The Church used to be "prudish", which is a liberal term for "anyone who doesn't have sex with virtually anyone they meet, animals, donkeys, and homosexuals"........then, in the 1960's, Vatican II made the mistake of going left by listening to the perverts of the sexual revolution who told the church to "get into the 20th century" by allowing sicko homosexuals into the priesthood....(this was supposed to be "progressive" and a good idea.........the priesthood then became a secret society of homosexual activity, which also engaged in molestation of children, 90% of which involved gay pedarasty........of course, liberals acted "shocked" at this, and then blamed the church for "covering up" this activity..... (activity which is condoned by NAMBLA and other criminal left wing organizations).......amazing, isn't it.......you do what liberals tell you to do, then they castigate you as the cause when your perverse activity is discovered !!!
35 comments
the priesthood THEN became a secret society of homosexual activity?
Vatican II condoned admitting avowed homosexuals into the Priesthood....? Holy crap, the Cardinal that put that one on the agenda must have had balls the size of churchbells.
Wow, attempting to get both the Fundie Word Redef. Project, History Revisionist, and Lying for Jesus Awards. Amazing.
I'm pretty darned liberal and I've had sex with one - count 'em, one - man in my entire life. No women, children or animals. I don't consider myself prudish in the least. My ex would agree.
Libkitten, why do you feel that you have something to prove to these life-regulators? If you want to have sex with several guys, it should not matter. You should take notice that guys are not criticized for having sex with several girls (except by the most rigid fundies), so its only fair that you be allowed to do the same. The way I look at it is that people should have reasonable oppurtunties to sample the merchandise before they make the final purchase.
Odd that Jesus wanted his disciples to be married and if they weren't, to travel and preach in pairs.Council of Elvira (300-306)
(Canon 33): It is decided that marriage be altogether prohibited to bishops, priests, and deacons, or to all clerics placed in the ministry, and that they keep away from their wives and not beget children ; whoever does this, shall be deprived of the honor of the clerical office.
Council of Carthage (390)
(Canon 3): It is fitting that the holy bishops and priests of God as well as the Levites, i.e. those who are in the service of the divine sacraments, observe perfect continence, so that they may obtain in all simplicity what they are asking from God; what the Apostles taught and what antiquity itself observed, let us also endeavour to keep... It pleases us all that bishop, priest and deacon, guardians of purity, abstain from conjugal intercourse with their wives, so that those who serve at the altar may keep a perfect chastity.
These canons are purely local to Latin-rite Roman Catholics, as the prohibitions are not even extended to the Eastern-Rite Catholics in communion with Rome.
Opposition to clerical celibacy during the Reformation
Celibacy as a requirement for priests was an important point of disagreement during the Reformation, with the Reformers arguing that requiring an oath of celibacy from a priest was contrary to biblical teaching in 1Ti 4: 1-5[1], Heb 13: 4[2] and 1Co 9: 5[3], implied a degradation of marriage, and was one reason for the widespread sexual misconduct within the clergy at the time of the Reformation (e.g., discussed by Calvin in his Institutes of the Christian Religion IV,12,23-28: [4]). The doctrinal consensus of the reformers in this point was reflected in the marriages of Zwingli in 1522, Luther in 1525, and Calvin in 1539; in England, the married Thomas Cranmer was made Archbishop of Canterbury in 1533. The Council of Trent (1545-63) stated in response to the Reformation that celibacy and virginity are superior to marriage, thus rendering a change in policy a more delicate question for the Roman Catholic Church even today.
mad dog: I don't feel restricted in the slightest, nor do I think I should have to. I was merely making a point that "liberal" does not mean I shag anything that moves. I don't have very much sex because I'm paranoid of catching STD's or getting pregnant, not because I don't want to have sex. My attraction to monogomy doesn't make me restricted, or prudish, or un-kinky, and I have no issue with people that don't practice monogomy.
@Libkitten: I knew exactly what you mean. With these types it's so black and white. You're either a god-fearin' disciple of righteousness, or you're a liberal, which invokes all sorts of bizarre things in a fundies mind. Claim to be liberal and suddenly one becomes the epitome of every twisted, murderous, bent, demented, sexual, 'evil' thing they've ever heard of. Suddenly they think you and all other 'libs' have secret, baby-killing rituals on school playgrounds at the stroke of midnight, take LSD and have orgies in puppy-blood.
Considering you lack the intelligence even to realise that donkeys are in fact animals, I have serious doubts about the soundness of the rest of your post. Reading it, of course, confirms this.
The last straw!!!,I have heard lots of things about the Vatican II but this is incredible, THEY NEVER ADMITTED HOMOSEXUALS, let alone pederasts. Only they rooted out Latin, that´s all.
I suppose mocus1 figures that since some Catholic priests have been molesting boys, that means they're gay Catholic priests and the Vatican must now be admitting homosexuals into the priesthood. Not that mocus1 bothered to check any of this out with actual research or anything, not when he could just spew lies all over the Internet. Truth is, child molesters are usually male and they're usually straight, whether they molest boys OR girls. The irony is that having homosexuals in the priesthood would probably cut down on the molestation of children by priests.
Besides, ok there are pederast priests, yes, and some members of the church hasn´t done their task, yes. But one thing is that there are people who misbehave and something FAR MORE DIFFERENT that there is a "society" of pederasts. Man, can you think on a trade union of murders, to put an example?
Much later when the church was a greedy institution they forbade marriage because they didn't want to look after wives and dependants.
" [Pope]Alexander VI himself was a very indulgent man. He held feasts and
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
