During the interview, which was then published by L’Osservatore Romano, Father Crepy made several distinctions. “First of all, it must be noted that sexuality is not limited to the genital dimension, and thus the emotional life is much vaster than the sexual life, although the latter is of obvious importance.”
– Father Luc Crepy, Celibacy does not deny priests their sexuality or freedom, asserts French seminary rector
This seems disingenuous, since the Church has frowned on very intimate emotional relationships among priests, for fear that they might enter “the genital dimension.” (great band name, BTW)
I’m guessing that Father Crepy is thinking of Abelard and Heloise.
(via The Teapot Atheist)
Father Creepy?
You beat me to it. More distressingly, I initially read ‘Heloise’ as ‘Blastoise’ from Pokemon. I need to start making more contributing posts.
Celibacy is the denial of sexuality. How can a sane person say that it does not denial sexuality?
This is like saying that forced vegetarianism does not deny vegetarians meat, since they get to look at it in the store.
The absurdity of religion continues to astound me.
Nice analogy.
FTA: “What is at stake is the living out of one’s sexuality in a liberating way: in the choice of celibacy, there is a dimension of freedom.”
I’ve seen this perversion of the word “choice” applied more generally in religion as well. When they talk of submitting to god’s will and “choosing” what they’re told to: the incredible freedom in becoming a slave. (See also the ex-gay movement.)
“the incredible freedom in becoming a slave”
couldn’t have said it better.
I agree with the band name………..LMAO
Isn’t asexuality a valid life choice?
I would certainly think so.
why not? If that’s what you want, who’s business is it.
That being said, if it’s forced on you via dogma or custom, than no.
If one chooses said dogma, it isn’t forced.
True, but I referring to those who have had the upbringing in dogma.
At what age does it become a choice?
should have proofread…I meant to say I *was* referring……
It is a tough call, as in the other thread where the child died because he refused a blood transfusion, indoctrination is powerful.
But I’d say that there are enough influences a child can seek out to make their own decision. At earlier ages than some might suggest. Studies show that the older a child becomes, the less likely they are to believe in those dogmas, so the “get em early” philosophy runs rampant in the church for the most part.
But I give kids far more credit. They have learned to make their own decisions and manipulate and test and question from infancy… I see no reason why a child shouldn’t continue in that line of thinking, even when it comes to indoctrination of religion.
and on an aside, let me add…
The indoctrination becomes even more powerful the more years go by…
No, only atfer you have believed it.
I wouldn’t call it a “choice”, as there ARE people who, naturally, have no sexual or romantic attraction to either gender.
Am I the only one who read that as “Father Creepy”?