When I read Quis Custodiet's post, I took him to mean that ending the celibacy requirement would not be for the benefit of the current priests, but would be to eliminate the cause that has led to such a small, contaminated hiring pool.
Post 64 was a well written post.
If any man thinks that priestly celebacy can turn some of them into homosexual deviates, then he better think a little more deeply about his feelings on that ridiculous proposition. If a normal heterosexual man decides to break his vows of chastity, he's going to break them with a WOMAN, not a man or a boy. It's really just that simple an equation. If any true heterosexual man reading this post could just imagine that you took a vow to remain chaste for some personal reason, but then found that you couldn't see it through anymore, how on earth would that make you turn into a homo? It would, in fact, make you yearn and desire a woman all the more, if that were your true proclivity in the first place. These perverts were perverts from the get-go, not magically transformed into perverts from taking a vow of celebacy.
This ludicrous proposition that celebacy turns a heterosexual man into a "gay" or a pedophile, is just as absurd a theory that taking an avowed, dyed-in-the-wool homosexual who took a serious vow of celebacy, and then broke his vows by having sex with only women, because long term celebacy reversed his nature and sexual proclivity. It makes no sense, rhyme or reason, unless of course, you're an anti-Catholic with a particular agenda. Or else you're a phoney Catholic who wants to change the Church from within through an utterly BOGUS theory.
If any man thinks that priestly celebacy can turn some of them into homosexual deviates, then he better think a little more deeply about his feelings on that ridiculous proposition. If a normal heterosexual man decides to break his vows of chastity, he's going to break them with a WOMAN, not a man or a boy. It's really just that simple an equation. If any true heterosexual man reading this post could just imagine that you took a vow to remain chaste for some personal reason, but then found that you couldn't see it through anymore, how on earth would that make you turn into a homo? It would, in fact, make you yearn and desire a woman all the more, if that were your true proclivity in the first place. These perverts were perverts from the get-go, not magically transformed into perverts from taking a vow of celebacy.
This ludicrous proposition that celebacy turns a heterosexual man into a "gay" or a pedophile, is just as absurd a theory that taking an avowed, dyed-in-the-wool homosexual who took a serious vow of celebacy, and then broke his vows by having sex with only women, because long term celebacy reversed his nature and sexual proclivity. It makes no sense, rhyme or reason, unless of course, you're an anti-Catholic with a particular agenda. Or else you're a phoney Catholic who wants to change the Church from within through an utterly BOGUS theory.
If any man thinks that priestly celebacy can turn some of them into homosexual deviates, then he better think a little more deeply about his feelings on that ridiculous proposition. If a normal heterosexual man decides to break his vows of chastity, he's going to break them with a WOMAN, not a man or a boy. It's really just that simple an equation. If any true heterosexual man reading this post could just imagine that you took a vow to remain chaste for some personal reason, but then found that you couldn't see it through anymore, how on earth would that make you turn into a homo? It would, in fact, make you yearn and desire a woman all the more, if that were your true proclivity in the first place. These perverts were perverts from the get-go, not magically transformed into perverts from taking a vow of celebacy.
This ludicrous proposition that celebacy turns a heterosexual man into a "gay" or a pedophile, is just as absurd a theory that taking an avowed, dyed-in-the-wool homosexual who took a serious vow of celebacy, and then broke his vows by having sex with only women, because long term celebacy reversed his nature and sexual proclivity. It makes no sense, rhyme or reason, unless of course, you're an anti-Catholic with a particular agenda. Or else you're a phoney Catholic who wants to change the Church from within through an utterly BOGUS theory.
If any man thinks that priestly celebacy can turn some of them into homosexual deviates, then he better think a little more deeply about his feelings on that ridiculous proposition. If a normal heterosexual man decides to break his vows of chastity, he's going to break them with a WOMAN, not a man or a boy. It's really just that simple an equation. If any true heterosexual man reading this post could just imagine that you took a vow to remain chaste for some personal reason, but then found that you couldn't see it through anymore, how on earth would that make you turn into a homo? It would, in fact, make you yearn and desire a woman all the more, if that were your true proclivity in the first place. These perverts were perverts from the get-go, not magically transformed into perverts from taking a vow of celebacy.
This ludicrous proposition that celebacy turns a heterosexual man into a "gay" or a pedophile, is just as absurd a theory that taking an avowed, dyed-in-the-wool homosexual who took a serious vow of celebacy, and then broke his vows by having sex with only women, because long term celebacy reversed his nature and sexual proclivity. It makes no sense, rhyme or reason, unless of course, you're an anti-Catholic with a particular agenda. Or else you're a phoney Catholic who wants to change the Church from within through an utterly BOGUS theory.
Thank you for the kind words. That was indeed precisely my point. To many good men who are right now consigned to the deaconite or Third order religious life would make excellent priests if they were allowed to be, and people would after the recent scandals, be more inclined to trust a married priest who had children of his own
Thank you for the kind words. That was indeed precisely my point. To many good men who are right now consigned to the deaconite or Third order religious life would make excellent priests if they were allowed to be, and people would after the recent scandals, be more inclined to trust a married priest who had children of his own