Is it true that Rome have bought this site because henceforth all candidates for the priesthood will be castrated before they can be ordained?

I would imagine that this would be a cost effective measure for the church, saving them millions in compensation payments.

Kortpeel

April 1, 2010

Well I do know two of the three most worthless things on earth are tits on a nun and balls on a priest.

River

As a young man with thoughts of the priesthood I heard rumors that priests were castrated. I am sure if it were true I might have followed that calling. Of course if I were a priest I would want to teach at a college. I am much more attracted to men who have reached their physical maturity and have spent some time in the weight room.

I find it interesting that the pope wanted to ban gay priests. How about straight priests who have impregnated girls? If only they had dealt with this one pedophile or hebaphile at a time as abuse was reported. The Vatican would not be in such a panic today.

We should watch for a new member by the possible names of Ratzy, Hitler Youth or Bentedict. He may be considering our site for information. If the Vatican does buy the EA think of all the money that they can pump into the site for the latest and best equipment. Oh and the Good Sister will receive a stipend.

Actually priests are always to remain "intact". In order to become a priest both testicles must be present and all secondary adult male symptoms must be present. This is in order to prevent women from entering the priesthood (which is another strange topic altogether).

devi (imported) wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2010 11:48 am Actually priests are always to remain "intact". In order to become a priest both testicles must be present and all secondary adult male symptoms must be present. This is in order to prevent women from entering the priesthood (which is another strange topic altogether).

The requirement that priests remain "intact" was determined at the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325, but it was not completely enforced in the western (Roman) branch of the church as late as the Middle Ages. It was not enforced in the eastern branch until after the fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453 (if then). It does not seem to have been taken as a very important requirement since even some of the Patriarchs are known to have been eunuchs.

I think that the Vatican and the EA would make a very good fit. Ceremonies for the inauguration of new priests and for the reconsecration of existing priests, bishops, and archbishops could take place in the Papal Basilica of Saint Peter – the same site where the priests (galli) of the faith in the Mother of the Gods consecrated themselves to the Goddess by self-castration – and the severed parts could be interred/enshrined at the same place where the testicles of the new Galli were 2000 years ago, the Basilica Papale di Santa Maria Maggiore, where Cardinal Bernard Francis Law is currently the Archpriest. Maybe he could be persuaded to become the Archigallus of the basilica in penance for allowing the sexual abuse of so many children by priests under his supervision while he was the Archbishop of Boston.

.

JesusA (imported) wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2010 12:15 pm The requirement that priests remain "intact" was determined at the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325, but it was not completely enforced in the western (Roman) branch of the church as late as the Middle Ages. It was not enforced in the eastern branch until after the fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453 (if then). It does not seem to have been taken as a very important requirement since even some of the Patriarchs are known to have been eunuchs.

I think that the Vatican and the EA would make a very good fit. Ceremonies for the inauguration of new priests and for the reconsecration of existing priests, bishops, and archbishops could take place in the Papal Basilica of Saint Peter – the same site where the priests (galli) of the faith in the Mother of the Gods consecrated themselves to the Goddess by self-castration – and the severed parts could be interred/enshrined at the same place where the testicles of the new Galli were 2000 years ago, the Basilica Papale di Santa Maria Maggiore, where Cardinal Bernard Francis Law is currently the Archpriest. Maybe he could be persuaded to become the Archigallus of the basilica in penance for allowing the sexual abuse of so many children by priests under his supervision while he was the Archbishop of Boston.

.

Molestation being a power grab more than a genitalia grab I would suspect that the real issues would not be addressed even in the case of a nullification.

As rape is not really about sex, but instead about power, molestation is not about sex, but instead about power also.

Why would one expect to have satisfying sex with someone so un-experienced? Answer: They Don't. Their PERVERTED satisfaction stems from the humiliation and shaming of the victim and from the POWER that they hold that forces one to assume that nobody will believe the victim of the molestation.

Castrating or nullifying priests is just exchanging one set of victims for another set of victims...

SICK, SICK, SICK...:shakemitk

A-1 (imported) wrote: Sat Apr 03, 2010 10:43 pm Molestation being a power grab more than a genitalia grab I would suspect that the real issues would not be addressed even in the case of a nullification.

As rape is not really about sex, but instead about power, molestation is not about sex, but instead about power also.

Why would one expect to have satisfying sex with someone so un-experienced? Answer: They Don't. Their PERVERTED satisfaction stems from the humiliation and shaming of the victim and from the POWER that they hold that forces one to assume that nobody will believe the victim of the molestation.

Castrating or nullifying priests is just exchanging one set of victims for another set of victims...

SICK, SICK, SICK...:shakemitk

Well, here goes. At risk of exposing myself (cover your eyes) and opening a can of worms, I have to disagree.

I don't like these kinds of blanket statements that lay such a general statement on a group that share but one problem.

I'm one of the sick bastards you speak of; I know that I find boys attractive. I don't act on it for various reasons, but the reasons I don't do not include the fact I think that every instance of adult-on-youngster sex is as you describe.

Rape in the most classic sense, that is, grabbing somebody on the street, smashing their heads in and fucking them bloody, is about power and dominance. For sure. I agree with that.

And, sure, much molestation that happens is nasty anal rape in the bushes with a kidnapped child; okay, I agree with you there. Power and sadism.

Even lots of molestation by babysitters etc etc, okay, its under threat and duress, its not 'right'. But nowadays, even saying 'that boy is cute' is worth being strung up, isn't it? Especially when all kids are taught these days that they ARE eunuchs, utterly pristene, non-sexual beings who should run in screaming terror if a grownup acknowledges they are cute or, god forbid, bumps into them in a line-up; string those bastards up, lets!

But to say that all 'molestation' is about humiliation, about shaming the victim, about power; ... BULLshit. At age 14, I "molested" a nine year old. And you can fucking believe I didn't do it while riding some kind of sadistic, "I'm Bigger than You" trip. I was stunned that he wanted me to pet him; I touched him in awe of his cuteness, and I did anything he wanted me to because I utterly, completely loved the sound of his laughter, giggles, and pleasure. When he touched me back, I liked it. Of course I did. I was a sick, fucked up, molesting pervert, right? Does this make me sound like I'm softening my experience, to make me look like a good guy? Well, think what you like, but it's exactly how it happend. And yes, I wish I could do it again, but I know that our society, with its "But, My God, Think Of The Children!!" mentality, makes it impossible, so I don't even consider it.

I'm one sick fuck, ain't I? And yet here I am, playing with my nephew, 'hanging around' my friends kids when playing PS3, perfectly able to separate my sexuality, which I did NOT ask for (does anyone WISH to be a pedophile?) and do nothing "to" boys.

And yet, knowing the above, I know most readers here have automatically taken me off the 'potential tutor' list for their kids, har har. Of course you have, because if we all think like the above-quoted poster, then we all KNOW for a fact that I pretty much belong in jail for the rest of my life, starting here, now, tonight. Too bad... I contribute tons of tax to the government with my income, and buy things like a good little consumer, and keep my nose clean, except for reading silly and twee little stories online, my "Great Escape".

Don't get me too wrong, though... I like your posts, A-1, and think you seem like a fun guy. I just don't agree with your one-size-fits-all descrpition of us evil, soul-raping pedo's.

Power and control as issues are nothing but a feminazi ploy. Pure bullshit as sole controlling factors - influence yes, not control. Sex and eroticism (perverted as it may or may not be) DOES play a role. Years working in the field, in my mind, dispels the feminist propaganda. Bullshit A-1 - get something behind you besides feminism!

Wow !

It is so far out of my sick, sick mind as to find an erotic event with a child unimaginable.

What bothers me is that it is a crime for those who can imagine such sexual acts to have images on their computers. Thought police!

Especially since such images may be manipulated electronically as not to carry any claim of creating a rape victim by creating the image.

Moi

Viva la differance !

As long as there is no victims.

What makes me sick is those people who claim they were molested as a child but returned many times as a willing participant.

In other words they weren't victums, they were lucky little bastards.