If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Vatican secretary of state says priestly celibacy is open to discussion. Quid agis, baby?   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 93
    More: Interesting, Cardinal Secretary of State, Pietro Parolin, Pope Francis, Vatican, Castel Gandolfo, Opus Dei, Teresa, rural-urban fringe  
•       •       •

2529 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Sep 2013 at 10:09 AM (31 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



93 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-11 08:33:28 AM
the first written mandate for chastity dates back to 304 C.E., when Canon 33 of the Council of Elvira

www.joblo.com

That seems especially cruel.
 
2013-09-11 09:02:56 AM

Sybarite: the first written mandate for chastity dates back to 304 C.E., when Canon 33 of the Council of Elvira

[www.joblo.com image 350x591]

That seems especially cruel.


Giddy-up.
 
2013-09-11 09:10:14 AM
I thought priests were celibate because they were supposed to be married to God. Which seems odd, since God is traditionally male in most Christian lore, and having male priests married to a male diety who sometimes manifests as a male son seems to be, at the very least, tacitly endorsing gay marriage. Gay bigamous marriage, in fact, which seems hypocritical on its face but is understandable when you think that God and Jesus are basically divine and so it's possible that strict definitions of "gay" might not necessarily apply to them. Or perhaps there's some sort of modified transubstantiation going on; like, whatever Jesus touches with his penis becomes a vagina or something like that. I won't pretend to understand how that works. It becomes more complicated, of course, when you also factor in the Holy Spirit thing. Granted, the Holy Spirit doesn't really have a gender, at least not that I'm aware of. I mean, I suppose the Holy Spirit could take whatever shape it wants to. It could be a man, a woman, whatever. Well, not whatever, I won't suggest any sort of animal because that would imply some weird perversion stuff that's probably not appropriate for such a sensitive topic. Or maybe the Holy Spirit doesn't take a shape at all. It just surrounds them, holds them up, keeps them secure like some ethereal cockring. Hm, have to check the scripture on that one.

But I was talking about priests getting married. See, they're already in a gay bigamous relationship with God/Jesus that, granted, may not be entirely gay but has the outward appearance of such. But now, add in a mortal woman (and it would obviously have to be a woman, because while there may be reasons that divine gay sex isn't gay, there's no way that regular sex with another person would not be gay, so a priest would have to marry a woman unless he happened to meet and fall in love some sort of actual demi-god with homosexual tendencies, like Thor or somebody like that). How has this not now become a tacit endorsement of polygamous marriage? Polygamous marriage with bisexual overtones?

There are issues here, that's all I'm saying. Prickly issues that I hope the Pope is prepared to address.
 
2013-09-11 09:17:07 AM
i wonder if this is a trial balloon from this increasingly (and awesomely) radical pope.

/atheist - don't have a dog in this fight
 
2013-09-11 09:38:20 AM

Pocket Ninja: I thought priests were celibate because they were supposed to be married to God. Which seems odd, since God is traditionally male in most Christian lore


I know it's a joke, but they're supposed to be married to the Church.  Which is the Bride of Christ.  But don't worry, it's not polyandry.  Priests are the alter Christus, the Other Christ.  I'm not joking, priests in the Catholic Church become Christ.  Just like the wine and wafer do.

I couldn't make that up.
 
2013-09-11 09:47:12 AM

FlashHarry: i wonder if this is a trial balloon from this increasingly (and awesomely) radical pope.

/atheist - don't have a dog in this fight


As long as their superstition makes laws, influences judges and lawmakers, and farks with society generally, you do have a dog in the fight.

"Radical"?  Hmm.

He has said women must have a greater role in the Church - but not as priests, that's just crazy talk.  They can be Sunday School teachers and charitable workers.  And nuns - slave labor, basically.  (Catholics who want to dispute that, don't come at me until you've spent time in a convent.  I have.)  So, basically, what they've always done.  IMHO, ordain women or stop baptizing them.

He's said being gay is not a choice, but gay behavior is still a sin and gays are to remain celibate.  Reforming?  No, that's in the damn catechism already.

He has required a religious order to use the mass as it's written, in the vernacular, without using Latin as their primary language.  Wow.  Real reformer there, I think that came in during Vatican II in the 60s.

In short, this guy is getting all kinds of props for being such a radical reformer, but he's talking the same old shiat, just with different words.  Suck his dick if you like.  But when he pisses on my boots, don't tell me he's the answer to a prayer for rain.
 
2013-09-11 09:52:47 AM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Pocket Ninja: I thought priests were celibate because they were supposed to be married to God. Which seems odd, since God is traditionally male in most Christian lore

I know it's a joke, but they're supposed to be married to the Church.  Which is the Bride of Christ.  But don't worry, it's not polyandry.  Priests are the alter Christus, the Other Christ.  I'm not joking, priests in the Catholic Church become Christ.  Just like the wine and wafer do.

I couldn't make that up.


Only during the administration of the Sacraments. Not the other 99.9% percent of the time.
Opus Dei is opposed. I'm shocked. Going to be a rough Papacy for those clowns.
Marriage is in, sex is still out? We'll see how that works out.
 
2013-09-11 09:57:44 AM

Benevolent Misanthrope: As long as their superstition makes laws, influences judges and lawmakers, and farks with society generally, you do have a dog in the fight.


well, sadly, you're right about that.

and as for "radical," perhaps he just seems radical when compared with his predecessors.
 
2013-09-11 10:11:53 AM

Quid agis, baby?


Bene optime. Et tu?

*waggles eyebrows*
 
2013-09-11 10:14:52 AM
They've been discussing it with altar boys for ages.
 
2013-09-11 10:15:21 AM

Englebert Slaptyback: Quid agis, baby?


Bene optime. Et tu?

*waggles eyebrows*


People called Romanes, they go, the house?
 
2013-09-11 10:16:09 AM
Dammit, just submitted this five minutes ago from another source.  :(

"The Vatican's number two man, Archbishop Pietro Parolin, to Catholic priests world wide; "Hey everybody, we're all gonna get laid" "
 
2013-09-11 10:16:19 AM
how hugely irrelevant in today's society

who honestly gives a fark? im sure you can be a terrible priest and shepherd of your flock and also be against marriage, and v.v.
 
2013-09-11 10:16:24 AM
It's odd that only the atheists have opinions over this. Most Catholics I speak to dont seem as entranced.
 
2013-09-11 10:16:52 AM
CATHOLIC THREAD .... let the hate flow.
 
2013-09-11 10:20:20 AM

Proteios1: It's odd that only the atheists have opinions over this. Most Catholics I speak to dont seem as entranced.


Decades of child sex abuse and the resulting cover ups didn't phase them much either.
 
2013-09-11 10:21:32 AM

Proteios1: It's odd that only the atheists have opinions over this. Most Catholics I speak to dont seem as entranced.


Well, we already have some married priests in the Church, Anglicans (IIRC) who joined after their church proved too liberal for them.
 
2013-09-11 10:22:05 AM
Subby you failed to mention the 45-image slideshow of Pope Francis kissing babies.

Lady J: how hugely irrelevant in today's society

who honestly gives a fark? im sure you can be a terrible priest and shepherd of your flock and also be against marriage, and v.v.


Irrelevant to people that aren't Catholics, perhaps.  There are, however, hundreds of millions of us, so there is some "news" in this story.  I like the idea of the Church giving up its tacit demonization of marriage, but then I'm also someone that doesn't see any theological reason to reject the idea that Jesus could have been married.
 
2013-09-11 10:22:11 AM

FlashHarry: i wonder if this is a trial balloon from this increasingly (and awesomely) radical pope.

/atheist - don't have a dog in this fight


This Pope isn't even remotely radical. He is saying exactly what the church teaches. The difference is how he is saying it. For some reason - and I'm not complaining - people want to listen to this one. Which is pretty awesome.
 
2013-09-11 10:22:36 AM

Pocket Ninja: I thought priests were celibate because they were supposed to be married to God.


I know thats the case for nuns, idk about friars / priests .
 
2013-09-11 10:22:56 AM
Benevolent Misanthrope:  [ snip ]
He has said women must have a greater role in the Church - but not as priests, that's just crazy talk.  They can be Sunday School teachers and charitable workers.  And nuns - slave labor, basically.  (Catholics who want to dispute that, don't come at me until you've spent time in a convent.  I have.)  So, basically, what they've always done.  IMHO, ordain women or stop baptizing them.


I don't disagree with the nun bit, but the labor is supposed to be part of their spiritual growth.  Monestaries take similar approaches, though they tend to be more commercially involved in the world than charitably.  The local monestary here has hella good eggs.

He's said being gay is not a choice, but gay behavior is still a sin and gays are to remain celibate.  Reforming?  No, that's in the damn catechism already.

The hilighted portion IS radical.  He also said being gay in and of itself isn't gay.  Don't forget the church has been "curing gay" for ages.  And the view of the church is and has always been that sex is for pro-creation, but you can have fun pro-creating.  Since the exchange of bodily fluid won't result in a baby, it's a sin.


He has required a religious order to use the mass as it's written, in the vernacular, without using Latin as their primary language. Wow. Real reformer there, I think that came in during Vatican II in the 60s.

I didn't even hear about that one.

In short, this guy is getting all kinds of props for being such a radical reformer, but he's talking the same old shiat, just with different words. Suck his dick if you like. But when he pisses on my boots, don't tell me he's the answer to a prayer for rain

He's slightly changing the wording which progresses to modern world views from say 1963.  That IS radical for the catholic church.  Especially considering their world view has been stuck on 1863 till now.

/Raised Episcopalian - the light alternative to Catholicism
 
2013-09-11 10:23:52 AM
My understanding was that the church instituted celibacy as a way of phasing out 'Family' churches, where they were run more or less like a family business with a son inherited the title and property. It was more or less a land grab.
 
2013-09-11 10:24:42 AM

factoryconnection: Subby you failed to mention the 45-image slideshow of Pope Francis kissing babies.

Lady J: how hugely irrelevant in today's society

who honestly gives a fark? im sure you can be a terrible priest and shepherd of your flock and also be against marriage, and v.v.

Irrelevant to people that aren't Catholics, perhaps.  There are, however, hundreds of millions of us, so there is some "news" in this story.  I like the idea of the Church giving up its tacit demonization of marriage, but then I'm also someone that doesn't see any theological reason to reject the idea that Jesus could have been married.


Well, there 1.2 billion Catholics worldwide. And marriage isn't exactly demonized, it is after all a Sacrament.
 
2013-09-11 10:28:46 AM
Celibacy was never too much of a big deal in the Middle Ages, it was more of a "don't ask, don't tell" thing, as many priests had 'housekeepers', that were usually their wives.

Celibacy was only pushed and practiced by archbishops and upwards, and priors of monasteries, as celibacy is a monastic vow.
 
2013-09-11 10:30:09 AM

Crewmannumber6: My understanding was that the church instituted celibacy as a way of phasing out 'Family' churches, where they were run more or less like a family business with a son inherited the title and property. It was more or less a land grab.


That's my understanding too.
 
2013-09-11 10:30:24 AM

simplicimus: Well, there 1.2 billion Catholics worldwide. And marriage isn't exactly demonized, it is after all a Sacrament.


1.2 billion that were baptized, but let's be honest here about the actual asses in pews on a regular basis.  Look at the difference between Easter mass and this Sunday.

What I'm saying is that the church does recognize marriage as a sacrament, the cornerstone of the healthy family and building block of society, and yet forbids it for the clergy and bristles at the idea that Jesus could have been married.  Why?  Cannot a married man devote himself also to his career?  Would it have made Jesus a sinner had he wed someone and even fathered children?  I thought that was not only "not sinful" but also Catholic 101: get married, have kids, lots of 'em.

It just doesn't make sense.

Crewmannumber6: It was more or less a land grab.


That has been my impression, too, but I'd hate to lock on to that because I might have gotten it from a Dan Brown novel.  I'm still trying to figure out the "no meat on Friday, but fish is just fine" and how that's even remotely a sacrifice nowadays.
 
2013-09-11 10:30:26 AM
The "married priests" thing is more Tradition and Reason than Scripture.

The latter cannot be changed but new understanding can be applied.

The changes do seem on the right track for Catholicism (from my liberal Protestant perspective), but certainly won't be enough for secular humanists.

I would like to see condom use permitted if one partner has AIDS and the other doesn't -- I understand Benedict came down pretty hard against that one.
 
2013-09-11 10:33:01 AM
Priests are supposed to be celibate? Then why are they always farking little kids?
 
2013-09-11 10:33:22 AM

stpickrell: The "married priests" thing is more Tradition and Reason than Scripture.

The latter cannot be changed but new understanding can be applied.

The changes do seem on the right track for Catholicism (from my liberal Protestant perspective), but certainly won't be enough for secular humanists.

I would like to see condom use permitted if one partner has AIDS and the other doesn't -- I understand Benedict came down pretty hard against that one.


what?!
 
2013-09-11 10:33:31 AM

mike_d85: /Raised Episcopalian - the light alternative to Catholicism


All of the ceremony, none of the guilt!
 
2013-09-11 10:34:14 AM

simplicimus: factoryconnection: Subby you failed to mention the 45-image slideshow of Pope Francis kissing babies.

Lady J: how hugely irrelevant in today's society

who honestly gives a fark? im sure you can be a terrible priest and shepherd of your flock and also be against marriage, and v.v.

Irrelevant to people that aren't Catholics, perhaps.  There are, however, hundreds of millions of us, so there is some "news" in this story.  I like the idea of the Church giving up its tacit demonization of marriage, but then I'm also someone that doesn't see any theological reason to reject the idea that Jesus could have been married.

Well, there 1.2 billion Catholics worldwide. And marriage isn't exactly demonized, it is after all a Sacrament.


100% Correct - the Church is ALL about marriage - in fact they have been critisized in the past about making it too difficult for a "good" Catholic to get out of an abusive marriage. "Good" in the sense of wanting to do exactly what the church commands - American Catholics will get divorced and just not remarry in the Church if they find someone else.

Priests CAN be married (there are married Roman Catholic priests) but they had to have been married as clergy in a different denomination and then convert to Catholicism - so obviously there is no "demonozation" of marriage.
 
2013-09-11 10:35:49 AM

abhorrent1: Priests are supposed to be celibate? Then why are they always farking little kids?


Because there's a marriage component to celibacy as well.
 
2013-09-11 10:36:37 AM

Jake Havechek: Celibacy was never too much of a big deal in the Middle Ages, it was more of a "don't ask, don't tell" thing, as many priests had 'housekeepers', that were usually their wives.

Celibacy was only pushed and practiced by archbishops and upwards, and priors of monasteries, as celibacy is a monastic vow.


Well. celibacy (not married) was observed during the middle ages, but chastity (no sex) not so much. IIRC one of the Medici Popes was the grandson of another. I think Chaucer points to the lack of chastity in the Monks Tale (Friars Tale?)
 
2013-09-11 10:37:57 AM

Crewmannumber6: My understanding was that the church instituted celibacy as a way of phasing out 'Family' churches, where they were run more or less like a family business with a son inherited the title and property. It was more or less a land grab.


tinfoilhatman45.files.wordpress.com

It's outdated and unnatural.  And it needs to end.

/open the priesthood to women as well
 
2013-09-11 10:38:22 AM

mike_d85: Raised Episcopalian - the light alternative to Catholicism


hey, me too!

/well, C of E, but the same thing.
 
2013-09-11 10:38:31 AM

simplicimus: Jake Havechek: Celibacy was never too much of a big deal in the Middle Ages, it was more of a "don't ask, don't tell" thing, as many priests had 'housekeepers', that were usually their wives.

Celibacy was only pushed and practiced by archbishops and upwards, and priors of monasteries, as celibacy is a monastic vow.

Well. celibacy (not married) was observed during the middle ages, but chastity (no sex) not so much. IIRC one of the Medici Popes was the grandson of another. I think Chaucer points to the lack of chastity in the Monks Tale (Friars Tale?)


Well, like it is now, most religious orders are steeped in hypocrisy.
 
2013-09-11 10:38:53 AM

Sum Guye: Crewmannumber6: My understanding was that the church instituted celibacy as a way of phasing out 'Family' churches, where they were run more or less like a family business with a son inherited the title and property. It was more or less a land grab.

That's my understanding too.


On top of that:
Back in the day, noble families would have their younger/est son join the priesthood, in order to suck up to the Church for support in controlling the peasants.  The Church got annoyed that these rich kids would have families and leave their money to them.

So they figured hey, if they can't get married, they'll have to leave all their money to the church.
 
2013-09-11 10:39:13 AM

gnosis301: abhorrent1: Priests are supposed to be celibate? Then why are they always farking little kids?

Because there's a marriage component to celibacy as well.


Celibacy means not married. Chastity means no sex. Both are vows priests take.
 
2013-09-11 10:40:08 AM
A new monk arrives at the monastery. He is assigned to help the other monks in copying the old texts by hand. He notices, however, that they are copying copies, and not the original books.
So, the new monk goes to the head monk to ask him about this. He points out that if there was an error in the first copy, that error would be continued in all of the other copies. The head monk says, "We have been copying from the copies for centuries, but you make a good point, my son."
So, he goes down into the cellar with one of the copies to check it against the original. Hours later, nobody has seen him. So, one of the monks goes downstairs to look for him. He hears sobbing coming from the back of the cellar and finds the old monk leaning over one of the original books crying. He asks what's wrong.

"The word is  celebrate not  celibate," says the old monk with tears in his eyes.
 
2013-09-11 10:41:33 AM

Proteios1: It's odd that only the atheists have opinions over this. Most Catholics I speak to dont seem as entranced.


Catholics have a history of not questioning or discussing things.
 
2013-09-11 10:41:54 AM

Jake Havechek: simplicimus: Jake Havechek: Celibacy was never too much of a big deal in the Middle Ages, it was more of a "don't ask, don't tell" thing, as many priests had 'housekeepers', that were usually their wives.

Celibacy was only pushed and practiced by archbishops and upwards, and priors of monasteries, as celibacy is a monastic vow.

Well. celibacy (not married) was observed during the middle ages, but chastity (no sex) not so much. IIRC one of the Medici Popes was the grandson of another. I think Chaucer points to the lack of chastity in the Monks Tale (Friars Tale?)

Well, like it is now, most religious orders are steeped in hypocrisy.


Actually, "rules for thee but not for me" is pretty much part of human nature. (Not defending hypocrisy.)
 
2013-09-11 10:43:25 AM
Jake Havechek:
Well, like it is now, most entities who are fond of telling consenting adults what they're doing wrong are steeped in hypocrisy.

ftfy
 
2013-09-11 10:43:55 AM

Lady J: stpickrell: The "married priests" thing is more Tradition and Reason than Scripture.

The latter cannot be changed but new understanding can be applied.

The changes do seem on the right track for Catholicism (from my liberal Protestant perspective), but certainly won't be enough for secular humanists.

I would like to see condom use permitted if one partner has AIDS and the other doesn't -- I understand Benedict came down pretty hard against that one.

what?!


Yeah.  He said condoms were not acceptable.  Period.  If you have AIDS, you should be celibate.  If you don't know you have AIDS, and infect someone, well, you shouldn't have been promiscuous.  But birth control in any form is wrong.  Condoms included.

Catholics don't seem to get the supreme hubris of a man who sheltered and aided priest child rapists dictating that using a condom to prevent a deadly disease is immoral.
 
2013-09-11 10:44:08 AM

Detinwolf: Proteios1: It's odd that only the atheists have opinions over this. Most Catholics I speak to dont seem as entranced.

Catholics have a history of not questioning or discussing things.


Heh. Maybe in the Southern Hemisphere.
 
2013-09-11 10:48:09 AM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Lady J: stpickrell: The "married priests" thing is more Tradition and Reason than Scripture.

The latter cannot be changed but new understanding can be applied.

The changes do seem on the right track for Catholicism (from my liberal Protestant perspective), but certainly won't be enough for secular humanists.

I would like to see condom use permitted if one partner has AIDS and the other doesn't -- I understand Benedict came down pretty hard against that one.

what?!

Yeah.  He said condoms were not acceptable.  Period.  If you have AIDS, you should be celibate.  If you don't know you have AIDS, and infect someone, well, you shouldn't have been promiscuous.  But birth control in any form is wrong.  Condoms included.

Catholics don't seem to get the supreme hubris of a man who sheltered and aided priest child rapists dictating that using a condom to prevent a deadly disease is immoral.


HOW! HOW! HOW do these people still have so much influence? the world isnt peopled by ignorant serfs anymore!

IT MAKES ME SO MAD!!!!! obviously
 
2013-09-11 10:48:14 AM

Jake Havechek: Celibacy was only pushed and practiced by archbishops and upwards, and priors of monasteries, as celibacy is a monastic vow.


OK, that has got to be trollbait.

The higher up in the Church one was, the more likely they had a mistress on the side, and they were kept in the manner of a woman married to a man of equal social rank.  Jesus.  If you're going to talk about history, which is easily checked, at least pretend to know what you're talking about.
 
2013-09-11 10:52:34 AM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Jake Havechek: Celibacy was only pushed and practiced by archbishops and upwards, and priors of monasteries, as celibacy is a monastic vow.

OK, that has got to be trollbait.

The higher up in the Church one was, the more likely they had a mistress on the side, and they were kept in the manner of a woman married to a man of equal social rank.  Jesus.  If you're going to talk about history, which is easily checked, at least pretend to know what you're talking about.


For the third time in this thread, I will note that celibate means not married, chastity means no sex.
 
2013-09-11 10:55:48 AM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Yeah. He said condoms were not acceptable. Period. If you have AIDS, you should be celibate. If you don't know you have AIDS, and infect someone, well, you shouldn't have been promiscuous. But birth control in any form is wrong. Condoms included.


That is not as I remember it, which as it turns out is because that isn't what was reported or put out by the Church.  What it boiled down to is that the plague of AIDS, especially in Africa made it clear that preventing the spread was so needed that it could outweigh the otherwise hard-and-fast prohibition on condom use.

Don't ask me to defend the prohibition on condom use; it doesn't make any sense to me that a married couple shouldn't be able to time babby formation to personal need, and it isn't like it could even be imagined to be an abortifacient (like some have imagined the pill to be).
 
2013-09-11 10:56:32 AM

Lady J: HOW! HOW! HOW do these people still have so much influence? the world isnt peopled by ignorant serfs anymore!

IT MAKES ME SO MAD!!!!! obviously


Because they have created a servile class.  All religion does.  People who believe that this life is irrelevant, because their immortal soul is more important.  They believe that they must obey, or their future eternity will be miserable.  They place their trust in priests and preachers whose sole purpose is to make money, and to make more servile people.  Religion is so socially ingrained, its pretty amazing.  People just automaticall think anything religious is good.  It's been a art of social development for a long, long time.

Seriously, it's been going on for millennia, but it's only been fairly recently (in the last several hundred years) that people have started standing up and saying, "You know, this smells alot like bullshiat..." and even more recently that it's been socially acceptable (though that's still up for debate) to not believe at all.

They used to burn people alive for saying things like this.  That the bread and wine don't turn into the living Jesus when the priests blesses them.  Or for owning Bibles in their own language.  And the guy who did that, Thomas More, was recently made a Doctor of the Church - meaning, the Catholic Church has certified him as a kind of super-saint, that all of his teachings are right and true and totally suitable for Catholics to follow.

There's all kinds of evil to religion, Catholicism included.  Unfortunately, most people are too indoctrinated to look at it objectively.
 
2013-09-11 10:57:05 AM

Englebert Slaptyback: Quid agis, baby?


Bene optime. Et tu?

*waggles eyebrows*



hic venit in omnem breacts electronicarum petitiónes....
 
Displayed 50 of 93 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report