I have my own response to the “if only priests were not celibate” lecture but because it is a rather mean answer, I only use it if the lecturer has been rude about it. I ask them: was there a period in your life, where you were celibate, either because you hadn’t started having sex, or you had no one to have sex with?
When they say yes, I ask how they managed, during that time, to battle their instincts to go around sexually abusing adolescents.
Monday, April 12, 2010
So Put That In Your Pipe And Smoke It
The Anchoress:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I'm Protestant, and I don't believe Christ commands, or even expects, celibacy of his ministers.
But, trying to blame homosexual sex-scandals (much less pedophilia sex-scandals) in the Catholic priesthood on the celibacy requirement is just intellectually dishonest. And such arguments (such as they are) degrade all human beings, for these claims treat us as all though we are nothing but walking libidos.
>> I'm Protestant, and I don't believe Christ commands, or even expects, celibacy of his ministers.
Surprise, the Catholic Church doesn't believe that either. Otherwise it would be pretty sttrange for them to ordain lots of married Anglican priests, as they have done.
Priestly celibacy is just a Church discipline, not a dogma, and is entirely revocable. Indeed, it was only instituted sometime in the early Middle Ages, I believe, and largely for practical reasons. Eastern Orthodox priests have always been allowed to marry, and their theology on these kinds of issues is virtually identical to the Catholic Church.
"Surprise, the Catholic Church doesn't believe that either. Otherwise it would be pretty sttrange for them to ordain lots of married Anglican priests, as they have done.
Priestly celibacy is just a Church discipline, not a dogma, and is entirely revocable. ..."
Trying to play "gotcha" with me?
So, the Roman Catholoc church arbitrarily burdens its foot-soldiers with a moral demand which isn't even a part of morality -- and which demand it's more than willing to waive to cobb a different organization's foot-soldiers. I don't know, maybe it's kind of like how wealthy Roman Catholics seem always to manage to get their no-longer-desirable marriages annulled, despite the technical RC stand on marriage?
"Indeed, it was only instituted sometime in the early Middle Ages, I believe, and largely for practical reasons."
Indeed. It's very impractical to a large organization's future if its peons are giving its properties to their children as inheritances.
>> Trying to play "gotcha" with me?
Not at all. Sorry you took it that way.
>> So, the Roman Catholoc church arbitrarily burdens its foot-soldiers with a moral demand which isn't even a part of morality
Well, no, and this is not even remotely like what you said before, when you implied (unless I misunderstood you) that the Catholic Church believed that Christ demanded priestly celibacy. Moving the goalposts is certainly good exercise, but is not all that conducive to coherent discussion.
>> I don't know, maybe it's kind of like how wealthy Roman Catholics seem always to manage to get their no-longer-desirable marriages annulled, despite the technical RC stand on marriage?
Could be, I dunno. My experience is that such vices are to be found amongst absolutely all groups of human beings, including the Catholic Church, which is, I hope you'll agree, a group of human beings.
>> It's very impractical to a large organization's future if its peons are giving its properties to their children as inheritances.
Yep, that's what I was referring to. Although I did say that that was _largely_ the reason for priestly celibacy. There are spiritual reasons as well. Since you've shown an ability to grasp the obvious, ever consider digging a little deeper, beyond the surface layer of your prejudices?
Goal-post moving? Really?
Well, anyway, thank you for playing.
And thank you for helping restore my proper balance with respect to Catholicism. Or, at least, wrt some Catholics.
Post a Comment