Skip to comments.
Sex runs rampant in the Catholic Church
Capitol Hill Blue ^
| January 9, 2003
| DOUG THOMPSON
Posted on 01/09/2003 7:54:21 AM PST by arj
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 281-283 next last
To: Antoninus
Why would you even expect them to behave like normal human beings under a man made set of draconian standards?
Have you failed to realize that a double standard would naturally arise when the psychologically unbalanced or utter liars were elevated to the clergy and placed in charge of the theology and treasure of the Church?
81
posted on
01/09/2003 10:50:03 AM PST
by
Chancellor Palpatine
(Yes, I'm a statist neocon RINO imperialist. Do you got a problem with that?)
To: Chancellor Palpatine
"you expect and demand it of your clergy"
Since the clergy take the vow, we expect it of them. No one needs to take the vow. I personally think priests should be allowed to marry, and even that the whole idea of a separate priesthood is unnecessary. And those who find they can't keep the vows should leave rather than live a lie.
To: Bluntpoint
Because this way, he can pretend that you're being untruthful. It is a time honored RC debating technique - always claim that your opponent is lying, then, if evidence does pop up, claim that the opponent is a rabid anti-Catholic.
83
posted on
01/09/2003 10:51:53 AM PST
by
Chancellor Palpatine
(Yes, I'm a statist neocon RINO imperialist. Do you got a problem with that?)
To: sinkspur
But, if a 35 year old man is masturbating like an adolescent, he might very well view women as objects. That's pretty serious stuff for an adult male.
From that statement, I guess you've never been in a bad marriage. If not, then I'm glad for you.
As far as I'm concerned, celibacy offers no benefits for clergy who are expected to interact with the general public, especially those who are expected to give counseling to married people. I consider the Catholic church's ban on clergical matrimony to be in the same category as its condemnation of masturbation. In my response, I was merely offering an explanation of why the numbers were so high for a survey of Catholic clerical "sexual activity". Engaging in self gratification once or twice over an adult lifetime is enough to produce decades of guilt in a Catholic-trained person, yet does not constitute "masterbating like an adolescent".
To: Steve_Seattle
Pretty decent answer, and i can respect that.
85
posted on
01/09/2003 10:52:43 AM PST
by
Chancellor Palpatine
(Yes, I'm a statist neocon RINO imperialist. Do you got a problem with that?)
To: Antoninus
I certainly don't consider myself the equal of any priest, who has put aside marriage and family for the lifelong service of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I was not worthy of the calling. I consider myself the equal of any priest, especially if you knew the ones I do.
As to whether you were "worthy" of the calling, you were likely more worthy than Paul Shanley or any number of alcoholic or gambling-addicted priests I know or have read about.
Priests are men. God doesn't just call worthy men. He just calls men.
86
posted on
01/09/2003 10:53:21 AM PST
by
sinkspur
To: Steve_Seattle
How many parrishes would become unviable if the church really cleansed itself of these priests?
That is the problem. Intellectual honesty demands that those who demand celibacy, also, accept vastly fewer and larger parrishes.
To: crystalk
For the church's real leaders, Paul made it very clear that they ought to be single as he was, and Timothy also was, and was so urgent about this that both the Roman and Greek churches have felt that all clergy or those over a certain level, must be totally unmarried and thus [unless they are swearing falsely before God]...celibate. Such logic! Peter, the rock, the patron of the RCC, the Bishop of Rome was (ahem) married.
88
posted on
01/09/2003 10:56:29 AM PST
by
Dataman
To: Bluntpoint
Keep telling your self that. But be prepared to reap what you sow. Your parrishes remain viable today only because your church has so lowered its standards as to who can be a priest. Just for you can claim your moral superiorty in regards to celibacy. Arrogance before the fall.
You are so off-base, I don't quite know how to respond. Parishes in those areas (like that parish in Michigan that produced Jennifer Granholm) where the priests do not present the teachings of Christ on issues of sexual morality, will fall by the wayside. Dioceses that do likewise will produce no new priests and eventually waste away. This is already happening.
Meanwhile, those dioceses which present the true, unvarnished teachings of Christ on ALL issues and do not hedge on sexuality are producing new priests--lots of them. This is a trend across the country. Read Goodbye, Good Men by Michael Rose for some idea of what's going on.
Eventually, the priests and religious who bought into the 1960s nonsense and done so much damage will pass through the Church. Not surprisingly, they are having great difficulty attracting a new generation to follow them. The next generation of priests and nuns will be MUCH more conservative than what we've got today.
Like you said, you reap what you sow.
To: eastsider
I agree. But I was asking why everyone is suddenly so surprised at things we've known for eons! I wasn't comparing these two issues except for the denial of both, for so long.
To: Bluntpoint
You can claim the moral highground by demanding such. But look what you have as a result. I don't demand priests be celibate. Even if they weren't there would be other problems.
91
posted on
01/09/2003 10:58:19 AM PST
by
Aliska
To: Dataman
Yes, such logic, open the priesthood up to the married....hmm, it has been tried in the Anglican Church,and guess what? there is still a shortage of pastors!!!
This is article is contrived, and poorly written, and is being paraded as a counter to the homosexual infiltration and ephebophilic problems with pederasts.
To: Chancellor Palpatine
"would you even expect them to behave like normal human beings"
The valuation of celibacy, if not the formal requirement, goes back to the early church; it is not a medieval invention. And the idea that Christians are expected to have a different attitude towards sex from "pagans" is right there in the New Testament, and can be found in the words of Jesus. As far as this survey of nuns is concerned, you could do a survey of people coming out of "Bible-based" churchs and ask how many have ever looked at pornography, or been drunk, or fornicated, and you could have headlines saying, "90% of born-again Christians have viewed pornography" or "70% of born-again Christians have had sex outside of marriage."
To: philosofy123
If you advertize for applicants to a certain job, saying that the rquirements are 1) male 19-25 years old, 2)not interested in getting married. Guess who you are going to attract? Fags! May I suggest a helpful book?
Understanding Stupidity for Dummies,
available at most department stores.
94
posted on
01/09/2003 10:59:14 AM PST
by
Dataman
To: ACAC
"Every church I have ever been to teaches that sex outside of marriage is wrong. It is pretty hard to get that wrong. "Well some seem to be turning a blind eye to gay relationships and condemning shacking up.
95
posted on
01/09/2003 10:59:22 AM PST
by
ex-snook
('over next 10 years' what is the cost of being the world's police dog)
To: hunter112
As far as I'm concerned, celibacy offers no benefits for clergy who are expected to interact with the general public, especially those who are expected to give counseling to married people.Oh for heaven's sake! If I'm a doctor, I don't have to have cancer in order to treat it or to be empathic with my patients about it.
I'm in favor of optional celibacy for priests, or, rather, that married men ought to be called to the priesthood. But I'm not sure that even a married marriage counselor uses his own marriage as a benchmark when counselling other married people.
96
posted on
01/09/2003 10:59:37 AM PST
by
sinkspur
To: Aliska
Your wording of #49 made it sound as if you knew there was no sex in the afterlife, sorry, my mistake.
97
posted on
01/09/2003 11:00:11 AM PST
by
stuartcr
To: Chancellor Palpatine
But you expect and demand it of your clergy, demeaning those who can't cut it at some point in their career, correct?
Gee, that couldn't have anything to do with the Church has expected and demanded it of them for thousands of years, could it? I demean no one. Those who break their solemn vows demean themselves without me having to say or do anything. I pray for them.
To: matthew_the_brain
<
This is article is contrived, and poorly written, and is being paraded as a counter to the homosexual infiltration and ephebophilic problems with pederasts. Of this I have no doubt.
99
posted on
01/09/2003 11:01:26 AM PST
by
Dataman
To: Antoninus
So it doesn't bother you that a psychotic, man made set of rules evolved a double standard - a clergy which could do anything it wanted sexually, and a laity that lived under gross imposition?
100
posted on
01/09/2003 11:02:24 AM PST
by
Chancellor Palpatine
(Yes, I'm a statist neocon RINO imperialist. Do you got a problem with that?)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 281-283 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson