J
Joyousguard
Guest
Please deal with the argument that I have presented instead of such uneccesary responses.Call us and the Vatican when it does.
- Status
H
He_Man
Guest
No you didnât. You assume because of past mistakes, the Church is wrong about celibacy. Yet, you havenât PROVEN anything with regards to a need for celibacy. Like I said, you lack any credible empirical trials or evidence that lends credence to the notion that dropping celibacy would be helpful in creating a larger, more faithful Priesthood.Sorry, Iâll try to use smaller words and sentences to ensure its easier to read and understand in the future. As to the charge of using âobtuseâ words that is definetely a new one to me and I thank you for the chuckle.
. That was not the point at all. You simply assume that the church is correct about everything and this is not always the case. They are however the closest to the truth of anything on the earth. To assume they are infailible when all popes since the inception of Papal infailibility have clearly said that unless a pope speaks infailibly on a particluar matter there is the possibility of it being wrong. The pope has never spoken infailably on a married clergy.
.
Because you are insisting that the chgurch is right about everything but that is most clealry not the case nor has it ever been nor does the Church claim to be.
So again, if the churchâs authority will always line up with Godâs authority burning herretics or those accused of heresey was fine because it was Godâs will? What about the authority of many bishops to move abusive priests around instead of removing them from the parishes? I suppose all of this is Godâs will as well? By the fruit that is born from the call. Same way we know that a call to the priesthood is from God. Are you suggesting that ordained men called to marriage is the work of Satan? try not mention this to our Eastern Rite brothers and sisters.
But rereading them helps to understand them rather than make an eisegesis of your own rather than reading what i have actually said.
Que pasa?
What I did say was that you would be suprised at what they will admit in private conversations that they know will not get out.
Yet you make assumptions about who I am or what credentials or posititions I hold. Your analysis was inaccurate and an assumption on your part.
Not at all. I merely stated that I do not wish to reargue this arguments from 50 years ago that have not been updated nor seriosly dealt with the objections and solutions noted by others.
My argument has not been one merely of a structural nature but one mainly of a theological objection.
Sometimes it helps to read what other people objections are before you simple dismiss them. A method that has been taught since the ancient days of Greece that comes in very handy with many things such as a mrried clergy and even issues such as abortion.
I made an extensive argument that you seem to have either missed or avoided earlier in this thread, please deal with that if you could.
Look, you keep saying âI have proven with facts, blah, blah, blah, blah.â WhateverâŚ
All you have done is given opinion, and placed animations throughout your writing to make it seem sweeter. Thatâs not fooling anyone, but it does look clownish.
The only way you are going to persuade any one is provide some clinical evidence, or lie, which you are bordering on doing anyway.
Itâs your call, but you are wasting everyoneâs time by posting your flawed opinion over and over. Get a new tactic.
H
He_Man
Guest
Please make a decent argument and I will.Please deal with the argument that I have presented instead of such uneccesary responses.
J
Joyousguard
Guest
Doesnât it seem a bit irrational to disreagrd my theological argument because you declare that it is not decent?
It is very concerning that you, like the church, take the position that the problem is not real and thus must not exist. I have put the problem forth in very precise theological terms that show very clearly what a problem laicization is as it has been presented by the Church. If you do not wish to repond to this argument and simply dismiss it then you are free to stop posting and allow those who wish to respond a chance to post.
W
whatevergirl
Guest
I know it can be frustrating, especially on a forum like this, to not get offended or insulted by one anotherâs comments, when it comes to proving points. Letâs try to steer away from rolling eyes emoticons, and so forth, and I only ask this because Iâm trying to really learn about this subject. Granted, I could research this on my own, but I like being directed to VIABLE links etc so that I can supplement my own information gathering.
Opinions of why priests should or should not be celibate is greatâbut is there sound Catholic information out there that credits celibacy as being necessary for the priesthoodâŚand that it eminated from Christ? I believe the Church and Christ to be a union of one. I have noticed that some posters will talk about the RCC as though it were making decisions independently of the Holy Spirit. That I believe is a false teaching/ or presumption, at the very least. So, if those of you who have viable links, info, etcâŚcould you post them instead of mere opinion sprinkled with a few factoids? Thank you kindlyâI hope my request makes sense.
Opinions of why priests should or should not be celibate is greatâbut is there sound Catholic information out there that credits celibacy as being necessary for the priesthoodâŚand that it eminated from Christ? I believe the Church and Christ to be a union of one. I have noticed that some posters will talk about the RCC as though it were making decisions independently of the Holy Spirit. That I believe is a false teaching/ or presumption, at the very least. So, if those of you who have viable links, info, etcâŚcould you post them instead of mere opinion sprinkled with a few factoids? Thank you kindlyâI hope my request makes sense.
J
Joyousguard
Guest
There is credible evidence from many church theologians that support celibacy. These points are often times well argued and logical. However, much of theri judgement on celibacy seems to be biased and they seem to overlook an extremely important fact that Chirst chose men that were both married and single as well as the fact that the first Pope who Christ said âi will build my church upon youâ was married as well. Perhaps this is just a coincidence?
Christ did not just advoacte a married priesthood by the very action of choosing the twelve but also encouraged a celibate priesthood as well. Christ did not advocate one over the other but chose both married and unmarried men to be His first priests.
What is very interesting about the spread and promotion of celebacy comes from many of the early teachers in the church. Many urged others not to marry (Paul did urge people to marry). It becomes clear why they did this when we understand that the Apostles believed that Christ would return in their lifetimes and the day of judgement would happen. From this many believed the world was to end after the return of Christ and that marriage wouldnât really be needed because the end of the world would be at hand. Well as we know, Christ has not returned yet and the day of judgement did not happen. This puts into context the real first push for a celibacy.(this last paragraph I am not positive on because it is a bit hazzy in my memory)
Read about the Renaissance popes a bit and then tell me if they were chosen by God. The only lay pope ever chosen at a conclave bribed his way into the Papacy. One of the new elected Renaissance popes remarked âGod has given us the papacy let us enjoy it.â Suffice it to say the election of the pope and all that goes on in the church is not always guided by the Holy Spirit as we know with the handling of the sex abuse crisis.
For a look at the reanaissance popes a book called âSinners and Saints: history of the papacyâ ( i believe this is the name but iâm not posititve) can be found. It is used in many seminary church history classes.So, if those of you who have viable links, info, etcâŚcould you post them instead of mere opinion sprinkled with a few factoids? Thank you kindlyâI hope my request makes sense.
In regards to first push for celibacy I do not recollect where I learned that from and will admit that some of it is a bit vague in my memory.
Iâll try to respond to any questions and try to clarify anything that I have written because it does seem a bit jumbled.
W
whatevergirl
Guest
Hi Joyous!
I will interject here a momentâŚPaul did not urge people to get married. He urged people to get marriedâif they thought that would help controlling their âpassions.â But, he also said that there are some who are called to being single. That is actually a concept that is highlighted in other passages, not just by Paul. I have always thought that very very VERY interesting, because it could speak to a strong motivation for why the RCC structured the priesthood to be a vocation that requires celibacy. Thoughts?
W
whatevergirl
Guest
I am not sure of the accuracyâas there are some who disprove that you are making facts, and not stating opinionâBUTâI do like how you write, and feel you are very charitable.:yup: (I tend to tune out when I see namecalling and sarcastic comments-not to say Iâm never sarcasticâwe all areâbut it tends to hurt conversations when we start regressing into that type of banter)
You are Catholic, right?
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
Just to clarify, the conditions placed upon active ministry by priests released from the clerical state are not found in canon law but are typically included in the dismissorial letter. Thus, while it is common that they be told not to preach, teach, etc., it need not be the case and individual priests may not receive the same blanket ban.
J
Joyousguard
Guest
That was actually in the response that I was orginally going to give but I was not positive I was right. I tried to confirm it but was unable to locate it so I decided just to leave that part out.
It is interesting to note what Paul says about marriage but when we do examine it in light of the apostles and those that had direct contact with Jesus as well as Jesus Himself we see something interesting. When Christ originally called the disciples to âleave everything and follow meâ are we to assume this meant wives and children as well? I think it is clear that Christ did not intend for His disciples to abandon their wives and it would seem that many of the disciples wives actually may have accompanied Jesus and the disciples. the abandonment of the wives of the disciples would not be something that is consistent with our understanding of the teaching of Christ.
We would be on safe ground to make the assumption that Christ did not intend for the married disciples to leave their wives and follow Him but rather leave their lives and their extended families and follow Him. ( i hope I make the distinction clear) Christ deliberately and specifically chose married men to be the first priests. I think it becomes obvious why Christ Himself never married but why would He choose married men if it was not an agreement that indeed married men should be priests as well? Are we to assume that we know better than Christ in this respect? If Christ intended his preists to be celibate it would seem very obvious that He would have only choosen single men who would not be âburdenedâ by marriage to spread christainity. But in fact He chose both single and married be each brought something unique to the table. Married men have a better understanding of the familiy and women (the church still doesnât quite understand women
) and the single disciples could be said to have the ability to preach the Gospel without the worry of a wife and a family, they could be much more mobile and independent (no insult intended to married couples).we use the example of Christ for everything in Christainity, yet we go our own way on mandatory celibacy instead of looking at the example He himself showed us.
W
whatevergirl
Guest
Ohhhâwe are getting somewhere now! I am enjoying this thread, largely because I have a deep admiration for religious life, and want to make sure that I donât live on assumptions, but rather true facts that led up to the RCCâs decision for priests to be celibate.That was actually in the response that I was orginally going to give but I was not positive I was right. I tried to confirm it but was unable to locate it so I decided just to leave that part out.
It is interesting to note what Paul says about marriage but when we do examine it in light of the apostles and those that had direct contact with Jesus as well as Jesus Himself we see something interesting. When Christ originally called the disciples to âleave everything and follow meâ are we to assume this meant wives and children as well? I think it is clear that Christ did not intend for His disciples to abandon their wives and it would seem that many of the disciples wives actually may have accompanied Jesus and the disciples. the abandonment of the wives of the disciples would not be something that is consistent with our understanding of the teaching of Christ.
We would be on safe ground to make the assumption that Christ did not intend for the married disciples to leave their wives and follow Him but rather leave their lives and their extended families and follow Him. ( i hope I make the distinction clear) Christ deliberately and specifically chose married men to be the first priests. I think it becomes obvious why Christ Himself never married but why would He choose married men if it was not an agreement that indeed married men should be priests as well? Are we to assume that we know better than Christ in this respect? If Christ intended his preists to be celibate it would seem very obvious that He would have only choosen single men who would not be âburdenedâ by marriage to spread christainity. But in fact He chose both single and married be each brought something unique to the table. Married men have a better understanding of the familiy and women (the church still doesnât quite understand women
we use the example of Christ for everything in Christainity, yet we go our own way on mandatory celibacy instead of looking at the example He himself showed us.
You make some great pointsâones that require some true thought. I donât think we can view them, and just sayâwell, Christ was asking those men to abandon everything, and that must mean wives and children. I tend to agreeâwhy did He select Peter, who was a married man, if to ask him to abandon his responsibilitiesâand that goes against the RCCâs teachings about family. We can guess, but we simply donât know fully what Christ meant in that passage. I take it to mean, that we should let nothing stand in the way of following Christ. That being said howeverâChurch tradition would be accepted by Christ, after His deathâas He makes the remark about building His church upon Peter, the rock. âWhatever you loose here on earth, will be loosed in heaven, etcâŚâ (I apologizeâI donât have the Scripture at hand to accompany that quote) In saying that, Christ was not implying but really rather stating that if the Church that Peter is building here on earth decides upon a particular doctrine or standard, it will be accepted by almighty God. Since the Holy Spirit guides our Churchâwe are to believe that when the RCC made the decision for priests to be celibateâit was a decision guided by the Holy Spirit. (and also accepted by God in turn) In viewing the priesthood as a father to all, it would seem rather practical for lack of a better wordâfor them to be âunattachedâ to a wife and children, as their time would have to be divided. I donât think Christ would bestow such a burden upon His priestsâto have to choose between spending time with an ill parishioner letâs say, or attending his sonâs high school graduation. So, priestly celibacy makes sense in some secular ways, as well.
Are you Catholic, Joyous?
PS: I do think that the RCC understands womenâcan you elaborate by what you meant by that statement? Thank you.
J
Joyousguard
Guest
I try to cite as many sources as I can when responding to certain things but I can not always remeber where I learned everything from and thus can not always provide the link. Typically I will make a reference if i am not too sure upon the validity of a particular point. I think sometimes it would be easier if we just lay out all our personal qualifications and let those qualifications speak for the validity of our statements but Iâd much rather let my words speak for themselves. That is part of the problem here. The authority giving the verdict has blinded us so we do not look at the reasoning and theology behind the verdict itself.
I have been censured by the moderators on a few occasions although I politely disagreed with their assesments. But realize that they have a lot of work and can not really read more carefully everyoneâs postings.
I have defintely been sarcatsic on these forums and have gotten angry on more than a few occasions.I am very Catholic which casuses me great pain to see how many problems the church seesm to brush off and how many people are being hurt by the churchâs actions. I come accross so many Atheists or Protestanst who are proclaimed ex catholics because of the way they have been treated in many regards. The best thing I can do is apologize to them and tell them that what has happened to them was not the result of the real Catholic Chruch but really the result of members within the Church trying to do their own thing in contrast to Godâs will.
W
whatevergirl
Guest
Yes, I know, I have come across the sameâhowever, I have also come across many NEW Catholics who were taught false theology in their other faithsâand fed a lot of negative things about the Catholic Church. So, we should rejoice in that, right?I try to cite as many sources as I can when responding to certain things but I can not always remeber where I learned everything from and thus can not always provide the link. Typically I will make a reference if i am not too sure upon the validity of a particular point. I think sometimes it would be easier if we just lay out all our personal qualifications and let those qualifications speak for the validity of our statements but Iâd much rather let my words speak for themselves. That is part of the problem here. The authority giving the verdict has blinded us so we do not look at the reasoning and theology behind the verdict itself.
I have been censured by the moderators on a few occasions although I politely disagreed with their assesments. But realize that they have a lot of work and can not really read more carefully everyoneâs postings.
I am very Catholic which casuses me great pain to see how many problems the church seesm to brush off and how many people are being hurt by the churchâs actions. I come accross so many Atheists or Protestanst who are proclaimed ex catholics because of the way they have been treated in many regards. The best thing I can do is apologize to them and tell them that what has happened to them was not the result of the real Catholic Chruch but really the result of members within the Church trying to do their own thing in contrast to Godâs will.
(Rejoice in the fact that new people come to the faith every day!)I think that we need to be careful when we talk about the âchurchâs actions.â In some cases, many I should sayâpeople do not like the authority of the Church, because they make the mistake of separating the authority of the Church, from that of the authority of God. Itâs really one in the same. The Pharisees had the same problemsâJesusâs teachings vs that of God. (Jesus and God are one in the same) But where some of the disconnection between you and the other posters lies (I think
) is that in some of your posts, you talk about the Church as a separate entity. As though it is acting on some âotherâ authorityâmaybe manmade authority. I hesitate to make that leapâI donât know you!
But, my husband, I will use him as an exampleâwill sometimes sayâŚâmy brother left the faith, because of the Churchâs teachings. The Church doesnât have the authority to say this or thatâŚâ He has grown to accept these past saying as falsehoods, but suffice to sayâitâs a common error people makeâeven us Catholics, when it comes to looking at the Church as a separate entity. Itâs not separateâŚitâs a physical presence here on earthâthat has the Holy Spirit pumping through it, if that makes sense.Soâif the Church has a mandate of priests needing to be celibate, then we must be willing to accept that as Truth from God. If we donâtâŚwe run into picking apart Church teaching as not part of Godâs intent. Some of this requires??? Faith! That is why we have faith in our beloved Church, because She knows best. (because She is not acting alone, but in representation of Christ here on earth)
I also know many people who have left the RCC, because they disagreed with certain tenets of the faith. They leap to another faith and possibly another, and anotherâuntil they find the right fit. Faith isnât about what fits meâitâs about morphing into what God wants me to be. Not what I want God to mean in my life. Do you know what I mean?
Thank you for chattingâI will visit back a little later.
A
az_4_faith
Guest
We can assume that Peter was married at one time because of the reference in scripture to his mother-in-law, but how do we know his wife was still alive at that time? Couldnât he have been widowed, therefore âsingleâ and chaste?
What other scriptural references do we have that any of the other apostles were married, either before they met Jesus or after?
What other scriptural references do we have that any of the other apostles were married, either before they met Jesus or after?
J
Joyousguard
Guest
I think this is going to have to wait a bit because it involves other topics outside this thread and issues of Humanae Vitae.
W
whatevergirl
Guest
UH OHâmaybe you should start another thread.I think this is going to have to wait a bit because it involves other topics outside this thread and issues of Humanae Vitae.
hint hint
E
Em_in_FL
Guest
I see where youâre coming from now⌠feeling upset over people who have left the faith over the ârulesâ of the church rather than basic faith tenetsâŚ
However, God gave us His church to guide us and to give us a path toward holiness. This path is often very difficult⌠which is why many choose to leave. But a difficult path doesnât mean that the destination is incorrect. Itâs easy to take personal insult at ârulesâ you donât agree with⌠itâs difficult to push on in faith.
Yes, the church has encountered problems in the past with itâs ârulesâ⌠and has learned from those problems in many ways. Iâm sure there will be more issues in the future with more lessons.
However, there are two ways to approach an issue⌠either with defiance against the authority (think Martin Luther) or with love for that authority in moving past issues (think St. Francis going through the crusades and changing the church from within)âŚ
J
Joyousguard
Guest
I was formaly educated within the catholic church for many, many, many yearswhatevergirl;3200901]Yes, I know, I have come across the sameâhowever, I have also come across many NEW Catholics who were taught false theology in their other faithsâand fed a lot of negative things about the Catholic Church. So, we should rejoice in that, right?
Not quite. This would infer as many have mentioned in this thread that everything the Church has done is the by the will and authority of God. I really donât think that we want to make this argument across the board especially when we have to deal with the issues of the crusades, the inquisition and even the suppresion of the works of Thomas Aquinas at one point. It is very safe to say that the authority of Rome has not always been in synch with the Authority or will of God.
The Pharasies where not really after jesus because of His theological view but rather that He was seen a potential probelm in usurping their political power. Jesus was not crucified over theology but political power.
There are many different aspects of the Church. The Church not only includes the body of Christ and all the congregation but it also encompasses the physical structure and the rules of law outside theology that the church is guided under. When the Church decalre a a certain feast day to be on the 7th instead of the 17th this is not the authority of God talking but rather a clerical issue that the Church makes in of itself and it really doesnât matter one way or the other. Look at the Tridentine Mass (latin mass). Was it the Authority of God to have the mass in latin but to now change it to the verancular and still now to allow both? I think we need to seperate temporal church powers from the divine authority the Church wields. The Church has been given divine authority in many regards but not all regards. They have no authority over the nature or the essence of something that God Himslef has declared to be such. The actions of the Church in this regards would be temporal authority rather than divine and thus trumped in every regards by that divine authority.(Jesus and God are one in the same) But where some of the disconnection between you and the other posters lies (I think
I can assure you that I do not have probelms with authority or church authority as long as it doe snot contradict divine authority. If the pope calls I would obey just like everyone else. I do also believe in papal infailibility. However, the stance of the temporal authority of the Church has often time stried to oversahdow the Divine Authority and will of God. I do not thinkit is resonable to assume that the Holy Spirit was at work within elements of the Church when they were burning people alive for heresy or that the Holy Spirit helped orchestrate the election of apope through bribery. As one of the other poster son this thread pointe dout, the eastern rite was allowed married clergy simply to avoid a schism. Was the Holy Spirit behind this as well? It may have been but the point is that the Holy Spirit can be resisted by mankind because of our freedom of will. Iâm not sure that the Holy Spirit was guiding the actions of Cardinal Bernard law as he moved abusive priests around the Diocese for years and years. I believe God is ultimately in control of all but that does not mean that human beings, even the church can not take control of the drivers seat in certain instances and take the church were they see it should go.I hesitate to make that leapâI donât know you!
J
Joyousguard
Guest
This would infer that the Church was then wrong in its preceding centureis of allowing the clergy to marry. Was it right for them to marry then but wrong now? Was it right then and right for them not to marry now? Is the Eastern Rite in full commuinion with Rome wrong?
we are talking about a very small portion of church teaching. The Church is not infaliable but it is the most correct this world has to offer. There are several instances where church teaching is wrong and needs to be corrected which Church history has shown to happen over the years.
You are absolutely correct faith is required. However, as Aquinas says âfaith based in reasonâ. Some faith comes with the supernatural grace of the sacraments but some elements of faith are called into question by reason and the intellect. we can accept many things about Catholicism based on faith, however, a married clergy in contrast to the very action of Christ choosing married men deserves more than simple blind faith in the authority of the Church. Aquinas had is works burned by the Church and I believe he may have been imprisoned and even edxcommunicated at one point. Now, he is probably the premiere doctor of the Church.
It was not neccessarily about faith but rather the actions of the faithful. Not everyone in the Catholic church is as caritable and loving as we are called to be.
B
benedictgal
Guest
Joyousguard, I have been reading your posts with some guarded concern. You say that you are Catholic, but, many of the statements you have made seem to contradict what the Church holds regarding celibacy in the priesthood. I had respectfully requested that you provide supporting documentation to defend your position. You have not.
The very heart of the matter is that Peter has already spoken regarding celibacy in the priesthood. The late Pope John Paul II issued a document regarding this matter and Pope Benedict XVI continues to affirm this teaching. What I do not understand is how one can consider themselves Catholic but then take stands that are contrary to what the Church teaches? The Church is not a cafeteria where you can accept certain things and leave out others.
Itâs like the old country song that has a line, âWhat part of no donât you understand?â Continuously advocating this kind of position against what the Church holds is treading on dangerous ground.
- Status