R
RolandThompsonGunner
Guest
Not to be nit-picky, and I’m sure you just misspoke, but a priest who engages in sexual contact nonconsensually isn’t sinning. At that point he’s just the victim of a crime.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
O
otjm
Guest
You are not nit-picky; I could have phrased it better.
Let’s try “consensual or abusive” which should include either force or intimidation, as well as “under age”. Consensual I take to be adult and adult; and I will leave it there.
Let’s try “consensual or abusive” which should include either force or intimidation, as well as “under age”. Consensual I take to be adult and adult; and I will leave it there.
S
StudentMI
Guest
Apologies for prolonging it but what about coercion?Consensual I take to be adult and adult; and I will leave it there.
O
otjm
Guest
Noted a minute or two before you posted. See above.
S
StudentMI
Guest
No problem man. Thanks.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Do you think there aren’t priests out there who sexually harass adult women? There are, and their stories are frequently on bishop-accountability and in the newspaper.Purge sodomites from the clergy. Problem solved.
Last edited:
D
do_justly_love_mercy
Guest
I don’t really follow your argument. A priest undertakes not to get married. That does not mean that he has withheld consent from all sexual activity for life. When people get married, they make a vow not to have sex with anyone other than their spouse for as long as they both live. However, a married person can still consent to sex with somebody other than their spouse if that’s what they choose to do.
The canon law of the Catholic Church only has effects in quite limited areas of life.
The canon law of the Catholic Church only has effects in quite limited areas of life.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Your argument does not make any sense.
The priest, regardless of his vows, still has free will to choose to commit a sexual sin.
A non-vulnerable adult to whom the priest makes a sexual advance also has free will to agree and choose to commit a sexual sin with a priest.
The priest breaking his vow of celibacy does not make him automatically guilty of “sexually harassing” a consenting adult.
So the bottom line is, should a priest be automatically laicized for breaking his vow of celibacy with a consenting adult. I would say it depends on the priest and the situation, and that the priest’s superiors are in the best position to decide what to do for an individual priest.
The priest, regardless of his vows, still has free will to choose to commit a sexual sin.
A non-vulnerable adult to whom the priest makes a sexual advance also has free will to agree and choose to commit a sexual sin with a priest.
The priest breaking his vow of celibacy does not make him automatically guilty of “sexually harassing” a consenting adult.
So the bottom line is, should a priest be automatically laicized for breaking his vow of celibacy with a consenting adult. I would say it depends on the priest and the situation, and that the priest’s superiors are in the best position to decide what to do for an individual priest.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.