Benedict XVI, John Paul II, John Paul I, Paul VI, John XXIII, Pius XII, Pius XI, Pope St. Pius X, Leo XIII, Blessed Pius IX, etc.

Your second paragraph suggests a model of the priesthood more consistent with atheist or agnostic sociology than with the spiritual realities of the priesthood.

Those who seek the priesthood in this century in America and in every century everywhere have generally been men moved to serve as Alterius Christus, not as social credits to their families and certainly not as sexual perverts seeking cover. The celibate are those who give up sexual love altogether not merely those who avoid marriage. Casanova and his ilk were not priests by avoiding marriage. Sexual offenders among priests are sinners because they have violated their vows and because they are not celibate.

Your post reflects the carefully nurtured ignorance that has been fostered by the heathen lamestream media. Catholic priests are no more likely than other clergy or gummint skewel teachers to be child molesters or any other sin you reference. No one ever claimed that they were without sin. If you want Catholicism (which I doubt) AND a married clergy, then transfer to an Eastern Rite Catholic Church of which there are many. That really is not your intent, though, is it?

You have learned your lessons if propaganda well. Not well enough to be taken seriously by well-catechized Catholics.

The guarantees of our Founder that the gates of hell will not prevail against it are and always will be still good. Or don't you believe that?

Fortunately the RCC is a monarchical institution that does not tolerate DIMocracy in the pews. Therefore it is and will remain Western Civilization's main bulwark against Marxism-Leninism, Islam and other works of Satan.

If you look at actual history, that is simply a canard, pushed mainly by English Protestants after Henry VIII confiscated the monasteries.

The standard propaganda book on the subject, written in the sixteenth century, claimed that all that money had been taken from productive use and was being spent on the dead, who were being prayed for. But, in fact, the money was put to good use in this world as well. Hospitals, universities, schools, orphanages, places to give food and shelter to the starving, all were run by the Church.

When Henry VIII closed all that down, he basically closed down most of the hospitals and many of the schools. The universities were kept open and continued to be run by clergy, because the nobles found that useful for themselves.

Monasteries provided water mills to grind flour for bread. They provided farms, and people to work them. They provided numerous charitable works. Do you suppose Henry VIII and his pals used any of the money they stole from the Church for good works like that? Of course not.

It was no coincidence that after the Reformation, England was suddenly filled with beggars, crippled ex-soldiers, and various sorts of wanderers and vagabonds. They notoriously flooded the country during the reign of Queen Elizabeth. Why? Because most of England’s hospitals and charitable institutions had suddenly been destroyed.

Oh, and I forgot to mention those foundations filled with “pensioners,” old or ill people without families to support them, who were given food and shelter in return for their agreement to pray for the dead relatives of their benefactors. All those were closed down, too, because praying for the dead was declared to be merely superstition. So, Henry VIII threw all the old and sick pensioners out on the roads and took the money for himself, so he could spend it on better parties at court.

“You had priests from nobility coming into the Church, and would be in line to inherit.”

Speaking of nonsense...

Ever hear of primogeniture? First sons inherited titles and treasure; sons not in line for titles went into the Church.

And don’t even try to claim that if the first sons were died or were killed, priest sons would inherit. The first thing heirs did was beget their own heirs, often even before inheriting themselves.

“as though those people who aren’t celibate can’t be absolutely committed to God as well.”

The celibate can be more committed.

“but the ones called to celibacy aren’t necessarily the super-holy.”

All you’ve said with that is that some celibates are not among the most holy of people. Nothing surprising there.

The salient facts are that those who do not embrace celibacy are *never* among the most holy, while all the most holy people are celibate.

Ooops, sorry, 29 was for rstrahan.

I figured. :)

“It was no coincidence that after the Reformation, England was suddenly filled with beggars, crippled ex-soldiers, and various sorts of wanderers and vagabonds. They notoriously flooded the country during the reign of Queen Elizabeth.”

Very interesting history, and not often heard.

I meant the other poster. :)

Vehemently vivid verbiage!

Bishop Slattery of Tulsa wrote some fine articles about celibacy for the diocesan newspaper there. One point I remember is that he said celibacy is a sign of heaven: that one day we all hope to be in a place where there is neither marrying nor giving in marriage, and where we are truly delivered from this body of death.

EC: With "Catholics" like you, who needs heretics?

There is nothing heretical about a married clergy. As you point out below, the Eastern Rite Catholics have married clergy, in keeping with their roots in Orthodoxy.

You seem to suppose that there is something strange about celibacy. There's nothing wrong with celibacy per se. In my post I made it clear that I believe that there is such a vocation. I merely point out that it's proven unworkable in our day and age.

Those who seek the priesthood in this century in America and in every century everywhere have generally been men moved to serve as Alterius Christus, not as social credits to their families and certainly not as sexual perverts seeking cover.

As I made clear in my post, there's no question that there are many good people throughout the ages who were celibate clergy who took on the burden of celibacy for the pure motive of the love of God. But do you seriously suppose that the chance for social advancement wasn't a major factor in many, if indeed not most, vocations before the industrial revolution? Such a position would take no real accounting of human nature.

The celibate are those who give up sexual love altogether not merely those who avoid marriage. Casanova and his ilk were not priests by avoiding marriage.

Ideally, perhaps. But based on my experience most American clergy are either gay or are otherwise incapable of achieving a marriage. Perhaps your experience is different from mine, I certainly hope so. But in my parish in Wisconsin we had as pastors while I was growing up one certifiable crazy and a chain of more-or-less openly gay men after that. Currently in that same little parish the pastor is openly gay (he vacations with his "partner", another gay priest).

When I was in college I volunteered at a much larger parish downtown. The pastor at that parish is doing a thirty year sentence for molesting boys.

The pastor at my sister's parish in the same city very probably molested my nephew. That priest died of AIDS.

One of my best friends was molested by a priest - that priest killed himself (probably) when he was finally called on it.

I myself was in a seminary for a couple of years and essentially all of my fellow seminarians were gay. I was one of the rare exceptions.

I see in you a sort of "battered wife's syndrome" that seems tragically common among the American laity. Our clergy are predominantly gay or otherwise very messed up, and as gay men they generally harbor a deep-seated fear and resentment against "breeders." I think that you fail to realize just how common a sneering contempt for the common laity is among priests. The anti-breeder sentiment in the seminary I attended was palpable. You're in deep denial about the depth and breadth of the rot in the clergy. It's long past time that you woke up.

Sexual offenders among priests are sinners because they have violated their vows and because they are not celibate.

Far be it from me to call anybody else a "sinner." I'll leave that up to God. But as a parent, uncle, brother and member of the community, it is imperative that I fulfill my obligation before God and man to keep the most vulnerable among us safe. And that means speaking the rather obvious truth that requiring celibacy of parish priests in our day and age is a calamity for our Church. It has destroyed countless lives and who knows how many souls. And all of that is completely obvious. It's boy lovers who have done this to us. Since celibacy essentially invited in the boy lovers and allowed them to dominate the clergy, it has to stop. To say otherwise is, after all that is happened, dangerously deluded.

Your post reflects the carefully nurtured ignorance that has been fostered by the heathen lamestream media.

Your post reflects a terrible denial of reality. Snap out of it, man.

The guarantees of our Founder that the gates of hell will not prevail against it are and always will be still good. Or don't you believe that?

Sure I believe that, which is why I say it is imperative that we end the main avenue of infiltration by the forces of darkness into the ranks of our parish priests - the celibacy rule.

Fortunately the RCC is a monarchical institution that does not tolerate DIMocracy in the pews.

That's true. On the other hand, they're quite dependent on the generosity of us hated "breeders." I say cut off their funding. I never, ever give to anything diocesan, especially here in California where I now reside. Give Mahoney my money? Not on your life. (we'll see about this new guy - I get the feeling he doesn't like white people very much). Anyway, until my Archbishop and his fellow "celibates" are consigned to monasteries where they belong, they won't get a dime out of me. I do give to other Catholic causes. But we laity have more clout that most of us imagine. I suggest that all Catholics try this: next time your gay priest or bishop asks for money, send a response (together with a copy of your cashed check to a worthy Catholic cause in the amount requested) and tell them that "until the insane celibacy rule for parish priests is ended, you gay guys can buy your own AZT and KY Jelly".

That should get a reaction.

Therefore it is and will remain Western Civilization's main bulwark against Marxism-Leninism, Islam and other works of Satan.

Oh, yeah? Why don't you tell that to my friend who was molested by a priest? In fact, why don't you tell that to all the boys who were robbed of their innocence and consigned to a life of confusion, pain and silence?

I see in the American clergy a force for evil. I see them subverting great Catholic institutions like Notre Dame and St. Mary's. I see them preaching heterodox crap from the pulpit.

The American clergy - bulwark of rectitude traditional Christian values. Ha! You can't be serious. Only a fool could say that.

“Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth.”

Numbers 12:3

The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend.

Exodus 33:11

Moses of course was married.

And of course Peter. . .

Matthew 8:14 “And when Jesus was come into Peter’s house, he saw his wife’s mother laid, and sick of a fever.”

Him being the first pope according to Roman Catholic tradition.

So I can’t go along with your statement “all the most holy people are celibate.” Moses and Peter are certainly among the most holy people, and they obviously were not.

Thanks.

“So I can’t go along with your statement “all the most holy people are celibate.” Moses and Peter are certainly among the most holy people, and they obviously were not.”

Seems like almost every human being on the Internet fancies himself proficient at thinking.

The vast majority of them are wrong.

1. Moses...was so holy that God did not even allow him to enter the Promised Land. Further, you have no idea what his sex life was like. You have no idea whether he became celibate.

2. Peter...had a mother-in-law, but we have no idea whether he practiced celibacy or when he began.

The only “obvious” thing here is that you are making wholly unjustified assumptions.

“As I made clear in my post, there’s no question that there are many good people throughout the ages who were celibate clergy who took on the burden of celibacy for the pure motive of the love of God. But do you seriously suppose that the chance for social advancement wasn’t a major factor in many, if indeed not most, vocations before the industrial revolution?”

I would, and I would suggest that your position takes no accounting of the role Faith played in earlier centuries.

“But based on my experience most American clergy are either gay or are otherwise incapable of achieving a marriage.”

Very vague. Are you suggesting that every America priest who is not a sodomite has other problems that would have kept him from a normal life?

Surely you’re not suggesting that most American priests are sodomites.

“But in my parish in Wisconsin we had as pastors while I was growing up one certifiable crazy and a chain of more-or-less openly gay men after that. Currently in that same little parish the pastor is openly gay (he vacations with his “partner”, another gay priest).”

That must have been terrible. However, the laymen of that parish share the blame for that. Those sodomites should have been driven away.

“The pastor at that parish is doing a thirty-year sentence for molesting boys. The pastor at my sister’s parish in the same city very probably molested my nephew. That priest died of AIDS. One of my best friends was molested by a priest…”

We all know that, thanks in large part to the KGB (as Satan’s agents) many sodomites were infiltrated into Catholic seminaries. They did much harm, but it is not reasonable to condemn the Catholic Church as irretrievably corrupt as a result. Further, there is reason to think that the corner has been turned.

“I myself was in a seminary for a couple of years and essentially all of my fellow seminarians were gay.”

I’m curious. If you recognize the harm that this disorder does, why do you accept the euphemism “gay” as a substitute for “sodomite,” or any of the many other more appropriate terms?

“I think that you fail to realize just how common a sneering contempt for the common laity is among priests.”

Come on, how could a person miss that?

“But as a parent, uncle, brother and member of the community, it is imperative that I fulfill my obligation before God and man to keep the most vulnerable among us safe.”

Which means ensuring that sodomites do not have access to the young. What have you done in that regard?

“And that means speaking the rather obvious truth that requiring celibacy of parish priests in our day and age is a calamity for our Church.”

Not obvious at all. Priests are required to be celibate, but men are not required to be priests.

The problem is not celibacy; it is (as you note in saying, “It’s boy lovers who have done this to us.”) same-sex attraction disorder—which is of and from Satan.

“Since celibacy essentially invited in the boy lovers and allowed them to dominate the clergy”

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Protestant ministers and schoolteachers molest at rates equal to or worse than priests. Celibacy, if anything, makes it even more difficult for a priest to hide his crimes than protestant ministers or schoolteachers, which would be a disincentive.

It is access to the young that attracts sodomites. The solution is not to throw away a great blessing, but to prevent sodomites from gaining access to the young—if possible, to prevent them from even living in the same town, state, or country as our young people.

“Your post reflects a terrible denial of reality.”

You don’t see this problem clearly. It is not that the Catholic Church is deficient, but that Satan used sodomites to attack the Church. It is not celibacy that “invites” sodomites, but access to the young and authority. Sodomites do not become priests rather than some other occupation that enjoys access to and authority over the young because of celibacy, but because Satan steers them toward it. The Soviets worked very hard to infiltrate the seminaries, never realizing whose work they were doing.

“But we laity have more clout that most of us imagine.”

Yes, literally, but we don’t use it.

“I suggest that all Catholics try this: next time your gay priest or bishop asks for money…tell them that “until the insane celibacy rule for parish priests is ended, you gay guys can buy your own AZT and KY Jelly.”

It would be far more sane and sensible to say, “All sodomites must leave the priesthood by the first of next month.” It would also be very sensible to withdraw one’s agreement to refer to the disordered practitioners of loathsome perversions as “gay.”

“Therefore it is and will remain Western Civilization’s main bulwark against Marxism-Leninism, Islam and other works of Satan…”
“Oh, yeah? Why don’t you tell that to my friend who was molested by a priest?”

What kind of sense does that make? You condemn the Church for the actions of its enemies, its attackers.

“I see in the American clergy a force for evil. I see them subverting great Catholic institutions like Notre Dame and St. Mary’s. I see them preaching heterodox crap from the pulpit.”

No, you see moles in the clergy doing that, and incorrectly lay their vile conduct at the feet of the Church. But when have you ever done anything to stop it?

“The American clergy - bulwark of rectitude traditional Christian values. Ha! You can’t be serious. Only a fool could say that.”

For every priest who is as you describe, there are several that are faithful. Unfortunately, those who entered the seminaries during the worst of the attacks are now of an age to be disproportionately represented among the bishops…something that the laity could rectify, had they the courage and the will.