Laitized priests and other questions

[OLofMtCarmel]

Some people that would say a man not having sex is unnatural would also try to convince you that monogamy is also unnatural. They’re already saying that same sex relations are natural. Now they’re going to say that multiple partners are natural. There are already even people out there that believe in other grotesquely disordered acts as natural and therefore okay. Men are quite capable of controlling themselves. However, some men have taken substances in historical past to help curve the desires. If they really want to take something that isn’t harmful to them, I assume they could take an antidepressant. Even without it men can control themselves. If not, they do not need to become priests.

Anyone can be appointed as a Cardinal from my understanding. One isn’t required to be a priest. He could be a deacon, maybe even a lay person that is open and available for celibacy. But, the modern practice for choosing cardinals comes from the pool of bishops. Keep in mind that all bishops are celibate in the Catholic Church. Even in the eastern Churches. Additionally, Eastern Catholic priests are typically married men, about 90% according to statistics that I’ve read. But they would not be chosen for bishops, unless their wife passed on and their children were adults. I don’t know of any cases, but there may be some others would know.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I think that the view that self-control and not giving into “urges” is somehow “unnatural” troubling.

There’s no reason to find it troubling. We just have to ensure that we’re not equivocating with our use of the word “unnatural.”

The word has two very different meanings, philosophically speaking.

While “natural” can mean “in accord with natural law,” sometimes it doesn’t mean that. Sometimes it refers rather to that which occurs by default in nature.

In that other sense, which is at least as valid philosophically, it refers to something in accord with the laws of nature.

And “the laws of nature” are not the same thing as the natural law.

For instance, homosexuality occurs sometimes among animals. So is it “unnatural”? Well, it violates what we call “natural law.” But in a very real sense it is not “unnatural,” since it occurs de facto in nature, in reality. This fact nonetheless in no way constitutes a moral justification for homosexual acts, since the laws of nature obviously do not reflect morality (nature is quite brutal!).

The fact is, our sexual urges come from the animal part of us and are natural. Transcending their baser nature and living chastely, which should be a goal of every decent human being, is “unnatural” in the *latter *sense of the word: i.e. it’s not what animals (non-persons) do.

And I find the practice of celibracy to be unnatural, and, from what I have heard and read recently, medication might not be a bad idea.

Could you be more specific? What makes you think a man would need medication not to commit sexual acts?

I promise you, such a thing is not necessary. It may seem so to some, but the experience of those to whom it does seem so is, quite simply, far from exhaustive.

 

[TimothyH]

It was a set up folks. Plain and simple. He wanted to attack celibacy and people fell right into the trap.

Or maybe an attempt to justify some behavior. That is quite common.

Usually when someone argues vocally against the infallibilty of the Pope, for example, or Church authority, or the ability of one sinful man to forgive the sins of another, it is not because they disagree with the doctrine, but because they have some habitual sin or some past sin that they don’t want to deal with.

I sense the same sort of thing going on here - an agrument against the “naturalness” of celibacy as a way to justify one’s own past or present sexual behavior. If celibacy is unnatural, then sexual promiscuity is natural and acceptable and all those who abstain have something wrong with them. If celibacy is natural, then the person arguing against it has an issue he needs to address. The morality of the underlying behavior is not a point of argument, but the sanity of anyone who behaves in an opposite manner is instead brought into question.

I used to make these same arguments. I never questioned whether my own behavior was good or bad, only the sanity of people who did not behave the way it did. I hope for the OP’s sake that I am wrong. Note that WillP went dark. He disappeared when he was asked point blank if there is something he struggles with. Having been there, I have a strong sense that this may be what is going on.

-Tim-

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

And I find the practice of celibracy to be unnatural, and, from what I have heard and read recently, medication might not be a bad idea.

Celibacy is the practice of not marrying.

Chastity is the practice of using sex properly in the state of life that we find ourselves.

So if we are in a single state that means no sex, if we are in a married state that means just with our spouse.

We are rational beings, not just animals. Being rational beings we should be able to control our base instincts.

Celibacy is as natural a state as marriage is.

Controlling our sexual practices is a matter of Chastity and some may think it is unnatural to restrict sex to marriage but I believe that those people put too much emphasis on man’s animal nature and ignore his human nature which is rational rather than instinctual.

 

[catharina]

Celibacy is the practice of not marrying.

Chastity is the practice of using sex properly in the state of life that we find ourselves.

So if we are in a single state that means no sex, if we are in a married state that means just with our spouse.

We are rational beings, not just animals. Being rational beings we should be able to control our base instincts.

Celibacy is as natural a state as marriage is.

Controlling our sexual practices is a matter of Chastity and some may think it is unnatural to restrict sex to marriage but I believe that those people put too much emphasis on man’s animal nature and ignore his human nature which is rational rather than instinctual.

True true true.
Love ya’, Brother David!