Posted on 05/28/2015 7:40:25 PM PDT by annalex
The only thing that changed is that the society got sexualized and cannot think beyond the penis. So there is a greater need for celibate priesthood today.
I agree that a homosexual tendency should be a disqualifier for the priesthood, and it is.
Monarchy, by the way, looks better and better everyday. You are talking to a monarchist.
But it was always a disqualified, but that rule was left almost entirely unenforced. One of the main points I'm trying to make with you and Salvation is that it will remain unenforced so long as the enforcers are themselves largely homosexual. Do you understand that point?
Monarchy, by the way, looks better and better everyday. You are talking to a monarchist.
Great, but this bespeaks, quite obviously, your refusal to size up the world as it really is. Monarchy? I don't know what to say. It's exactly the same issue with the patently obvious impracticability of the clerical celibacy rule. You can admire it as a fine ideal, but the results have proven disastrous in practice.
Let me ask you this. The RCC has just lost Ireland due to the sex abuse scandals caused by homosexuals in the ranks of the clergy, and it's obvious that the celibacy rule contributes (at least significantly) to the homosexual infiltration problem. Yet you remain unconvinced. So here's my question: what would it take to convince you? What additional horror committed by the RCC homosexual clergy would finally prompt you to embrace the reality that I described in detail above?
I suspect that there is nothing that the clergy could ever do that would convince you. For you and, I suppose, Salvation, the celibacy rule is a sort of tenet of the faith that you cling to without regard to all evidence to the contrary. I hope I'm wrong about that.
So, once again, is there any scenario you can imagine that might cause you to rethink your position?
“it’s obvious that the celibacy rule contributes (at least significantly) to the homosexual infiltration problem.”
The Soviet Union contributed more than anyone else to the homosexual infiltration problem, by establishing a homosexual infiltration program.
Hoodo thunk that those lovely Soviets would try to harm an enemy? And yet they did.
It is only because the modern world is sex mad that it appears to some that the celibacy rule would attract homos.
But the fact remains that the celibacy rule contributes significantly to the gay clergy problem, correct?
I agree: homosexual infiltration of the curia is where the Holy Inquisition should start. What are you proposing: marry them all off?
I don't know what to say
I never asked you to say anything. If you think that having professional liars rent every office in the land on a 4-year cycle is a better idea, perhaps you also like the growing national debt and crumbling infrastructure.
what would it take to convince you?
Convince me of what? I totally agree that homosexuality in the Church is a huge problem. What I don't agree is that providing pedophiles with female sexual partners is going to set a better example for the people of Ireland. We want priests that give the gift of their sexuality to God and wish to be celibate. We largely have those men. Today, the younger the priest, the better he is: chaste, orthodox, devoted. The crisis is over.
the celibacy rule is a sort of tenet of the faith
It is generally a good idea to learn something about the subject, them post opinions on it. Celibacy is not a dogma of the faith. It is what is called a discipline: something that can be changed by the Magisterium of the Latin Church. The argument is not that married people cannot be priests in the Latin Rite, but that it is not going to benefit the Church.
I outlined the plan above. This is the only way I know of to remove and replace a corrupt corps of cadres. It works, though. Stalin's example is the one to study and to follow, excepting of course for the violent tactics. But the strategy is right.
“But the fact remains that the celibacy rule contributes significantly to the gay clergy problem, correct?”
Why would that be correct? What assumptions underlie that conclusion?
Why would a sodomite enter a vocation that he is forbidden to enter, where the practice of his perversion is prohibited?
The assumption here seems to be that seminaries are rife with sodomites, and therefore a congenial environment for them. But it was not always so. The question to ask, then, is how did it get this way?
We find, when we look, that the USSR, and specifically the GRU and KGB, are responsible for creating that environment. Seminaries were *made into* places that are attractive to sodomites by the Soviets. There is nothing intrinsic to seminaries that is attractive to sodomites. The celibacy rule is irrelevant to this issue.
And before you go into anti-anti-communist mode, consider this: If you were an officer in the KGB, wouldn’t you be smart enough to think of infiltrating firebrand communists into the seminaries? And as one of their missions, wouldn’t you tell them to work their way up to the admissions committee, then flood the place with sodomites?
“The only way to remove homosexuals from the clergy is to replace them with married, heterosexual men of good moral character.”
Road apples, Gluteus Maximus, road apples.
The only way to remove homosexuals from the clergy is to replace them with heterosexual men of good moral character. The married vocation does not guarantee good moral character, and good moral character is all we ask from a priest. There is no reason to replace Roman Catholic priesthood with Eastern Rite priesthood or Anglican priesthood, where the fact that they marry did not prevent the same problems with abuse happening.
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.