Is celibacy still celebrated?

Celibates are out there in most cultures with their high-pitched voices. Hinduism comes on the top list since celibacies are considered high virtues. But wherever and whenever I look at them I do it from a critical lens not through the lens of a devotee.
Let us forget that part since I do not want to hurt any religious people and that will be sacrilege. I am want to put this topic forward for a debate.
Is celibacy possible and do those in this sacred profession do not masturbate?
I want you to forgive me if my words are likely to hurt your particular faith. This is an independent discussion

Independent. LOL

celibacy is not out of choice. Some people would rather be uncelibate then live by themselves like bachelors.
Why celebrate it when there is nothing to celebrate if for. What is the celebration about?

I didn't think Hinduism particularly valued celibacy one way or the other. Isn't there a householder phase one is supposed to go through? I don't know much about Hinduism. The library has one self of books on the topic and about 10 times that on Buddhism.

Personally, I don't see any particular reason to value celibacy from a spiritual position, but then I don't really have any specific religious position to present.

Celibacy is still celebrated ; abstinence is not.

The Roman Catholic Church still celebrates it. The institution currently uses celibacy as it always has, as part of a multi-pronged strategy for controlling the "flock" through guilt. By furthering the view that sexual activity is dirty and offensive to god in any but one very specific circumstance (between two Catholics for the specific purpose of procreation if and only if these individuals have been joined in the sacrament of marriage), and then claiming that the clergy do not engage in this sinful behavior, they establish a holier-than-thou moral superiority. This helps to justify their claims that all human sin can be absolved only through confessing all infractions to them, the few, the pure, the morally superior. It is a con and a particularly vicious form of psychological rape; they want to get you by the balls, control you through your guilt and shame, and thus extract cash from you.

Of course they all masturbate, some have sex with each other or anything else that moves, and some molest children. Only the suckers among them who actually believe the official drivel and who aren't bright enough to be in on the scam take their vows of celibacy seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

Celibacy is still celebrated ; abstinence is not.

---

what is the difference? in essence shouldn't celibacy means abstinence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WyattGwyon

The Roman Catholic Church still celebrates it. The institution currently uses celibacy as it always has, as part of a multi-pronged strategy for controlling the "flock" through guilt. By furthering the view that sexual activity is dirty and offensive to god in any but one very specific circumstance (between two Catholics for the specific purpose of procreation if and only if these individuals have been joined in the sacrament of marriage), and then claiming that the clergy do not engage in this sinful behavior, they establish a holier-than-thou moral superiority. This helps to justify their claims that all human sin can be absolved only through confessing all infractions to them, the few, the pure, the morally superior. It is a con and a particularly vicious form of psychological rape; they want to get you by the balls, control you through your guilt and shame, and thus extract cash from you.

Of course they all masturbate, some have sex with each other or anything else that moves, and some molest children. Only the suckers among them who actually believe the official drivel and who aren't bright enough to be in on the scam take their vows of celibacy seriously.

---

I have always wondered about the roman catholic practice of celibacy. How is one to practice preaching to god if there is no procreation ie sex. How is the population to grow?
In order for religion and god to be celebrated and preached to surely the logical step would be to have sex in order to procreate hence keeping up with the faith. Abstinence means no more people to go around to keep up with god.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

I have always wondered about the roman catholic practice of celibacy. How is one to practice preaching to god if there is no procreation ie sex. How is the population to grow?
In order for religion and god to be celebrated and preached to surely the logical step would be to have sex in order to procreate hence keeping up with the faith. Abstinence means no more people to go around to keep up with god.

---

It's a useless leftover. They are funny little fellows these Roman Catholics with their cheesy cardinalia. In the past, when they had to justify it, they often said that it was a prerequisite to be able to dedicate a lot more of their time to their people. LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

I have always wondered about the roman catholic practice of celibacy. How is one to practice preaching to god if there is no procreation ie sex. How is the population to grow?
In order for religion and god to be celebrated and preached to surely the logical step would be to have sex in order to procreate hence keeping up with the faith. Abstinence means no more people to go around to keep up with god.

---

The Catholic church does not encourage a lifetime of celibacy. It teaches celibacy until marriage and sex for the purpose of pro-creation. The celibacy practiced by the clergy is based on the premise that they have chosen an intimate relationship with God, as opposed to one with another individual.

In Buddhism, becoming a Monk or a Nun requires celibacy as part of the vows taken at that time. It is ok for a monk or Nun to disrobe and return to an ordinary life if they wish. It is the practice in some countries for some young men - teenagers - to become novice monks for a year.They then return to their families.

The thinking behind it is that sex, relationships and everything that goes with it is a distraction to the practice of the path. If a person is serious about their practice and wants to focus, then they may choose to follow this route. There is no barrier to being a lay person practising as much as they can.

Monks and Nuns are respected for this commitment to a virtuous path.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

celibacy is not out of choice. Some people would rather be uncelibate then live by themselves like bachelors.
Why celebrate it when there is nothing to celebrate if for. What is the celebration about?

---

That's assuming the only reason people are celibate is because they can't get any, which I respectfully disagree with.

As far as celebrating it, there are different reasons people have. Some Christians commit to celibacy until marriage, so sex is something they can enjoy in the comfort of their union together. So the belief there is to only share it with the one true person you want to spend your life with.

As mentioned, other reasons for celibacy are for the sake of committing a devoted relationship to God only. Or as also mentioned for Buddhism, to stay unattached to the act of sex, which I get...it's much harder to have sex and give it up, than to never have it at all.

Of course, these are arguments made from a spiritual perspective. I'd refrain from trying to debunk it with logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WyattGwyon

Of course they all masturbate, some have sex with each other or anything else that moves, and some molest children. Only the suckers among them who actually believe the official drivel and who aren't bright enough to be in on the scam take their vows of celibacy seriously.

---

If by they you meant Priests and Nuns then you cannot be more correct because during the Medieval Europe when it was going through a dark phase, intellectually and spiritually,many of these religious figureheads were involved in such heinous acts. Later, when the nuns became pregnant and to cover up their guilt and crime of violating the teachings of the church, they (Nuns) started to claim that they were being visited and in turn captivated by seductive fallen angels called Incubiat night and on the other the hand, simultaneously, to give weight to the Nuns` alibi the Priests also professed that they were also being tempted and seduced by ravishing and voluptious female demons called Succubi.

To cover up this mass scandal and to prevent it from bringing further disgrace to the already defamed reputation of church authorities many religious leaders of the like of Pope Innocent VIII, Pope Benedict XIV, St. Augustine and St. Thomas had to willingly (or unwillingly?) accept the existence of Succubi and Incubi. So subsequently the babies delivered by the nuns were buried outside the nunneries as a way of seriously dealing with this subject.

Furthermore, many modern researchers have come up to the conclusion that the so called demons and angels were figments of the culprits imagination due to prolonged deprivation of natural desires/urges and that the pregnancies was only the result of illicit relations between the nuns and priests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cafolini

It's a useless leftover. They are funny little fellows these Roman Catholics with their cheesy cardinalia. In the past, when they had to justify it, they often said that it was a prerequisite to be able to dedicate a lot more of their time to their people. LOL

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*

The Catholic church does not encourage a lifetime of celibacy. It teaches celibacy until marriage and sex for the purpose of pro-creation. The celibacy practiced by the clergy is based on the premise that they have chosen an intimate relationship with God, as opposed to one with another individual.

---

Being close to God or rather in an intimate relationship with HIM does give any shepherd the authority to fleece their own flocks spiritually, morally, mentally and physically for their own personal desires. If ones natural urges are not fulfilled through natural union, sooner or later it would vent out unnatural situations detriment to the majority of the society.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bleeding Pawn

Being close to God or rather in an intimate relationship with HIM does give any shepherd the authority to fleece their own flocks spiritually, morally, mentally and physically for their own personal desires. If ones natural urges are not fulfilled through natural union, sooner or later it would vent out unnatural situations detriment to the majority of the society.

---

If you're suggesting that I agree with the practice, you're making an assumption. I'm merely explaining the premise.

Quote:

---

Furthermore, many modern researchers have come up to the conclusion that the so called demons and angels were figments of the culprits imagination due to prolonged deprivation of natural desires/urges

---

Bah haha. Show me in the scientific literature where it states that a lack of sexual activity leads to hallucinations. What a silly claim.

The idea of massive amounts of sexual debauchery in the clergy arise largely out of post-reformation propaganda against Catholicism and there is little evidence of any widespread behavior of the kind. Of course, nuns, priest, and monks have done bad things or been hypocritical to their vows, but they're human beings. I have no problem believing that most clergy approach their vows with sincerity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

what is the difference? in essence shouldn't celibacy means abstinence?

.

---

Celibacy refers to the state of being unmarried, especially in accordance with religious vows. Abstinence refers to avoiding sex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*

If you're suggesting that I agree with the practice, you're making an assumption. I'm merely explaining the premise.

Bah haha. Show me in the scientific literature where it states that a lack of sexual activity leads to hallucinations. What a silly claim.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

The idea of massive amounts of sexual debauchery in the clergy arise largely out of post-reformation propaganda against Catholicism and there is little evidence of any widespread behavior of the kind. Of course, nuns, priest, and monks have done bad things or been hypocritical to their vows, but they're human beings. I have no problem believing that most clergy approach their vows with sincerity.

---

It is not necessary what we dont believe would cease to persist or exist. The publicist at the helm for advertising pre-digested dogmas assumes that if they say something particular most of the times, chances are people will buy it. Down the history many writers have confirmed the existence of dead children bones found in the Church graveyards during the Middle Ages, also Dr. Kingsey, noted in his report about the negative side- effects of abstinence upon the human body. As the nuns and friars of medieval times were involved in acts unworthy of their status, the same could be said about their compatriots of modern times as most of these paedophiles were once good and practising clergy men. How long did it last? 50, 60 or 70 years? After all these years of sacrificing their lives and desires, their acts only but brought disgrace to the Church. It is surprising that they did not revert to the oft repeated claims that they were gullible to the temptations of Evil when they were in a state of spiritual weakness.
Did not they realise that by depriving their victims of emotional and physical dignity they in fact stripped them of their innocence?

People should always try to reflect on the truth but no doubt a person blinded by his/her prejudice may see otherwise. I fear these recent s** scandal involving many respected authorities may prompt many hard-cores to blame this the work of the malevolent propagandist world, whose machines keep on churning out products to defame the benevolent Church and in turn dont go on to become a mares nest. Our fear does not stem from the propaganda, but from the deep-rooted knowledge that one day we will be punished for all the terrible wrongs we have inflicted.(-?).

For further reference look up:

1- Morals in Evolution: A Study of Comparative Ethics ( second edition) L.T. Hobhouse

2- Handbook of Marriage and the Family - Harold T. Christensen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WyattGwyon

The Roman Catholic Church still celebrates it. The institution currently uses celibacy as it always has, as part of a multi-pronged strategy for controlling the "flock" through guilt. By furthering the view that sexual activity is dirty and offensive to god in any but one very specific circumstance (between two Catholics for the specific purpose of procreation if and only if these individuals have been joined in the sacrament of marriage), and then claiming that the clergy do not engage in this sinful behavior, they establish a holier-than-thou moral superiority. This helps to justify their claims that all human sin can be absolved only through confessing all infractions to them, the few, the pure, the morally superior. It is a con and a particularly vicious form of psychological rape; they want to get you by the balls, control you through your guilt and shame, and thus extract cash from you.

Of course they all masturbate, some have sex with each other or anything else that moves, and some molest children. Only the suckers among them who actually believe the official drivel and who aren't bright enough to be in on the scam take their vows of celibacy seriously.

---

Gandhi was married, but abstained from sex with his wife for the last 20 or 30 years of his marriage. He correctly perceived that sex (related as it is to Eros) can compromise people. Emotional ties to one’s spouse and one’s children make it impossible to treat all people fairly and impartially. Indeed, love for one's spouse and children is CALLED “partiality” for them.

Obviously, what was true for Gandhi is also true for other moral and religious leaders. Nuns become the “spiritual bride” of Jesus, eschewing love for one man so they can “love their neighbors as themselves”. Wyatt’s claim that this is “psychological rape” is mere bigoted nonsense. “Rape”? Refraining from sex constitutes “rape”? Wyatt merely chose that ridiculous metaphor to shock. He might as well have written that priestly celibacy constitutes “psychological pickpocketing”, or “psychological tax evasion”.

As Gandhi pointed out, sometimes the saintly must refrain from actions which tie them to the profane world, and sex is (perhaps) one of these actions. The realm of the sacred is separated from that of the mundane, and refraining from sexual love (which inevitably suggests prejudice, as in loving one woman more than all others) is reasonable in an attempt at being holy, perhaps even “holier than thou”.

Ecurb, I, as a magician, didn't wish it to you. I can't be responsible. LOL. I think you are insane.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bleeding Pawn

Down the history many writers have confirmed the existence of dead children bones found in the Church graveyards during the Middle Ages, also [url=http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/taylorgr/sxnhst/chap2.htm]

---

Horrors! The bones of dead children have been found in, of all places, graveyards!!!??? Oh, the monstrosity of it all!

I do agree with Bleeding Pawn that, “It is not necessary what we dont believe would cease to persist or exist.” More accurately, perhaps, I might agree if I had the slightest notion what that sentence (sic) means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cafolini

Ecurb, I, as a magician, didn't wish it to you. I can't be responsible. LOL. I think you are insane.

---

Personally, I agree with Orwell. The notion that we should all STRIVE for sainthood is ridiculous. Here’s a link to Orwell’s famous essay, which begins with one of the best ‘leads’ ever written.

https://www.byliner.com/george-orwel...ions-on-gandhi

Here's the crux of Orwell's essay, as it applies here:

Quote:

---

Gandhi himself, in his middle thirties, took the vow of Bramahcharya, which means not only complete chastity but the elimination of sexual desire. This condition, it seems, is difficult to attain without a special diet and frequent fasting. One of the dangers of milk-drinking is that it is apt to arouse sexual desire. And finally - this is the cardinal point—for the seeker after goodness there must be no close friendships and no exclusive loves whatever.

Close friendships, Gandhi says, are dangerous, because “friends react on one another” and through loyalty to a friend one can be led into wrong-doing. This is unquestionably true. Moreover, if one is to love God, or to love humanity as a whole, one cannot give one’s preference to any individual person. This again is true, and it marks the point at which the humanistic and the religious attitude cease to be reconcilable. To an ordinary human being, love means nothing if it does not mean loving some people more than others…..

In this yogi-ridden age, it is too readily assumed that “non-attachment” is not only better than a full acceptance of earthly life, but that the ordinary man only rejects it because it is too difficult: in other words, that the average human being is a failed saint. It is doubtful whether this is true. Many people genuinely do not wish to be saints, and it is probable that some who achieve or aspire to sainthood have never felt much temptation to be human beings. If one could follow it to its psychological roots, one would, I believe, find that the main motive for “non-attachment” is a desire to escape from the pain of living, and above all from love, which, sexual or non-sexual, is hard work. But it is not necessary here to argue whether the other-worldly or the humanistic ideal is “higher”. The point is that they are incompatible. One must choose between God and Man, and all “radicals” and “progressives”, from the mildest Liberal to the most extreme Anarchist, have in effect chosen Man.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

Horrors! The bones of dead children have been found in, of all places, graveyards!!!??? Oh, the monstrosity of it all!

---

It`s the church graveyard we are talking about, when later, secret graves were dug and it was considered of those children murdered at birth. If someone still do not want to consider that as the reason behind the suspicious children skeletons, it leaves two options to go for; Either the mortality would have been high at that time OR (maybe) the powers of the agents of the Evil One exalted those of the spiritually weak local parish.

If after this the bigger picture still seems elusive, here is a paragraph of the link mention earlier by Julie Peakman of University of London.

"Love in the cloister
After the Norman Conquest scandals of love and passion between religious celibates began to be seen as a serious problem. For some years the church authorities, as well as the churchgoers, had been complaining about clerical marriages and the lack of chastity among the clergy. In response bishops held meetings to figure out a method of dealing with their errant clergy. Instructions were given in order to prevent priests from having contact with women, clerical marriages were forbidden and celibacy strictly enforced. Love, it would seem, was to be suppressed, at least among those already promised to God.

Yet tales of monastery graveyards full of the bones of dead children were widely whispered outside the guarded enclaves of the cloister. The infants were supposedly those murdered at birth after nuns had been impregnated by their confessors. The fact that religious houses for men and women were built in the same grounds meant that the nuns and friars sometimes intermingled. Prior to the arrival of the Normans such double monasteries were popular and religious men and women had easy access to each other, but the church authorities were having second thoughts about their practicality. The ease of intermingling between the sexes is exemplified in one case which came to light in 1142 in reports about a nun at Catesby priory who ‘did pass the night with the Austin friars at Northampton and did dance and play the lute with them in the same place until midnight’. That such activities could lead to affections between the cloistered was not doubted, particularly when Aelred of Rievaulx (1110-67) revealed the story of the Nun of Watton in the late 1150s.

She had been deposited in a nunnery of the Gilbertine order when she was only four years old and had spent most of her childhood and adolescence enclosed in the convent. But she grew into a headstrong and licentious young woman, resistant to all forms of correction. She was eventually caught with her young lover by the other nuns at the convent and subjected to much degradation by them. They tore the veil from her head and chained her up in a cell while restricting her to a diet of bread and water. Aelred bewailed: ‘Oh close your ears, virgins of Christ, cover your eyes … She went out a virgin of Christ, and she soon returned an adulteress.’ Proof of her indiscretion came with her pregnancy and her lover was duly castrated. In this case it was recorded that, after a vision, miraculously her fetters fell from her, the baby was spirited away and the nun returned to her fold. The abbess of the Benedictine convent of Amesbury in Wiltshire was not so lucky. Her convent was dissolved in 1189 after she was rumoured to have given birth three times.

A meeting to decide on such matters was held at the Third Lateran Council of 1179, where the lesser clergy came under direct attack when priests were expressly forbidden to have women in their houses. Bishops complained that priests were living with their housekeepers and siring a progeny of children by them. Despite many edicts being issued with the aim of keeping their clergy celibate, priests continued to indulge in the sins of the flesh. "

Throughout the Middle Ages, and especially in nunneries, we find epidemics of such convulsions. A particularly clear-cut case is that investigated by the great German doctor de Weier (1515-76), one of the first people to explore such supposed cases of diabolic possession clinically and objectively. He reports them in his great work "De Praestigiis Daemonum", a model of scientific detachment. He was one of the members of an investigating committee sent in 1565 to enquire into the case of "possession" occurring among the nuns of the convent of Nazareth at Cologne. De Weier noted that the convulsions exhibited several features betraying their erotic origin: during the attacks, he noted, the nuns would lie on their backs with closed eyes and their abdomens elevated in arc-en-cercle. After the convulsions had passed, his notes say, they "opened their eyes with apparent expressions of shame and pain". The epidemic had started when a young girl who lived in the nunnery began to suffer from the hallucination that she was being visited every night by her lover. Nuns who were put to guard her became frightened by her convulsive movements and began to exhibit them also. Soon the epidemic spread to the entire group.

Upon investigation, the committee discovered that some of the neighbouring youths had been climbing into the nunnery every night to enjoy an affair with nuns of their acquaintance. It was when this had been discovered and stopped that the convulsions developed. De Weier also studied similar phenomena in other nunneries and an orphanage, as he recounts in his Fourth Book. Maury has collected a number of such cases in his "Histoire d'Astrologie et Magie".

Gordon Rattray Taylor book; S** in History.

One for the topic, again from Gordon Rattray Taylor book;

The marked increase in homosexuality which occurred in the twelfth century is commonly attributed to the Norman invasion, but since homosexuality is not, in fact, a contagious disease some further explanation is called for. It certainly affected court circles: for instance it was because of his homosexuality that King Rufus was refused burial in consecrated ground. Bloch has denied that Edward II was a homosexual, despite his love for Piers Gaveston, but it seems likely that he was, since Higden says that he was "sleyne with a hoote broche putte thro the secret place posteriale". But it was above all the failing of the priesthood, as one can tell from the numerous church edicts on the subject: for instance in 1102 we find a Church council specifying that priests shall be degraded for sodomy, and anathematised for Obstinate sodomy". This new preoccupation with the subject is also betrayed by the constant accusations of buggery levelled at the heretic sects.

Naturally, persons vowed to total celibacy exhibit the earmarks of sexual repression more vividly than laymen: not only inversion but perversion and hysterical symptoms are found in the monasteries and cloisters in very marked forms, as also among the practising clergy as soon as the rule of celibacy was enforced. Perhaps it is not generally realized how strongly the clergy opposed the imposition of priestly celibacy. It is true that it was an age of violence - an age in which, for instances Archembald, Bishop of Sens, taking a fancy to the abbey of St. Peter, could simply evict the monks and install himself, establishing his harem in the refectory-but, even so, the scale of the clerical revolt against celibacy was remarkable. Monks repeatedly murdered their abbots for preaching better behaviour to them; priests left their benefices to their sons, as if they were private property, openly defying the rule. In 925, for instance, we find the Council of Spalato forbidding priests to marry for a second time, having apparently become resigned to first marriages. In 1061 these protests culminated in an organized rebellion: a number of Lombard bishops and Roman nobles, claiming that it was no sin for a priest to marry, elected Cadalus, Bishop of Parma, as Antipope, under the title Honorius II. Honorius marched on Rome and captured it, but two years later the defection of Hanno of Cologne, for complex political reasons, caused the revolt to fail.

The repeated failure of the Church to impose a life of celibacy on the clergy, and the extent to which the clergy defied its efforts by marriage, fornication and turning to homosexuality, have been recounted in a degree of detail which is unlikely ever to be surpassed by H. C. Lea in his "History of Sacerdotal Celibacy". He relates how, as priestly marriage was made increasingly difficult, priests were driven to content themselves with simple fornication - to the point where, in Germany, the word Pfaffenkind (parson's child) was used as a synonym for bastard. It was said that in many towns the number of bastards exceeded the number of those born in wedlock, and the claim does not seem incredible if one judges from such examples as that of Henry III, Bishop of Liege, who was known to have sixty five natural children. So serious did the situation become that in many parishes - at least in Spain and in Switzerland - the parishioners insisted that the priest must have a concubine as a measure of protection for their wives.

More sinister was the danger of incest, which was deemed sufficiently real for the Papal Legate in France, Cardinal Guala, to rule, in 1208, that mothers and other relatives must not live in the house of clerics, a regulation repeated in many subsequent orders up to the end of the fourteenth century. In general, May has noted that in the court records of the period, priests outnumber laymen, sometimes by as much as fifty to one. This was not because the Church was especially punctilious in prosecuting clerics: quite the contrary. It was frequently declared that clerical sins should be overlooked unless they became a public scandal, exceptionally light penalties were imposed, and frequent dispensations and absolutions were granted by the Curia." (and thers more where it came from)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

Obviously, what was true for Gandhi is also true for other moral and religious leaders. Nuns become the “spiritual bride” of Jesus, eschewing love for one man so they can “love their neighbors as themselves”.

---

"The fact that women were often cloistered through no choice of their own did not help matters. Families placed unmarried daughters in convents either to save money on marriages, to pray for the family’s soul or simply because they could no longer afford to keep them. Between 1275 and 1535 nunneries increasingly acted as a receptacle for surplus women of the upper and middle classes who could not afford the extortionate ‘dowries’ demanded of them. Although some women may have chosen a life of asceticism and prayer, not all of them had the choice. Little surprise then that they fell in love with the men nearest to them." - Julie Peakman.


Hope it clears the air of doubts. Anyway we have strayed enough from the real topic and I have nothing else contribute so, Thank you.

I knew what you meant about the Church graveyards, Bleeding. I just thought the way you said it was funny. Of course there have been sex scandals (and worse) connected with the Church, just as there have been sex scandals associated with every other human institution. Somehow, that fact doesn’t shock me.

I googled Julie Peakman. She is apparently expert in Medieval sex. It sounds like a great job – but some of your quoted text is merely silly. The tone of high dudgeon that she expresses (“More sinister was the danger of incest…..”) and the misplaced moral outrage of Gordon Taylor (…”in many towns the number of bastards exceeded the number of those born in wedlock…”) don’t suggest credibility. I’ll bet there are plenty of cultures in which (using our definition of “bastard” and “marriage”) the majority of children are bastards. Indeed, my own son is a bastard, and as horrid as it has been for him to have to struggle through life with that terrible stigma, he seems to have managed. If all those Medieval bastards turned out like him, I can’t think their being in the majority so terrible.

Gandhi's point was that in order to love mankind properly, the saint cannot love one woman more than all others. My guess is that (despiteTaylor’s moral outrage) “fornication” does not ALWAYS lead to those attachments which create the partiality that saints must avoid. The priests and nuns can retain their fairness and objectivity, perhaps, if they merely fornicate instead of starting families and romantic love affairs. In any event, that’s what I advocate.

Peakman reacts in horror to the fact that “nunneries acted as a receptacle for surplus women of the upper and middle classes who could not afford the extortionate ‘dowries’ demanded of them. Although some women may have chosen a life of asceticism and prayer, not all of them had the choice.” However, it is possible to say the same thing using different words, as in “nunneries acted as havens for middle class women whose families were unwilling or unable to pay doweries and who would otherwise have spent their days slaving away in salt mines (or wherever people slaved away in those days).” I’ll bet lots of women today who work as hotel maids, waitresses, receptionists, or nurses aids don’t have much of a choice, either. Why is lack of choice about becoming a nun worse than lack of choice in becoming a scullery maid? At least your clothes are provided.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

Obviously, what was true for Gandhi is also true for other moral and religious leaders. Nuns become the “spiritual bride” of Jesus, eschewing love for one man so they can “love their neighbors as themselves”. Wyatt’s claim that this is “psychological rape” is mere bigoted nonsense. “Rape”? Refraining from sex constitutes “rape”? Wyatt merely chose that ridiculous metaphor to shock. He might as well have written that priestly celibacy constitutes “psychological pickpocketing”, or “psychological tax evasion”.

---

First of all, the idea that having a loving sexual relationship somehow distracts from ones religious commitment is just asinine, and that's not why the RCC institutionalized celibacy. The point of celibacy for the Church is to created models of morality that are unattainable because it is easier to suck cash out of the guilt-ridden, especially those who live in fear of burning for eternity in a lake of fire, than out of people comfortable with their natural impulses. The whole virgin birth story is a quintessential part of this evil ploy. Why do they preach that the only circumstances under which sex is not a sin is if a couple is specifically attempting to conceive?; That birth control is sinful? Duh! It increases the likelihood of more little Catholics to suck cash out of. Shepherds prefer that their flocks increase because that is where the cash flow is. There is nothing more to it than that. (Please note that my views are based on a model of emergent institutional morality in which the needs of the institution as expressed in official doctrine are not necessarily those held by any particular individuals within the institution at any specific historical moment; The moral action of the institution is more than the mere sum of the moral actions of its adherents and clergy, hence "emergent." This would require a long essay to explain, which I am ready to write if anyone is interested. One upshot, however, is that my views are not incompatible with Pip's belief that most of the clergy approach their vows with sincerity.)

I do not claim that "this," whatever you may have meant by this vague reference, is psychological rape. I meant that using the psycho-sexual guilt of ones victims against them in order to control their behavior is the tactic of a rapist. I meant that lecturing little kids about the danger of impure thoughts and the evils of sex before they are even thinking about sex, is a form of psychological molestation. The nun, Sister Mary Alma, who taught fourth grade in my school, who invented extra commandments and taught that merely thinking impure thoughts drove nails into the living flesh of Christ, was a psychological rapist. The church has always been full of them.

Hey, it's not my idea. It's Orwell's and Gandhi's. I'll grant that I think they are both clearly correct (perhaps you should read the linked essay). Also, I don't know much about the "point" of celibacy in the Catholic Church, but I don't buy your suggestion. I very much doubt, for example, that if you asked the Pope why priests and nuns should remain celibate, he would answer, "We think it helps us to suck cash out of the guilt-ridden." My vague memory from history class is that one "point" of celibate clergy is that they had no legitimate children to support or grant an inheritance to. This provided economic benefits to the church (these benefits may or may not have involved "sucking").

I can see that you like the "psychological rape" metaphor. I think it's silly. Your nun was psychologically abusive, perhaps, but not all abuse constitutes "rape". I never went to Catholic school, but it seems to me that calling yourself a "rape victim" because some nun told you that thinking impure thoughts drove nailes into Jesus trivializes the victimhood of ACTUAL rape victims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

Hey, it's not my idea. It's Orwell's and Gandhi's. I'll grant that I think they are both clearly correct (perhaps you should read the linked essay). Also, I don't know much about the "point" of celibacy in the Catholic Church, but I don't buy your suggestion. I very much doubt, for example, that if you asked the Pope why priests and nuns should remain celibate, he would answer, "We think it helps us to suck cash out of the guilt-ridden."

---

As I stated, my view is based on a model of emergent institutional morality which does not require that any specific actor at any specific moment consciously holds the view of morality underlying the enacted institutional values.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

I can see that you like the "psychological rape" metaphor. I think it's silly. Your nun was psychologically abusive, perhaps, but not all abuse constitutes "rape". I never went to Catholic school, but it seems to me that calling yourself a "rape victim" because some nun told you that thinking impure thoughts drove nailes into Jesus trivializes the victimhood of ACTUAL rape victims.

---

I already clearly differentiated the kind of abuse I was discussing from actual physical rape by calling it psychological rape. Nice try.


Hey, ecurb, is your avatar photo from Canyon Lands? I was on a spire just like that in that national park.

My avatar is from Zion, also in Utah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

My avatar is from Zion, also in Utah.

---

Oh! Perhaps I got mixed up, since I visited both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

Personally, I agree with Orwell. The notion that we should all STRIVE for sainthood is ridiculous. Here’s a link to Orwell’s famous essay, which begins with one of the best ‘leads’ ever written.

https://www.byliner.com/george-orwel...ions-on-gandhi

---

Here's something from that essay that summarizes celibacy for me:

Many people genuinely do not wish to be saints, and it is probable that some who achieve or aspire to sainthood have never felt much temptation to be human beings. If one could follow it to its psychological roots, one would, I believe, find that the main motive for “non-attachment” is a desire to escape from the pain of living, and above all from love, which, sexual or non-sexual, is hard work.

The arguments that sexuality gets in the way of something better (union with God or love of humanity or spiritual liberation) is something that doesn't ring true to me. It sounds more like an excuse for refusing to be close to others. At a metaphysical level, it raises the question of whether the celibate believes that the universe is good or not.