There is No Such Thing as Compulsory Priestly Celibacy

I read an article recently that declared “compulsory celibacy” to be the common denominator to the Church’s problems of reputation loss, due to abuse by priests, and the shortage or priests.  First, calling priestly celibacy “compulsory” is like calling marital monogamy “compulsory.”  Nobody forces a man to become a priest and adopt celibacy, just as no man is coerced into marriage and adopting monogamy.

Secondly, saying that attempted celibacy is in any way responsible for any instances of abuse by priests is to declare that nobody can or should attempt to abstain from sexual relations for extended periods of time.  Therefore, blaming attempted celibacy is akin to saying that single persons, having yet to find a spouse, should not be expected to refrain from sex.  Consequently, fornication is eliminated by decree.  And I thought the sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s was bad!

If you can’t accept a permanent commitment to have sex with only one person for the rest of your life, don’t get married, but don’t expect the Church to bless your fornication either.  And if you can’t make a lifelong commitment to celibacy, don’t become a priest, but do find a wife and be faithful to her.  If you can’t accept those propositions, then you are rejecting the moral teaching of the Church and are yourself actively refusing communion with her.

Fit to Banish: or boing-boing banned facts

I’m done with Boing-Boing, the website. I just discovered that I have been banned from posting any comments on the site. “Why?” is the obvious question. To figure out the answer, I reviewed the few remarks I’ve made, the most recent of which is from 2 weeks ago. It was written in response to an inflammatory article accusing Cardinal Timothy Dolan of “[paying] off priests” who had raped children. Of the many persons commenting on the story, only a few had the mental competence, integrity, and/or courage to interject some truth into the proceedings.

When I found a comment worthy of praise, I shared:


“In effect, to be upset about this route of getting rid of bad priests expeditiously, is to be upset about getting rid of priests expeditiously because there exists no speedy alternative. Look at that, the Church is the pragmatist, leaving the naysayers to be …

“People keep saying, ‘Report them to the police,’ but what the heck is that meant to do? ‘So, we have a customer who complained to us about an employee sexually [molesting] him.’ To which the cops will respond with, ‘So what?’ It’s called heresay, and it holds no water, legally, whatsoever. Victims should be happy if the priest is laicized, and they must bring the case themselves to the civil authorities. That’s more basic than Law 101.”

This comment of mine, it seems, is the one reason that the people over at Boing-Boing have seen fit to ban me. So, to them, I say, “Good riddance.” If I cannot speak truth in your midst, what reason have I to be present?

Boing-Boing is no haven for truth, objectivity, or tolerance. Clearly, those of us who have the integrity to defend the scapegoats are ourselves equally demonized. I depart in good conscience, knowing that I made a sincere, respectful proposition of truth and was rejected for it.

May God have mercy on them.

Perhaps, one day, those deluded atheists will be struck by Truth and convert, just as Leah Libresco was. As she said, the concept of truth is a “gateway drug.”