re: #46 MandyManners

Right here:

If removing celibacy requirements reduces the need for repressed clergy to act on their heterosexual impulses, you’d still have trouble with homosexual clergy who aren’t allowed to act on theirs either.

I think you’re misunderstanding what I said.

My point was: if we assume for the sake of argument (like the original post I was replying to did) that the problem is celibacy, and removing the celibacy requirement would somehow cut down on clergy members’ hurting others (not just children)… then one would have to then logically apply the same argument to homosexual clergy members who would still be under a form of celibacy, and thus still have the same problem.

I’m sorry if I come across a bit snappy, but I get annoyed when attempts at logical arguments about this (clearly large) problem turn into knee-jerk moral outrage, and hyper-focus on the singular perpetrators while turning a blind eye to the institutional problems with organized religion that breed these situations.