Get Rid of the Celibacy Requirement

  • Thread starter Thread starter CampionTheChampion
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
AlNg said:
Il a fait une erreur.
Click to expand...
St. Paul says that celibacy should be preferred to marriage. He is not deceived because the Church has made it a dogma.
But the same St Paul recognizes that this is not the state of life suitable for everyone
 
Mboo said:
St. Paul says that celibacy should be preferred to marriage. He is not deceived because the Church has made it a dogma.
Click to expand...
Priestly celibacy is not Church dogma, or we wouldn’t be discussing it here. It’s tradition.
 
that’s not what I said. I said that celibacy (or sacred perpetual continence more generally) should be preferred to marriage because it is superior to marriage.
This superiority is a dogma.
 
Celibacy is a discipline because of a doctrine. Ever since Old Testament times, priests were to refrain from sex before offering a sacrifice. Priests of the New Covenant – i.e., Catholic priests – offer the Sacrifice daily. Because of this, married priests refrained from sex, with their wives often joining monastic groups. And because of all that and the problems of having to support a priest’s children born before he was ordained, priestly celibacy became the rule. It is the way of “apostolic perfection.” It definitely should not be done away with.

The abuse crisis is one of homosexual priests abusing physically sexually mature teenaged boys and young men. It is overwhelmingly NOT pedophilia; it is homosexual ephebophilia. Homosexuals aren’t supposed to be ordained in the first place, and if the Church had stuck with this rule, at least 80% of the abuse problems we hear about would never have happened. Read the John Jay Report.
 
Mboo said:
I said that celibacy (or sacred perpetual continence more generally) should be preferred to marriage because it is superior to marriage.
This superiority is a dogma.
Click to expand...
Got a reference for that.

Marriage is a sacrament. Celibacy is not.
 
This doctrine of the excellence of virginity and of celibacy and of their superiority over the married state was, as We have already said, revealed by our Divine Redeemer and by the Apostle of the Gentiles; so too, it was solemnly defined as a dogma of divine faith by the holy council of Trent,[57] and explained in the same way by all the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church
Click to expand...
http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x...s/hf_p-xii_enc_25031954_sacra-virginitas.html

A sacrament can be seen as a “remedy” for sinners, ie as a “cure” to support for the sinner’s weaknesses. Indeed those who are totally healed (ie those who are in heaven) no longer take sacraments.
He who does not need a remedy (therefore he who does not need marriage) is in a higher state than the one who needs it.
 
And St. Paul counsels the marriage “for those who can not live without a wife” , and in its tradition the Church has always presented marriage as a “remedy against concupiscence”, and as an indulgence of God in the face of man’s weakness.
 
I am not talking about the Church. I am talking about society as a whole. Homosexuality is quite mainstream now and same sex marriage is now recognized in many places. Gay men need no longer hide their sexuality from society and in many cases can even get married to someone of their choosing. Of course not in the Catholic Church but we can say with certainty that most Catholics are nominal Catholics so less Catholic men are considering the priesthood. Now take the percentage of Catholic men who are devout and who have SSA and you are talking very small numbers here.
 
There are different forms of conscupicience.

Would you recommend a convicted child molester get married in order to cure his pedophilia?

How about porn addiction? I know of lots of wives hurt by their husband’s porn addiction. Marriage does not seem to cure this addiction.

Frankly this makes wives out to be like scratching posts for men who “burn” so to speak.
 
Richard Sipe remained a Roman Catholic. He did not leave the church. He left an impending crisis, the abuse scandal in the Catholic priesthood. He spent the rest of his life trying to alert the Vatican. They did not listen. He was not perfect, but he fulfilled his mission. He did not have the charism of celibacy. It’s wonderful he recognized that he could not be an effective priest in the Latin church. He was meant to marry and have a family. His marriage lasted nearly 50 years. By his side at his death was his wife and son. I wish more priests were honest about their sexuality and lack of vocation.
 
Last edited:
First I’m just reporting a formerly used by the Church vocabulary.
It is obvious that marriage can not “heal” all kind of concupiscence, it is a remedy especially for those who live in concubinage or in quasi-concubinage.
 
Last edited:
Sarcelle said:
Frankly this makes wives out to be like scratching posts for men who “burn” so to speak.
Click to expand...
concupiscence in its broad sense is a passion that drives us to seek our happiness with the creature, it is not a bad thing in itself. Concupiscence leads to sin when it is disorderly, or when it is immoderate.
There are two “healthy” concupiscences that one seeks to satisfy in marriage: conjugal love and family love. I do not see how women are “objectified” by these two concupiscences.
 
pnewton said:
I am sorry, but Catholics have more respect for the Bible and the apostles than you appear to have.
Click to expand...
I am sorry but I have respect for Jesus who instituted the Sacrament of Marriage. I am sorry, but I don’t see where He instituted a Sacrament for Celibacy.
 
Having access to a sacrament is not a sign of excellence. He who resorts to the sacrament of penance, for example because he has committed a mortal sin, is not in a more excellent state than one who is in a state of grace and who is purified by his works of penance.
He who is sick and has recourse to the sacrament of the sick is not in a more excellent condition than the one who is healthy.
In the same way he who resorts to the sacrament of marriage to lawfully satisfy concupiscence is not in a more excellent state than he who lives in sacred celibacy
 
In my personal opinion, Sacramental graces bring a person to a higher level.
Mboo said:
In the same way he who resorts to the sacrament of marriage to lawfully satisfy concupiscence
Click to expand...
In my personal opinion, marriage is more than satisfying concupiscence. It is about love between two people, man and woman, who obey the commandment of God to increase and multiply and to share their love with their children and extended family.
 
Last edited:
Of course, but in principle when you are at a perfect level you no longer need to take remedies.
The one who lives the sacred celibacy is at a more perfect level than the one who lives in the marriage that is why he no longer needs a specific sacrament to help him particularly
 
AlNg said:
In my personal opinion, marriage is more than satisfying concupiscence. It is about love between two people, man and woman, who obey the commandment of God to increase and multiply and to share their love with their children and extended family.
Click to expand...
to seek our happiness from the creature is also called concupiscence, and that is not bad in itself. The one who marries seeks happiness through conjugal love, and family love, so he gets married to satisfy these both types of concupiscence.
It is true God said to Adam “it is not good for man to be alone …”, but it was a positive divine law in the context of before the fall, in the context of the redemption he said this:
“It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman…” (1 Cor 7.1)
 
Mboo said:
40.png
AlNg:
In my personal opinion, marriage is more than satisfying concupiscence. It is about love between two people, man and woman, who obey the commandment of God to increase and multiply and to share their love with their children and extended family.
Click to expand...
to seek our happiness from the creature is also called concupiscence, and that is not bad in itself. The one who marries seeks happiness through conjugal love, and family love, so he gets married to satisfy these both types of concupiscence.
It is true God said to Adam “it is not good for man to be alone …”, but it was a positive divine law in the context of before the fall, in the context of the redemption he said this:
“It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman…” (1 Cor 7.1)
Click to expand...
The fruitful call of marriage points beyond satisfaction of concupiscence or attainment of happiness. Those are both good things that result, and the love of marriage flows out of itself, each to the other in a salvific way, and to the rest of the world in a salvific way.

Marriage is an image and participation in the very Trinitarian life of God.
 
goout said:
The fruitful call of marriage points beyond satisfaction of concupiscence or attainment of happiness. Those are both good things that result, and the love of marriage flows out of itself, each to the other in a salvific way, and to the rest of the world in a salvific way.
Click to expand...
What you call “the love of mariage” is what i call also concupiscence, because the joy of this love is natural, even those who do not have the Faith seek it and enjoy it.
it’s true that, marriage is an image of the union of Christ and the Church, but be an image of a divine mystery does not confer by this fact alone some excellence to those involved, otherwise the vine and branch would be in a very high state of excellence because they were chosen by Jesus to represent union with Christ and Christians. In the same way, polygamy would be a good thing because Jesus is presented himself in many biblical passages as a polygamous husband of our souls.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top