Idiot stupidity

The current controversy about a gay culture at Maynooth is misplaced and the church authorities should be focusing on why so few young people are seeking to join the priesthood rather than seeking to make seminaries gay-unfriendly places, according to former president Mary McAleese.
Dr McAleese said that she found the focus on whether there is a gay culture at Maynooth worrying but she traced it to the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality with which she profoundly disagreed and which did nothing to make gay people feel welcome within the church.
“We have the phenomenon of men in the priesthood who are both heterosexual and homosexual but the church hasn’t been able to come to terms with the fact that there are going to be homosexuals in the priesthood, homosexuals who are fine priests,” said Dr McAleese

The Catholic Church doesn’t actually care whether you prefer men or women. As a priest it cares that you keep it all in your own pants.

Which is what the laddies at Maynooth were suspected of not doing.

29 thoughts on “Idiot stupidity”

  1. Don’t want to obey the rules of a club you voluntarily joined? Find another club with different rules. Or subvert the club from the inside and change it utterly so it becomes a different club.
    Hmmm, decisions, decisions…….

  2. “What’s their policy on slaughtering all the Canaanites?”

    I think they’re going to hold a 5 day conference in Thailand to discuss the matter.

  3. From what I’ve heard of other seminaries, the “gay culture” had got to the point where straight men just didn’t want to stay.

    Problem seems to have been that in the 80s, parish priests who had trouble with chastity were shuffled off to teach in the seminaries, where they’d be out of the way. Which may not be a problem if it’s one or two, but it got to the point where too many of the seminary staff were men who couldn’t be trusted in a parish, and they set the tone of the seminaries, so straight seminarians felt very out of place and uncomfortable.

    Remember that you’re living there as well as studying, so it’s a pretty intensive experience. Plus the people in charge are going to have a big effect on your career. If the atmosphere is badly wrong, I can imagine it must be awful.

    I’m told most of the English-speaking seminaries were quietly cleaned up and re-staffed under Benedict, but this looks like the Irish are, as usual, a bit behind the times.

  4. ‘We have the phenomenon of men in the priesthood who are both heterosexual and homosexual’

    That is phenomenal – previously thought to be impossible.

  5. To understand this Irish Catholic Church issue one needs to see it as much a question of organisation as teaching. By that I mean organisation and organisational culture.

    Maynooth – and as Richard points out, certain English seminaries – have a culture of camp gay cliques, manifesting itself in Maynooth partly through the use of this gay hook-up app. Seminaries are colleges outside the control of the diocese and it’s bishop. A diocsee will send it’s trainee priests to a seminary and will pay the seminary to train them; but it can choose the seminary to which it.sends them. A seminary is controlled typically by its trustees.

    The Archbishop of Dublin is acutely aware just how the eyes of the world are upon him after the Church’s recent history; so is Pope Francis. Both are very keen on the idea of trainee priests being exposed to the Laity, to families, even fuck it to WOMEN. This culture in Maynooth is the last thing he can accept. So off his seminarians go to Rome. They might lose their vocations when they meet Roman girls, but that will be worth it!

    Meanwhile the trustees of Maynooth have issued a statement blaming the tensions on the anonymous whistle blower and Mary McAleese thinks it’s dreadful the Church won’t allow gay men in seminaries to just be really gay together. The Archbishop of Dublin has smelt the coffee; Mary McAleese and the trustees of Maynooth have not…yet.

  6. For priests they are supposed to keep it in their pants unless married.
    There are some married catholic priests – married before becoming priests.

  7. Hang about. It’s not just about getting your knob out, is it? I thought lusting after another bird = committing adultery in your heart. But lusting after another bloke = not a sin?

  8. @ dearieme
    Amalekites, not Canaanites.
    And it was only the army. not the civilians.
    If you should care to read the Bible, which you so enjoy misquoting, you will find that not all the Canaanites were slaughtered.

  9. “And it was only the army. not the civilians.”


    When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations – the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you -and when the Lord your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.

    Deuteronomy 7:1-6

    Those Canaanites?

  10. Thank you, NiV. Still, apologists will find some way of softening the facts. I particularly enjoyed this:

    “In Deuteronomy 20 God makes it very clear that annihilation is only to be used in the case of inhabitants of the ‘Promised Land’ of Canaan. God gave the Israelites strict rules about proper conduct in war against other enemies who did not live in Canaan …”

    So that’s all right then.

  11. @gamecock,

    The Lord clearly moves in mysterious ways.

    More generally, I thought the Catholic church was on the side of the Canaanites these days, along with the rest of the ill-informed lefties.

    I do have to wonder why G-d (sorry, just been there and as a respectful atheist am sensitised) told Moses to turn left rather than right out of Egypt – in effect giving the Israelis the oranges and the Arabs the oil. Doubtless more L-rdly mysterious moving.

  12. Seminaries in Europe may soon have to start importing South Americans, as the US already is.

    Some priests may find young Latinos even more tempting than the previous generations.

    It may well be time for the Pope to have some sort of vision on this subject.

  13. dearieme,

    “Still, apologists will find some way of softening the facts.”

    Mostly, I’ve found believers nowadays are not very familiar with what’s actually in he Bible. They’re not hiding it – usually they simply don’t know. For some reason, they don’t particularly emphasise those bits at Sunday School.

    I can’t criticise. I’m not super familiar with it myself, either.

    The bit I think you mean is Deuteronomy 20:15-16 – “Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations. But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:”

    That’s clear enough. But some of the other bits are a bit ambiguous in translation, and it’s not entirely clear to a modern audience what was meant. We can probably make a fairly accurate guess, but we might possibly be being uncharitable. For example, there’s Deuteronomy 20:14 – “But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself;” What does “take unto thyself” actually mean in this context? Women, sure, I can see that. But dwarves and cattle? How do they explain that one in Sunday School?

    Maybe a Christian could explain…?

    “In short: what exactly is the point you are trying to make?”

    I would assume the point is that this is not the first time Christians have changed the rules of the club they voluntarily joined…

  14. NiV (a translation of the bible I generally call the Northern Irish Version) – little ones may refer to children rather than dwarves?
    I’m not familiar with the context so I don’t know, just guessing.

  15. “I’m not familiar with the context so I don’t know, just guessing.”

    Me too. But given what happened to the Midianite children (Numbers 31), that seems plausible. Although in that case the women got slaughtered, too, so it doesn’t appear to be a hard and fast rule.

    And what was the deal with the talking donkey managing to outwit the angel? I never did understand that one…

  16. It’s very protestant to actually read the Bible; good Catholics know that the great theologians of the past have done it so that we don’t have to. Am I really going to understand it better than Aquinas, Augustine or Ambrose?

  17. ‘Mostly, I’ve found believers nowadays are not very familiar with what’s actually in he Bible.’

    When I was about 10, I asked my parents a religion question. They said, “Let’s go ask the preacher,” which we did.

    Even at 10, I knew there was a logic problem in going to ask someone else what we believed.

  18. WKPD

    The author of First Timothy has been traditionally identified as the Apostle Paul. He is named as the author of the letter in the text (1:1). Nineteenth and twentieth century scholarship questioned the authenticity of the letter, with many scholars suggesting that First Timothy, along with Second Timothy and Titus, are not original to Paul, but rather an unknown Christian writing some time in the late-first-to-mid-2nd century. Most scholars now affirm this view.

    Just another Christian forgery, then.

  19. Bloke in Costa Rica

    dearieme: I’m an atheist, so I couldn’t care less which bunch of delusional God botherers wrote it. But knowing a few bits is good for winding people up.

  20. TW: “The Catholic Church doesn’t actually care whether you prefer men or women.” Umm, yes it does. It unequivocally condemns homosexual behaviour (as does the CoE), based on some pretty unequivocal statements of St Paul.

    OK, it concedes that homosexual *desires* are not in themselves sinful, but that’s very far from saying it doesn’t care whether you prefer men or women.

  21. But that’s what I said! What raises the willy to attention isn’t something the Church is concerned with. What you do with an attentive willy very much is.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *