Children are little ****bags who should be used for baynet practice.

[Flubber]

There was a short period where I preferred sex with a condom even if babies and disease were not a concern. The lessened sensitivity was a positive in some ways

[David Floyd]

No. I believe that perpetual house arrest is sufficient penalty if the priest chooses to stay a priest.

Fortunately, you don't have that option. The law DOES apply to priests, like it or not.

And by the way, your position ADVOCATES the harboring of child rapists. Come on, Ben.

[David Floyd]

There was a short period where I preferred sex with a condom even if babies and disease were not a concern. The lessened sensitivity was a positive in some ways

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben -- if sex is only for procreation are you permitted pleasurable methods of enhancing things like oral sex?

For the sake of everyone else who's probably asked this question (me included to the priest!)

Yes, oral sex is permissible within marriage. The understanding at present is that the ideal in sex is to be fruitful and to only participate in acts which are fruitful. Oral sex would be a tool to acheive this. One of things that the encyclical teaches is that sex between a man and a woman should have both climax at the same time as the ideal goal. So providing that this is the outcome, then yes, oral sex within marriage is ok.

Would it be a sin if she "pleasured you thusly" past the point of no return on a particular occasion.

My understanding is yes, it would be. The act should have the possibility for life.

So very very many fun sex acts . . . I think its a "sin" if you don't allow yourself the pleasures of the body that "God has provided". I can respect monogomy, even waiting until marriage if you want but hells bells at that point you should do anything and everything that both of you enjoy. If you do THAT (instead of some straitlaced churchified version of "proper sex") you will have way more fun, way more sex and are far more likely to get pregnant quicker since you are humping each other so frequently

One of the reasons I referenced Christopher West should tell you all you need to know about my position. I certainly do not believe that sex should only be for procreation, but that sex should be open to life and pleasureable at the same time.

If you want to know more, try JPII's encyclical.

[Ben Kenobi]

And by the way, your position ADVOCATES the harboring of child rapists. Come on, Ben.

Harbouring? I think that the priest if accused and the church tribunal looks at the evidence and finds him to be guilty, that it should be published and the community made aware of everything. This is not done at present, and should always be done. The priest should also stay in his current community rather then being shuffled around.

The only place I differ with you is that I believe that the priest should be able to stay with his order and basically live under house arrest for the rest of his life.

I believe this is superior to what would happen now in TX, which under the secular system, the man could not be charged. But, YMMV.

[Al B. Sure!]

So oral sex for the woman (cunni-whatever) is permissible but oral sex for the man (fellatio) is not. Interesting...

[Flubber]

Yes, oral sex is permissible within marriage. The understanding at present is that the ideal in sex is to be fruitful and to only participate in acts which are fruitful. Oral sex would be a tool to acheive this. One of things that the encyclical teaches is that sex between a man and a woman should have both climax at the same time as the ideal goal.


.

So oral as foreplay -- or 69-- wink

[Flubber]

Gotta have some fun LOL

[Ben Kenobi]

So oral sex for the woman (cunni-whatever) is permissible but oral sex for the man (fellatio) is not. Interesting...

Flubber has it right.

[David Floyd]

Harbouring? I think that the priest if accused and the church tribunal looks at the evidence and finds him to be guilty, that it should be published and the community made aware of everything. This is not done at present, and should always be done. The priest should also stay in his current community rather then being shuffled around.

The only place I differ with you is that I believe that the priest should be able to stay with his order and basically live under house arrest for the rest of his life.

So if I rape a child should I get the option to remain under house arrest in my apartment?

I believe this is superior to what would happen now in TX, which under the secular system, the man could not be charged. But, YMMV.

You misstate the case. I believe the statute of limitations for rape in TX is 10 years. If a priest is discovered within that time frame, he goes to prison, period. Yes, I also agree that the statute of limitations for rape should be longer, if not indefinite, but that doesn't mean that priests aren't held to the same legal standard as everyone else.

Also, if it can be shown that a diocese covered up child rape in order to enforce church discipline past the statute of limitations, then said diocese should absolutely by civilly liable at the very least.

[David Floyd]

Catholic views on sex are just plain weird.

[Ben Kenobi]

Also, if it can be shown that a diocese covered up child rape in order to enforce church discipline past the statute of limitations, then said diocese should absolutely by civilly liable at the very least.

Agree wholeheartedly. This really is the root of the problem.

Yes, I also agree that the statute of limitations for rape should be longer, if not indefinite, but that doesn't mean that priests aren't held to the same legal standard as everyone else.

Can't have a tailored statute.

There are many countries of the world, China, etc, where priests can be arrested. This is why arguing that priests should be subject to local jurisdiction is a bad idea. In many cases it would mean them dying.

[David Floyd]

There are many countries of the world, China, etc, where priests can be arrested. This is why arguing that priests should be subject to local jurisdiction is a bad idea. In many cases it would mean them dying.

You have a drastic misunderstanding of the role of the Church. It doesn't matter one iota whether or not national laws are unfair in any way. Priests do not enjoy any sort of exempt status when it comes to those laws. Priests are simply people who happen to hold a position of religious leadership. Thankfully, modern nations are not based on religion nor governed by religion, so the status of a priest doesn't matter from a legal standpoint.

It is only fair to hold priests subject to the same laws as everyone else. You can argue that the laws might be unfair, and you can even argue that laws targeted specifically at clergy are unfair, but you CANNOT argue that priests are above the law in any nation on the planet of which I am aware.

[David Floyd]

Agree wholeheartedly. This really is the root of the problem.

So you agree that a diocese should report any sexual assault to the police as soon as it becomes aware of said assault?

Because not to do so is a coverup.

[giblets]

What's the point in talking to some ****bag who thinks his religious leaders should get their own legal system instead of being subject to the same legal system as everyone else?