Celibacy

Originally posted by twhitehead
Its only wasted if your sole aim is to remain celibate. I don't think that is the sole aim of Catholic priests (or most other people who choose to remain celibate). Even if they turned into sex maniacs after 20 years, I still don't think they would consider their 20 years of celibacy a waste.

[b]Sex is for the younger people .
I disagree, and so t ...[text shortened]... any car accidents and liver damage, I would probably say 'drink as much as you like!'.[/b]

ok.
We dont all have the same goals, it seems.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am not Roman Catholic, but I think it is a stupid rule to go along
with some of their other stupid rules.

it was not a stupid rule at the time it was introduced. as preists were sent to some inhospitable places the thinking was not to send familys so you could not send married priests that may have or going to have children, they were sent with one thought preach the gospel, it may be outdated but i understand the thinking behind it.
but today with the abuse cases they indicate that that may avert this sadly i doubt it as abuse happens within family life by men and women
i have no problem with them marrying as a anglican

Originally posted by twhitehead
So what is at the root of sexual abuse in all the other Churches?

I for one have never seen any evidence that sexual abuse is higher in churches with Celibate priests than in Churches with married priest. Can you provide any evidence that suggests that is the case?

There is no evidence I'm afraid, for it has never been examened thouroughly by independent institutions.
All I have are a few interviews in the dutch newspapers with some priest who suggest celibacy could well be part of the problem, or more then a part, in a somewhat sectarian enviroment.
And there are tons of studies around about sexual suppression.

Originally posted by stoker
it was not a stupid rule at the time it was introduced. as preists were sent to some inhospitable places the thinking was not to send familys so you could not send married priests that may have or going to have children, they were sent with one thought preach the gospel, it may be outdated but i understand the thinking behind it.
but today with the abuse cas ...[text shortened]... happens within family life by men and women
i have no problem with them marrying as a anglican

I still think it was a stupid rule because of the unreasonable logic used
by the Roman Catholics at that time, but that has been a trend for
the Roman Catholic leadership for centuries.

Originally posted by stoker
it was not a stupid rule at the time it was introduced. as preists were sent to some inhospitable places the thinking was not to send familys so you could not send married priests that may have or going to have children, they were sent with one thought preach the gospel, it may be outdated but i understand the thinking behind it.

I very much doubt that had anything to do with it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I very much doubt that had anything to do with it.

well i learnt it a lot of years ago too many to remember where and when. as it was practice to marry, do remember the time they voted on it if you went half way round the world to preach some would give thier lives. it was not easy to avoid the perils

Originally posted by stoker
well i learnt it a lot of years ago too many to remember where and when. as it was practice to marry, do remember the time they voted on it if you went half way round the world to preach some would give thier lives. it was not easy to avoid the perils

Peter was married and the Roman Catholics claim he was the first Pope.
So to make a rule that priests can not get married makes no sense from
my way of thinking. It is not supported by the Holy Bible. Even Paul's
choice to not get married does not support such a rule for priests.

Originally posted by stoker
it was not a stupid rule at the time it was introduced. as preists were sent to some inhospitable places the thinking was not to send familys so you could not send married priests that may have or going to have children, they were sent with one thought preach the gospel, it may be outdated but i understand the thinking behind it.
but today with the abuse cas ...[text shortened]... happens within family life by men and women
i have no problem with them marrying as a anglican

Actually the main reason was financial.
The priests had no family to inherit so everything they had went back to the church.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Actually the main reason was financial.
The priests had no family to inherit so everything they had went back to the church.

Now that makes a little more sense to me, since it it is clear it violates
the command of God to be fruitful and multiply. It has no Christian
idea at all behind it that I can see.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Now that makes a little more sense to me, since it it is clear it violates
the command of God to be fruitful and multiply. It has no Christian
idea at all behind it that I can see.

Not in your denomination of Christianity, but relatively speaking yours is very recent.
The Catholic church is vastly older.

One of the reasons I get amused when people claim (particularly in the USA) that
x% (big number) of the population is Christian, and they have lumped all the
different denominations together (often including Mormons to boot) ignoring the fact
that all the denominations are different.

I would point out for example that a lot of what you say about your religion is very
different from the C of E descriptions of Christianity.

This of course makes it all the easier to see you don't have divine truth when none of
you can agree on them.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Actually the main reason was financial.
The priests had no family to inherit so everything they had went back to the church.

Celibacy is a much older practice than you and stoker seem to realize.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Celibacy is a much older practice than you and stoker seem to realize.

I was talking about the reasons for it being mandated in Catholicism rather than its existence in religion
at all.

Most religion's are obsessed about death and sex, because if you want your message and services to be
as widely adopted as possible you go for things that everyone does/wants/fears.

Thus by putting the religion at the heart of peoples sex lives the church gains as much power as possible.

If everyone has to get married in your church before they are allowed to have sex, and you have to be
considered a a good believer to get married you have them by the balls so to speak.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Peter was married and the Roman Catholics claim he was the first Pope.
So to make a rule that priests can not get married makes no sense from
my way of thinking. It is not supported by the Holy Bible. Even Paul's
choice to not get married does not support such a rule for priests.

the vote was brought in a lot later, after they were all dead. historicaly there is no problem just a change in church law, not gods law which is sacrosanct.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Celibacy is a much older practice than you and stoker seem to realize.

celibacy is older than we are talking about, but we are discussing roman catholic church law, which is set because they had to vote on it and its recorded.