Martin moves priests out of Maynooth over ‘strange goings-on’

cosmo_vegas

Front page of the Irish Times. Apparently they're all using the gay dating app Grindr.

Falthyron

I find it strange that Diarmuid Martin regards attraction, desire, and biological urges as 'strange goings-on', but has no problem imagining the bread he consumes at mass is the actual body of Jesus Christ.

Barry Badrinath

Rather Grindr than playgrounds

razorblunt

Do onto others as you would want them to do onto you.

Nothing wrong with what you're doing lads, lean ar aghaidh.

Fleawuss

Ah Rome! That city devoid of lust since Romulus and Remus took to the wolf's teat.

Falthyron

Falthyron wrote: »

I find it strange that Diarmuid Martin regards attraction, desire, and biological urges as 'strange goings-on', but has no problem imagining the bread he consumes at mass is the actual body of Jesus Christ.

I don't. He just has different beliefs to me.

eviltwin

I wonder why those guys signed up for the priesthood if they want to have sexual relationships. They know the rules. Maybe they should be looking into a different career.

carlmango11

Deleted User wrote: »

Falthyron wrote: »

I find it strange that Diarmuid Martin regards attraction, desire, and biological urges as 'strange goings-on', but has no problem imagining the bread he consumes at mass is the actual body of Jesus Christ.

I don't. He just has different beliefs to me.

Doesn't make them not strange.

If you're a grown man and you think wafer becoming actual flesh is normal but human attractions and sexuality is not, then you're deluded.

Fleawuss

eviltwin wrote: »

I wonder why those guys signed up for the priesthood if they want to have sexual relationships. They know the rules. Maybe they should be looking into a different career.

And your answer and the key to understanding all the problems: they are special, chosen by God from all eternity, and the rules don't apply to them. They are the insiders.

carlmango11

eviltwin;100534409

Maybe because they're ashamed of being gay so figure becoming a priest is an easy way of avoiding the endless questions and probing into their love lives?

I would imagine a lot of people growing up in very religious and homophobic households see it as their only option

Oh jesus this edit feature is going mental

eviltwin

carlmango11 wrote: »

Maybe because they're ashamed of being gay so figure becoming a priest is an easy way of avoiding the endless questions and probing into their love lives?

I was wondering if it was that myself

Falthyron

eviltwin wrote: »

I wonder why those guys signed up for the priesthood if they want to have sexual relationships. They know the rules. Maybe they should be looking into a different career.

As far as I understand, the trainee Priests are allowed to have relationships as they haven't taken their vow yet. The issue Diarmuid Martin has is who these trainee Priests are having relationships with, i.e. men. To suggest this hasn't been going on for decades, if not longer, is naive. The problem the church is experiencing is how to control it and keep it under wraps in an age of social media and ease of access to sex. The solution? Send them to Rome, a great place for keeping things under wraps.

Falthyron

carlmango11 wrote: »

Doesn't make them not strange.

If you're a grown man and you think wafer becoming actual flesh is normal but human attractions and sexuality is not, then you're deluded.

'Faith' being invoked in... 3.... 2....

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

My name is URL

Same old, same old with catholic religious leaders.

When they perceive a problem to exist they just send the lads somewhere else rather than actually address the core issue.

carlmango11

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If you're from a socially conservative family, becoming a Catholic priest is a perfect solution. You get to spend years in a seminary filled with other men, many of whom are also gay (in a 2000 book, The Changing Face of the Priesthood, Donald B. Cozzens estimates that 58 percent of priests are gay, and a much higher percentage of young priests). Nobody will ever ask why you don't have a girlfriend, why you don't want to get married and have children, or why you spend most of your time in the company of other men. Your socially conservative relatives will be bursting with delight at having a priest in the family. Plus, you get to have a fairly undemanding job, with flexible hours and iron-clad job security, and pursue sexual relationships on the QT.[/quote]
You're really selling it! Screw software development.

mansize

cosmo_vegas wrote: »

Front page of the Irish Times. Apparently they're all using the gay dating app Grindr.

There's 4 of them? Couldn't they just have a quick tug of the forelock in the changing room? An app gives the game away...

mansize

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You had me at "filled with other men"!

carlmango11

carlmango11 wrote: »

Maybe because they're ashamed of being gay so figure becoming a priest is an easy way of avoiding the endless questions and probing into their love lives?

That - or their shame at homosexuality maybe led them to think the celibacy and discipline of the priesthood would serve as a structure which would help them suppress their desires. The number of US Pastors and anti-gay campaigners who have been caught in homosexual indulgences has made me suspect this for sometime.

I can certainly get myself into that head space - that if I hated some part of myself that much - I would be attracted to a lifestyle that would offer a path suppressing that attribute.

Alas too many news paper headlines - and too many raped children - shows us that as well meant as that might be - the attempted suppression of who they are can often explode in ways many times worse than anything they had wanted to suppress.

mansize

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

My aunt used tell me that in the 90's - all the sexual deviants were sent off to the priesthood no questions asked.

I know so many gay priests- I once had a tryst with a former seminarian

mansize

Deleted User wrote: »

That - or their shame at homosexuality maybe led them to think the celibacy and discipline of the priesthood would serve as a structure which would help them suppress their desires. The number of US Pastors and anti-gay campaigners who have been caught in homosexual indulgences has made me suspect this for sometime.

I can certainly get myself into that head space - that if I hated some part of myself that much - I would be attracted to a lifestyle that would offer a path suppressing that attribute.

Alas too many news paper headlines - and too many raped children - shows us that as well meant as that might be - the attempted suppression of who they are can often explode in ways many times worse than anything they had wanted to suppress.

I believe the paedos were sent for the same reason- out of sight is out of mind.

Fleawuss

McGruber wrote: »

Rather Grindr than playgrounds

There's a false assumption there about homosexuality and pedophilia: i.e. if you are gay and don't have a sexual outlet you're off to the playground to be a pedophile. That is very dangerous nonsense.

mansize

Fleawuss wrote: »

There's a false assumption there about homosexuality and pedophilia: i.e. if you are gay and don't have a sexual outlet you're off to the playground to be a pedophile. That is very dangerous nonsense.

Some people love to conflate the two...

Can't think of any reason why

RWCNT

Fleawuss wrote: »

There's a false assumption there about homosexuality and pedophilia: i.e. if you are gay and don't have a sexual outlet you're off to the playground to be a pedophile. That is very dangerous nonsense.

You are right, but I'd imagine that poster is referring moreso to priests in general rather than gay people.

Dublinensis

I can imagine how demoralising it must be to be a sincere and committed Catholic, seeking to join the priesthood in an attempt to do one's bit for the Church in a society increasingly hostile to it, only to find that even the seminary is full of people taking the piss.

Bear in mind that views which make you a conformist in Montrose make you a fifth-columnist in the clergy. If half or more of an army's officer cadets are of dubious loyalty it must make things very difficult for those truly committed to the service of their country.

This seems like an admirably pragmatic move on the Archbishop's part, showing a willingness to do what needs to be done even if that means attracting negative publicity and upsetting the status quo.

Irish Guitarist

I hate that nonsense that goes on here about priests being paedophiles because of the churches stance on homosexuality. It's like saying that any man who doesn't have a girlfriend for a significant period of time is going to start molesting girls.

If anything it's insulting homosexual men, or even men in general, more than it is the church.

Irish Guitarist

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

I hate that nonsense that goes on here about priests being paedophiles because of the churches stance on homosexuality. It's like saying that any man who doesn't have a girlfriend for a significant period of time is going to start molesting girls.

It's a somewhat logically pleasing explanation for the extent and incidence of child sexual abuse by Roman Catholic priests, but apparently there's no empirical support for it at all.

Quite the opposite, in fact. All of the data I've managed to find is entirely dismissive of the notion that there is a correlation between repressed homosexuality and child sexual abuse.

Zxclnic

Fleawuss wrote: »

There's a false assumption there about homosexuality and pedophilia: i.e. if you are gay and don't have a sexual outlet you're off to the playground to be a pedophile. That is very dangerous nonsense.

I don't believe the poster was making that assumption.

To really simplify it, I think 'McGruber' was inferring that the statement Gay/good -Paedophile/not good (with which I personally agree)...might not be in total accordance with the views of the Catholic hierarchy in this country.
That's why I, for one, thanked his post
We await clarification.

Fleawuss

Zxclnic wrote: »

I don't believe the poster was making that assumption.

To really simplify it, I think 'McGruber' was inferring that the statement Gay/good -Paedophile/not good (with which I personally agree)...might not be in total accordance with the views of the Catholic hierarchy in this country.
That's why I, for one, thanked his post
We await clarification.

You await clarification of what is glaringly obvious. The statement was "Rather Grindr than the playground" making it completely obvious that the implication was if they don't have the one they'll be at the other.

When the statement is couched in simple binary terms then that is that.

_Whimsical_

I find this very bemusing. In this day and age there's no need for a gay person to live undercover, no need to shamefully join a group of celibate men to quel their own urges because life offers them no other outlet.

Why are these guys entering the priesthood in the current climate if they want to use Grindr? What could the possible motivation be to sit in classes on celibacy and church teaching etc all day if you're sure you aren't buying what they're selling?

Your Face

Feckin priests.

A Little Pony

I have to say I am shocked at this news. I thought the Pope was an upstanding guy.:ermm::woot:

arayess

Fleawuss wrote: »

There's a false assumption there about homosexuality and pedophilia: i.e. if you are gay and don't have a sexual outlet you're off to the playground to be a pedophile. That is very dangerous nonsense.

i think in this case you are mistaken.
the RCC has a shocking history of abusing kids - the poster was clearly hinting that it was much preferable that they be riding each other (or other men) rather than kids.
No connection between homosexuality and pedophilia was mentioned. I didn't make the connection till you brought it up

Fleawuss

arayess wrote: »

i think in this case you are mistaken.
the RCC has a shocking history of abusing kids - the poster was clearly hinting that it was much preferable that they be riding each other (or other men) rather than kids.
No connection between homosexuality and pedophilia was mentioned. I didn't make the connection till you brought it up

Untrue. The assumption is implicit and was brought to light. The assumption is perfectly clear: if gay men arent on Grindr then they are down the playground being pedophiles. I simply brought it to light for people who couldn't see it immediately.

arayess

Fleawuss wrote: »

Untrue. The assumption is implicit and was brought to light. The assumption is perfectly clear: if gay men arent on Grindr then they are down the playground being pedophiles. I simply brought it to light for people who couldn't see it immediately.

consider me enlightened so.
with an insult that most likely wasn't there at all

Zxclnic

Fleawuss wrote: »

You await clarification of what is glaringly obvious. The statement was "Rather Grindr than the playground" making it completely obvious that the implication was if they don't have the one they'll be at the other.

When the statement is couched in simple binary terms then that is that.

Well, I took it as a sardonic 'comment' on the ambivalent attitude of the Catholic Church towards paedophile priests...
....Come in 'McGruber' your ears must be burning.

Fleawuss

arayess wrote: »

consider me enlightened so.
with an insult that most likely wasn't there at all

People's assumptions sometimes betray what they actually think.

GLaDOS

I'd be pretty sure McGruber doesn't think all gay men are latent paedofiles

Fleawuss

GLaDOS wrote: »

I'd be pretty sure McGruber doesn't think all gay men are latent paedofiles

You certainly aren't basing that statement on what he wrote in this thread. Which is what I am objecting to.

Zxclnic

Fleawuss wrote: »

People's assumptions sometimes betray what they actually think.

As do people's interpretations of other people's assumptions.

---

He wasn't conflating homosexuality with paedophilia, I'm convinced of that.

Fleawuss

Zxclnic wrote: »

As do people's interpretations of other people's assumptions.

---

He wasn't conflating homosexuality with paedophilia, I'm convinced of that.

So what have I betrayed to you?

Zxclnic

Fleawuss wrote: »

So what have I betrayed to you?

That you have one giant bee in your bonnet.

Fleawuss

Zxclnic wrote: »

That you have one giant bee in your bonnet.

Lol. I refuse to let idiotic and deeply offensive assumptions about gay people pass. And that's "a bee in the bonnet". Sweet Jesus.

Zxclnic

Fleawuss wrote: »

Lol. I refuse to let idiotic and deeply offensive assumptions about gay people pass. And that's "a bee in the bonnet". Sweet Jesus.

Well, I think you're being very unfair on the poster who's not here to defend himself, perhaps we can agree to wait for his return.:)

RWCNT

Fleawuss wrote: »

Untrue. The assumption is implicit and was brought to light. The assumption is perfectly clear: if gay men arent on Grindr then they are down the playground being pedophiles. I simply brought it to light for people who couldn't see it immediately.

There are a lot of people that think like that but I think you're jumping the gun here, and I say this as a bloke who absolutely loves playing with other men's privates.

Fleawuss

Zxclnic wrote: »

Well, I think you're being very unfair on the poster who's not here to defend himself, perhaps we can agree to wait for his return.:)

His statement stands independently of any "clarification". For him it's grindr or the playground? What's your problem in condemning that statement as a deeply iffensive slur on homosexuals?

GLaDOS

Fleawuss wrote: »

You certainly aren't basing that statement on what he wrote in this thread. Which is what I am objecting to.

You're reading into something that isn't there tbh.

Fleawuss

GLaDOS wrote: »

You're reading into something that isn't there tbh.

You're refusing to see what is written in front of your face.

In fairness, I first perceived that comment like Fleawuss did, but in reality someone might say the same thing if these chaps were hooking up with women from Tinder... "better on Tinder than in the playground".

Zxclnic

Fleawuss wrote: »

His statement stands independently of any "clarification". For him it's grindr or the playground? What's your problem in condemning that statement as a deeply iffensive slur on homosexuals?

Because I don't interpret his post as a slur on homosexuals.
Could I be any clearer?

BTW, I've never spoken or typed a homophobic word in my life, nor would I ever 'thank' a post that I thought was even mildly anti-homosexual.
If you find one of my posts that suggests otherwise, I'll get my coat.

Fleawuss

Zxclnic wrote: »

Because I don't interpret his post as a slur on homosexuals.
Could I be any clearer?

BTW, I've never spoken or typed a homophobic word in my life, nor would I ever 'thank' a post that I thought was even mildly anti-homosexual.
If you find one of my posts that suggests otherwise, I'll get my coat.

And the reason you don't interpret it as such?