Holy S**t! Pope resigns

That's probably better attributed to Stengah, not me.

My fiance used to work for the Dominican Order. Apparently the priests would all get together and watch Queer as Folk. She was blindsided by the fact that most of them were gay, but, as has been mentioned, in the 60s or 70s, what choices did a gay Catholic man have? Coming out wasn't really an option. You could marry a woman you felt no attraction towards and try to start a family, or you could go hang out with a bunch of men like yourself. Not an enviable position, but a fairly easy decision.

mudbunny wrote:
LarryC wrote:

It's not particularly strange if you think about it. If you're really serious about being Catholic and you're gay, you can't have sex. That removes one of the downsides of priesthood in the same stroke, so it's not particularly surprising to me that there would be a lot of gay priests.

I suppose it hasn't occured to many of them to just abandon the faith; or maybe that's too big of a step to make. Who knows?

If a heterosexual person can hear the call (as it is described) and give up their sexuality, why is it surprising that a homosexual person can as well?

LarryC wrote:

That's probably better attributed to Stengah, not me.

Not really. Like I said in my post, the fact that there are gay priests isn't surprising to me, just that there were enough of them working in the Vatican to make their own faction.

Analysis of the Papal Election process. How easy would it be to hack the vote? (Spoiler -- difficult. But it's getting harder to ensure that nobody eavesdrops on the process.)

It's not particularly strange if you think about it. If you're really serious about being Catholic and you're gay, you can't have sex. That removes one of the downsides of priesthood in the same stroke, so it's not particularly surprising to me that there would be a lot of gay priests.

A friend of mine entered a Catholic seminary in Baltimore in the late 70's or so, and the atmosphere of (often coercive) sexual relationships between priests and candidates (as well as priests and priests, and priests and nuns) was so toxic that he gave up his ambition of being a priest at all. He went to college instead; he was not willing to "play" to pass his courses at the seminary. His conversations over the years with others in the Church at the time indicated that this was not unusual for the time. Apparently, at least in the US, a vow of celibacy is not always honored. And if you believe Boccacio, and many others, that's been true throughout history.

I think it can be a mistake to believe that those priests (and nuns) are not having sex. This is reinforced by personal accounts of life in the Church that I've heard over the years.

People shouldn't be shocked by any of this. The Pope literally worked at covering up scandals before becoming the Pope. The shocking part is any of this becoming public or semi-public. Maybe the church will change after this.

Whew. Ok. Enough of that.

The important thing is that these people's opinions on sex and orientation is super important, both for are nation and the entire world.

DSGamer wrote:

People shouldn't be shocked by any of this. The Pope literally worked at covering up scandals before becoming the Pope. The shocking part is any of this becoming public or semi-public. Maybe the church will change after this.

Whew. Ok. Enough of that.

Possible? Sure. Probably? No. Even if they elected, say, Ravasi, I doubt the kind of change many of us would like to see would take place.

As a non-believer, I'm of two minds here: on the one hand, I'd love to see the RCC move into the 21st century with regards to women's rights, reproductive issues, separation of church and state (as a broad concept, not simply a 1st Amendment issue), and embracing of science. On the other hand, part of me would revel in thick, juicy schadenfreude if they elected another regressive, staunch conservative who could further send the Church into irrelevancy.

Nicholaas wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

People shouldn't be shocked by any of this. The Pope literally worked at covering up scandals before becoming the Pope. The shocking part is any of this becoming public or semi-public. Maybe the church will change after this.

Whew. Ok. Enough of that.

Possible? Sure. Probably? No. Even if they elected, say, Ravasi, I doubt the kind of change many of us would like to see would take place.

As a non-believer, I'm of two minds here: on the one hand, I'd love to see the RCC move into the 21st century with regards to women's rights, reproductive issues, separation of church and state (as a broad concept, not simply a 1st Amendment issue), and embracing of science. On the other hand, part of me would revel in thick, juicy schadenfreude if they elected another regressive, staunch conservative who could further send the Church into irrelevancy.

Irrelevancy is relative. I think the more likely scenario would be that it continues its downward trajectory in socially advanced, educated countries and banks on expansion in dark holes of primative superstition that are easily impressed with the "magic" of western medicine.

My wife and I talk quite a bit about who's going to pancake first: Pop Warner football or the Catholic church. I still say Pop Warner because I think the concussion thing is more visible than abuse but man, the church is trying very hard to prove me wrong.

At this point, I can't help but wonder how many recent Popes (Popeses? Popi?) abused kids as well and were just never caught.

Robear wrote:
It's not particularly strange if you think about it. If you're really serious about being Catholic and you're gay, you can't have sex. That removes one of the downsides of priesthood in the same stroke, so it's not particularly surprising to me that there would be a lot of gay priests.

A friend of mine entered a Catholic seminary in Baltimore in the late 70's or so, and the atmosphere of (often coercive) sexual relationships between priests and candidates (as well as priests and priests, and priests and nuns) was so toxic that he gave up his ambition of being a priest at all. He went to college instead; he was not willing to "play" to pass his courses at the seminary. His conversations over the years with others in the Church at the time indicated that this was not unusual for the time. Apparently, at least in the US, a vow of celibacy is not always honored. And if you believe Boccacio, and many others, that's been true throughout history.

I think it can be a mistake to believe that those priests (and nuns) are not having sex. This is reinforced by personal accounts of life in the Church that I've heard over the years.

As I understand it, it's basically an everyday occurence in Rome to see priests courting each other.

The celibacy requirement is deeply unhealthy, and is something the church should get rid of. It plainly doesn't work for a lot of people, and creates a toxic atmosphere of secrecy around even healthy sexual urgues, creating room for predators.

The irony being that it was originally instituted so that church property wouldn't be passed on as inheritance to the families of priests.

Alien Love Gardener wrote:
Robear wrote:
It's not particularly strange if you think about it. If you're really serious about being Catholic and you're gay, you can't have sex. That removes one of the downsides of priesthood in the same stroke, so it's not particularly surprising to me that there would be a lot of gay priests.

A friend of mine entered a Catholic seminary in Baltimore in the late 70's or so, and the atmosphere of (often coercive) sexual relationships between priests and candidates (as well as priests and priests, and priests and nuns) was so toxic that he gave up his ambition of being a priest at all. He went to college instead; he was not willing to "play" to pass his courses at the seminary. His conversations over the years with others in the Church at the time indicated that this was not unusual for the time. Apparently, at least in the US, a vow of celibacy is not always honored. And if you believe Boccacio, and many others, that's been true throughout history.

I think it can be a mistake to believe that those priests (and nuns) are not having sex. This is reinforced by personal accounts of life in the Church that I've heard over the years.

As I understand it, it's basically an everyday occurence in Rome to see priests courting each other.

The celibacy requirement is deeply unhealthy, and is something the church should get rid of. It plainly doesn't work for a lot of people, and creates a toxic atmosphere of secrecy around even healthy sexual urgues, creating room for predators.

I agree. The Bible actually encourages church leadership to be married.

Nomad wrote:
Alien Love Gardener wrote:
Robear wrote:
It's not particularly strange if you think about it. If you're really serious about being Catholic and you're gay, you can't have sex. That removes one of the downsides of priesthood in the same stroke, so it's not particularly surprising to me that there would be a lot of gay priests.

A friend of mine entered a Catholic seminary in Baltimore in the late 70's or so, and the atmosphere of (often coercive) sexual relationships between priests and candidates (as well as priests and priests, and priests and nuns) was so toxic that he gave up his ambition of being a priest at all. He went to college instead; he was not willing to "play" to pass his courses at the seminary. His conversations over the years with others in the Church at the time indicated that this was not unusual for the time. Apparently, at least in the US, a vow of celibacy is not always honored. And if you believe Boccacio, and many others, that's been true throughout history.

I think it can be a mistake to believe that those priests (and nuns) are not having sex. This is reinforced by personal accounts of life in the Church that I've heard over the years.

As I understand it, it's basically an everyday occurence in Rome to see priests courting each other.

The celibacy requirement is deeply unhealthy, and is something the church should get rid of. It plainly doesn't work for a lot of people, and creates a toxic atmosphere of secrecy around even healthy sexual urgues, creating room for predators.

I agree. The Bible actually encourages church leadership to be married.

It also strongly suggests that all followers of Christ remain celibate.

Seth wrote:
Nomad wrote:
Alien Love Gardener wrote:
Robear wrote:
It's not particularly strange if you think about it. If you're really serious about being Catholic and you're gay, you can't have sex. That removes one of the downsides of priesthood in the same stroke, so it's not particularly surprising to me that there would be a lot of gay priests.

A friend of mine entered a Catholic seminary in Baltimore in the late 70's or so, and the atmosphere of (often coercive) sexual relationships between priests and candidates (as well as priests and priests, and priests and nuns) was so toxic that he gave up his ambition of being a priest at all. He went to college instead; he was not willing to "play" to pass his courses at the seminary. His conversations over the years with others in the Church at the time indicated that this was not unusual for the time. Apparently, at least in the US, a vow of celibacy is not always honored. And if you believe Boccacio, and many others, that's been true throughout history.

I think it can be a mistake to believe that those priests (and nuns) are not having sex. This is reinforced by personal accounts of life in the Church that I've heard over the years.

As I understand it, it's basically an everyday occurence in Rome to see priests courting each other.

The celibacy requirement is deeply unhealthy, and is something the church should get rid of. It plainly doesn't work for a lot of people, and creates a toxic atmosphere of secrecy around even healthy sexual urgues, creating room for predators.

I agree. The Bible actually encourages church leadership to be married.

It also strongly suggests that all followers of Christ remain celibate, unless they like having sex.

Fixed it for you.

1 Corinthians 7:7-9 ESV

I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

1 Corinthians 7:32-36 ESV /

I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin.

On a personal note, I like sex and am married.

Nomad wrote:
Seth wrote:
Nomad wrote:

I agree. The Bible actually encourages church leadership to be married.

It also strongly suggests that all followers of Christ remain celibate, unless they like having sex.

Fixed it for you.

1 Corinthians 7:7-9 ESV

I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

1 Corinthians 7:32-36 ESV /

I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin.

On a personal note, I like sex and am married. :)

John 11:35 - Jesus facepalmed

The Holy Bible- supporting both sides of arguments since the second century. (tm)

Yeah I'm going to fully disagree with your interpretation of Paul there, Nomad. It's pretty obvious to me that he was annoyed with the tendency of the followers of Christ to desire copulation, and those verses are examples of him trying to broker a compromise with the congregations.

We're talking about a guy who saw no value in marriage or even reproduction, given his clear feeling that Christ was returning within his lifetime.

Tl;dr: what Ruhk said.

Phoenix Rev wrote:

John Aravois over at AmericaBlog has a very interesting write up about a Rhode Island court case and thousands of documents regarding the Legion of Christ, John Paul II and Pope Benedict. The Church has tried for months to keep those documents from being released to the public, but the Rhode Island Supreme Court ended that line and now the documents are set to be published.

This could be exceptionally incriminating especially if it turns out that Benedict, when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, provided cover for the Church during the scandal.

It could also be a contributing factor as to why Benedict resigned.

Told ya so....

JC wrote:

Feb 11th: Perhaps I'm being too cynical but I'm not buying the whole deteriorating health thing.... His only job is to wave to people like a glorified Wal-Mart greeter. Methinks there's something else going on.

It's definitely a good idea to get people to marry before they burn over with passion when their holy book tells them that if they want a permanent sexual partner all they have to do is quietly rape someone in the city.

Seth wrote:

Yeah I'm going to fully disagree with your interpretation of Paul there, Nomad. It's pretty obvious to me that he was annoyed with the tendency of the followers of Christ to desire copulation, and those verses are examples of him trying to broker a compromise with the congregations.

We're talking about a guy who saw no value in marriage or even reproduction, given his clear feeling that Christ was returning within his lifetime.

Tl;dr: what Ruhk said. :)

You are free to disagree all you like. There is overwhelming support for marriage and reproduction in scripture. In fact, "Be fruitful and multiply." was the first directive given to mankind by God, and it had nothing to do with horticulture and mathematics.

People can spin statements any way they like, but using the correct context is the key to understanding.

I'm sure we could go back and forth on this for days, but in respect for the main topic of papal resignation, I'll pull out.

Nomad wrote:

in respect for the main topic of papal resignation, I'll pull out.

I see what you did there.

(Also imagine I posted a clever image of the pages of the Bible containing a Rorschach blot.)

Nomad wrote:
Seth wrote:

Yeah I'm going to fully disagree with your interpretation of Paul there, Nomad. It's pretty obvious to me that he was annoyed with the tendency of the followers of Christ to desire copulation, and those verses are examples of him trying to broker a compromise with the congregations.

We're talking about a guy who saw no value in marriage or even reproduction, given his clear feeling that Christ was returning within his lifetime.

Tl;dr: what Ruhk said. :)

You are free to disagree all you like. There is overwhelming support for marriage and reproduction in scripture. In fact, "Be fruitful and multiply." was the first directive given to mankind by God, and it had nothing to do with horticulture and mathematics. :)

In scripture, sure. But certainly not from Paul, which is who you quoted above.

People can spin statements any way they like, but using the correct context is the key to understanding.

Indeed.

Oh snap!

Paul within the context of scripture != Paul within the context of Paul. That's for sure. However, I think it's worthy to note that even he was unable to adopt the stance that the Catholic church does when it comes to marriage and celibacy within the clergy, as much as he wanted to.

IMAGE(http://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/Images/2013/2/26/2013226204119532734_8.jpg)

Nice graphic.

All this just makes me pine for the next season of The Borgias.

Wait, any Catholic male can be pope? It's time for Pope Ralph.

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:

Wait, any Catholic male can be pope? It's time for Pope Ralph.

IMAGE(http://www.aceshowbiz.com/images/still/pope_joan02.jpg)