Why Can't the Catholic Clergy Have Sex?

lightbeing,

Perhaps we should discuss some of my records.....nah, wouldn't want to be seen boasting.:D
 
Originally posted by LIGHTBEING
Yeah, I don't get the Catholic church. The Nuns say with confidence, it is because they are married to God. That's a bunch of BS.

But a Priest or the Pope can't say that they are married to God, because they believe that the their God is male. I would say they are gay...lol :D

I will never understand it. Having sex is one of the most natural instincts yet it is forbidden if you are a clergy member????? How many more rediculous rules can the Catholics come up with?

and yes I masterbate :D sometimes :rolleyes: ok, I'm doin it right now :cool: Just kidding

I just wonder if Xev masterbates. She looks pretty damn sexy :bugeye:
Click to expand...

I thought XEV is male?...............dang internet.
 
and yes I masterbate sometimes ok, I'm doin it right now Just kidding
Click to expand...

Hrm, I've never heard of a 'religion discussion board fetish'. I ought to get out more. :D

Markx:

I thought XEV is male?...............dang internet.
Click to expand...

You thought WHAT? *Hits him with purse*
 
Xev is yet one more minion in my great empire. Minions don't get to have genders unless they fill in the approrpiate forms in triplicate and submit them to the Minion Identification Bureau's (MIB!) Department Of Gender Selection (DOGS). For faster paperwork, attach $100 in Adamish notes to the front page in clear sight.

Remember: You are minions... mindless minions... you must follow the will and word of El Presidente...
 
Well if Cris is really setting records...oh my! Stamina indeed.

Justagirl:
LOL is there rumors of a "new religion" that requires it's members to masterbate?
Click to expand...

Given the links between sexual repression and violance, you might have an idea there.

Just don't get in the way of Cthulhu and the Ancient Gods, 'k? ;)

Hmm, I wonder if Cthulhu is male.

By her picture she goes by, she seems like a hot broad to me!!!
Click to expand...

Why thank you Lightbeing.

11.jpg


Xev is yet one more minion in my great empire.
Click to expand...

I am not a minion! I am the High Priestess of Cthulhu (and off my medication ;) )

Ia! Ia! Cthulhu!
 
Yeah yeah. Cthulhu worked as a gopher in my mailroom until I fired his arse for incompetence last week.
 
*Cthulhu slips a tentacle in and drags Adam away*

http://www.blackbird.nu/sketchbook/color/cthulhu.jpg

There was a topic? Really? Where?

Seriously, from what I have read about the mental dynamics of rapists and child molesters, they are motivated more by the desire for power and control than actual sexual gratification.

So, I do not think the Catholic Church's celibacy requirements can be blamed.
 
Last edited:
You know, when our technology advances far enough, we humans may start making ourselves physically whatever we feel like. Hell, we might change our bodies each month with the fashions. We might end up as giant green tentacle-beasties with the capability to wander between the stars without external assistance, making and breaking worlds and races just because we can...
 
That was interesting Adam....we humans may start making ourselves physically whatever we feel like.

as we do only use on the average 10 percent of our brain and it males you wonder what we could do with the other 90 percent. I feel humans will keep evolving into using their brain in the future and the windows of the implications become interesting to me. I feel history proves even our minds evolve as knowledge and evolution didn't stop but keep on going and going like the energizer bunny.
 
justgirl,

Just a point on accuracy.

as we do only use on the average 10 percent of our brain
Click to expand...
That's an old myth. We use 100% of our brain. And humans have not had time yet to evolve much beyond our earlier format from 100,000 years ago.

And we won't be able to increase our intelligence until we increase our brain size, or replace our brains with a superior mechanism.

Cris
 
Adam,

You leave bunnies alone. See my avatar - I am the defender of all bunnies.

Cris
 
Originally posted by Cris
justgirl,


And we won't be able to increase our intelligence until we increase our brain size, or replace our brains with a superior mechanism.

Cris
Click to expand...

Well, that's what Microsoft is for. Put a little 1.8 ghz chip in brian and enhance the power. With all that talk about tracking chips in human body, I think next think will be super humans.
 
You should all love yourselves everyday. :D

I don't think the pope has a toss any more cos he's a little old and feeble and it does take a lot out of you, don't you think?

Or is it just me?
Well you get out what you put in, so to speak.
That said, his hands do shake a lot :D

It's great to hear women talk about wanking so freely. A new age of enlightenment and very welcome.

A new religion?

Would a soggy tissue replace the rosary?
No more praying just beat the sheets with a hockey stick.

And could you imagine church on sunday???

Piece be in you brethren:cool:
 
Should I even bother with a serious post?

I don't recall ever getting a dogmatic answer to why the clergy is celibate when I was in Catholic School. From the priests, we heard something similar to the aforementioned married to God idea, that earthly distractions such as the delights of one's wife, the nagging by one's wife, and other wifely references in the Bible were merely earthly distractions to a life devoted to God.

To the other, my Catholic School sophomore history teacher made a fair case for financial motivations. By this tale, it seems that the clergy were having large numbers of illegitimate children among their parishoners, and were paying church funds in hush money (a seemingly familiar tale?) or inheritance.

That's a lot of kids.

But we can ask the source, as such. From the Catholic Encyclopaedia entry celibacy of the clergy:
Although we do not find in the New Testament any indication of celibacy being made compulsory either upon the Apostles or those whom they ordained, we have ample warrant in the language of Our Saviour, and of St. Paul for looking upon virginity as the higher call, and by inference, as the condition befitting those who are set apart for the work of the ministry. In Matt., xix, 12, Christ clearly commends those who, "for the sake of the kingdom of God", have held aloof from the married state, though He adds: "he who can accept it, let him accept it". St. Paul is even more explicit:

I would that all men were even as myself; but every one hath his proper gift from God .... But I say to the unmarried and to the widows, it is good for them if they so continue, even as I.

And further on:

But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of this world how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your profit, not to cast a snare upon you, but for that which is decent and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord without impediment. (I Cor., vii, 7-8 and 32-35.)
Click to expand...
The aforementioned Matthew 19.12:
"Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it."
Click to expand...
And some compelling philosophy:
Further, although we grant that the motive here appealed to is in some measure utilitarian, we shall probably be justified in saying that the principle which underlies the Church's action in enforcing celibacy is not limited to this utilitarian aspect but goes even deeper. From the earliest period the Church was personified and conceived of by her disciples as the Virgin Bride and as the pure Body of Christ, or again as the Virgin Mother (parthenos meter), and it was plainly fitting that this virgin Church should be served by a virgin priesthood. Among Jews and pagans the priesthood was hereditary. Its functions and powers were transmitted by natural generation. But in the Church of Christ, as an antithesis to this, the priestly character was imparted by the Holy Ghost in the Divinely-instituted Sacrament of Orders. Virginity is consequently the special prerogative of the Christian priesthood. Virginity and marriage both holy, but in different ways. The conviction that virginity possesses a higher sanctity and clearer spiritual intuitions, seems to be an instinct planted deep in the heart of man. Even in the Jewish Dispensation where the priest begot children to whom his functions descended, it was nevertheless enjoyed that he should observe continence during the period in which he served in the Temple. No doubt a mystical reason of this kind does not appeal to all, but such considerations have always held a prominent place in the thought of the Fathers of the Church; as is seen, for example, in the admonition very commonly addressed to subdeacons of the Middle Ages at the time of their ordination. "With regard to them it has pleased our fathers that they who handle the sacred mysteries should observe the law of continence, as it is written 'be clean ye who handle the vessels of the Lord' "(Maskell, Monumenta Ritualia, II, 242).

On the other hand, such motives as are dwelt upon in the passage just quoted from the Epistle to the Corinthians are of a kind which must appeal to the intelligence of all. The more holy and exalted we represent the state of marriage to be, the more we justify the married priest in giving the first place in his thoughts to his wife and family and only the second to his work
Click to expand...
The idea, of course, being that these ideas are not merely subscribed to in a snap-second the way we picture American Bible-thumpers adopting issues on the fly, but are given quite a bit of rational and irrational thought and debate. In this sense, Church Theory differs from Personal Theory; properly executed, a Church Theory of Faith will inherently be stronger than a Personal Theory of Faith by virtue of the possibility of correction of limited, individual perspectives. We all see the churchless, often twisting their faith into weapons of politic and pride. This twisting is what such consensus as you might find among Catholics on such dogmatic issues is designed, in its best intents, to avoid. (We'll leave aside direct criticism of the success of that venture, though.)

And among the justifications offered, we might note the necessity of recognizing the nature of testimonies. In light of the current scandls of the modern Catholic Church, at least, one might find some ironic humor in it. Yet, to the other, as an aside, it is worth noting that, in discussing Loyson and Renan, the author has accomplished something that we rarely see: the exploitation of what are, essentially, anti-church documents for their "redeeming" factors. Renan and Loyson both, as noted, severed their tiest to Catholocism:
No candid student of history who reviews this period will hesitate to admit that the immense majority of many thousands of secular priests in these two countries have led lives which are clean and upright, in accordance with their professions. We prove it not only by the good report which they have enjoyed with all moderate men, by the tone of respectable novelists who have portrayed them in fiction, by the testimony of foreign residents, and by the comparatively rare occurrence of scandals, but, what is most striking of all, we argue from the tributes paid to their integrity by former associates who have themselves severed their connection with the Catholic Church, men, for example, like M. Loyson (Père Hyacinthe) or M. Ernest Renan. Speaking of the wholesale charges of incontinence often levelled against a celibate priesthood, M. Renan remarks: "The fact is that what is commonly said about the morality of the clergy is, so far as my experience goes, absolutely devoid of foundation. I spent thirteen years of my life under the charge of priests, and I never saw the shadow of a scandal [je n'ai pas vu l'ombre d'un scandale]; I have known no priests but good priests. The confessional may possibly be productive of evil in some countries, but I saw no trace of it in my life as an ecclesiastic" (Renan, Souvenirs 'Enfance et de Jeunesse, p. 139).

Similarly M. Loyson, when seeking to justify his own marriage, does not attempt to suggest that the obligation of celibacy was beyond the strength of the average man, or that the Catholic clergy lived otherwise than chastely. On the contrary, he writes: "I am well aware of the true state of our clergy. I know of the self-sacrifice and virtues within its ranks." His line of argument is that the priest needs to be reconciled with the interests, the affections, and the duties of human nature; which seems to mean that he ought to be made less spiritual and more earthly. "It is only", he says, "by tearing himself away from the traditions of a blind asceticism, and of a theocracy still more political than religious, that the priest will become once more a man and a citizen. He will find himself at the same time more truly a priest."
Click to expand...
And here we find, again, an element of the marriage-to-God idea. As Loyson notes, the tearing away from traditions of blind asceticism and political theocracy makes one more of a man and citizen than one had been as a Catholic priest. If we note that one will become more of a priest, as well as becoming a man and citizen bespeaks the fundamental difference which compelled Loyson to depart from Catholocism; yet we find that he is not without praise of its virtues.

Having noted all this, we see the Catholic Encyclopedia summarizing the history of celibacy among the clergy, and I'll spare us all the burden of reproducing that here. Suffice to say that the source of knowledge for this issue is available. It's whether one chooses to accept that answer as knowledge or not. Personally, while it is true that there is no true Biblical mandate for celibacy among priests, the logical derivations do make sense. While many revere or at least admire Gandhi, for instance, it is often noted that this icon of a nation and an era was a terrible husband and father. Martin Luther King, Jr., is known to have violated his marital vows. Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter tells a sordid tale that is not without the realm of possibility; certes, the tales of Cotton Mather and his father Increase tell of scandal among men of God. The idea that one should be devoted to God does make certain metaphysical sense. But does the Rabbi's wife give him the same reverence as the congregation does? As a minister of God, what are your business hours? Does God ever close down? In my lifetime, my community gasped with disbelief when a local church put locks on its doors. Churches are no longer sanctuaries. What happens, then, if a priest tells a parishoner, in an hour of need, "That's all I can do; my wife needs me to bring home butter for the dinner rolls"? And yet, the clergy are human too. I recall an episode among the Society of Friends that I find shameful, and as it was related to me by parishoners whom I would still, to this day, trust in such affairs, I think it bespeaks a community aware of its difficulties. But it seems that the pastor of a local Quaker meeting house (I don't recall his actual title; the sermons were pretty cool, all things considered) had finally lost his patience. The stress of meeting the church's needs and the toll that was exacting on his family resulted in a minor family disagreement ending in violence. Without recourse to the law, he and his wife agreed to separate not for reasons of animosity, but so that he could seek professional advice, repair his conduct, and make amends. The congregation essentially revolted. Not that he had struck his son, but that he was not living in the marital home and, gasp! he sought a psychologist and not another minister for advice. He did not continue to serve in his church capacity. The annual regional meeting did, as I recall, confirm this.

And I'm not here to pick on the Christians for their conduct. This is not an example of the failure of Christianity, but it does constitute a slightly harsh examination of the methods of Christians. Yet most important is the simple comparison: What comes first to you? God or family? It seems that the religion does, indeed, require you to choose; Christ is, after all, a destroyer of families and of friendships in the name of That Which is Greater (Mat. 10.35, Luke 14.26). That is to say that service to God is supposed to come foremost for all Christians, and not just priests. Celibacy as a practical matter seems to suffice as reason, but in the theological term, celibacy helps avoiding having to ask God forgiveness for the mere crime of being alive. Think about that point: if priests are celibate to facilitate better service to God, then everything we do in marriage requires forgiveness, since we do in daily life place our family before God. As the Catholic Encyclopaedia points out of 1 Corinthians:
He that is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of this world how she may please her husband.
Click to expand...
Many modern Christians might resent the implication that they have made God second in their lives, but the charge as such is Pauline, and not raised by the infidel. But the fact remains that we are all sinners, as the faith has it, and part of this sin is our placing of God as a secondary priority. In terms of the priests, I can see how this state of affairs is unacceptable. It would not preclude them from redemption, obviously, but marriage does seem an inhibitor to one's duties unto God, especially in such an office.

There are, of course, other notions regarding one's duties unto God; the notion of praying ceaselessly is a long-known idea among monastics; an excellent examination of the idea is "Franny", the first portion of Salinger's Franny and Zooey. In such a manner, a consenting marriage of two people having attained such a state might thus go forward honoring God first while finding a way to not short-change the family. This is, of course, a pseudo-ascetic state demanding specific emotional boundaries, and I'm not sure people at large are cut out for such a uniform asceticism as such a marriage would necessitate.

It seems logical by the philosophy, at least; metaphysical considerations are few given the range of possibility within that sphere; practically, insofar as religious practices bear any practical consequences, it seems appropriate that priests should be celibate; working within their framework, the Catholics have ample justification. Biblically, however, it's a sticky issue. Certes, it would be easier to limit such notions as celibacy to factional thinking, incomplete perspectives. To take an advisement of the Bible and make it into law is always a risky venture. But such is this fraternity of faith: the one thing I won't accuse the Catholics of is not thinking about it for a while. Sure, I might have other problems with their thought processes, but this one is quite apparent. And whether for truly spiritual justification or practical or scandalous dismissal, they have a number of points right within the framework of Christianity. They're not wrong. Whether they're necessarily right is its own issue.

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top