This is what you get when the unnatural, unhealthy, beyond-fucked-up rule of celibacy is in force.
Let married men and women serve as priests, and 99.99% of the problem is solved.
Stupid fucking Catholic Church (as a Catholic, I'm entitled to throw down the gauntlet).
Posted by God Of War at November 22, 2005 11:46 AMI'm confused by this post. Are you saying pedophiles = gay? And that if the Catholic church allows these freaks, what's wrong with women?
If that's the case, I'm schocked at the ignorance in that belief.
Posted by ABBinMI at November 22, 2005 12:05 PMSteve,
Your first sentence cuts a little close to relating pedophilia to homosexuality. I'm sure that's not your intent but...
The celibacy requirement is the problem. Were married men allowed to serve as priests in the Catholic Church the priesthood would not be such a draw for gay men. Until fairly recently homosexuality was a social taboo. One that could get you killed in many environments. What better place to congregate for a gay man hiding his homosexuality than in a community of semi-socially segregated males? It's a no brainer.
I have no problem with any homosexual being admitted to the priesthood. If they are required to be celebate, whether that means denying themselves straight or gay sexual activity, whats the difference. It's just as abnormal for a heterosexual male to abstain from sex all his adult life as it is to expect a homosexual male to do it.
But pedophilia is an entirely different thing altogether. Pedophiles don't join the priesthood to try and suppress their depraved urges. These are sick people who use the fact that the priesthood puts them in a position of trust and authority over children to get them access to their victims. That has nothing to do with the celebacy requirement. There are plenty of married pedophiles. There entire existance is centered around deception. There is absolutely no excuse for why the Catholic Church did anything to protect the pedophiles in their midst. It is unconscionable.
Posted by snark at November 22, 2005 12:09 PMWTF? Gays aren't pedophiles. At least I'm not, even following periods of celibacy which have thankfully never lasted three years. The Catholic Church will have priests prey on children, hetero and homo, as long as it prohibits priests from having sex with other adults.
Posted by Mike in Seattle at November 22, 2005 12:17 PMWell, if they excluded gays that would reduce the number of priests by close to half. So, I guess they're just returning to the celibacy qualification -- but oddly they included a period of celibacy for gays but not heteros.
Posted by Marie at November 22, 2005 12:22 PMI also hope I'm reading this wrong. Sounds to me as if the writer does NOT want celibate gays to become priests. Why the hell not? (For what it's worth, I'm a straight woman.)
Posted by pam mcg at November 22, 2005 12:25 PMThe Catholic Church will have priests prey on children, hetero and homo, as long as it prohibits priests from having sex with other adults.
That makes no sense. Pedophiles have no interest in having sex with adults. If the Catholic Church allowed straight priests to have sex freely with consenting adults it would do nothing to change the fact that pedophiles use the priesthood as a way to get into a position of authority with access to lots of kids. The same reason they become teachers. It has nothing to do with celebacy.
Equating pedophiles in the priesthood with celibacy is ridiculous.
Posted by snark at November 22, 2005 12:30 PMSteve,
I really think you need to clarify your intent with this post or take it down.
Posted by snark at November 22, 2005 12:32 PMThe church’s entire policy regarding the clergy is a nightmare created by a bunch of limp-dicked old misogynist fuddies in the first to third centuries. Tertullian and Ignatius are two prime examples. If the church really wanted to get screwed up, they would follow the teachings of this dorks. Wait a minute, they did. Don't you find it rather strange that the church would want priests to be celibate, yet the flock are supposed to breed like rabbits?
Posted by tempus at November 22, 2005 12:44 PMIn fact, the Vatican by this ruling has now INCREASED the likelihood that pedophiles will continue to seek out the (Catholic) priesthood. Because pedophiles rarely identify themselves as gay, regardless of the sex of their victims. And of course, they rarely identify themselves as abusers of children (until it's too late), but as people with a special connection to children.
Posted by Clio at November 22, 2005 12:51 PMlimp-dicked old misogynist fuddies
Well there's been more than one pope with children over the centuries.
And I doubt they were divine conceptions.
So they weren't all limp.
Posted by snark at November 22, 2005 12:55 PMFYI: The Catholic Church jumped the shark during the Inquisition. Their branding stinks, they're losing market share like crazy in most of the Northern Hemisphere, and they only get press when they fuck up, or fuck. After Kennedy got elected they've been a non-issue in American politics, which is another good reason to ignore them.
Posted by Three...no...four reasons.... at November 22, 2005 01:13 PMSo you're saying the Catholic church should ban men with past gay behavior?
Posted by ABBinMI at November 22, 2005 02:24 PMSteve - while we all stick our foot in our mouths every once-in-a-while, you've managed to do it twice in a row on the same topic.
Not good.
Posted by idiosynchronic at November 22, 2005 02:28 PMHowever, it does reinforce that keeping women and marriage out of the priesthood is more important to the Vatican than dealing with pedophiles or banning men with past gay behavior.
Thanks for the re-write Steve.
I'd look at it more as opening the priesthood to women and integrating marriage into the priesthood are lower priorities than clarifying their policy on gay men joining the priesthood. Personally I think it is enlightening that the church has had the intelligence to divorce the subject of pedophilia from the question of admitting homosexual men to the cleregy. The institution of a clear requirement that gay men not have engaged in homosexual activity and the lack of such for heterosexual candidates is also not hard to understand. It's an all male institution. Heterosexual men will not be living in close proximity to women. Homosexual men will be living in close proximity to other, potentially also gay, men. Temptation will be there. Not having engaged in homosexual activity for an extended period of time would be an indication that a candidate was more prepared to handle the environment within the seminary and as a priest without seeking out homosexual companionship. I'm not endorsing this view just giving an opinion as to the rationale behind it.
Recognizing that homosexual men willing to forgo a sexual lifestyle are capable of being good priests is a step in the right direction. The entire pedophilia situation was handled disasterously for decades, perhaps centuries. It was obviously a huge embarrassment for the church and shines a spotlight on the fact that it is a human institution subject to all human failings. As has been noted, pedophilia is a particularly insidious behavior. It thrives on secrecy. It's practitioners do not announce themselves. They could be just about anyone. It was easy for the church to use homosexuality as a scapegoat and I'm encouraged that they seem to be moving away from that. It's also clear that they need to do more to prevent pedophiles from infiltrating the ranks of the priesthood. Just as we need to do more to keep them out of our schools. Easier said than done. But when they are discovered they need to be treated as the criminals that they are. That's what really needs to change.
Posted by snark at November 22, 2005 02:39 PMSoto:
[...]men with past gay behavior[...]
Heh, heh.
Faggotry: the final frontier of liberal bigotry.
Posted by Toby Petzold at November 22, 2005 02:50 PMActually, as a "lapsed" Catholic, I think that one of the major problems getting in the way the Catholic church is the fear of sex and whether women can have the same level of connection to the creator as men. Human beings are sexual creatures and it is very weird to have a priesthood that denies this part of their humanity. Societies that relegate women to the back of the bus are not very sane because they deny the inherent humanity and spirituality of half the human race. Both of these attributes cause the Catholic church to lose their ability to view the world realistically and use that insight into humans to help people do a better job being genuinely good people.
Posted by Mary at November 23, 2005 01:06 AMsteve,
you seem to forget one important point. Married men can still be homosexual, just dishonest bastards, as well as pedophiles a!!! when will we stop believeing that marriage is the care all for everything...check out the bathrooms, parks and any dark place and you will find married men having sex with other men!!!!
Posted by eeartsake at November 23, 2005 12:47 PMIf celibacy is the requirement, why would it matter that a priest is a repressed homosexual rather than a repressed heterosexual?
If there is no confidence in the repression, why protect males from priests but not females?
Posted by AlanDownunder at November 23, 2005 05:12 PMIf celibacy is the requirement, why would it matter that a priest is a repressed homosexual rather than a repressed heterosexual?
It doesn't matter. That's what the churches position is beginning to deal with.
You can liken the situation to the military's position on homosexuals. Having homosexuals in an all male combat situation presents fraternization problems that are not present with heterosexuals in the same situation. The priesthood is the same way. It's all men. WOmen do not live in parish rectories. They may work there during the day in public capacities but they don't reside there. Hence the opportunity for heterosexual encounters is much less likely than the opportunity for homosexual encounters. Obviously male priests have contact with women. But hiding a male/female sexual relationship for a priest is much more difficult than concealing a male/male one.
Posted by snark at November 23, 2005 06:40 PMThe Catholic Church has been a refuge for homosexual men for centuries. Perhaps it now realizes that gay men don't need the Church to fulfill their potential. They can live openly and even get married and have children. They are accepted by society. So this is being done either out of jealousy and spite or as an act of tough love. Considering their track record and current policies I'm more inclined to believe their motives are evil. Ratzinger is a frustrated, self loathing queen. The expelled seminarians are lucky...they now have a chance to be normal.
Posted by Gabriel at November 23, 2005 09:37 PMThe Catholic pulpits said not to vote for Kerry. They should lose Tax-free status. Our county attorney tried to prosecute 4 priests. One little piggy ran to Ireland. One little piggy ran to Mexico. One little piggy ran to the Vatican, where he was given asylum. The 4th little piggy cried like hell when he was made to wear an ankle-bracelet. How can anyone with an ounce of common sense support this corrupt church? Disgusted in Phoenix.
Posted by TIKI AL at November 24, 2005 02:48 PM