Celibacy for Priests is NOT a Catholic teaching or doctrine!
All you have to do is read the history books. It is there for you all to see!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"When one reforming archbishop held a meeting of his clergy and told them to give up their wives, he was answered by a hail of stones."
From a history of England - referring to the 1200s.
Compulsory celibacy for Roman Catholic priests is roughly half as old as the Roman Catholic church.
FACT.
It is non-canonical.
It was enforced around the 11th c. by the Papacy to end the practice of priests handing on church property to their families and to increase central control over the clergy.
Its enforcement was part of the so-called "Gregorian Reforms".
In the Greek Catholic Church more correctly celibacy has never been compulsory for parish priests.
Another interesting fact is that when compulsory celibacy was enforced through the Roman Catholic Church in the 12th century it was resisted and unpopular in Ireland and less unpopular in England (which was of course a Catholic country at the time - as were all Christian countries at this time).
The Roman Catholic Church had incidentally unilaterally split itself off from the Greek Catholic Church in 1054 - aboout 2 hundred years before this measure was taken.
The Roman Catholic Church's claims over doctrinal authority are in no way justified by history.
This is not to mention the pure iniquity of some traditional Roman Catholic teachings.
-----------------------------------------------------------
It needs to be said that the issue of "pedofile priests" can be an issue wherever there are compulsorily celibate priests.
It is not an Irish - or even necessarily a Catholic issue.
It is of course as big an issue in places like Belgium as it is in Ireland.
Those who seek to portray it as in some way an Irish issue may not have the best interests of Ireland at heart.
For example the issue of the IRA was linked to it in English media coverage.
--------------------------------------------------
http://www.queerbychoice.com
The view that homosexual behaviour is a choice often receives more opposition from gay rights advocates than from homophobes!
Homosexual behaviour is clearly always a choice in my opirion. A choice that I personally do not approve of. I tolerate it of course, but I see no reason why I or anyone should have to approve of it.
This distinction between toleration and approval must be allowed to exist. And yet gay rights campaigners and associated movements are often very intolerant of it.
But it is absolutely vital that it is allowed for if freedom of speech and freedom in general is to be preserved.
Furthermore, an aspect of this matter that is not often acknowledged is that the promotion and propagation of homosexuality must increase it to some degree.
----------------------------------------------
"...celibacy is at least as "abnormal" as homosexuality..."
Thomas Szasz.
When you think about it there is potentially a lot contained within this short quote.
-----------
Szasz makes the point - it can't be made enough - that before about 1970 homosexual behaviour was regarded as a "mental illness".
And now - as little as 40 years later - "homosexuality" is normal and aversion to it is comparable to a "mental illness" - with a FAKE quasi-medical description - homophobia.
--------------------------------------------------------
Someone has said the following:
"I don't get argument that celibacy caused Catholic scandal. If I didn't have sex for 1000 years I still wouldn't want to have sex with a child."
Fair comment. I agree.
My response is:
"...CELIBACY IS AT LEAST AS "ABNORMAL" AS HOMOSEXUALITY..."
Thomas Szasz.
Szasz has written excellent essays on sexual behaviour.
My personal view is also that if I didn't have sex for a thousand years (and it feels like I haven't) I still wouldn't want to have sex with another man. I have never sexually desired another male.
I have nothing whatsoever against homosexuality. I am totally against all pedofilia. I think they are both in a sense perversions. One - homosexuality - I fully tolerate, the other I certainly do not. Pedophilia is totally repulsive and unacceptable.
To be honest, I am very sceptical that homosexuality as an intrinsic tendency exists as such.
When I say this what I mean that: I think there is no more of an intrinsic tendency in humans as a species to have sex with members of their own sex - strictly speaking this is not really possible anyway - than there is an intrinsic tendency in humans to shag sheep.
(JOKE - I have nothing necessarily against anyone shagging sheep. It's legal in Denmark. Between consenting parties.)
Bestiality is clearly not really an acceptable behaviour of course.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A point is that if celibacy is enforced and sexuality suppressed then it will sometimes surface in some way - not always a normal way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If "homosexuality" exists as an "intrinsic tendency" then how (the feck) and why (the feck) did history's most famous gay - Oscar Wilde - have a wife and children?
Also Wilde's "homosexuality" as expressed in his writing is arguably sexist in that it seems to say that "homosexuality" - specifically male homosexuality - is in some way special.
Wilde never defended the nobility of Lesbianism in his speeches.
--------------------------------------------------------------
All you have to do is read the history books. It is there for you all to see!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"When one reforming archbishop held a meeting of his clergy and told them to give up their wives, he was answered by a hail of stones."
From a history of England - referring to the 1200s.
Compulsory celibacy for Roman Catholic priests is roughly half as old as the Roman Catholic church.
FACT.
It is non-canonical.
It was enforced around the 11th c. by the Papacy to end the practice of priests handing on church property to their families and to increase central control over the clergy.
Its enforcement was part of the so-called "Gregorian Reforms".
In the Greek Catholic Church more correctly celibacy has never been compulsory for parish priests.
The Roman Catholic Church had incidentally unilaterally split itself off from the Greek Catholic Church in 1054 - aboout 2 hundred years before this measure was taken.
The Roman Catholic Church's claims over doctrinal authority are in no way justified by history.
This is not to mention the pure iniquity of some traditional Roman Catholic teachings.
-----------------------------------------------------------
It needs to be said that the issue of "pedofile priests" can be an issue wherever there are compulsorily celibate priests.
It is not an Irish - or even necessarily a Catholic issue.
It is of course as big an issue in places like Belgium as it is in Ireland.
Those who seek to portray it as in some way an Irish issue may not have the best interests of Ireland at heart.
For example the issue of the IRA was linked to it in English media coverage.
--------------------------------------------------
http://www.queerbychoice.com
The view that homosexual behaviour is a choice often receives more opposition from gay rights advocates than from homophobes!
Homosexual behaviour is clearly always a choice in my opirion. A choice that I personally do not approve of. I tolerate it of course, but I see no reason why I or anyone should have to approve of it.
This distinction between toleration and approval must be allowed to exist. And yet gay rights campaigners and associated movements are often very intolerant of it.
But it is absolutely vital that it is allowed for if freedom of speech and freedom in general is to be preserved.
Furthermore, an aspect of this matter that is not often acknowledged is that the promotion and propagation of homosexuality must increase it to some degree.
----------------------------------------------
"...celibacy is at least as "abnormal" as homosexuality..."
Thomas Szasz.
When you think about it there is potentially a lot contained within this short quote.
-----------
Szasz makes the point - it can't be made enough - that before about 1970 homosexual behaviour was regarded as a "mental illness".
And now - as little as 40 years later - "homosexuality" is normal and aversion to it is comparable to a "mental illness" - with a FAKE quasi-medical description - homophobia.
--------------------------------------------------------
Someone has said the following:
"I don't get argument that celibacy caused Catholic scandal. If I didn't have sex for 1000 years I still wouldn't want to have sex with a child."
Fair comment. I agree.
My response is:
"...CELIBACY IS AT LEAST AS "ABNORMAL" AS HOMOSEXUALITY..."
Thomas Szasz.
Szasz has written excellent essays on sexual behaviour.
My personal view is also that if I didn't have sex for a thousand years (and it feels like I haven't) I still wouldn't want to have sex with another man. I have never sexually desired another male.
I have nothing whatsoever against homosexuality. I am totally against all pedofilia. I think they are both in a sense perversions. One - homosexuality - I fully tolerate, the other I certainly do not. Pedophilia is totally repulsive and unacceptable.
To be honest, I am very sceptical that homosexuality as an intrinsic tendency exists as such.
When I say this what I mean that: I think there is no more of an intrinsic tendency in humans as a species to have sex with members of their own sex - strictly speaking this is not really possible anyway - than there is an intrinsic tendency in humans to shag sheep.
(JOKE - I have nothing necessarily against anyone shagging sheep. It's legal in Denmark. Between consenting parties.)
Bestiality is clearly not really an acceptable behaviour of course.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A point is that if celibacy is enforced and sexuality suppressed then it will sometimes surface in some way - not always a normal way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If "homosexuality" exists as an "intrinsic tendency" then how (the feck) and why (the feck) did history's most famous gay - Oscar Wilde - have a wife and children?
Also Wilde's "homosexuality" as expressed in his writing is arguably sexist in that it seems to say that "homosexuality" - specifically male homosexuality - is in some way special.
Wilde never defended the nobility of Lesbianism in his speeches.
--------------------------------------------------------------