Well... maintaining a healthy relationship with a romantic partner does take work. I can see how the wife, and especially the children, of an overworked priest might end up feeling a little emotionally neglected.
All the priests I've known seem to manage fine with celibacy - except one left, but I believe that was for different reasons.
Be not afraid...Hence why I said "sometimes". If you can exist without it, then thats fine, but its not exactly going to be a common trait in a society that wants to continue. How many priests are there in the Catholic church? And how many of them would not want to get their end away?
And how do you know they didn't have wives or girlfriends dude? Its always a possibility that they may have someone they are seeing on the DL.
edited 26th Mar '11 2:22:38 AM by JosefBugman
-*shrug* Maybe, but for the most part? The problem with a society that has come to accept that sex isn't a bad thing even in public has made clerical celibacy seem that much more unrewarding than it was in the time of Chaucher.
Its treating yourself as a thing, not a human being, and a lot of bad things come out of that.
Oh I'm well aware people will have sexual urges, and this isn't even necessarily a bad thing. Sex is a gift — if He wanted it to hurt He would've given us bedbug knife-dicks or something. Lust isn't a sin because sex, it's a sin because sex is a great way get into something way over your head or hurt someone, and it's a gift that must be handled with care.
What I was saying is while the Catholic Church went too far in calling it unclean, just on the other side of the gate I'm seeing a culture of institutionalized instant gratification saying it's some kind of all-consuming irresistible force that you have to ride out no matter what or OMG repression you're hurting yourself. If anything, I'd consider the latter more guilty of reducing a person to a thing. The former is at least entrusting you with the ability to exercise judgment over yourself.
edited 26th Mar '11 2:43:06 AM by Pykrete
Its important to find a balance, but if people are going to hurt themselves and have been aware of it, let them. You have no right to act as arbiter of what is good for others unless you have been trained for it, and the best we can do is hope to be there if they choose otherwise and to educate people as to what is good and bad for them.
And self denial means treating a part of yourself as if you don't want it, trying to bury a part of yourself that doesn't do any active harm to others seems to me... unhealthy.
And considering the previous moral strictures of self denial led to Victorian morality the basic idea does not work. The more that one is told to deny something by society the less obvious it becomes, it becomes a hidden vice and makes you a hypocrite. The desires we see don't vanish or even waver, they increase.
edited 26th Mar '11 2:46:59 AM by JosefBugman
I suppose that's why you should only become a priest or member of an order unless you really, really want to, and nobody should try and force people into it.
I don't see anything unhealthy about thinking long and hard about something, and then giving up a facet of ordinary life out of your own free will to be able to do your job better.
Be not afraid...And here's the catch. Sex can quite easily do considerable harm to oneself and others, and it's not something that gets magic'd away with consent.
The solution to vices is not to give in to them readily and call it a day because at least you're not being a hypocrite that way. It's to get them under control.
edited 26th Mar '11 2:58:16 AM by Pykrete
Proove that assertion. How does it cause harm to you and others if it is consensual and entered into with mutual understanding?
You don't "control" vice, no-one does. The fact that Prohibition caused an increase in breweries and bars kind of speaks for that. Dragging it into the open is one way around it, because it allows people to see it for what it is and hopefully to start chipping away at what makes it a vice and turn it into a virtue. Pushing it underground simply allows people to not know what they are getting into and allows it to grow.
![]()
The problem is that a lot of parishes need priests because people who want a family aren't going for it anymore, and those that are going for the jobs are, as we can see from this threads initial example and other priest sex abuses, not exactly good at what they do.
edited 26th Mar '11 3:04:25 AM by JosefBugman
Well, perhaps the answer to that is allowing lay people a bigger role in the church. Lay people already do a fair bit in rural areas.
But you know, I'm not going to be able to solve the problems of the Catholic church. The vatican will have to handle that. All I'm saying is that I don't think it should be assumed that clerical celibacy will result in child molestation.
Be not afraid...(sigh) Celibacy is in no way an excuse. Not getting enough sex is not a justification for abuse. Otherwise an exceptionally ugly people should be judged for rape less harshly than pretty people - after all, they couldn't get sex any other way, right?
What is an issue here is control, power, lack of accountability and desire of religious institutions to avoid scandal at all costs.
If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in commonBecause it's not necessarily entered into with particularly good foresight or preparation, to say nothing of how spectacularly shit can just happen as a result and no way to see it coming.
Married person has consensual sex with someone who is not their spouse. For the sake of not ending the example here, spouse is a free love type and is actually cool with this. Married person's loyalties drift over time, and ends up running off with third wheel. Spouse's residential and financial situation are seriously destabilized, to say nothing of emotional damage and what might happen to children (if any).
To use an anecdote, guy hooked up with a girl. They were together for a while before they started having sex, relationship was fine until then. Once they did, they overdid it to the point that they stopped communicating properly. Issues came up and never got resolved because when they came home they wanted to pop it off and go to bed. Things stagnated and turned very sour but they stayed together for a while after that because the sex was good. The other people they lived with were adversely affected by the fallout because their fights would break shit and keep everyone up at night until they finally got it through their heads that they hated each other. This scenario happened about once every two months in my fraternity.
Also unwanted pregnancy, disease, etc.
So no. Consent doesn't mean you're not hurting anyone.
edited 26th Mar '11 3:22:55 AM by Pykrete
Of course consent does not mean that noone is hurt. It means that such possibility is allowed and agreed upon. And yes, this one believes that consent thumps anything (yes, anything). Otherwise we'll have to forbid numerous other consensual but dangerous activities. Forbid mountain-climbing, perhaps? Who cares that people do it willingly, they might die!
If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in commonSo because of some peoples imbecillity or lack of communications sex should not be allowed in the public domain? Sorry I am just kind of wondering what point you are trying to make here.
And to me that doesn't seem like its the fault of sex but of stupid people, and might I just ask, do you know how many people in Victorian London ended up with Syphillis and other STD's from it being underground and impossible to talk about?
Is the occasional messy break up really worth saying "sex is bad for you, make sure you do things I want before you can do it". It seems so slightly repressive and stupid.
If sufficiently informed and aware of how it could impact you. No, never talking about it altogether Victorian-style is not a good idea. But the kind of culture we currently have that pins it as the foundation of a healthy relationship because sex is good and you're a moron for not wanting it right away isn't exactly a good example of being informed either.
Yes, the problem is ultimately not sex, but that people are stupid. But being so quick to jump at what we get stupid about doesn't seem like a good way to stop being stupid.
Anyway it's 3 AM and I'm half dead so I won't be responding for a while
edited 26th Mar '11 3:36:17 AM by Pykrete
PS: Sleep well!
edited 26th Mar '11 3:46:32 AM by Beholderess
If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in commonAlso:
To use an anecdote, guy hooked up with a girl. They were together for a while before they started having sex, relationship was fine until then. Once they did, they overdid it to the point that they stopped communicating properly. Issues came up and never got resolved because when they came home they wanted to pop it off and go to bed. Things stagnated and turned very sour but they stayed together for a while after that because the sex was good. The other people they lived with were adversely affected by the fallout because their fights would break shit and keep everyone up at night until they finally got it through their heads that they hated each other. This scenario happened about once every two months in my fraternity.
Did you just fucking MISS the gigantic temperance movement in America? That's how prohibition started, as a way of getting rid of the vice of drunkeness by banning alcohol. Drunkeness was considered a vice even if "drinking" wasn't (and even that is up for a bit of contention). The main basis of the prohibition movement was in the same areas as we see video games attacked today more effectivly mobilised the temperance movements were very big and were able to become rich enough to get Senators and others on side.

While I agree that we need to bring back the priesthood being able to raise families,
No. It's a wonderful gift, but its crushing all-consuming importance is severely overstated.