And I want to dig deeper and know why they didn't mesh with women. Is there something about the way morality was taught that to be attracted to a female in one's adolescence was not only sinful but abnormal? And the Virgin Mary was always held up as an example? What was left for young men other than psychological castration to THINK about their sexual urges which could not be suppressed despite the efforts of zealot spiritual masters to do so?
This is merely suppositioning. Other cultural groups don't seem to have this sexual dichotomy or they hide it better. And yet they have, through the centuries, maintained good standards of sexual morality for their sons and daughters. . . or did they really? Why have Jews, as a whole, had fewer breaches of basic morality than Christians (historically and disregarding the last 50 or so years where everybody in the west went more or less haywire about sex)?
In none of this do I deny that it is sinful to engage in innapropriate sexual relationships.
How did homosexuality gain such a foothold in the west? It is rampant in England, as well, within the context of their Anglian heritage.
The above is intended more as questioning than a personal opinion.
As a result, the Christian East didn't see such need to interfere in the marital bed, and saw sexual attraction as normal. Monks were monks, presbyters were presbyters, and the laity was the laity - each state being deemed normal and desirable.
Meanwhile, in the Latin West, the Augustinian concept that sex within marriage for any purpose other than procreative is sinful became part of the culture. In time, they went to a non-married clergy, which was bit strange considering that the doctrines regarding the validity of sacraments administered by sinful clergy had been dealt with.
Consider the fact that some Catholics on this board deem married clergy to be a sacrilege, yet there are Uniates (Catholics who worship according to the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom - the Eastern Orthodox way) which have a married clergy. Further, there are Anglican converts, also married, who serve in parishes. That seems rather incongruous to me - and as if the doctrine regarding married clergy in the Latin rite was never well thought out.
So is it sinful, or isn't it? Why is the rule OK as to the Uniates, but not OK as to Latin parishes, unless the pastor is a former Anglican?