plot idea

[Jocaflo]

A plot idea for a short story or novel. Some may find it obscene or sacrilegious, but it is real. The relationship between a senior Catholic priest, who loves muscle, and a young bodybuilder whom he regularly worships in his own small cell. How do they both deal with the guilt? How can the priest find in his love for the bodybuilder's body a compatible love of God and an inspiration for his spiritual mission? How does the relationship affect the bodybuilder's materialism? So many questions to be dealt with...

[tekuno]

At the risk of rubbing people the wrong way:

If the priest can handle being part of an organization which:

1. Systematically hid active pedophiles from prosecution, all over the world, for decades and decades

2. Collected vast sums of money explicitly to spend on Mother Theresa's clinics in India but never actually spent any of that money on the clinics (the exact destination is unknown to anyone outside the church, but probably the Vatican's accounts in its wholly-owned, essentially-unaudited bank) (and then had Mother Theresa declared a saint, despite the fact that she deliberately refused to give people proper care or even painkillers at her clinics, and knowingly participated in the fundraising fraud)

3. Has been lying outright about contraception to people in Africa, claiming that it actually spreads diseases, thus causing both vast and unnecessary spread of venereal diseases and extra unwanted population (leading to exacerbation of starvation, disease, etc.)

4. Believes seriously that Adolf Hitler has a strong chance of being in heaven (he was, after all, a Christian and was well in with the Vatican) but Anne Frank is in hell...

Well, if he can stomach all that, then his conscience must be so elastic that I doubt he'd have any guilt over anything as minor as a consensual relationship. At least, if he did, he'd be such an incredible moron that nobody with any sense would want to read a story about him.

As for the bodybuilder, why would he listen to the Catholic priest on the subject of things which are certainly unprovable and strikingly unlikely? Particularly when the Catholic Church has repeatedly proven itself to be extraordinarily rotten and dishonest when it comes to things which are verifiable? (If they're lying when you can tell the difference, why on earth would you believe they're telling the truth when they make statements you can't verify, but which would tend to make you obey them? Occam's razor strongly suggests that Catholicism is just an older variation of the scam which is Scientology.)

[JeffXeno]

Originally Posted by tekuno

At the risk of rubbing people the wrong way:

As for the bodybuilder, why would he listen to the Catholic priest on the subject of things which are certainly unprovable and strikingly unlikely? Particularly when the Catholic Church has repeatedly proven itself to be extraordinarily rotten and dishonest when it comes to things which are verifiable? (If they're lying when you can tell the difference, why on earth would you believe they're telling the truth when they make statements you can't verify, but which would tend to make you obey them? Occam's razor strongly suggests that Catholicism is just an older variation of the scam which is Scientology.)

Old quote I remember goes something like this:

A cult is an organization that scams its members out of money using appeals to magic and bullshit, and the leader is completely aware of the scam. A religion is the exact same thing, but the leader that knows the truth is dead.

[Jocaflo]

Ok, guys. I know what you are talking about. I was not born yesterday. But listen this is just a plot about imperfect contradictory human beings, not about the institutions they may represent. There is no human institution on earth, as far as I am concerned, that is free from mistakes and pitfalls. Even the gay community... Even when we choose to worship muscle to the exclusion of everything else, aren't we being partial and prejudiced? But if my idea sounds really absurd and abject, let it be. I withdraw it. Thanks for reading.

[Yachirobi]

Jocaflo, please ignore Jeff and Tekuno. They're both being ignorant and disrespectful.

I think you're going for something loftier than the usual muscle growth/worship stories that get posted here so I would say that you might just have to write the story to see how it works.

All of this said, I think someone may have beaten you to the punch. I think I remember a similar story being posted on a muscle site a few years back. I still think you should pursue this but you might look for the other story to see if it's too similar to what you have in mind (or see if it's something you might enjoy!)

[tekuno]

Originally Posted by Jocaflo

There is no human institution on earth, as far as I am concerned, that is free from mistakes and pitfalls.

Ah, but churches explicitly claim not to be entirely human institutions, or even completely "on earth" if it comes to that.

Even the gay community... Even when we choose to worship muscle to the exclusion of everything else, aren't we being partial and prejudiced?

Well, there's several differences:

1. We aren't telling people they will burn in hell for eternity, often for things beyond their control.

2. We aren't basing this on an extremely dubious version of history which relies entirely on the authority of a single book which most scholars who actually study it agree is rather thoroughly untrue. (Seriously, the gospels are post-facto forgeries based on a single other account, and Paul didn't seem to think Jesus actually had a corporeal existence at all or know anything about the accounts in the gospels. The New Testament is cobbled-together nonsense, to say nothing of the fact that Jesus and Old Testament God are obviously totally different identities with mutually-exclusive goals.)

3. We aren't collecting money and prestige for doing so.

4. We aren't sitting on our base of money and prestige and telling other people that money and prestige are bad things.

Therefore, no matter how flawed we may be, we do not approach the Catholic church (or any other Christian church, or any church whatsoever).

But if my idea sounds really absurd and abject, let it be. I withdraw it. Thanks for reading.

There's no need to withdraw it. You are free to have your idea, to share it online (or by any other means you deem fitting), to get other people to read it or write a story based on it, to paint frescoes based on it, whatever. This is a thing we call "freedom of speech" -- a concept the Catholic church does not like one little bit (between blasphemy laws and book banning, both ideas they have pushed repeatedly over the course of history, the very idea obviously disgusts them).

However, "free speech" also means that anyone who disagrees with your idea is free to criticize it out loud, provided they remain reasonably civil. I haven't insulted or threatened you or told you to stop talking, and I have been providing pieces of evidence to support my contentions. Disagreement is the price of freedom of speech.

(Mind you, this is a privately-owned and -operated service, and our kind and generous host can say "I don't want to see this discussion here". But until and unless he does, we are under no obligation to stop.)

Originally Posted by Yachirobi

Jocaflo, please ignore Jeff and Tekuno. They're both being ignorant and disrespectful.

Ignorant? Absolutely not. I seem to know more about the Catholic church than many of its members do -- possibly because they do not wish to know anything which might cause them to doubt the institution. Which is, in the case of the Catholics, apparently almost anything about the church's history or politics. (Just for a quick burst of repulsion, and lest they be forgotten in the furor over the pedophilia scandal, let me mention the Magdalene asylums, which were still running as recently as 17 years ago. Nuns are not innocent any more than priests.)

Disrespectful? There you have me, I'm afraid. I have no respect for religions. Most people don't -- except that they wedge in an exception or two for very silly reasons. Obviously, one's own religion demands respect; otherwise (almost always) one's parents and (usually) siblings and spouse and friends and that very nice, apparently-earnest clergyman whose salary is paid by one's donations would be wrong about the fundamental nature of the world, and that would be unthinkable! And we have to be nice to the Catholics/Lutherans/Baptists/Muslims/whatever because -- let's be honest -- we can't afford to make explicit enemies out of them, no matter how obviously silly or misguided or just outright stupid their ideas may be.

I'm telling you: that's a stupid and dishonest way to live. "My parents raised me to be X" is not a valid argument in favor of a worldview. Neither is "I'm afraid of what might happen if I stopped believing X". (Actually, a psychologist might argue that the very idea indicates you do not, in fact, believe X in the first place.) And, this is important, if your religion says "don't start reading books or talking to people because you might start to doubt", it means your religion can obviously be dismissed as false, and knows it -- nobody who really thinks they know the truth is ever afraid of questions.

[Jocaflo]

Tekuno, good morning. I agree with you to a large degree. And I don't necessarily agree with Yachirobi's words about you, ok? Now, to me, a good example of freedom of speech is the fact that this thread about a possible plot has turned into an assault on the Catholic Church, lol. Maybe that is a "stupid and dishonest way to live", but that is primarily your opinion. Some people may find it is a genuine way to live. I like to think about Francis of Asisi. Wow, how weird to mention him on a muscle site, lol. I would challenge you to debate your antireligious views with a theologian. That might be a very fruitful experience. I wonder how it would affect your position, if anything. Warm hug. Jos?

[V.R.Goh]

Your plot idea would describe an interesting conundrum for the priest. Since Catholic priests take vows of celibacy, your priest would not be able to express those sexual desires in a healthy manner that does not involve masturbation. However, the old saying goes that the only way two people can keep a secret is if one is dead. It would be sort of hypocritical if he were gay, though.

As most, if not all, of us know, mainstream Christianity considers homosexuality a sin and will cite Leviticus 18:22 to prove it. Of course, the Bible uses the word "abomination" four times in regards to shellfish and calls pork "unclean," but I don't see the Westboro Baptist "Church" picketing outside a local supermarket or Red Lobster. A gay priest who is worshiping a bodybuilder's muscles would be a problem of human nature versus divine mission. While it is possible to be gay and Christian, being gay and a Catholic priest would pose an issue. (Then again, I find it funny that leaders of a church that condemns homosexuality spend at least one day a week in a dress.)

[hszmv]

Originally Posted by V.R.Goh

Your plot idea would describe an interesting conundrum for the priest. Since Catholic priests take vows of celibacy, your priest would not be able to express those sexual desires in a healthy manner that does not involve masturbation. However, the old saying goes that the only way two people can keep a secret is if one is dead. It would be sort of hypocritical if he were gay, though.

As most, if not all, of us know, mainstream Christianity considers homosexuality a sin and will cite Leviticus 18:22 to prove it. Of course, the Bible uses the word "abomination" four times in regards to shellfish and calls pork "unclean," but I don't see the Westboro Baptist "Church" picketing outside a local supermarket or Red Lobster. A gay priest who is worshiping a bodybuilder's muscles would be a problem of human nature versus divine mission. While it is possible to be gay and Christian, being gay and a Catholic priest would pose an issue. (Then again, I find it funny that leaders of a church that condemns homosexuality spend at least one day a week in a dress.)

Actually, The Catholic Church does not condemn Homosexuals entirely... it gets a bit complicated, but long story short... Catholic doctrine does teach that homosexual sex is wrong. That is actual physical sex. But, it's wrong for the same reason that the Catholic Church believe Abortion and Contraception is wrong.

See, Catholics believe that sex is for the sole purpose of concieving a child, and any use of sex without the intent or possible expectation of a child is wrong.

Now, the church does not teach that a gay person is wrong. It is entirely possible, according to the church, to be gay and a good Christian (celebacy is involved, so there's that). To recap: Gay Sex == Sin. Gay Person != Sin.

As for the biblical stuff, Catholics do not intepret the bible literally. Most of the old testament (Leviticus included) are used to demonstrate to the reader the nature, beliefs, and customs of the society Jesus lived in, and why the actions he said were wildly radical. In fact, in the apostolic letters (after the Gospels in then New Testament and rarely mentioned) there is a part where God tells one of the apostles that the laws of Leviticus are not applicable to him (explicitly dietary customs, but the Catholic Church does not interpret the bible literally and usually interpret this part to mean that Leviticus and other Old Testament Law is no longer applicaple).

Having all this in mind, specifically in the Catholic Church, it is entirely possible to have a gay man enter the priesthood (Again, being gay is not sinful in and of itself.). The idea of him having gay sex would be a sin for a number of reasons: First, and greatest, he is breaking his vow of celebacy (all priests take one, reguardless of gender preference). Second, he is having sex... any sex... out of wedlock and with a man, both of which are sins because of the above mentioned "Baby Clause."

So no, this story is entirely possible... in fact, the idea that a devout gay Catholic entering the priesthood as a way of strengthening his commitment to celibacy that he would believe he is called to because he is gay. It would be very likely he would actually be in the closet (there is still a good deal of confusion over these issues in the laity and while there are lot more liberals in American Catholicism than other Christian Sects, there is still a conservative dominance.) and, unfortunately as the priest abuse scandal revealed, Catholic Priests are human and do give into temptations.

Finally, Vatican II, a conference that brought sweeping reforms to the church in the 1960s does allow priests and laity to disagree with papal teachings (the whole "Infallible Pope" thing is alot more nuanced and alot rarer than it is portrayed in media. I don't have the statics on me, but I recall that the exact conditions for Papal Infallibility have been used a handful of times in the entire 2 millennia that the Catholic Church has existed.).

The More You Know...

[Jocaflo]

Originally Posted by hszmv

Actually, The Catholic Church does not condemn Homosexuals entirely... it gets a bit complicated, but long story short... Catholic doctrine does teach that homosexual sex is wrong. That is actual physical sex. But, it's wrong for the same reason that the Catholic Church believe Abortion and Contraception is wrong.

See, Catholics believe that sex is for the sole purpose of concieving a child, and any use of sex without the intent or possible expectation of a child is wrong.

Now, the church does not teach that a gay person is wrong. It is entirely possible, according to the church, to be gay and a good Christian (celebacy is involved, so there's that). To recap: Gay Sex == Sin. Gay Person != Sin.

As for the biblical stuff, Catholics do not intepret the bible literally. Most of the old testament (Leviticus included) are used to demonstrate to the reader the nature, beliefs, and customs of the society Jesus lived in, and why the actions he said were wildly radical. In fact, in the apostolic letters (after the Gospels in then New Testament and rarely mentioned) there is a part where God tells one of the apostles that the laws of Leviticus are not applicable to him (explicitly dietary customs, but the Catholic Church does not interpret the bible literally and usually interpret this part to mean that Leviticus and other Old Testament Law is no longer applicaple).

Having all this in mind, specifically in the Catholic Church, it is entirely possible to have a gay man enter the priesthood (Again, being gay is not sinful in and of itself.). The idea of him having gay sex would be a sin for a number of reasons: First, and greatest, he is breaking his vow of celebacy (all priests take one, reguardless of gender preference). Second, he is having sex... any sex... out of wedlock and with a man, both of which are sins because of the above mentioned "Baby Clause."

So no, this story is entirely possible... in fact, the idea that a devout gay Catholic entering the priesthood as a way of strengthening his commitment to celibacy that he would believe he is called to because he is gay. It would be very likely he would actually be in the closet (there is still a good deal of confusion over these issues in the laity and while there are lot more liberals in American Catholicism than other Christian Sects, there is still a conservative dominance.) and, unfortunately as the priest abuse scandal revealed, Catholic Priests are human and do give into temptations.

Finally, Vatican II, a conference that brought sweeping reforms to the church in the 1960s does allow priests and laity to disagree with papal teachings (the whole "Infallible Pope" thing is alot more nuanced and alot rarer than it is portrayed in media. I don't have the statics on me, but I recall that the exact conditions for Papal Infallibility have been used a handful of times in the entire 2 millennia that the Catholic Church has existed.).

The More You Know...

Thank you for this post. Now let me share with you guys how the plot idea came into my mind. It is not entirely my own actually. Some time ago I was in touch with a bodybuilder. I had a couple of cam sessiosn with him, but that is not what matters here. We also exchanged e-mails, and in one of them he told me that he had "clients" (for online muscleworship) all over the world, including a Catholic priest from Italy. So, that is it.

[hszmv]

Originally Posted by Jocaflo

Thank you for this post. Now let me share with you guys how the plot idea came into my mind. It is not entirely my own actually. Some time ago I was in touch with a bodybuilder. I had a couple of cam sessiosn with him, but that is not what matters here. We also exchanged e-mails, and in one of them he told me that he had "clients" (for online muscleworship) all over the world, including a Catholic priest from Italy. So, that is it.

Hey, it happens. Would rather the priest fool around with a consenting adult (sinful, scandalous, yes... not illegal) than a kid.

[tekuno]

Originally Posted by Jocaflo

Tekuno, good morning. I agree with you to a large degree. And I don't necessarily agree with Yachirobi's words about you, ok? Now, to me, a good example of freedom of speech is the fact that this thread about a possible plot has turned into an assault on the Catholic Church, lol. Maybe that is a "stupid and dishonest way to live", but that is primarily your opinion. Some people may find it is a genuine way to live. I like to think about Francis of Asisi. Wow, how weird to mention him on a muscle site, lol. I would challenge you to debate your antireligious views with a theologian. That might be a very fruitful experience. I wonder how it would affect your position, if anything. Warm hug. Jos?

You have mistaken my annoyance. I don't merely have disgust for the Catholic church, I have disgust for all churches; but the Catholics were the ones mentioned here. Just as an example, Lutheranism is a ludicrous and foolish thing -- it sticks out a mile, if you read anything not published by official church hagiographers, that Martin Luther was an egomaniac whose only actual beef with the Catholic church was that they wouldn't promote him. Everything else was just invective so he could get an audience. If he had been made a bishop, he would have been as active defending the Catholic church as he eventually became denouncing it, and even at the height of his anti-Catholic campaign if the church had suddenly named him Pope he would have ceased all calls for reform. There were some sincere reformers, like Zwingli, but Luther was instrumental in derailing them (and in some cases getting them killed) in order to further his own goals.

Every single religion is the result of ignorance; an attempt to use baseless, made-up stories to patch holes in human knowledge -- and 99.99% of them are constructed to milk believers for money and power. We already have enough evidence to show that humans have no non-material component controlling them; there is nowhere left in the body where such a thing could possibly interface with the material parts. There would have to be a material part of you, somewhere, which was displaying behavior not explained by physics in order to transmit the orders, and we have now been able to observe all the parts in action, and there's no such part. (That is to say: if your religion claims there's a ghost-like "soul" which controls you in some way and goes on after death, your religion is lying. That cuts an awful lot of them out in one go, doesn't it?)

"But what" I hear you object (trust me, this argument has been had before) "about all the good things that religions do?" Well, what of them? The most common example cited in this sort of argument is Catholic hospitals -- but there's a huge problem with that, as an example, which is that the Catholic-ness does not make them better hospitals, or even cause there to be hospitals in the first place. Catholic hospitals still bill insurance, bill Medicare, charge the uninsured, and generally cost as much as any other facility. The only difference is that Catholic hospitals also hit up people for money given as "charity", which is not used to treat people. Overall, Catholic hospitals are not only largely unnecessary (it's not like there would be no hospitals if there were no Catholics) but also hugely wasteful. We see this again and again; in fact, the least-religious parts of the world, when people are able to choose freely, tend to be more prosperous and peaceful: Norway, Sweden, Japan, Germany... (And before we get the inevitable Godwin's Law post: the Nazis were explicitly Christian. The job of women was "church, cooking, and children", the Nazi soldiers' uniform said "God Is With Us" on the belt buckle. It's the modern, secular Germany which is peaceful and prosperous.)

As for religion making people "better" in some way, well: if religion makes people "better", then those most exposed to it should be noticeably "better" than the rest of the population. But that is exactly the opposite of what is observed; priests, nuns, ministers, etc., are actually more likely to be involved in crime of either the financial or sexual sort than the population at large, whenever numbers are available. (It's not just the Catholics; every religion large enough to have reliable statistics has serious problems with this.) Heck, the U.S. prison system recently released numbers on prisoner spirituality, and even given that most of the population claims some religion or other, religious people are disproportionately represented in prison. (Only around 0.02% -- about 1 in every 5000 prisoners -- is an atheist, and non-atheist non-religious people are similarly unrepresented.)

And, of course, religion is always in the forefront of making people do bad things. Want to keep gay people from marrying, even though it demonstrably won't cause you any harm? You're doing it for religious reasons. Want to keep women or black people from voting? Your objections are probably religious. Slavery? Defended on religious grounds ("Slaves, obey your masters"). There has never been an evil thing people do which hasn't had a defense rooted in religion. Without religion, people do good things and they do evil things, but for someone to do evil things while believing they are doing good -- that takes religion. The only way religion stops being a force for evil is when people start to cherry-pick: "well, yes, this is my holy book, but I don't literally obey this part because it's wrong." This, when it happens, is an admission that individual morality (generally based on instinct -- the apes which are our nearest relatives have empathy) is superior to that provided by religion, and this is no surprise, given everything else.

What does that say about religion, then? It doesn't provide positive things we wouldn't have anyway, it's based on lies, it doesn't make people better, and it doesn't provide decent morality.

Theology and theologians, therefore, are basically irrelevant. They are a defense of a system which just plain doesn't work in practice; I don't want to hear people babble on about phlogiston, either; it's just a waste of time because the "phlogiston" theory does not work.

More importantly, theologians are also irrelevant in a deeper sense. The older ones believed -- or, at least, claimed to believe -- things which we now know to be lies. (Like the idea that the gospels were genuine eyewitness accounts, for example.) The newer ones, when they aren't blatantly idiots rehashing arguments which have already been proved wrong, tend to be defending an idea of "god" which is so far away from anything taught by actual religion as people generally mean it -- you will not find a modern, intellectually respectable theologist who defends the notion of a "personal god", for example -- that trying to rescue "religion" by hiding behind their words is worse than useless.

[Jocaflo]

I am not a Catholic, either. Actually I don't follow any other religion. Did I ever say religion makes peope better? I may personally find that most of what religions put forward is questionable (crap, if you need that word), but I would rather observe than attack things that I possibly don't understand completely. Period. I am sorry this thread has run too far away from my original idea.

[ydt81]

JocaFlo, I know you've probably given up on this idea by now but I wanted to mention I understand what you were going for.

In fact, the thought crossed my mind towards the end of Mass just yesterday--except I was thinking the opposite:
Since, as mentioned by another member, *being* gay is not a sin. I was thinking about a priest who notices one of his church members is faltering in his faith for some reason; perhaps his sexuality is distancing him from the Church. The priest does his best to try getting the young man's attention, suggesting many different activities; eventually arriving at weightlifting. (Initially, the priest, who knows the young man is gay, wants the depressed young man to live a happier, healthy life, knowing full well at the beginning that the guy just likes muscles and is probably lifting for vanity.)**

As it turns out, the priest himself enjoys the lifting much more than he expects. He grows steadily over time, and he awakens to a subtle new kind of lust for power, attention, and size. Initially he tries thinking of it as a way to get the lazier guy back to the gym and deeper into his faith. But more and more, he starts enjoying the shocked looks and attention he gets from him (and a few others). And the tension around the forbidden increases.....etc.

Priest would be somewhat young, only a few years out of the seminary; young man in early college.


**This approach to taking the young man under his wing is inspired by what I read many years ago about the actual 'Courage' program run by the Catholic Church, which acts as a support group for homosexuals seeking the celibate life. The men's program works to 'reconnect men with their masculinity'(paraphrasing from memory)
------------------------
BUT on the other hand...

I like your original approach; Depending on how you play with the intentions of the characters it can bring out those human struggles you mentioned before.
Not to mention, I just love the image of a massive, struggling-to-be-devout bodybuilder walking into the confessional/cell, face-to-face with a priest, without a clue of the effect he immediately has on him. The scene, smell, the sins confessed.

It's a story that I think could be very hot but also , intimate or spiritual and I respect that. I know you're not trying to be offensive; The way I see it, this is just an interesting story about two (or more) humans. Were you planning on writing it yourself? Or just putting it out there?

I know that someone has written a story about a religious man at least once. See 'Pastor Muscle' by BBMikeNJ.<img id="ums_img_tooltip" class="UMSRatingIcon">