You're clearly the one with the closed mind. You simply dig your heels in shut down mentally when confronted with the simple truth that the celibacy rule is the main reason that we have all these homosexuals and other sick-os in the clergy. And I'm not the only one saying this - Cardinal Schonborn said the same thing recently. And if he says it, you know for sure that it's a flag that the Vatican itself raised. Celibacy for parish priests is on its way out, for the simple reason that the Hierarchy is being forced to deal with reality. You might want to drop in sometime and check out the whole reality concept.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1257175/Cardinal-Schonborn-claims-celibacy-blame-Catholic-sex-abuse-cases.html
“You’re clearly the one with the closed mind. You simply dig your heels in shut down mentally”
Utter nonsense. I explained at some length just exactly why your premise is incorrect; you responded by completely ignoring that explanation, with the result that it stands unrebutted.
You can’t address it rationally and rebut it, so you just pretend it was never offered. It’s very sad, really: you cling like bloody death to this ridiculous notion that one of God’s blessings attracted sodomites, when we know for a fact that it was the result of attacks by the enemies of the Church. Nothing, apparently, that mortal man can do is sufficient to open your eyes.
“when confronted with the simple truth that the celibacy rule is the main reason that we have all these homosexuals”
That doesn’t even make sense. You don’t even try to explain how it is that a requirement for celibacy should attract men with a disorder that burdens them with the compulsion to practice unlimited promiscuity on an uninterrupted basis.
That notion is ridiculous on its face. The disordered are attracted to situations that further the acting out of their symptoms, not those that interfere. Such a man could find a job paying $1,000 per month in some SE Asian country, visit the boy brothels every night — and morning, and noon — without let or hindrance. Why in the world would he choose the priesthood, were Satan not impelling him?
“And I’m not the only one saying this”
So what? The Vatican was also infiltrated. The smoke of Satan entered the Sacristy in all lands. What you have not uttered is **any** support for your preposterous assertion that the requirement for celibacy attracted men whose compulsion to constant sodomy is so strong that some have been seen to die rather than relinquish it.
Get it? You have offered **no arguments or evidence** in support of that nonsense. In contrast, much has been posted in rebuttal thereof. The reason for that is that your assertion cannot be rationally supported.
“Cardinal Schonborn said the same thing recently. And if he says it, you know for sure that...”
...he is a heretic, and most probably a boy-bonker.
“it’s a flag that the Vatican itself raised.”
No, it is a flag that enemies of the Church and of the Holy Father have raised, in the full knowledge that they are spouting nonsense that will fool some of the people all of the time.
“Celibacy for parish priests is on its way out”
Buncombe. It is on its way back in, because those who think like you are nearing or past the ends of their lifespans, Deo gratias, and the Church is working to ensure that a new generation of Satan’s agents doesn’t take their places.
“You might want to drop in sometime and check out the whole reality concept.”
You really should ask yourself this question: “Why can I offer no rational argument in support of my position? Why am I limited to nothing more than mere repetition?”