“Warped into homosexuals? Giving an innocent cloak or cover for homosexuals? I hadn’t realised that homosexuality was something that required an innocent screen, or that it was unnatural. Or that it was curable!”
Actually, Revenant, there are an extremely few REAL, that is, “physiological” , homosexuals. It is true that in adolescence, everyone goes through a transition period of homosexual play, as the normal progression toward adult sexual life, which may be blatant or very mildly innocent, such as holding hands. In today’s society, where the TV, movies, and every other public resource shouts about homosexuality, many teenagers are caught into believing they are homosexuals during this stage, simply because they have been involved in some of this normal, maturation playfulness. They self-diagnose, and then simply give up, so do not progress to the next “normal” stage. I have a number of “homosexual” friends, who definitely are still afraid to come “out of the closet” because they don’t want to hurt their parents, and they’re just plain scared. Yes, in the majority of cases, I believe homosexuality is abnormal, (nonetheless, REAL to the victim), as the hormones of the person are as normal as can be.
Anyone who wishes to continue a discussion on this interesting view of homosexuality is free to open a new thread. I suspect that it would result in a complete hijacking of this thread.
“The RCC has a very long history and many of its members and leaders have been corrupt. It has also endorsed practices that are shameful. I was aware of this before I entered high school, although I do recognize that not everyone was as fortunate in their education as was I.”
Tom/orDebb- I, too, was extremely fortunate in my education, as I’ve had 16 years of excellent Catholic private school education. My miswording was not intentional. I simply was anxious to get back to the thread and must’ve read what I wanted. Unfortunately, I’m a human. However, just as the priests are now paying for all the insurance premiums and lawsuits of the scandals, it would be difficult to separate “Church money” from a “married couple’s” money in any day and age, as it is ALL actually “CHURCH” money once it is donated.
I guess I have misconstrued the entire purpose of this website. I actually thought it was to inform and to educate. I am finding out in these posts that it is, instead, to cut down and ridicule any thought presented, so it definitely is not to educate, but to impose rank or superior “intelligence.” My thread was posted for a learning experience. I was not aware that I was not allowed to have any opinion, thought, or idea unless it agreed with those present or unless it was published doctrine, which is not “education” or stretching of the mind, no matter what the interpretation. If I or anyone here already has ALL the answers, why would he/she even bother to be here?
I think you’re misunderstanding; tomndebb is a moderator, but also posts as a member. Unless you see something that says something like “Moderator warning: Shut the hell up, Maerzie”, then you could quite reasonably assume that people, including moderators, are simply disagreeing with you or challenging and questioning things you said.
Sorry, Captain. That’s what happens when you "“assume” a site, such as the one referred to, has information that has been verified. It was not a “talk” website like this one, but presented as “researched”. Obviously, there was no “teacher” to grade the credentials. “Assume”, after all, is a bad word.
You will note that I have not actually challenged your opinion, yet. However, the phrase “straight dope” is a slang reference to “accurate information.” If you wish to challenge celibacy on the grounds that its removal would increase vocations, have at it. If you wish to challenge celibacy as “unnatural,” have at that–but be prepared to support your position with references we can evaluate that appear to be scientifically based. If you want to challenge celibacy for having been created for the “wrong” reasons, you can do that too–but you had better have sources that accurately identify the reasons that were behind it. (It also helps if you do not misquote those sources, whether deliberately or inadvertantly.)
Definitely I believe there would be THOUSANDS more vocations if celibacy wasn’t mandated. There are so many candidates who would make terrific and valuable priests if they were allowed to be married. Sex is a creation of God, and most of the apostles were married. It is only the wacko personal demands of the human element of the Church, such as greed for riches, that demands such a ridiculous prohibition. (This is MY **personal ** opinion in case anyone wants to quote me!)
Great Debates thread. It’s the name of the forum you’re in now. The last word of Miller’s post is a hyperlink to a separate conversation created for the purpose of debating your notions of human sexual development and homosexuality. This is also a link to that thread.
It’s only the wacko personal demands of the human element of the Church, such as greed for riches, that demand such a ridiculous prohibition? So you deny even the notion that having devotion to a wife and children might conflict somewhat with having utter and undiluted devotion to god, and that this notion might have played some part in the establishment of the practice?
Not that I’m going to claim that all priests have utter and undiluted devotion to god, but that doesn’t mean that it mightn’t have been a goal at some point?
A great point. I think that, if handled properly, celibacy is an excellent indicator of whether or not a person actually HAS a vocation. Sex, and more importantly, a permanent relationship, are awfully big things to have to give up…those who do are doubtless much more dedicated to their jobs than most of us are.
Personally, I think the lack of vocations has to do with the Church losing influence in the lives of its flock, and with how much less devout people are these days.
But other Catholic people are bound to live moral lives too. Yes, priests have taken vows of chastity and obedience as well as sometimes poverty, but other Catholics are called to be chaste as well. I won’t say they’re “just like everyone else”, but the priesthood is one of a number of equally valid vocations and every Catholic falls into one of them.
As far as the OP, celibacy simply doesn’t force priests to molest little boys. If there are pedophiles who have access to sex (e.g., married men) who still molest, it doesn’t have to do with a suppressed urge bursting forth on the nearest victim. [hijack]I guess I understand the recent lawsuits against the Church in that an organization had a role in covering up previous crimes, but do private individuals get to sue their molesters? [/hijack]
Friendly neighborhood Episcopalian popping in to sip a glass of non-consecrated merlot and enjoy the fun. My conversations with Episcopal priests about priesthood have taught me that balancing family and marriage (separate but interlocked things, as it turns out) is one of the toughest parts of the vocation. Some of it is the pettiness of the more venal members of the flock, and some of it is natural jealousy of the spouse/family. In fact, as I was in counseling prior to pursuing Canon IX ordination back in the 1980s, that became the primary reason for my decision to not enter the program. While I agree with those who believe allowing Roman Catholic priests to marry would improve that church’s clergy recruiting efforts and keep more Catholics in the pews, I don’t think that’s the biggest doctrinal/traditional challenge facing that particular church today.
I also would point out that my own communion, along with many other churches, have had our share of sexually oriented scandals involving clergy and their families. I don’t know if anyone has any hard facts on numbers, but while the RCC has born the brunt of publicity on the issue, it certainly isn’t alone.
Oh, and Maerzie, welcome aboard. Soon’s you get all the lingo and research stuff figured out, I hope you plunk down your fifteen bucks to join the club.