Catholic Church Owes Heterosexual World an Apology

In the ninth century, Pope Gregory IIX decreed that the clergy shall not be wed. That was at the time the primary Christian authority on earth and we know it to be the Catholic Church. It may have been meant to be and intended, at least in the academic sense, to be so that clergy could place all of their time and efforts into development of the faith and the carrying out of church duties inherent to the holy orders practices of the day. It is my contention that is not the whole story. Read on.

Mysteries that cannot be absolutely proven, yet can be subject to scrutiny in the stricter senses of reason accompanied by conjecture, interest me. It can be argued that the original mainstream Catholic church established much of the moral code by which society today functions. It is waning some, yet near no one has never experienced or heard said, "I was raised Catholic so I know what sexual guilt is." Something to a similar effect, I have never been in an old Catholic home and not heard how sex is sinful, or how you can't have sex with a woman and not be her husband, or how a woman cannot have sex outside of marriage. That is highly Catholic in origin. There are some biblical arguments for the belief that marriage must be enacted prior to sexual activity, but all throughout the bible there is not one reference to a person going to burn in hell or be forever lost to the kingdom of heaven if he or she has some fleshy relations. That is simply not the case.

I have heard all of the fundamentalist Christian stuff to the contrary. Every single word of it has approached my ears one time or another, I was raised Catholic, no avenue exists by which I could have been spared the guilt and shame of the morbid sex acts between men and women. At a very early age, I freed myself of that. Through that freedom, I found a truth that can work for me. I am Catholic, I can never be anything else, and I am additionally, however subscribed to a higher order than just that one. I am a Christian. I have elected via presented options to assign my soulful life to the Christian principles.

In so doing I can learn to know by the works that which I see within as well as around me. I do not have to get approval from anyone for what I am, I can just be that, it is an everyday decision and I have made the same one everyday for about 30 years now.

From there I will now digress. Not long ago the news was pedaling out it's one long rant of whatever ration of garbage it is that the public was fancifully buying at the time and I began to hear of how victims of Catholic Clerical Sexual Assaults were coming into the light of day and renouncing their offenders. At first, as with anything one may not like to hear, there was a resistance in me to such information. Then I began to think of one of my reasons for choosing to believe the words of the bible in the first place. You cannot get that many people together on one issue and get them all to tell the same lie. I began to be relieved that I was not one of the Catholics who was dependent on that Church for his link to God.

I have always prided myself on my natural tendency to be a person more comfortable in the fire of rebellion than in the cradle of complacency. In a very general sense I am either a very loyal and trustworthy friend and accomplice, or a fierce opponent and tenacious adversary.

In a way that was almost involuntary, near automatic, I did neither in my resistance that arose to the church to which I always accredited my baptism. That was freakish for me.

Instead, I looked inside, I fished within, and I looked for answers and finally began to find them.

When the Pope decreed that clerics shall not marry he did not open the doors to only devout Christians who would self-lessly deny their very nature and promulgate the cause of Jesus and the church argued to belong to him. The Pope opened the doors also to people who would sacrifice nothing as they were not naturally inclined to be husbands to women anyway.

At this juncture revelations began to pour through the door. To put them subtly, what would be the implications of a clergy composed largely by homosexuals that are by a twist of fate placed in a position of authority over the development of sexual morality between men and women?

It is no secret that homosexual men find coital/marital relations between men and women to be distasteful, and from some even vile. That sounds much like the back-feed from the morality picture contained within circles of religiosity. There are so many rules imposed upon a man and a woman over their sexual activities with each other with regard to their standing with the church that it boggles the mind.

Their marital "sins" must be reported in the confessional, they are made to feel like they are somehow sinning if they actually enjoy a romp. I don't have enough time to tell all of the stories about how women have been taught to believe that if they have an orgasm while engaging sexually with their husband they are guilty of a sin.

There are countless historical evidential realities in which couples were taught that if they used their hands or their mouth to pleasure their partner they may as well report to hell.

After some thought, it became clearer and clearer to me. The moral fiber that heterosexual people have been functioning under has been set into motion by homosexual clergy mostly from the Catholic Church.

There is a 23% admitted homosexual element in the Catholic Church, and some estimates of the actual number run as high as 45%. There is no way that it can be denied that we have not only cause but an obligation to take a serious look at the norms that have evolved upon us which can be followed back to clerical roots for the last 1200 years.

There is much speculation over a clandestine collusion and conspiracy within the early church from which grew something somewhat unnatural and perhaps wrong. It is not impossible that this is it. I know with my whole heart that the marriage bed is not defiled, I also know that marriage is not something that takes place strictly in a church. In the times of bible life a man took a women to be his wife. It does not say a damned thing about a ceremony in which any but himself is the official. It is also true that her husband shall give a decree of divorce to a woman if she is...whatever it may be that determines her as unfit. The point is the divorce comes from the male member of the union, not the church. Where does it say that the church has full rights to either dissolve or unite a couple?

I am seeing that we have good reason to question much of the cumbersome possibly deviated norms and mores that have been imposed upon society by a ruthlessly pedophilic and corrupt clergy who have been not only hidden by the church, but actually condoned through centuries of the church doing as near nothing as could be done to stop it.

For the Catholic Pope to refer to himself as "Infallible" and march on in pompous foolishness beneath that decree while those in his charge are perversely offending same sex children is the real abomination. That is an actual conduct for which they should be taking a knee before all of humankind.

If a husband and wife have decided to pleasure each other in whatever way stimulates them on a given night...I for one will not be looking to the Catholic Church for guidance on whether or not such behavior, whatever it is, is sinful or not.

The church has to explore the truth; it must clean itself up, while we stoically demand it. It owes, very well arguably, the whole world an apology for the untold suffering shouldered by innocent people in the form of guilt. It has given one to the children, not to say that is enough, but it is a beginning. It must also remain benign and prostrate before the rest of the world while we seek that which will be our real moral codes and the true acceptable norms for man woman relations.