What was he thinking? [Celibacy versus lust]

A priest, well, he does seem to ‘‘like’’ women. Which is cool. It’s human nature.

But…I have always wondered if celibacy is a good thing or a bad thing, and if it has anything to do with Christ’s teachings or if it was just an add-on by the repressive Church that followed in His wake?

Below link is the column. It’s cute, if nothing else.

It this lust or lust in the heart, as Jimmy Carter once said? Who is the pop singer girl? Amei? One of the S.H.E girls?

chinapost.com.tw/cp/opinion/ … asp?id=193

The author writes, among other things:

"One day last week, one of Taiwan’s most popular singing stars dialed
my telephone number from the office of our department secretary. I had
taught her in several courses as a student, and she has kindly stayed
in touch since graduating two and a half years ago. Naturally, I all
but crashed to the floor with cardiac arrest to hear her voice again
in person, and not in a song on my CD player.

I exclaimed, “you’re going to give me a heart attack one day
with these surprises of yours.” I had last seen her 4 months ago
when she and a classmate named Nancy popped by my classroom to say
hello. I was so happy to see her on that occasion that I set a new
world record for heart beats per minute
. I actually had to take a 40
minute recovery nap after lunch that day after she left school.

“So,” I said when I got my breath back over the telephone line on
Thursday, “what can I do for you?”

The next two hours flew by like a dream, and I assured my friend at
the front gate as she left campus that she had given a special gift to
all of us that day. The 35 or 40 “brothers” and “sisters” who saw her
in person and had an opportunity to be in pictures with her were
thrilled to death. I might soon need a pace maker in my chest to keep
up with her antics (that’s okay, Faye), but that visit was worth it.

Celibacy imposed upon Roman Catholic priests is one of the dumbest things in the history of religion.

Agreed. But it was to indicate control of ones self. The urge for sexual desire is probably the hardest to control. Think of the Bible as one of the first Law Books ever written. With the Priest as the Officer who is in control of every aspect of himself. Tough shit if you ask me. No wonder we had the Crusades. Can you imagine how pissed off they were? HA!

Celibacy was not a requirement during the primitive Christian era but was an add on a couple centuries later by St. Augustine. In his Confessions, Augustine talks about how he lived a typical decadent Roman bathhouse lifestyle for most of his youth, until he converted to Christianity. Thereafter he practiced celibacy and demanded that others follow his example. You ask me it’s a classic example of a guy who had his cake when he was young and immature, but now he’s older and doesn’t want other people to have the same fun he had but gave up. There’s nothing worse than a reformed sinner, they’re the worst puritans of all.

Do you think the Church would ever give up this add-on rule then? I wonder if many priests wish they didn’t have to follow this silly rule. Certainly, it adds to one discipline as a priest and married men don’t have to worry about their wives or daughters talking privately with a local priests, they can be sure he won’t try anything on her. But why has this rule lasted so long, in this postmodern anything goes world?

Reading the newspaper story above gave me a good chuckle and made me think of Jimmy Carter’s Playboy remark…

Chair of the English department, eh? :unamused:

lupillis, I think his job is at the night school, look here: "…is a priest and associate professor at Fu Jen Catholic University, where he is chair of the English Department in its *School of Continuing Education.

Not the regular day school English dept.

Many priests don’t follow this ridiculous rule. Indeed, they satisfy their God-given (yet repressed) sexual desire by preying on the young, most vulnerable members of their communion - causing untold misery to the victims and their families.

Jolin studied English at Fujen. I’d bet it was she.

A week later, in new column, the same writer writes:

"Some of the most surprising debates I have ever had with ethics students have been about teacher-student romance. If 60 students are in an ethics class, at least 20 will probably say they do not see anything wrong about a teacher dating or being intimately involved with his or her own student. One of the common reasons is, “Love happens, and no one can control the feelings. It is natural.”

Some may feel teacher-student romance is acceptable because “I can’t see anything wrong with it.” This is similar to the ethics-by-consequence approach. How can we expect two people in love to truly see the deeper implications and possibly deleterious effects of their emotions on themselves and others?

I believe love happens. I believe we cannot always control how we feel. I know this from personal experience. But I also know we can control how we express our emotions. We can choose to deny ourselves expression, or wait to talk of love until the moment is right for the one we love. For teachers, the right moment means after graduation or, perhaps, years after graduation. "

Maybe this man has really been in love, and that’s great! The greatest gift God can give anyone is to know love. So maybe celibacy is just an illusion…

She’s in for a rough night after graduation…Giddey UP!

Celibacy was imposed after the Vatican brothels became too much of a scandal to be maintained, and too many bishops used their political influence to place their illegitimate children in important positions. Men who are married, or Angelican priests who move into the cathedral next door, are often permitted to be both married and a priest (divorce being a no-no and priests being needful).

Previously, a vow of celibacy only meant not getting married. Adding chastity to that is where everything got bunged-up.

Good for buddy, but he should watch himself with the current guy in charge.

That’s very interesting. So original celibacy just meant not formal marriage, but sex was okay. Very interesting. Thanks for that bit, Jaboney.

I’ve dealt with Fr. Bauer personally while I was in the MA program at Fujen, and while he may have had all sorts of ideas or feelings (not about me AFAIK :smiley: ), he’s not seemingly one to act on them. (Also your best choice for any thesis defense – a VERY soft touch. Just wants everyone to get alone, basically. I was once on a committee with him where I could hardly find a question the student could answer, and then he said, “Well, I can’t see us giving less than an 80, really, can you?” :help: )

[quote=“Jaboney”]Celibacy was imposed after the Vatican brothels became too much of a scandal to be maintained, and too many bishops used their political influence to place their illegitimate children in important positions.
Previously, a vow of celibacy only meant not getting married. Adding chastity to that is where everything got bunged-up.[/quote]
I would like to see some sourcing on these 2 items. Previous readings have made the point that celibacy by the Roman Catholic Church came about to maintain RC control of church resources - buildings, land, wealth - by avoiding the division which might be caused due to inheritance by heirs and surviving spouses.
As to the ‘celibacy’ does not refer to diddling about - this is quite amazing definition. Is this a Chomskyism?

The ideas of celibacy, monasticism and meditation were heavily influenced by Jewish Kabbalistic beliefs as well as the early church’s interactions with asian mysticism. Read up some on the early “heresies” of including Nestorianism.


Freudian slip? :laughing:

no, sex wasn’t really ok. Everybody was expected to be chaste; priests just took an additional vow of celibacy to show that they meant it. (Then again, the Romans considered chastity a virtue best observed in others, and many Roman clerics obviously felt the same way.)

happy to oblige.*

Chastity isn’t virginity, but moderation. The influence of Greek philosophy on Christianity looms large in this area–more than once Augustine makes reference to “The Philosopher”
(gag me)
Aristotle. There’s a strong emphasis on the corrosive effects of strong desires on the will, and the dangers of being ‘driven mad by lust.’ (Think of the hurricane in which the lustful are buffetted in Dante’s Inferno–they’re totally out of control, subject to the whims and winds of chance.)

[quote=“Chastity As a Virtue. The Catholic Encyclopedia (1912)”]
Chastity is the virtue which excludes or moderates the indulgence of the sexual appetite. It is a form of the virtue of temperance, which controls according to right reason the desire for and use of those things which afford the greatest sensual pleasures.[…]
According as chastity would exclude all voluntary Carnal pleasures, or allow this gratification only within prescribed limits, it is known as absolute or relative. The former is enjoined upon the unmarried, the latter is incumbent upon those within the marriage state. The indulgence of the sexual appetite being prohibited to all outside of legitimate wedlock, the wilful impulse to it in the unmarried, like the wilful impulse to anything unlawful, is forbidden. Moreover, such is the intensity of the sexual passion that this impulse is perilously apt to bear away the will before it. Hence, when wilful, it is a grave offence of its very nature.[…]
Besides the classification already given, there is another, according to which chastity is distinguished as perfect, or imperfect. The first-mentioned is the virtue of those who, in order to devote themselves more unreservedly to God and their spiritual interests, resolve to refrain perpetually from even the licit pleasures of the marital state. When this resolution is made by one who has never known the gratification allowed in marriage, perfect chastity becomes virginity. Because of these two elements

All of which reminds me of two points. One made by C.S. Lewis, a famously orthodox Christian. If an excessive concern with matters of the flesh is the definition of unchastity, what should be think of those people who would run around peeking into other’s bedrooms and backseats to make sure nothing’s happening? His answer is that the busy-body old biddies are missing the mark by the same measure as those they’d police.

The second’s just funny.

[quote]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, not the original books. So, the new monk goes to the head monk to ask him about this. He points out that if there were 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 a 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 old monk sobs, “The word is celebrate, celebrate. Not celibate!!!” [/quote]

JOKE PUNCHLINE: The old monk sobs, “The word is celebrate, celebrate. Not celibate!!!”

… Just think of all the smart, good children who could have been born and contributed to this world of ours, if priests would have been allowed to marry and sire children! The church really deleted a huge pool of future DNA by banning the smartest men, i.e., those with skills in scholarship and thinking and praying and seeing God, from having children.

It’s was DNA catastrophe of immense proportions. A tsunami of wasted future DNA for the Catholic genepool. But too late now…