/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>566958

mandatory priestly celibacy is in fact a great tragedy, and heretical innovation. Oh well

Jesus and Paul both said it was good in some cases. The problem is if you choose to believe this was inserted by some nefarious force, where does it end? What else do you throw out?

The good news is most people do not have that calling to be celibate. Most people have natural attraction to the opposite sex and if they don't consecrate it with marriage they will burn with lust and end up sinning because of it. So the proper course of action for the vast majority of Christians is to marry. And in marriage they are to be fruitful and multiply. At most, married people should only be celibate together for short periods that both spouses consent to for prayer, and then come together again. And as the other poster mentioned mandatory celibacy for clergy is unbiblical (the Bible actually insists that a bishop must have a wife), as are innovations like monks and nuns. We should allow for people who have a calling to be celibate and recognize it as good and not judge them for it, but also not encourage most people to be celibate, since it is not something most will be able to practice without falling into sin.

>>566976

i think OP is talking about mandatory priestly celibacy for catholic priests. not random, personal celibacy some people choose to do.

>da joos

Jesus lived, died, and rose again a virgin.

Ergo, celibacy is not a sin, because Our Lord was a perfect (sin-less) sacrifice; whom is celibate.

OP. We will be as angels. There will be no sex in heaven.

>>566981

child molesters will still molest children, even if - or especially if - they have children of their own blood

>>566958

>muh dick

>>566970

Just because some people practice -evil- eugenics doesn't mean you should condemn the idea of planned genetic engineering.

Sterilization, abortion and euthanasia are evil as hell

Subsidies to smart people, family-friendly social policies, community involvement in child-rearing, these things are good eugenics. Don't fix the gene pool by kicking out the weak (they get lucky on the genetic lottery sometimes) fix it by subsidizing the strong genetics to produce disproportionately high.

>>566984

ya celibacy for priests is redundant, monastic orders already include vows of celibacy.

Priests are supposed to be very involved with communities, engaged with the world, so they shouldn't be under the same expectations as monastics.

Also having a priest as a father would be pretty cool, I'm sure it would influence future generations of kids to take after their fathers. But this option is totally impossible as it stands now.

But we're talking about the Schismatic Church, so this isn't surprising, its just sad.

>>566988

ya, not all eugenics are evil.

Simply picking a young, strong, healthy woman of your race & culture is a form of eugenics.

>>566958

It's an inheritance scam. It was introduced after it became standard that the church could inherit their holdings and property after they died.

People have sexual drives, that's why I'm very critical of the priest celibacy thing. I also I would never take pre marriage priest advice, why would I listen to a virign, probably homosexual/pedohile guy?

>>567227

I'm just critical of my church, I know many priests who had affairs, my aunt even run into her priest in an airport when he was flying out for a vacation with his woman. You can't just supress sexual drive.

>>567228

Well either the Catholic church is right, and you should stop being a heretical modernist. Or the Catholic Church is wrong, and you would be better off as a Protestant or Orthodox. You can’t claim to be a genuine Catholic and yet also think that the Church got something as massive as that wrong.

>>567234

I don't see a point in converting to other sects that have much more problems.

>>567237

Please stop false flagging

>>567237

I’m not going to be making any claims as to which denomination is right. But it seems pretty clear you’ve got a somewhat confused view here. If you reject a basic element of Catholicism, how can you be sure in any way that the Catholic Church is the right place to be? And if the Catholic Church is indeed the right place to be, how can you reject such an important part of Catholicism? Surely the whole point of being Catholic is the belief that the authority of the Pope and Magisterium are valid. A traditionalist Catholic would criticise you for holding heretical beliefs despite being Catholic. And a commited Protestant would criticise you for still living as a Catholic instead of commiting fully to Sola Scripture and Sola Fide. I’m not sure what an Orthodox would say but it probably wouldn’t be good either.

who WOULD want to do something icky like s*x tho.

>>567249

I don't give a damn, I'm just concerned with the wellbeing of kids in my country, besides, whats wrong with wanting to change obvious flaws in your church when the current Pope is so liberal and is open to correct many mistakes the church made?

>>567278

when you consider the numbers of sexual scandals in the church and/or the actions of the higherups who cover this shit up, you know something is wrong with the catholic church

>>567286

>meme

>it's ok if my guys do it

since /pol/tards support a literal pedophile to the US senate nothing will realy amaze me

>>567284

>>567285

Look man, your opinion is basically that the Catholic church has been wrong for centuries. And that’s assuming that you’re only opposed to mandatory celibacy for priests. If you’re opposed to celibate priests full stop, you’re already basically a Protestant. You can’t criticise the Pope for being a liberal while also being a liberal yourself. You can’t claim to be a Catholic and reject major parts of Catholicism. Either join another denomination or accept Catholic teaching. Right now you are just a LARPing modernist going through the motions of being Catholic. I’m sorry if I’m coming off as hostile but that’s because I can’t stand this wishy washy liberalism in any denomination.

>>567292

he is not a Catholic, he's just LARPing

>>567292

I'm not criticizing him, you dunce

>>567289

>all those scandals are fake!!!!11

>>567298

Yeah, I re-read your post again, it should have been obvious to me that you liked Francis, that makes much more sense anyway. It does seem clear that you have been unwilling to acknowledge how utterly absurd it is to be Catholic while not really believing in the authority of the Church you belong to. It’s as absurd as being a Protestant who believes that the Bible can’t be the sole authority for doctrine. If you have any principles at all, you’re going to have to either fully accept Catholicism or choose another denomination.

1 Timothy 4:1-3

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

>>567305

This is the same dude throwing a tantrum that he can't be a racist and a Catholic in one of the sticky threads.

>>566970

The act of rejecting any female from having sex with you is a form of eugenics. Not only that, but it's also incredibly rude. You're essentially telling the person that they're not worthy of having children.

>>567349

yeah but why would i want to breed with someone who isn't my wife?

>>567366

I'm just trying to prove the point that eugenics=/=Satan

>>567382

oh, didn't realize the context, apologies lad

>>566968

>>566981

>>566995

>>567080

>>567285

Consider it all started happening with the New Mass.

Think about that for a second.

>>567288

Moore is completely innocent. I'd also like to add that you eat babies and smell your own farts (I have no evidence of that, but it doesn't matter).

>>566981

>priests molested children because they were sexually repressed

>(1) and done

This is a bad meme and I'm convinced you're posting in bad faith, but I'm going to bite anyway.

Why violate an 11 year old boy when the "reasonable" way to fulfill your sexual urges would to be having an affair with the parish secretary? It isn't like being a parish priest puts you in pirate ship conditions, where there are literally only men. Sticking it in a woman is going to be more sexually satisfying and far less danger upon discovery. You're going to get kicked out of the priesthood either way, so why risk prison time (and prison murder, because they do not treat molesters well in there) on top of it?

>>567595

This. The whole meme that celibacy turns you into a pederast is absurd. I guarantee that most priests failing in their celibacy are simply fapping or fornicating with women. The ones who are raping kids or having sex with men would be doing so even if they weren’t priests.

celibacy is important to me, because my desires are abominable in the eyes of god, but I see no reason for it in the church

>>566958

>muh juice

>doesn't know any theology or church history

Fuck off /pol/

>>567228

>>567278

>If any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema – Council of Trent, On Justification, Canon XVIII

>>567593

I like this comment. Sounds very much like St. Paul

>>566958

You see with a bit of thought it's easy to realize why Eugenics is stupid. It boils down to two types: Genetic Engineering and Selection

Genetic engineering is simple: you advocate fixing diseases by this, which the church has no problem with, provided that the healing process is purely curative.

Then you have selection, AKA kill off the kids that have some shitty diseases. So imagine there is a kid born with some diseases that 'ruins the gene pool'. Well if it's really that bad he isn't going to get laid and have kids will he, so he is already naturally selected for. Otherwise he's worth keeping so don't abort him. But let's just say for argument's sake that this argument weren't the case for some special person: well it's simply terrible to represent humanity as a pool that can be polluted, since a person born, regardless of how fit/unfit they are will simply be there. He will eat and drink and eventually die later, but his existence doesn't ruin anybody else's does it? Yes, there are those special cases where someone must be cared for for the majority of their life, however as said before, such intensive care is usually self destructive (guy won't find a partner), and the genes won't carry on.

>>567742

eugenics that are something that DO happen,not something that must be made to occur.

>>>/christian/577777