Pope Wants Potential Priests Screened For Strong Sexual Urges

Fanny Cradock

I just heard this on the radio but I've been unable to verify it. If true it's quite baffling. Not only from a practical aspect (how does on check for strong sexual urges?) but I'm unsure as to why the RCC just doesn't allow priests to marry. Surely this would solve so many problems.

Latchy

I assume any priests marrying would mean male priest marring male priest .

PDN

Do people actually exist who don't have strong sexual urges?

helimachoptor

Yore ma!

In all seriousness I don't see how they will measure this.

Mena

PDN wrote: »

Do people actually exist who don't have strong sexual urges?

Asexuality does exist yes, but as far as I am aware, it's still pretty rare (or under reported).

I'd love to take this test though.

Latchy

PDN wrote: »

Do people actually exist who don't have strong sexual urges?

Weird to think not and maybe some try repress them more which is part of the catholic churches teachings .If your sexual urges are very strong then maybe the priesthood isint for you .

Fanny Cradock

I've heard that 1% in the UK are considered asexual. Actually, I have wondered if Jesus was asexual. Surely Matt 5:28 would be difficult for anyone with 'normal' sexual urges to not break.

Splendour

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I just heard this on the radio but I've been unable to verify it. If true it's quite baffling. Not only from a practical aspect (how does on check for strong sexual urges?) but I'm unsure as to why the RCC just doesn't allow priests to marry. Surely this would solve so many problems.

Well as it is the Catholic church are having problems getting priests, if they do this (though not sure how either), they'll definitely be snookered!!

kelly1

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I just heard this on the radio but I've been unable to verify it. If true it's quite baffling. Not only from a practical aspect (how does on check for strong sexual urges?) but I'm unsure as to why the RCC just doesn't allow priests to marry. Surely this would solve so many problems.

This is hardly surprising. Wouldn't it make a priests life very difficult and could result in his downfall? I would expect the Pope is talking about those find it difficult to remain chaste.

Didn't St. Paul advocate celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom of God? A priest should be devoted entirely to the service of God. Having kids in tow makes that a bit difficult!

Latchy

kelly1 wrote: »

Didn't St. Paul advocate celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom of God? A priest should be devoted entirely to the service of God. Having kids in tow makes that a bit difficult!

But what if he is off the other persuasion ? Would Homosexual priests adopting kids make a difference or same thing ?

Fanny Cradock

kelly1 wrote: »

This is hardly surprising. Wouldn't it make a priests life very difficult and could result in his downfall? I would expect the Pope is talking about those find it difficult to remain chaste.

Didn't St. Paul advocate celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom of God? A priest should be devoted entirely to the service of God. Having kids in tow makes that a bit difficult!

Well, I'm sure PDN would have something to say about that. It assumes that having a family is not a source of strength and support.

As for Paul, he did mention celibacy, but he never dictated it. He said that it may be best for some, it was not a requirement for all.

Splendour

kelly1 wrote: »

This is hardly surprising. Wouldn't it make a priests life very difficult and could result in his downfall? I would expect the Pope is talking about those find it difficult to remain chaste.

Didn't St. Paul advocate celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom of God? A priest should be devoted entirely to the service of God. Having kids in tow makes that a bit difficult!

Other denominations don't have a problem with kids and wives Noel (see I know you're not female ), so why should the Catholic church?

PDN

kelly1 wrote: »

Didn't St. Paul advocate celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom of God? A priest should be devoted entirely to the service of God. Having kids in tow makes that a bit difficult!

The Kingdom of God is not just about church stuff - it is also about having a healthy family life.

Seeing a minister having kids in tow can help church members see that there is no false distinction between the sacred and the secular. Then they know that having family responsibilities does not exclude them from being used by God. If they follow that thinking far enough then they might actually grasp the biblical principle of the priesthood of all believers.

toiletduck

The Roman Catholic Church has issued guidance for future priests to have psychological tests to weed out those unable to control their sexual urges.

A senior churchman said a series of sex scandals had contributed to the rewriting of the guidelines.

The authors said screening would help avoid "tragic situations" caused by what they termed psychological defects.

The guidance says the voluntary tests should also aim to vet for those with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies".

Among other traits that might make a candidate unsuitable for the priesthood, the advice lists "uncertain sexual identity," "excessive rigidity of character" and "strong affective dependencies".

The document also makes reference to heterosexual urges.

Seminarians should be barred if testing makes it "evident the candidate has difficulty living in celibacy: That is, if celibacy for him is lived as a burden so heavy that it compromises his affective and relational equilibrium", it says.

The advice stipulates priests must have a "positive and stable sense of one's masculine identity".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7700710.stm

The Mad Hatter

The Vatican wrote:

...deep seated homosexual tendencies...

As if the pedophilia cases had anything to do with homosexuality.

If you tell a man he can't have sex, he's going to have urges. The priests in the various rape cases just took it out on the nearest people who seemed unlikely to tell anyone. It's precisely the same thing as happens in prisons.

philologos

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I've heard that 1% in the UK are considered asexual. Actually, I have wondered if Jesus was asexual. Surely Matt 5:28 would be difficult for anyone with 'normal' sexual urges to not break.

I personally think Matthew 5:28 is a safety barrier rule, as not to actually commit sins of adultery, or sins that stem from lusting after other individuals. It's rather similar to the Jewish Talmud ruling saying that people shouldn't eat dairy with meat, due to the fact there is a ruling in Torah that says that you cannot eat a kid in it's mothers milk. There is no hope of breaking that commandment if you do not eat dairy with meat at all. Likewise there isn't a hope that you will violate the laws concerning sexual sins if you do not lust.

Fanny Cradock

Jakkass wrote: »

I personally think Matthew 5:28 is a safety barrier rule, as not to actually commit sins of adultery, or sins that stem from lusting after other individuals. It's rather similar to the Jewish Talmud ruling saying that people shouldn't eat dairy with meat, due to the fact there is a ruling in Torah that says that you cannot eat a kid in it's mothers milk. There is no hope of breaking that commandment if you do not eat dairy with meat at all. Likewise there isn't a hope that you will violate the laws concerning sexual sins if you do not lust.

Where, then, does sexual attraction end and lust begin?

kelly1

Jakkass wrote: »

I personally think Matthew 5:28 is a safety barrier rule, as not to actually commit sins of adultery, or sins that stem from lusting after other individuals. It's rather similar to the Jewish Talmud ruling saying that people shouldn't eat dairy with meat, due to the fact there is a ruling in Torah that says that you cannot eat a kid in it's mothers milk. There is no hope of breaking that commandment if you do not eat dairy with meat at all. Likewise there isn't a hope that you will violate the laws concerning sexual sins if you do not lust.

You seem to imply that lust in itself is OK as long as it doesn't lead to physical adultery or have I misread you?

Matthew 5:28 But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.

There is no doubt that lust is gravely sinful. Especially a "would if I could" kind of lust.

philologos

You've misread me. I'm merely saying that since lust causes or can lead to such things, it is best to avoid it, and this was the rationale behind it. Lust, greed and other fleshly desires cause us to put these things about God as well. It in itself in my view is bad also. It's a preventative measure as well though. Perhaps using the Jewish kosher example wasn't as good as I had thought initially

Dave!

How on earth does this work? Is it a written test? Or do they just show the priest a picture of a scandally-clad altar boy and measure galvanic skin response?

kelly1

Dave! wrote: »

How on earth does this work? Is it a written test? Or do they just show the priest a picture of a scandally-clad altar boy and measure galvanic skin response?

That deserves a ban! :mad:

Dave!

It's a legitimate question (humorously put)... How do you screen for "strong sexual urges"? And what's the purpose? Presumably to cut down on the sexual activity that brings the church into disrepute. If they're just trying to exert control over the priests and reduce, eg. masturbation, then that's a different thing altogether.

PDN

Dave, consider yourself yellow carded.

Puck

"Question 1:
Do you think I'm sexy?"

Cantab.

Dave! wrote: »

It's a legitimate question (humorously put)... How do you screen for "strong sexual urges"? And what's the purpose? Presumably to cut down on the sexual activity that brings the church into disrepute. If they're just trying to exert control over the priests and reduce, eg. masturbation, then that's a different thing altogether.

Firstly, the flippant nature of your signature is quite offensive here in the Christianity forum. (not to mention your ignorant commentary).

Your organisation (An Garda Siochana) screens for candidates who may be unsuitable. You have your criteria, the Church has hers.

The Church are endeavouring to ensure that they get the best candidates who are suitable for ordination. And why shouldn't they?

We don't want a bunch of fairy reverends pottering around town with their boyfriends a la the Anglican Church in England.

robindch

Cantab. wrote: »

We don't want a bunch of fairy reverends pottering around town with their boyfriends a la the Anglican Church in England.

By any chance, do you subscribe to The English Churchman?

Galvasean

Cantab. wrote: »

Firstly, the flippant nature of your signature is quite offensive here in the Christianity forum.

It's not much different from say PDN's sig which is worn around the Atheism & Agnosticism board (which BTW no one takes offense to).

Cantab. wrote: »

Your organisation (An Garda Siochana) screens for candidates who may be unsuitable. You have your criteria, the Church has hers.

Just out of interest why would you describe the Catholic church as being female when it is run and has always been run by men?

Cantab. wrote: »

The Church are endeavouring to ensure that they get the best candidates who are suitable for ordination. And why shouldn't they?

If they wish tp persist with having their priests abstain from sexual activity then screening would be a good idea. It would be interesting to know how they plan to screen.

Cantab. wrote: »

We don't want a bunch of fairy reverends pottering around town with their boyfriends a la the Anglican Church in England.

It's kind of weird how a lot of people automatically associate potential priesthood sexuality with homosexuality. No word of their girlfriends?

AtomicHorror

Cantab. wrote: »

We don't want a bunch of fairy reverends pottering around town with their boyfriends a la the Anglican Church in England.

In the one post you scold Dave and then come out with this. That is quite an astoundingly bigoted statement. The "fairy reverends" must bother you a lot. I'm also curious as to why you automatically equate "strong sexual urges" with "homosexuality".

If the church feel the need to enforce abstinence then that is their call, but I imagine the intent is not focused on homosexuality. I'd also wonder what the value of eliminating candidates with measured "strong" urges would really be. Surely the point of celibacy is the rejection of something that is significant in one's nature. An asexual priest won't find celibacy much of a struggle.

It sounds to me like the primary motive is to reduce the risk of more sex scandals, which would mean that their focus is actually on potential child abusers.

Cantab.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

In the one post you scold Dave and then come out with this. That is quite an astoundingly bigoted statement. The "fairy reverends" must bother you a lot. I'm also curious as to why you automatically equate "strong sexual urges" with "homosexuality".

There's no denying that the prevalence of homosexuality has done untold damage to their Church. So much so, a lot of ministers are choosing high Anglicanism, indeed reverting to Catholicism.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

If the church feel the need to enforce abstinence then that is their call, but I imagine the intent is not focused on homosexuality. I'd also wonder what the value of eliminating candidates with measured "strong" urges would really be. Surely the point of celibacy is the rejection of something that is significant in one's nature.

No, that's not the point of celibacy.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

It sounds to me like the primary motive is to reduce the risk of more sex scandals, which would mean that their focus is actually on potential child abusers.

It may be that this is one of many benefits of the new initiative.

Fanny Cradock

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I just heard this on the radio but I've been unable to verify it. If true it's quite baffling. Not only from a practical aspect (how does on check for strong sexual urges?) but I'm unsure as to why the RCC just doesn't allow priests to marry. Surely this would solve so many problems.

The catholic church is so far behind the times its frightening.

They are a laughing stock if this is true.

Let the priests marry ffs

Galvasean

For the record what is the exact reasoning for priests not being allowed to get married?
Is it so they have more time for God?

AtomicHorror

Cantab. wrote: »

There's no denying that the prevalence of homosexuality has done untold damage to their Church. So much so, a lot of ministers are choosing high Anglicanism, indeed reverting to Catholicism.

Only if the primary measure of "damage" is the number of adherents to that church. Last I checked, that was not the main concern of any Christian denomination. At any rate, the above explanation is much more acceptable than nasty little comments about "fairy reverends".

Cantab. wrote: »

No, that's not the point of celibacy.

Enlighten me.

Fanny Cradock

Galvasean wrote: »

For the record what is the exact reasoning for priests not being allowed to get married?
Is it so they have more time for God?

It's a good question. I guess the idea must be ex-biblical in its origin - possibly some specific Catholic doctrine.

philologos

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Only if the primary measure of "damage" is the number of adherents to that church. Last I checked, that was not the main concern of any Christian denomination. At any rate, the above explanation is much more acceptable than nasty little comments about "fairy reverends".



Enlighten me.

Cantabs explanation of what the Church of England's policy is on homosexual clergy is far too simplistic. All COE clergy if they are homosexual are expected to be celibate currently. I grant you that in Canada, and the United States it is considerably different, but there is no point generalising over what happens in one national church with another as their decision making processes are separate. I assume the COI has a similar stance to the COE currently, but I'm not entirely sure.

What we can be sure of though, is that Jesus Christ would want us to welcome all people irrespective of their sexual orientation to join the Christian community. Christianity is about moving closer to God's standard in time, not straight away.

AtomicHorror

Jakkass wrote: »

Cantabs explanation of what the Church of England's policy is on homosexual clergy is far too simplistic.

More than that, it is rather ignorantly homophobic.

Galvasean

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It's a good question. I guess the idea must be ex-biblical in its origin - possibly some specific Catholic doctrine.

I was thinking it might be something similar to the way nuns are supposedly 'married' to God so can't have husbands. Maybe it's similar reasoning for the priests (just without homosexual connotations of course).

Fanny Cradock

Cantab. wrote: »

We don't want a bunch of fairy reverends pottering around town with their boyfriends a la the Anglican Church in England.

Completely unacceptable, Cantab. You have been warned.

MrPudding

Galvasean wrote: »

For the record what is the exact reasoning for priests not being allowed to get married?
Is it so they have more time for God?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It's a good question. I guess the idea must be ex-biblical in its origin - possibly some specific Catholic doctrine.

My understanding, and I am open to correction here, is the celibacy and no marriage rule is relatively recent, only a few hundred years or so. Apparently it was due to the church being worried about the families of priests being entitled to church property on the death of the priest, or something.

MrP

PDN

MrPudding wrote: »

My understanding, and I am open to correction here, is the celibacy and no marriage rule is relatively recent, only a few hundred years or so. Apparently it was due to the church being worried about the families of priests being entitled to church property on the death of the priest, or something.

Although celibacy was encouraged by various Popes & Church Councils from 350 AD onwards, it was made a strict requirement for priests at the Second Lateran Council in 1139.

MrPudding

OK, so more than a few hundred....:o

MrP

Cantab.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Enlighten me.

I don't need to. The Catholic Church has written countless authoritive articles on the matter.

Look it up.

You'll get a far better explanation and insight than from a lay person like me.

Cantab.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Completely unacceptable, Cantab. You have been warned.

Are you denying that there are a high levels of openly homosexual priests in the Anglican Church?

Dawn French and the Vicar of Dibley series, in addition to the constant barrage of anti-religious/pro-atheism feeling in many aspects of popular media/culture, have done untold damage to respectable Anglicans all over England. Then again, maybe the Anglicans want this. The position hasn't been clarified.

Anyway, I'm pointing out the Catholic Church does not any any way condone homosexuality. Particularly amongst priests. That would be scandalous, an abomination of monumental proportion, for Catholicis.

PDN

Cantab. wrote: »

Are you denying that there are a high levels of openly homosexual priests in the Anglican Church?

He wasn't denying anything.

He was making you aware that homophobic language referring to 'fairies' is unacceptable on this board. As Christians we can affirm biblical standards without being hateful.

AtomicHorror

Cantab. wrote: »

I don't need to. The Catholic Church has written countless authoritive articles on the matter.

Look it up.

You'll get a far better explanation and insight than from a lay person like me.

I'm sorry, but I thought we were having a discussion here. Refuting a point with a blank "no" and then refusing to elaborate is no good. Nor is "look it up". If you don't wish to have a discussion then by all means exit this thread.

philologos

Cantab. wrote: »

Are you denying that there are a high levels of openly homosexual priests in the Anglican Church?

Since you seem to know so much about the church I practice in, if could you provide the percentages of the UK, Ireland, USA, Canada, Nigeria etc and show us what ratio out of the clergy are of a homosexual orientation? I just need to establish that you are unfairly criticising Anglicanism, there has been two sides to this argument not one as you portray also.

If we could at least treat other Christians as Christ might have wanted us to treat others it'd be brilliant.

Cantab.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I'm sorry, but I thought we were having a discussion here. Refuting a point with a blank "no" and then refusing to elaborate is no good. Nor is "look it up". If you don't wish to have a discussion then by all means exit this thread.

Well you are free to continue in your ignorant, mono-dimensional interpretation of what celibacy is, if you so wish.

And what makes you think what you find an answer on an internet discussion forum about "Christianity" that's infiltrated by all kinds of conflicting people, many with evil intent?

I'd say if you typed "celibacy" into wikipedia about 20 posts ago, you'd have long since found an answer to satisfy all of your deepest curiosities.

AtomicHorror

Cantab. wrote: »

Well you are free to continue in your ignorant, mono-dimensional interpretation of what celibacy is, if you so wish.

And what makes you think what you find an answer on an internet discussion forum about "Christianity" that's infiltrated by all kinds of conflicting people, many with evil intent?

I'd say if you typed "celibacy" into wikipedia about 20 posts ago, you'd have long since found an answer to satisfy all of your deepest curiosities.

I would not have found out what you think though, would I? All I have right now is that you disagree with me.

Cantab.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I would not have found out what you think though, would I? All I have right now is that you disagree with me.

I am incapable of telling you precisely and authoritively what celibacy is. If you want an opinion or a bit of entertainment this Sunday eventing, why don't you go into the atheism forum and have a good old laugh about the Catholic celibate priests?

Look it up. Vatican.va is a good starting point for you.

AtomicHorror

Cantab. wrote: »

I am incapable of telling you precisely and authoritively what celibacy is.

So, you don't know what it is but you know I'm wrong? Why do I feel like I'm playing 20 questions here? If you were unwilling to actually take some pretty light questioning then why were you so very quick to shoot down my opinion? I'm fully prepared to admit to being wrong, after all I'm no expert on Christianity.

Cantab. wrote: »

If you want an opinion or a bit of entertainment this Sunday eventing, why don't you go into the atheism forum and have a good old laugh about the Catholic celibate priests?

I think you've picked me up entirely wrong here. I'm not at all interested in laughing at Christians nor at you, your beliefs or opinions.

Cantab. wrote: »

Look it up. Vatican.va is a good starting point for you.

Thanks, that is helpful. But again, I'm just not sure where you were coming from when you shot me down.

Cantab.

Best of luck with the knowledge mining.

marco_polo

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Thanks, that is helpful. But again, I'm just not sure where you were coming from when you shot me down.

Being an regular reader of the tech forums, he generally seems to like arguing for the sake of it.