Lion of the Blogosphere

Catholic Church not cool

NY Times op-ed writer Frank Bruni says that the Catholic Church should stop believing what it believed for the last thousand years because all the cool people, today, are having gay sex. Doesn’t the Catholic Church want to be cool like Frank Bruni?

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

February 27, 2013 at 7:22 AM

Posted in Religion

43 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Of course, since Bruni is working for the New York Times, it should go without saying that he has a degree from an Ivy League School.


    February 27, 2013 at 8:07 AM

  2. The Catholic Church should allow priests to marry. Byzantine Catholic priests can marry, married men, under certain circumstances, can become Catholic priests. The Orthodox Church (whose traditions are arguably more ancient than Roman Catholicism) allows married priests. It’s ridiculous that they require celibacy, which can cause an otherwise normal person great torment. Celibacy should be saved for ascetics, like monks, nuns, and hermits.


    February 27, 2013 at 8:35 AM

    • Orthodox priests can marry, but they can not rise above a parish priest.


      February 28, 2013 at 12:48 AM

  3. You’ve had many good posts over the years but I think this one takes the cake for efficiency.


    February 27, 2013 at 8:41 AM

  4. He’s not talking about gay sex, he’s talking about celibacy for priests specifically. This policy is 900 years old but the church had married priests before that and 900 years makes it a relatively new policy by Catholic standards, if you can believe that. And there are married Catholic priests- if you’re a married Episcopal priest and you patch over, you can stay married. It would be a huge improvement for the church but it won’t happen because a bunch of old guys are not going to want to give young guys a benefit they didn’t have, that’s human nature.


    February 27, 2013 at 8:58 AM

    • Gay sex does not violate the law of celibacy. It’s a sin but the priest is still considered celibate. “Engaging” with children is also not technically breaking the vow of celibacy, and this was used as an excuse by some pedophile priests. The only thing that breaks the law of celibacy, for a male priest, is sex with a woman.


      February 27, 2013 at 10:41 PM

      • may I be the first to call BS on this.


        February 28, 2013 at 9:33 AM

      • The vow is CHASTITY, meaning they abjure ALL voluntary sexual pleasure, whether heterosexual, homosexual, or masturbatory.


        February 28, 2013 at 12:34 PM

      • You must have been trained by Jesuits to maintain your “letter and not the spirit” interpretation of Celibacy.

        Preston Bell

        February 28, 2013 at 8:08 PM

  5. Plenty of gay sex, not to mention homosexual rape, going on in the Catholic church in the last 50 years.


    February 27, 2013 at 9:01 AM

  6. That’s not how I read it. Bruni is saying the Catholics should drop heterosexual celibacy for priests because that’s what makes the priesthood a haven for gays and child molesters.


    February 27, 2013 at 9:06 AM

  7. When the NYT gives advice to the Catholic Church, it’s pretty much like when they give advice to Republicans — “here’s how to destroy yourself even faster in accordance with our wishes”.


    February 27, 2013 at 9:21 AM

  8. Exactly. If the Church becomes “cool” that pretty much invalidates the teachings of the last 2000 years, and hence any theological reason for the Church to exist at all.

    On the other hand the Mormon Church has pursued exactly this strategy of becoming more user friendly (discarding polygamy, abandoning the doctrine of blood atonement, allowing blacks to become priests, etc.) with no obvious damage, so a cynic, and most of the Catholic leadership seems fairly cynical to me, could certainly conclude that “sprucing up the brand” might increase market share in the modern world.

    Peter the Shark

    February 27, 2013 at 9:27 AM

    • The Catholic Church actually has made effort to be “cool” and accessible in the form of Vatican II. Mass used to be in Latin, with the priest facing away from the congregation. Now it’s in local languages, the priest faces the congregation, people shake hands and sing feel good hymns, and women participate in the service.

      Sort of like of you took a chabad service and compared it to a reform service– that would be the difference between the traditional rite and the vatican II rite.


      February 27, 2013 at 10:57 PM

  9. As far as I can tell, that editorial was about celibacy. Are you imagining some kind of slippery slope? If we let priests marry and have sex with women, what will they be fucking next? Men? Animals?


    February 27, 2013 at 9:33 AM

    • Why not, since that was pretty much the progression among the general population — tolerance of free, unmarried hetero sex leading to tolerance of homosex, leading to God knows what future abominations.


      February 28, 2013 at 12:36 PM

  10. But that is the mindset of all progressives, they think that theirs is the only view possible, and that everyone is a progressive at heart, he just needs to be educated. They also seem to think that Muslims can eventually became fanatic defenders of gay and women’s rights.
    They don’t seem to grasp that if the Catholic Church starts accepting gays, women priests and abortion, they are no longer the Catholic Church. Or maybe they grasp it all too well…
    Also, the problem really is that there are a lot of gay priests. Being celibate doesn’t mean having attraction for the same sex. Yet almost all the Vatican sex scandals were homosexual.
    On the other hand, the Orthodox Church admits married priests, although they cannot become Bishops or advance further, and they cannot marry or remarry once they are ordained priests (they have to be married before). Seems a reasonable compromise.


    February 27, 2013 at 10:35 AM

  11. Why doesn’t he just suggest people become some gay-friendly version of protestant? Isn’t that the point of protestantism? Of course, the mainline protestants aren’t particularly growing either despite married ministers.

    In any case, married priests are something that could feasibly happen, because its not a doctrine of the church, but a choice of the holy orders. However, Catholics like their priests to take a vow of poverty and a vow of chastity makes sense in that context. Having a family means you start having to concern yourself with worldly things. Also, its not the pope’s choice, he’s not king, but is bound by the traditions of the church and Christ’s teachings.

    albert magnus

    February 27, 2013 at 11:32 AM

  12. If there’s any institution that knows about gay sex, it’s the the Catholic Church.

    A horse with no name

    February 27, 2013 at 12:25 PM

  13. I laughed, I cried, I read Lion of the Blogosphere.


    February 27, 2013 at 12:45 PM

  14. Lol, allegedly two and a half thousand years with roots going back to Ancient Egypt if the Mystery Religion hypothesis is true.

    Meanwhile, PC Multiculturalism so heavily championed by the NY Beta Times is 80 years old, on its last legs and has almost destroyed European civilization. Coolness comes with a cost.

    Ulick McGee

    February 27, 2013 at 12:55 PM

  15. All sexual impulses everywhere are “furtive, tortured gestures.”

    Moderns are so ridiculous, expecting sex to make them happy. Promiscuous gays most of all, for whom only Antinomianism is “healthy”.

    And, per Steve among others, how many of these abused “children” were merely ephebic teen jailbait? What sad delicious irony, when the gays finally achieve the legal liberation of all those aloof Antinouses, and suddenly what the Bad Old Church did wrong must feel so right!

    Lucius Somesuch

    February 27, 2013 at 2:10 PM

  16. “NY Times op-ed writer Frank Bruni says that the Catholic Church should stop believing what it believed for the last thousand years because all the cool people, today, are having gay sex.”

    Know how I know that you didn’t actually read the article?


    February 27, 2013 at 2:26 PM

  17. He’s really saying that abstaining from sex and relationships with the opposite gender isn’t a natural, healthy, maintainable state of being for most humans. Don’t see how anyone reasonable can argue with that proposition. Nothing in there about endorsing gay sex. The church has changed before and it can change again, will change again if it wants to maintain a shred of its former influence and prestige into the 21st century.


    February 27, 2013 at 2:29 PM

  18. His piece said nothing of the sort. It was a criticism of celibacy.



    February 27, 2013 at 3:49 PM

  19. Why stop with cool, the Church should also try to be Fabulous. And perhaps Single and Ready to Mingle.

    Grand Mariner

    February 27, 2013 at 3:54 PM

  20. I’m not entirely sure that’s what the article said. I do, however, think it makes some valid points. The priesthood is a comfortable place for homosexuals/pedophiles to hide. So much so that its become their own private bath house. This is word of mouth, but I knew a Catholic guy who was going to become a priest. When he went into the seminary it was so full of homos that he couldn’t stomach it and quit. He said that when you walked down the hall nearly every dorm had the twin beds pushed together. Wtf?

    I’ve known quite a few Catholics and they’re all in denial about it. I’ve met some of the priests and afterwards I’ve told the Catholics I was with “You know that guy’s a homo right?” They’d say, “No he’s not!” I would just look at them like “How can you be so stupid?” And then they’d say, “Yeah. He probably is. So?” Ummm.. isn’t the guy supposed to be celibate? Doesn’t your church have a problem with pedophile priests? Do the math, moron.

    I don’t know if Bruni’s point was that priests should be allowed to suck each other off. Heck, they already do. My point is that the Church needs to drop this celibacy shit and allow priests to marry. They can still prohibit divorced men in the priesthood. But allowing married priests would drive the homosexual pedophiles out. Those priests have never been celibate. Pretending they are has just been a magnet for degenerates. There’s only one answer to that question.


    February 27, 2013 at 5:07 PM

    • I have a close friend whose father entered a seminary. He described the same thing– either the priests were gay and involved with each other, or they had a GF in private. This was in a spanish speaking country where I think the secret wives are fairly common. He left the seminary because of this and went on to get married and have a family.

      The main reason the Catholic Church should allow priests to marry is because they are currently starved for priests. Very few western men in their right minds will enter the priesthood under a vow of celibacy. So it does become a haven, of sorts, for weirdos, and third world immigrants who see the priesthood as a way out of poverty (and who may not take the celibacy vow too seriously in the first place, as I mentioned already). This is why you have priests barely fluent in english serving parishes in the midwest.


      February 27, 2013 at 10:52 PM

  21. Unfortunately too many of the gay priests have been having forced sex with teenage boys which is what generally happens when gays end up dominating an organization. This is the reason why the boy scouts want to keep the gays out.

    Joe Walker

    February 27, 2013 at 5:41 PM

    • Boy scout leaders are allowed to get married and have sex.


      February 28, 2013 at 11:13 AM

  22. The funny thing is, your summary isn’t that far off from what Bruni wrote. I’m constantly surprised at secular people wanting to engineer the Catholic Church to their own ends, even while mocking the religious ideas and concepts it’s based on.


    February 27, 2013 at 7:56 PM

  23. Hahaha . . .”all the cool people, today, are having gay sex.”

    And guess what? The asexual and involuntarily celibate find this offensive! From the NYT Picks section of the comments:

    In making a case against enforced celibacy, let’s not thoughtlessly and repeatedly propose that celibate lives are outside the range of human orientations. You owe an apology to asexual readers and to all others living in celibacy whether by nature or circumstance, including young people who are humiliated and made to feel unnatural because they haven’t lost their virginity


    February 27, 2013 at 10:36 PM

  24. I think all men joining the priesthood should be castrated. This would solve a lot of problems.


    February 28, 2013 at 6:08 AM

    • Except for the “not enough men signing up to be priests” problem, heh heh.


      February 28, 2013 at 12:38 PM

  25. Most priests are gay. Of the three priests at my parish, two are flaming gay, and the third is probably gay. This has been a pattern at the last several parishes I’ve attended, with the exception of one church where the priest was super aspy and you couldn’t envision him with a woman for that reason.

    The whole pedophile scandal was mostly about gay guys molesting teenage boys. The Church did a horrible job dealing with this. If they had dealt with offending priests swiftly and severely, you would have seen NYT articles about how the Church was discriminating against gay priests.

    Chastity is only one of the priestly vows, but you couldn’t remove that one in isolation. If you let priests marry, then that affects the vow of obedience. What do you do when your responsibilities to the Church conflict with your responsibilities to your family? And of course how many women will be lining up to marry a man who has taken a vow of poverty?

    Husker Don't

    February 28, 2013 at 2:46 PM

  26. The Roman Catholic Church has been slowly giving way way to Luther’s reforms for centuries: why should it stop now?


    February 28, 2013 at 4:29 PM

  27. “because all the cool people, today, are having gay sex.”

    Then who is cooler than a Catholic priest?


    February 28, 2013 at 8:02 PM

  28. No dog in this fight but these sex abuses go on in all other religions as well. As noted, Catholic priests are having sex – apparently a lot of it gay – already. That is not stopping the sexual tomfoolery.


    February 28, 2013 at 8:04 PM

  29. Most of the gay people that I know actually have convinced themselves that cool people have gay sex. They might not tell you this if you ask, but I guarantee that more of them believe this than you would think. The tell is when you get a sense of their derision when you disagree with the common gay thesis, born out of rationalization, that holds that sexual orientation is a continuum that crosses gender lines (ie: straight men secretly have gay feelings for other straight men in varying degrees of intensity) and not static in category. In other words, we’re all gay but the cool people have accepted it and act on it. Furthermore, such a thesis is cool to have in young socially liberal crowds and so there is a double penalty in your cool factor if you don’t believe in that self-serving model, let alone act on it.

    There is some interesting psychology in this that, I believe, has to do with gays, as a group, feeling rejected in society. It’s common for groups that perceive persecution or marginalization to devalue the mainstream group. The microcosm of this is the high school outsider who thinks that the cool kids are stupid or uninteresting. They tend to idealize themselves as epitomizing certain traits that, to them, are more valuable than the traits of the group whom they feel devalued in comparison with. They construct a world that, most often, is only fantasy (most of those nerds go on to lead ordinary lives). To tell a gay person that normal sexual orientation isn’t a continuum offends their sense of self-actualization (they’re cool because they accept the sexual continuum ‘reality’) and normalcy, whether you made that judgment or you did not. Therefore, you must be uncool (stupid, sexually stifled, unadventurous, unevolved, etc.), or your group is uncool, because you don’t agree with their correct worldview. This particular psychology frequently occurs across racial groups as well, in my experience.

    While their sense of being alternative to the social mainstream certainly has validity, especially in a historical context, I don’t think that mainstream acceptance of the gay lifestyle would help relieve this particularly narcissistic devaluation of everyone who doesn’t have gay sex. Rather, gays seem to be emboldened to devalue heterosexual mainstream more, as they become more accepted. This leads me to believe that alternative lifestyle group marginalization isn’t a ‘straight thing’, but a socio-politcal instinct that is likely inherent and acted on by any group that has more power. Their liberalism would likely get less liberal if the world were decidedly gay. This is admittedly a huge extrapolation but I think that it holds when what we know of human nature is observed, as it is in this article, and considered.


    February 28, 2013 at 10:25 PM

  30. The RC needs to drop drop celibacy requirements and let their priests get hitched. Priests were allowed to get married during the Dark Ages when few, if any, popes from back then could be considered liberal. If Dark Age popes could tolerate their priests having sex then there’s no reason the modern Church shouldn’t.

    Btw, if the Catholic Church wants to be seen as an intellectual force for conservatism they need to stop being liberal on every single issue facing the West except Church theology and sex.

    The Undiscovered Jew

    March 1, 2013 at 12:04 AM

  31. I am a former cradle Roman Catholic who converted to Eastern Orthodoxy. The western churches had encouraged celibacy for centuries before the schism but did not make it an impediment to the priesthood until after the East-West schism in 1054. During one pre-schism council on this issue, one ascetic monk gave a passionate plea against clerical celibacy, warning that to do otherwise was to declare oneself wiser than the apostles. (several apostles were married) The celibate Roman priesthood is an innovation. I once heard a priest say that he had a person say to him, “your priests can marry…cool!” His response was that he didn’t know if it was cool, but it was apostolic.

    Technically, a married Orthodox priest could be promoted to bishop by ending the marriage, which is canonically provided for. In practice, I am unaware of this occurring in modern times. This is likely because there is no shortage of monks to make bishops and to keep a policy against ending marriages. A widower priest could be promoted to bishop, but he must take monastic vows. Also, an Orthodox priest must be married before he becomes a priest; he cannot marry once he becomes a priest. And, he loses his ministry if he divorces.

    My church is fortunate in that our priests are father and son.


    March 1, 2013 at 2:08 PM

  32. Priests should almost be required to marry. A guy in parish ministry who is not married is kind of icky. I know there are some really asexual types who would be disadvantaged or looked down on, but those guys generally already have that problem because they are strange anyway. Maybe a hormone problem.

    not too late

    March 1, 2013 at 11:18 PM

  33. […] in the priesthood. Had they done so, the media would have been entwined in Catch 22. Even secularists grasp that. Miss Ingraham’s “explanation” that we are all fallen, as though your average guy will […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: