Ask a Catholic

[Randy Carson]

Agreed. Pick whatever one you like, in whatever order.

A heads up. Some stuff may be a bit touchy. I'll let you know when I'm getting worked up and take a break to cool off. Don't want to lash out or turn this into a flame war.

I'm glad you agreed to this, btw. I hope we can have some discussion.

Me, too.

[Chas]

And your evidence for that assertion is ... ?

More than you realize.

That was a cowardly dodge. Try presenting it. I'll wait.

[Randy Carson]

Ok, that was very in depth. Thanks.

Now, I fully understand that you are not a Catholic, not a Christian and not even a theist. However, what I have just shown is that Catholic thought on the subject of celibacy is consistent with with the Bible which Catholics believe to be the inspired Word of God. Consequently, the discipline of celibacy is consistent with the teachings of scripture. Is it your opinion that the Catholic Church is being inconsistent in any way?

If not, are there any other objections you have to priestly celibacy freely accepted as a gift by those to whom it is given?

I didn't mean it was contradicting the scripture, but thanks for clarifying that.

The problems I see with celibacy:

~it is applied to people who are supposed to be an authority in terms of marriage and family.

It seems to me that priests aren't qualified to speak as an authority on people's personal lives if they haven't got the experience needed to give advice.

I know you will say that they derive what they teach from the bible-fair enough. But there are still matters which aren't addressed in the bible, as they became problematic with changes in society. I don't think that what applied to Bronze Age Jews can be applied to today's families and marriages.

For instance, there's a lot about striking your son with a rod. Metaphorical? I'd believe it, if it wasn't mentioned so many times.

I think there are a lot of issues married couples and parents might have that priests can't comment on.

Does a physician need to have experienced a heart attack himself in order to give advice about diet and exercise as it relates to lowering your cholesterol? Does a counselor need to have been a heroin addict herself in order to advise a junkie about the dangers of unclean hypodermic needles?

I'm not trying to make light of this objection...I have heard it before from Protestants who also object to the celibacy of Catholic priests...I'm simply saying that the clinical psychiatrist with a PhD in family counseling might never have experienced ALL of the problems that his patients may discuss in his office, but that doesn't mean he's not able to effectively provide solutions to those who are hurting...even if he IS wearing a collar.

~it's unhealthy

I am certainly not denying there are people who would gladly be celibate and feel no ill effects of it.  But overall, to many it may be damaging.

Those who abstain (wilfully,  might I add) from sex have a death rate twice as high as those who don't. Having sex reduces risk if heart disease,  depression and improves the immune system.

Repression of sexual urges, even wilful, leads to higher risk of aggression and crime. There is a link between it and insensitivity.

Well, these things might be true, I suppose, under normal circumstances. But we're talking about men whom, it may be presumed, are responding to a call from GOD. And if God calls, He also grants the grace.

~it attracts the wrong kind of people

To a sexually repressed individual, celibacy appears tempting. Many who become priests are already involuntarily sexually repressed. This may lead to incidents such as sexual harassment or even child abuse in the case of sexually repressed pedophiles. Of course this in no way applies to all celibate priests, but it is an issue.

You will get no argument from me here. I was a candidate at a Trappist monastery for five years, and I did meet with the vocation director of the Archdiocese of Atlanta when I was a student there. So, I had a little insight into what was required for entrance into the religious life or priesthood. Let me just say that psychological profiling is an important component of candidate evaluation and - in light of all that has gone on with regard to the pedophile priest scandal - an even more significant factor today than in the past.

I can assure you that seminaries and monasteries do NOT want men who are anything less than 100% healthy, happy and well-adjusted because religious life is no escape. If anything, it is a pressure cooker that turns UP the heat...not down.

That's all I can think of right now, off the top of my head.

Great. Let me know if you have any further thoughts on this post.

[Randy Carson]

Who cares ... I'm not married, and yet I've never once ever thought about committing a despicable act like raping a child. But it's not even the pedophilia itself that I find the most problematic, it's all the senior church officials who protected these predators and created a culture where this grotesque treatment of children was allowed to thrive.

I've addressed this repeatedly, so there is no need to repeat what I've said in this thread and elsewhere. However, I would like to ask one question:

How, precisely, did the senior officials of the Catholic Church create a culture in which the abuse of children was allowed to thrive?

You tell me that yours is a church guided by a holy spirit, but how can any reasonable mind view this behavior as consistent with the idea of divine guidance (much less guidance by a benevolent and loving deity)? Fucking ridiculous.

Why is this difficult? It is not Catholic doctrine that individual priests and bishops are infallible (prevented from teaching error) nor are they impeccable (faultless, free from all sin).

These were individuals who made sinful choices of their own free will apart from and in opposition to the teaching of the Church and the will of God.

[Jenny A]

Ok, that was very in depth. Thanks.

Now, I fully understand that you are not a Catholic, not a Christian and not even a theist. However, what I have just shown is that Catholic thought on the subject of celibacy is consistent with with the Bible which Catholics believe to be the inspired Word of God. Consequently, the discipline of celibacy is consistent with the teachings of scripture. Is it your opinion that the Catholic Church is being inconsistent in any way?

If not, are there any other objections you have to priestly celibacy freely accepted as a gift by those to whom it is given?

I didn't mean it was contradicting the scripture, but thanks for clarifying that.

The problems I see with celibacy:

---

~it is applied to people who are supposed to be an authority in terms of marriage and family.

It seems to me that priests aren't qualified to speak as an authority on people's personal lives if they haven't got the experience needed to give advice.

I know you will say that they derive what they teach from the bible-fair enough. But there are still matters which aren't addressed in the bible, as they became problematic with changes in society. I don't think that what applied to Bronze Age Jews can be applied to today's families and marriages.

For instance, there's a lot about striking your son with a rod. Metaphorical? I'd believe it, if it wasn't mentioned so many times.

I think there are a lot of issues married couples and parents might have that priests can't comment on.

---

~it's unhealthy

I am certainly not denying there are people who would gladly be celibate and feel no ill effects of it.  But overall, to many it may be damaging.

Those who abstain (wilfully,  might I add) from sex have a death rate twice as high as those who don't. Having sex reduces risk if heart disease,  depression and improves the immune system.

Repression of sexual urges, even wilful, leads to higher risk of aggression and crime. There is a link between it and insensitivity.

---

~it attracts the wrong kind of people

To a sexually repressed individual, celibacy appears tempting. Many who become priests are already involuntarily sexually repressed. This may lead to incidents such as sexual harassment or even child abuse in the case of sexually repressed pedophiles. Of course this in no way applies to all celibate priests, but it is an issue.


That's all I can think of right now, off the top of my head.

---

You can add that frequent ejaculation (three to five times a week) reduces the risk of prostate cancer by one third.  That's not insignificant. http://www.menshealth.com/sex-women/mast...-every-day  Why would a benevolent god encourages behavior that puts a man's health at risk?

I find it particularly interesting because it is such an about face from the OT which strongly encourages sex and being fruitful and multiplying.

[Randy Carson]

Ok, that was very in depth. Thanks.


I didn't mean it was contradicting the scripture, but thanks for clarifying that.

The problems I see with celibacy:

---

~it is applied to people who are supposed to be an authority in terms of marriage and family.

It seems to me that priests aren't qualified to speak as an authority on people's personal lives if they haven't got the experience needed to give advice.

I know you will say that they derive what they teach from the bible-fair enough. But there are still matters which aren't addressed in the bible, as they became problematic with changes in society. I don't think that what applied to Bronze Age Jews can be applied to today's families and marriages.

For instance, there's a lot about striking your son with a rod. Metaphorical? I'd believe it, if it wasn't mentioned so many times.

I think there are a lot of issues married couples and parents might have that priests can't comment on.

---

~it's unhealthy

I am certainly not denying there are people who would gladly be celibate and feel no ill effects of it.  But overall, to many it may be damaging.

Those who abstain (wilfully,  might I add) from sex have a death rate twice as high as those who don't. Having sex reduces risk if heart disease,  depression and improves the immune system.

Repression of sexual urges, even wilful, leads to higher risk of aggression and crime. There is a link between it and insensitivity.

---

~it attracts the wrong kind of people

To a sexually repressed individual, celibacy appears tempting. Many who become priests are already involuntarily sexually repressed. This may lead to incidents such as sexual harassment or even child abuse in the case of sexually repressed pedophiles. Of course this in no way applies to all celibate priests, but it is an issue.


That's all I can think of right now, off the top of my head.

---

You can add that frequent ejaculation (three to five times a week) reduces the risk of prostate cancer by one third.  That's not insignificant. http://www.menshealth.com/sex-women/mast...-every-day  Why would a benevolent god encourages behavior that puts a man's health at risk?

I find it particularly interesting because it is such an about face from the OT which strongly encourages sex and being fruitful and multiplying.

Jenny, the Catholic Church has been around for 2,000 years. Today, there are 1.2 billion of us. We've been fruitful and we've multiplied. I don't think having a few celibate priests sitting on the sidelines has caused us to miss our quotas.

As for your first point, some of the guys here may be troubled to read this from WebMD:

WebMD News Archive

Jan. 27, 2009 -- Frequent masturbation in young men is linked to higher risk of early prostate cancer, but it lowers prostate cancer risk for men in their 50s, a study shows.

High levels of male sex hormones, or androgens, may increase a man's risk of prostate cancer. But different studies of this question, done in different ways, have reached different conclusions.

[Jenny A]

Jenny, the Catholic Church has been around for 2,000 years. Today, there are 1.2 billion of us. We've been fruitful and we've multiplied. I don't think having a few celibate priests sitting on the sidelines has caused us to miss our quotas.

As for your first point, some of the guys here may be troubled to read this from WebMD:

WebMD News Archive

Jan. 27, 2009 -- Frequent masturbation in young men is linked to higher risk of early prostate cancer, but it lowers prostate cancer risk for men in their 50s, a study shows.

High levels of male sex hormones, or androgens, may increase a man's risk of prostate cancer. But different studies of this question, done in different ways, have reached different conclusions.

I'm not worried about running out of Catholics, you guys and the Mormons are infamous for fertility.   I'm merely commenting that Jesus said, don't marry unless you really have to and the OT encourages marriage.  It's just one more rupture between the OT and NT that suggest you've got different god's there.

As to prostate cancer your 2009 study was small just 834 men.  The Harvard study ending in 2003 was massive and comprehensive using 29,000 men. IT and the Australian study using 2300 men reached the conclusion that frequent ejaculation does reduce prostate cancer risk by 36% or there abouts. http://www.harvardprostateknowledge.org/...ate-cancer  http://urology.jhu.edu/newsletter/prosta...cer712.php

[Randy Carson]

Jenny, the Catholic Church has been around for 2,000 years. Today, there are 1.2 billion of us. We've been fruitful and we've multiplied. I don't think having a few celibate priests sitting on the sidelines has caused us to miss our quotas.

As for your first point, some of the guys here may be troubled to read this from WebMD:

WebMD News Archive

Jan. 27, 2009 -- Frequent masturbation in young men is linked to higher risk of early prostate cancer, but it lowers prostate cancer risk for men in their 50s, a study shows.

High levels of male sex hormones, or androgens, may increase a man's risk of prostate cancer. But different studies of this question, done in different ways, have reached different conclusions.

I'm not worried about running out of Catholics, you guys and the Mormons are infamous for fertility.   I'm merely commenting that Jesus said, don't marry unless you really have to [emphasis added] and the OT encourages marriage.  It's just one more rupture between the OT and NT that suggest you've got different god's there.

First, did you mean Paul and not Jesus above?

As to prostate cancer your 2009 study was small just 834 men.  The Harvard study ending in 2003 was massive and comprehensive using 29,000 men.  IT and the Australian study using 2300 men reached the conclusion that frequent ejaculation does reduce prostate cancer risk by 36% or there abouts. http://www.harvardprostateknowledge.org/...ate-cancer  http://urology.jhu.edu/newsletter/prosta...cer712.php

Hey, I have no problem with frequent...um...orgasm. I'll bring this study to my wife's attention later this evening. Thanks.

[Longhorn]

Does a physician need to have experienced a heart attack himself in order to give advice about diet and exercise as it relates to lowering your cholesterol? Does a counselor need to have been a heroin addict herself in order to advise a junkie about the dangers of unclean hypodermic needles?

I'm not trying to make light of this objection...I have heard it before from Protestants who also object to the celibacy of Catholic priests...I'm simply saying that the clinical psychiatrist with a PhD in family counseling might never have experienced ALL of the problems that his patients may discuss in his office, but that doesn't mean he's not able to effectively provide solutions to those who are hurting...even if he IS wearing a collar.

Of course not. But they have received appropriate training, whereas priests have not. Their knowledge about marriage and family is restricted to the bible, which as I mentioned, doesn't address everything and contains outdated views that don't apply to today's families.

Next, I see a slight contradiction here

Well, these things might be true, I suppose, under normal circumstances. But we're talking about men whom, it may be presumed, are responding to a call from GOD. And if God calls, He also grants the grace.

And

You will get no argument from me here. I was a candidate at a Trappist monastery for five years, and I did meet with the vocation director of the Archdiocese of Atlanta when I was a student there. So, I had a little insight into what was required for entrance into the religious life or priesthood. Let me just say that psychological profiling is an important component of candidate evaluation and - in light of all that has gone on with regard to the pedophile priest scandal - an even more significant factor today than in the past.

I can assure you that seminaries and monasteries do NOT want men who are anything less than 100% healthy, happy and well-adjusted because religious life is no escape. If anything, it is a pressure cooker that turns UP the heat...not down.

That does not compute. If god calls, why does priesthood attract inappropriate people? Why is psychological profiling needed?

Are you saying that the negative biological and psychological effects of celibacy are not present because god ensures they do not occur? IOW, is god making sure that priests are fit for priesthood? Why the profiling then, and whence cometh the pedophile priests?

It appears contradictory that god allegedly gets rid of the side effects of celibacy, yet calls the wrong people all the time.

Also, I found this interesting, coming from a former priest:

---

One of the most unrecognized temptations faced by the vowed celibate is loneliness. This may sound contrary to the last point, because celibates interact with people through their various ministries. How can one be lonely when one is surrounded by people?

The loneliness of celibacy can be due to the inability to form exclusive relationships. Think of it this way: a single person called to marriage can experience loneliness even though such a person is in school or works with people and has friendships.

What marriage offers people is not simply company in a given moment, but the gift of shared memories and shared goals as a relationship is built over time. Married people do not experience the loneliness of a celibate. Some celibates are tempted to fill this hole from time to time with sexual pleasure.

I suspect that one of the reasons heterosexual priests break their vows is that they are called to priesthood, but were never called to celibacy. The two vocations are not identical.

---

I'm relieved to find out about the requirements, though. That is a good practice.

[Cyberman]

Even if the 2009 study is accurate and the findings conclusive, the increases risk would be from orgasm and ejaculation, not the masturbation. Genitals don't care what causes orgasm, even if the owner does.