No such thing as consensual sex for a priest

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maximian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Maximian

Guest
When a man joins a seminary he says “No” to sex, in advance. If he is ordained he says “No” to sex forever in advance.

Therefore any indecent approach to him by anyone ar all of either sex is guilty of sexual harassment in the workplace and cannot claim consensuality.

Sexual harassment is a sackable offence in the secular world and any person, whether bushop, priest or fellow seminarian who suggests sexual activity to another clergyman should be laicized, even if they believe the approach was welcome. We need holy clergy.

Do you agree?
 
I have mixed feelings on this one. While perhaps laicization would be helpful in dissuading other men of the cloth from getting involved in similar situations, I would think any sin against any of the vows they take should merit the same consequence. There should be no questions asked about the abuse of children, but I know that‘s a different topic.
Perhaps if it’s between two consenting adults, then a warning along with a sabbatical would be appropriate to figure out the current state of mind/heart.
 
No.

Two entirely different situations. There is no forgiveness or reconciliation in the secular world, nor requirement for either.

Something bring this up or is this another of the innumerable hypotheticals?
 
Its an aspect that I haven’t seen raised before: that sexual harassment means propositioning a person who has said no. In the context of the clergy all priests have said no. So any claim that “consensual” sex between priests is not abuse is false.
 
It is harassment at the workplace which is a criminal offense.
 
Last edited:
I came across an article on the National Catholic Register when the McCarrick thing was still breaking which put forth the idea that because of the prestige and power in the priestly status, consensual sex with an adult was pretty much impossible. It always involves a degree of coercion, which is not the same thing as force.
 
Maximian said:
Do you agree?
Click to expand...
A cleric who sexually propositions another cleric should be disciplined, but not for the reasons you’ve laid out. A clergyman has made a vow of celibacy, but that doesn’t mean he’s said “no” to individuals who might proposition him. He’s still capable of consenting to sex (although he shouldn’t.)
 
“Sexual harassment” is a recent legal term, coined to describe certain behaviors which might be licit but unwanted. Priests are held to a higher moral law, and God is more forgiving than the secular courts and man’s law.
 
Purge sodomites from the clergy. Problem solved.
 
Last edited:
Maximian said:
It is harassment at the workplace which is a criminal offense.
Click to expand...
Sexual harassment is rarely a criminal offense, but a civil tort.

However, civil law does not recognize religious vows. It is only concerned with whether Individual A consents to Individual B.

Civil Law does NOT recognize prior statements with regard to consent. Someone consenting or refusing consent in the past is not obligated under civil law to consent or withhold in the future. Thus, a commitment made to the pope to not engage in sexual activity does not bind the priest under civil law.

However, a clergy could certainly engage in sexual harassment by repeatedly propositioning another member of the clergy. However, it is the unwelcome advances of Individual B against Individual A that creates the harassment, not the vow of celibacy Individual A made to the church.
 
Last edited:
Fauken said:
I’m sorry, but what does that have to do with the OP?
Click to expand...
I think it’s just an excuse to use the word “sodomite.” Which is silly for a number of reasons, not least of which is that straight people practice sodomy too. Or that a straight priest could just as easily be sexually harassed by a woman.
 
Last edited:
No, I was speaking to the comments regarding clerics having sex with clerics or other men.
It is a huge problem in the Church, whether some acknowledge it as such or prefer rather sweeping it under a rug.
 
The issues are: 1) Did the parties, at the time, consent? 2) If they did consent, was the consent freely given, or affected by age, imbalance of power, alcohol or drugs, etc 3) If the consent was not freely given, ought the other party to have known that?

Whether either party has previously said they never intend to have sex has nothing to do with any of this.
 
Maximian said:
When a man joins a seminary he says “No” to sex, in advance.
Click to expand...
This is debatable in my opinion. People often struggle with viewing a seminarian as a future priest rather than viewing them as someone who is discerning God’s will. From this we could possibly say that when a man joins seminary he’s not saying no to sex in advance, rather he is seeing if God wants him to say that. Seminarians have no indelible mark on their soul, they are just like you and me.

As for the rest of the question, I do agree with you to some degree. I believe that among clergy there can be consensual sex. Just because they make vows doesn’t mean that they are going to keep them. They can lie and disobey their vows. For example, if I said to you “I am not going to steal your Cadillac” and then I stole it, I doubt you would say “well he didn’t steal my Cadillac because he promised he wouldn’t.” That being said, priests who are caught in sexual activity should be laicized as we need holy clergy.

Please correct me if I am wrong on this. God bless you!
 
Maximian said:
When a man joins a seminary he says “No” to sex, in advance. If he is ordained he says “No” to sex forever in advance.
Click to expand...
Not quite. He says “I promise I will say no.” He can break that promise and consent later. He shouldn’t, but he can.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top