Quebec priests dispute Vatican stand on homosexuality

[ollie]

Wow. Now this is progressive.

Quebec priests dispute Vatican stand on homosexuality

Does the church "have the last word on the mysteries of political, social, family and sexual life?" asks the letter.

"In these matters, the official teaching of the church has shown itself more than once to be wrong."

[Deeps]

Let the toppling begin.

Vatican Schmatican is how I read this!

[Thorgnor]

Babylon fall.

[bradm]

Since Catholic priests (even those in training, IIRC) have to be celibate, why should it matter whether they're heterosexual or homosexual? If someone takes a vow of celibacy, and then engages in sex*, he's broken the vow, regardless of the gender of the other person. I think it would be better of the Vatican to say priests should be nonsexual (or "asexual").

Aloha,

Brad

* Is just with another person, or does a vow of celibacy preclude even solo masturbation?

[Thorgnor]

Oninism, spilling one's seed on the earth, is considered against His plan.

[guigsy]

so, spraying the lawn for fun is out?

[bradm]

Oninism, spilling one's seed on the earth, is considered against His plan.

Ah, of course. I had forgotten about that, and, since it applies to anybody*, priests would be included. Thanks.

Aloha,

Brad

* Except women, presumably, since a woman's orgasm isn't required for conception, and results in no "seed" being spilled.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Women have it made. And with lesbians running such lower risks for contracting HIV, by Jerry Falwell's logic, they must be free of sin/chosen people.

[StaggerLee]

I love the google ads at the top of the page that accompany a thread like this one.

[guigsy]

i had to check this one out:

Everything Church Seats

Need A Church Toilet Seat? Low Prices and Fast Shipping

[Lazlo]

I need a church toilet seat. Preferably from the women's washroom. But beggars can't be choosers.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

At least you get a more delimited choice of spirochetes.

[d_rawk]

Since Catholic priests (even those in training, IIRC) have to be celibate, why should it matter whether they're heterosexual or homosexual? If someone takes a vow of celibacy, and then engages in sex*, he's broken the vow, regardless of the gender of the other person. I think it would be better of the Vatican to say priests should be nonsexual (or "asexual").

I *think* that this is actually the case. That is, that "non-practicing" homosexuals who have been "non-practicing" for x amount of time are fully able to be ordained by the church. Which actually makes this letter rather odd, because it seems like they are talking as much about eliminating the need of celibacy as they are advocating an acceptance of homosexuality. I'm all for that, too, but it seems like a different argument altogether.

This is the language of "deep-seated homosexuality" or "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" that is used by the vatican. The language itself is problematic. Sometimes it seems to mean - "those who keep fucking men even though we keep telling them not to". Sometimes it seems to mean - "those who keep wanting to fuck men, even though we tell them that they shouldn't want that". Sometimes it seems to mean - "those who have some sort of psychollogical or physical impairment, which is the only possible explanation we can think of for someone to want to fuck a man after we repeatedly pleaded with them to stop it".

I find the celibacy requirements of the Roman Catholics problematic to begin with, and think that it causes them all sorts of trouble. (and probably attracts people into the priesthood who are anxious to have celibacy imposed on them because there is something in their sexual behaviour/inclination that they are running away from).

Ack, that was my longwinded way of saying - I think it doesn't matter if they are homosexual or heterosexual, so long as they are celibate. But the seperate language of "deep-seated" allows the Church to make some rather arbitrary choices where it suits them to do so.