Popular priest chooses both his girlfriend and a new flock

The Rev. Alberto Cutié, a popular Miami Catholic priest, gave up on celibacy. The Catholic Church busted him, though and threw him out. This move by the Church was probably because the U.S. branch of the Roman Catholic Church already has lots of young popular priests. You know, supply and demand.

A popular Miami priest and media personality known as "Father Oprah" has left the Catholic Church to become an Anglican after he was photographed cavorting on the beach with his girlfriend . . . He was received into the Episcopal Church, the U.S. branch of the Anglican Communion, in a ceremony Thursday at Trinity Cathedral and may later announce he will marry his girlfriend, which is allowed in that denomination.
I can think of a few extremely good reasons why the Catholic Church should prefer to have sexually satisfied priests instead of sexually frustrated priests. But the Church doesn't agree with me. And I suppose that God has clearly spoken that priests can't have sex. I understand that this prohibition is somewhere in the Bible . . . The Roman Catholic Church is that same church that still can't admit that a significant chunk of its clergy should be sitting in prisons for raping children. It's the same Church that disparages all efficient forms of family planning. It's the same Church that disparages women by barring them from being priests because they are . . . WOMEN. I know that a lot of us who were raised Catholic are privileged to enjoy sex extra-intensely because the Church taught us that sex is naughty. That extra enjoyment (if one can really call it that) is the silver lining of a huge dark cloud. It is hard to believe that an organization could be any more screwed up about sex than the Catholic Church. I don't understand why more U.S. Catholics don't simply walk away from Rome and form their own locally controlled churches. Here are a few founding principles I humbly offer to any U.S. Catholics who want to found their own churches: A) Don't disparage women, B) Don't be idiots about sex, C) Don't hire sexually frustrated priests.

Continue ReadingPopular priest chooses both his girlfriend and a new flock

At It Again

Oh please, is there no respite from this sort of thing? Over on Pharyngula is this little bit on the Vatican's newest attempt to recruit an ideal priesthood, this time free of gays. Now, the Catholic Church has done screening for centuries. They actually work hard to dissuade people from attempting to be priests because they know how difficult the various vows are to keep. I don't doubt for a minute that some of this screening is responsible, in kind of an unfortunate "unintended consequences" way, with the number of child sexual abuse cases that seem rampant more in the Catholic Church than in any other. You screen for people who have "normal" sexual proclivities and eliminate the ones who probably won't be able to maintain celibacy, you end up with (probably) a higher percentage of those who exhibit a lower than average normal sex drive (however you decide to define that), but may have a higher, shall we say, alternative proclivity... Anyway, that's just my opinion. But apparently the Vatican has decided there's something to looking at alternative sexualities as a deal breaker, but for goodness sake the question still needs to be asked, just what is it they find so offensive and, we assume, dangerous about gays? By and large, the Catholic Church, for all its faults, possesses one of the more sophisticated philosophical approaches to life in all its manifestations among the various sects. As a philosophy teacher of mine said once, "they seem to have a handle on what life is all about." Despite the very public embarrassments that emerge from the high profile conservative and reactionary elements within it, the Catholic Church probably has the healthiest worldview of the lot. (I was a Lutheran in my childhood and believe me, in the matter of guilt the Catholics have nothing on Lutherans.) But they have been electing popes who seem bent on turning the clock back to a more intolerant and altogether less sophisticated age, as if the burden of dealing with humanity in its manifold variation is just too much for them. They pine for the days when priests could lay down the law and the parish would snap to. They do not want to deal with humanity in the abstract because it means abandoning certain absolutes---or the concrete---in lieu of a more gestalt understanding. It would be hard work. And they have an image problem. I mean, if you're going to let people be people, then what's the point of joining an elite group when there are no restrictions of the concept of what encompasses human? But really...this is just embarrassing.

Continue ReadingAt It Again

Why do boys wear pants and girls wear dresses?

It's the political season and there are a lot of bad arguments being made these days. There are plenty of non sequiturs, red herrings, ad hominem attacks and ex hominem attacks. It is the season when we vividly see that there is no such thing as pure reason. Instead, cognition…

Continue ReadingWhy do boys wear pants and girls wear dresses?