Pope would "thought police" seminary wannabes

It takes a lot to get me back to this Blog sometimes Between/among writings at Free Market News (columns and news-story rewrites) pieces for Rational Review and other libertarian sites, occasional freelance gigs outside the liberty watch, daily chats on yahoo lists ... and general correspondence with friends ... I cover most of the waterfront already in other venues.

But today's Washington Times had a story that just crossed over the line for me: According to the story, Pope Benedict XVI is about to issue "a Vatican 'instruction' ... forbidding even celibate homosexuals from entering seminary."

The first question that comes to mind is, how will he know? Has His Holiness somehow brought clairvoyance along with his other attributes? And will he be thus required to preside over every entrance-interview for every man seeking to join a priesthood, or are his ESP powers somehow transferable? Teh only way to know what is truly in someone's mind is to either be that person, or somehow read that mind! (This is one thing I have always liked about Judaism, BTW; there is no attempt to evaluate the thoughts of another, only the overt actions. Seems like a pretty wise approach to me.)

Meanwhile, the term "celibate homosexual" is approximately equal to "celibate heterosexual" ... "celibate foot fetishist" ... or "celibate bestialist". The second word in each phrase defines a desire, motivation or "preference" of some sort, while the first word implies that it has either never been expressed openly with actions, or is at least not being so in the present.

But even the word "celibate" is wrong here; that word is is actually defined, not as forswearing sexual contact with another, but as not MARRYING! According to my dictionary it says:

celibate: Etymology: Latin caelibatus, from caelib-, caelebs unmarried
: a person who lives in celibacy

When we go to "celibacy" the results are similar:

celibacy
Pronunciation: 'se-l&-b&-sE
Function: noun

1 : the state of not being married
2 a : abstention from sexual intercourse b : abstention by vow from marriage

Whoops, there's that "second definition" again, which was obviously added due to the confusion about the first one, and the widespread misuse of the words -- but even then, only half of that applies, even to the tortured definition being proposed by the Pope.

And then there is:

sexual intercourse
Function: noun

1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : COITUS

2 : intercourse involving genital contact between individuals other than penetration of the vagina by the penis

Once more, the second definition hits us, However, as Bill Clinton himself has declared, "sexual intercourse" is actually a very limited concept legally, involving genital-to-genital contact -- so I guess oral, manual or other sex (even anal?) doesn't count, either?

I am very confused now ...

***

The attempt to somehow cleanse the Catholic Church of the stain brought on by the actions of a few priests (okay, a fairly large number of them) -- involving not only sexual conduct, but such conduct imposed on children (including many who even I would consider to be "below the age of consent" and therefore incapable of offering it?) ... well, that's somewhat laudable, although a better method would be to utterly renounce these creepoids, arrest them and open the doors to priests (both men and women) who understand there is a line between consensual behavior and coercion -- regardless of what other adults they do or do not relate to on their own time!

Meanwhile, removing the artificial barrier to getting your rocks off by whatever consensual means, might free up a lot of creative energy for spiritual pursuits. (A friend of mine way, way back used to claim that the prohibition of procreation among the "best and brightest" among Catholics had kept that whole culture from advancing as fast as, say, the Jews who encourage their rabbis to "be fruitful and multiply." I never had a good answer for him ...)

But yet another thought: I would also say that this latest attempt to somehow circumscribe even the THOUGHT of engaging in some behavior -- deemed "sinful" by some folks (but only so to libertarians if coercion or "minors" are involved ... and let's separate issues, okay, so we don't digress into a children's rights argument right now?) -- reminds me a lot of back when conservatives, wary of the advances of the movement for civil liberties for gays, lesbians, et alia, predicted "employment quotas" would arise if those advances were not stifled and stopped.

Back then, the obvious question was how one would prove one's orientation, and thereby qualify for the presumed quota. In discussions with several other libertarians, we came (well not really, but we got pretty excited?} to the conclusion that each morning would have to begin with a "fellatio" line (or cunnilingus, as the case may be), whereby each "quotafied" employee proved anew that same-sex oral sex was within his/her personal repertoire. (After all, we said, the only way to prove you are gay is to act the part!) But with the limited definition of "celibate" (and even "sexual intercourse") here ...

like I said I am very confused!

Finally, attempting to proscribe the potential for an action comes from the same mindset that says the possession of a firearm should be banned, since there is always the chance that the weapon might be used for nefarious purposes. To put such "prior restraint" on a mere THOUGHT, is both ludicrous and unenforceable. If this is the best wisdom the new Pope can come up with, the Catholic Church is in much deeper trouble than it thinks!

all for now