TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Pastor Attempts To Cure Teenage Boys Of Homosexuality...

Go To

Pykrete NOT THE BEES from Viridian Forest Since: Sep, 2009
NOT THE BEES
#76: Mar 26th 2011 at 2:18:18 AM

While I agree that we need to bring back the priesthood being able to raise families,

human beings sometimes need sex

No. It's a wonderful gift, but its crushing all-consuming importance is severely overstated.

LoniJay from Australia Since: Dec, 2009 Relationship Status: Pining for the fjords
#77: Mar 26th 2011 at 2:19:34 AM

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...
JosefBugman Since: Nov, 2009
#78: Mar 26th 2011 at 2:20:45 AM

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

LoniJay from Australia Since: Dec, 2009 Relationship Status: Pining for the fjords
#79: Mar 26th 2011 at 2:29:21 AM

Because they all lived in the whatchamacallit. The house next to the church, with at least one other priest.

Anyway, unless I see evidence to the contrary, it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that they're telling the truth.

Be not afraid...
JosefBugman Since: Nov, 2009
#80: Mar 26th 2011 at 2:34:42 AM

-*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.

LoniJay from Australia Since: Dec, 2009 Relationship Status: Pining for the fjords
#81: Mar 26th 2011 at 2:37:16 AM

... I don't see how choosing to remain celibate is treating yourself like a thing.

Be not afraid...
Pykrete NOT THE BEES from Viridian Forest Since: Sep, 2009
NOT THE BEES
#82: Mar 26th 2011 at 2:39:03 AM

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

JosefBugman Since: Nov, 2009
#83: Mar 26th 2011 at 2:45:03 AM

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

LoniJay from Australia Since: Dec, 2009 Relationship Status: Pining for the fjords
#84: Mar 26th 2011 at 2:50:00 AM

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...
Pykrete NOT THE BEES from Viridian Forest Since: Sep, 2009
NOT THE BEES
#85: Mar 26th 2011 at 2:53:38 AM

a part of yourself that doesn't do any active harm to others

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 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 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

JosefBugman Since: Nov, 2009
#86: Mar 26th 2011 at 3:02:49 AM

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.

[up][up] 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

LoniJay from Australia Since: Dec, 2009 Relationship Status: Pining for the fjords
#87: Mar 26th 2011 at 3:09:20 AM

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...
Beholderess from Moscow Since: Jun, 2010
#88: Mar 26th 2011 at 3:09:59 AM

(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 common
JosefBugman Since: Nov, 2009
#89: Mar 26th 2011 at 3:11:48 AM

That I agree with, but the problem there is that then people start accusing it of not being Catholic.

And it shouldn't be assumed, but the fact that the Catholic Church silences it alongside the position of power may all lead in to peadophiles seeking out the Church.

Pykrete NOT THE BEES from Viridian Forest Since: Sep, 2009
NOT THE BEES
#90: Mar 26th 2011 at 3:17:43 AM

Proove that assertion. How does it cause harm to you and others if it is consensual and entered into with mutual understanding?

Because 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

Beholderess from Moscow Since: Jun, 2010
#91: Mar 26th 2011 at 3:23:22 AM

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 common
JosefBugman Since: Nov, 2009
#92: Mar 26th 2011 at 3:23:57 AM

So 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.

Pykrete NOT THE BEES from Viridian Forest Since: Sep, 2009
NOT THE BEES
#93: Mar 26th 2011 at 3:33:10 AM

Of course consent does not mean that noone is hurt. It means that such possibility is allowed and agreed upon.

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 tongue

edited 26th Mar '11 3:36:17 AM by Pykrete

JosefBugman Since: Nov, 2009
#94: Mar 26th 2011 at 3:39:22 AM

You don't have to do what the dominant culture tells you to, just because other people do doesn't ruin your enjoyment (or not) of the act.

Allowing people to make their own mistakes is important though.

Beholderess from Moscow Since: Jun, 2010
#95: Mar 26th 2011 at 3:46:01 AM

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.
Agreed on that. This one honestly does not understand the obsession with sex people seem to have. But solving this issue should lie with better education, not with mitigating an importance of consent. Imho, delegating consent to a secondary role - that of not main factor in what is and isn't allowed - would be too high price to pay, in the matters that go above and beyond sexuality.

PS: Sleep well!

edited 26th Mar '11 3:46:32 AM by Beholderess

If we disagree, that much, at least, we have in common
InsanityAddict Bromantic Foil from Out of the Left Field Since: Oct, 2009
#96: Mar 26th 2011 at 8:55:12 AM

There's always the option of onanism for priests to deal with their sexual frustration, but the problem is that said act is considered sinful too.

I know what you said, sugar, but 'platonic' still entails a world of ideas.
KCK Can I KCK it? from In your closet Since: Jul, 2010
Can I KCK it?
#97: Mar 27th 2011 at 5:48:31 PM

@Insanity By the Catholic Church?

There's no justice in the world and there never was~
invisigoth from Seattle Since: Feb, 2011
#98: Mar 27th 2011 at 7:17:34 PM

" God, I want to link to a video of that one pastor crying and apologising to God/Jesus for hiring a prostitute, but I can't remember his name! On a similar note, it's kind of ridiculous how often these people get caught doing shit like this."

You were perhaps thinking of Ted Haggard?

Newfable Since: Feb, 2011
#99: Mar 28th 2011 at 9:47:02 AM

Sex is a gift...
Wrong, it's a biological function that's a method for reproduction.

You don't "control" vice, no-one does. The fact that Prohibition caused an increase in breweries and bars kind of speaks for that.
Prohibition wasn't a method to control "vice". I'm not sure what it was at the moment (I'm no historian, but a quick Wikipedia search would be beneficial to ya'), but while it was meant to control alcohol consumption (by dropping consumption as close to 0 as possible), public consumption of alcohol wasn't considered a vice. What you're be referring to is public relations and perception control over something that polite society defines as a "vice". It's highly possible to control or suppress urges, though that shouldn't necessitate that it's easy.

Also:

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.
Proove that assertion. How does it cause harm to you and others if it is consensual and entered into with mutual understanding?
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.

Either say what you mean, or mean what you say. Sex, as you mentioned later, isn't the problem, but sex's implied loyalty that's the issue. And neither of these, sex or its loyalty implied, is the problem concerning the church.

What is an issue here is control, power, lack of accountability and desire of religious institutions to avoid scandal at all costs.
This. We could go on about sex for hours; hell, religious institutions have been going on about it for years. The problem is that people in positions in authority, a position that also carries with it a sociologically based position of trust ("Priests are holy people. Holy people deal with God. God is good. Therefore, priests are good, trustworthy people."). The problem is (at least from what I can discern), how to figure out which priests are actually trustworthy and which ones aren't.

JosefBugman Since: Nov, 2009
#100: Mar 28th 2011 at 10:20:55 AM

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.


Total posts: 119
Top