Priestly celibacy is a doctrine

  • Thread starter Thread starter De_Maria
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

De_Maria

Guest
CA says:
The first and most basic confusion is thinking of priestly celibacy as a dogma or doctrine…
Click to expand...
Whatever happened to capitalizing absolute Teachings? Priestly celibacy is not a Dogma. It is not a Doctrine. But it is a doctrine.

The way CA is explaining this is causing confusion. Case in point:
MichaelP3 said:
Like Jon stated, Priestly Celibacy is taught yet not doctrine. So is there something, somewhere that would make this “doctrine” ?
Click to expand...
adamhovey1988 said:
Priestly celibacy isn’t required by the Catholic Church, or there wouldn’t be married Eastern Catholic priests. It is a discipline, not a Doctrine.
Click to expand...
Yes, its a discipline. Yes, its a doctrine. No, its not a Doctrine.

My point is that a discipline is a doctrine. Anything that is taught, is a doctrine. That’s just basic English. It is simply a type of doctrine which might change whenever the Church deems it necessary.

Whereas, absolute Doctrines, such as Dogmas and other Teachings, which used to be designated with capital letters. I don’t know if that is still the custom. Those sorts of Doctrines are absolute and will not change.

Right or wrong?
 
Last edited:
Could you please send me a PM before you drag me into conversations? Thank you. And no, it is not a Doctrine. Nowhere is it dogmatically defined that clerical celibacy is required.
 
adamhovey1988 said:
Could you please send me a PM before you drag me into conversations? Thank you. And no, it is not a Doctrine. Nowhere is it dogmatically defined that clerical celibacy is required.
Click to expand...
You posted on a public forum. You don’t have to join the conversation if you don’t want to. But there is no rule that I can’t refer to your statement. And there is a rule that if I post to your statement, I must prove that it is authentic. Thus, the post where you made your comment, was referenced. In order to prove that I didn’t make it up.

And no, I didn’t say it was a Doctrine. But it is a doctrine.
 
What I’m trying to say, though, is that it is imprecise to say that a discipline is not a doctrine.

It is a doctrine, because disciplines have to be explained and taught.

Thus, a discipline is a subset of doctrine. It is a doctrine which falls under the category of discipline. It is a disciplinary doctrine.

To put it another way, the words dogma, doctrine and discipline have technical meanings in Catholicism. However, these technical meanings do not render the ordinary English definition invalid. Everyone of those falls under the ordinary English meaning of doctrine. They all have to be taught.

My secondary objection is the apparent dropping of the convention that I was taught as a child. That is, to capitalize those categories of doctrines which were absolute. Thus, Dogma, Doctrine, and Tradition were understood to designate absolute Teachings which were never to change.

Whereas, doctrine and tradition, were considered rules and regulations established by the Church and which could be removed by the Church. These include the teachings in the disciplinary category.
 
Words in the Catholic Church have specific meaning. Disciplines are not doctrine. Doctrine is not dogma.
 
I think the doctrine is that celibacy for priests is better, not that it is absolutely necessary (the Church has always had both).
 
De_Maria said:
My point is that a discipline is a doctrine. Anything that is taught, is a doctrine.
Click to expand...
Doctrine is a teaching. Priestly celibacy is not a teaching but a practice, a spiritual discipline, much like abstaining from meat, fasting, or silence (either on a silent retreat or by joining a religious order that has taken a vow of silence).

I think the first person you quoted is confused. This simply is not in the category of being a doctrine so it has no potential of becoming a doctrine.

I think you’re confusing this with the hierarchy of doctrines in regard to their theological certainty. Notice discipline is never used.
  • De fide (from the Faith): the highest degree of certainty, considered part of the divine revelation and infallibly asserted.
  • Fides ecclesiastica (the Faith of the Church): Church teachings that have been definitively decided on by the Magisterium in an infallible manner.
  • Sententia fidei proxima (teaching proximate to the Faith): Church teachings that are generally accepted as divine revelation but not defined as such by the Magisterium.
  • sententia ad fidem pertinens, or sententia theologice certa (teaching pertinent to the faith, or theologically certain teaching): Church teachings that the Magisterium clearly decided for, albeit without claiming infallibility.
  • Sententia communis (common teaching): teachings which are popular but within the filtered range of theological research.
  • Sententia probabilis (probable teaching): teachings with a low degree of certainty. Those of this certainty which are considered “in agreement with the consciousness of the Faith of the Church” are called sententia pia (pious opinion).
  • Sententia bene fundata (well founded teaching): teaching that is well reasoned but does not, however, rise to being called probable.
  • Opinio tolerata (tolerated opinion): opinion tolerated, but discouraged, within the Church.
 
I think the previous posters have established the definitions well.
What is it that is really bothering you about the whole thing? The fact that an article might be confusing?
Or are you afraid of some sort of incrementalism at work?
 
goout said:
I think the previous posters have established the definitions well.

What is it that is really bothering you about the whole thing? The fact that an article might be confusing?

Or are you afraid of some sort of incrementalism at work?
Click to expand...
This was my exact thought. I read the article and it seems like it is written with the lay apologist in mind. Basically, if a fundamentalist hits you with this, here is a “BASIC” explanation in common terms which you both can understand. If the writer started using small d or big d, or anything else only present in the Catholic Church “lingo”, they would need a ton of footnotes to explain what they mean.

I think if CA wrote it the way you would best want it written and understood, with your deeper knowledge, that would just be writing over the heads of the people the article was intended for.

God Bless
 
There are married priests in the catholic church. In the Eastern Rite married men can be ordained as priests, and in the Western Rite married priests from other denominations are allowed to continue their ministry if they convert to Catholicism.

This leaves two conclusions: either A. the church is sinning by ordaining married men, or B. clerical celibacy is a discipline and not a Doctrine (or “doctrine”). I’m gonna go with the latter conclusion.
 
I sincerely hope your question/confusion has been addressed by all the above replies.

Regards
 
Catholicwife32 said:
Priestly celibacy is not a teaching but a practice
Click to expand...
Matrimony is a teaching and a practice.
Fidelity in matrimony is a teaching and a practice.
Almost every single moral teaching is a practice, as well.
How may of the Sacraments do you practice? I hope, all of the ones to which you are subject.

Priestly celibacy is also a teaching. We aren’t born with the innate knowledge that Catholic Priests don’t marry. I know someone had to tell me. And I was surprised.

When did Catholics throw the English dictionary out the window?
 
De_Maria said:
Right or wrong?
Click to expand...
Wrong because the Church doesn’t use English as it’s main language.

The Reason the church uses the terminology of Discipline, Doctrine and Dogma instead of Discipline, doctrine, Doctrine and Dogma is to avoid confusion.

Doctrine and Dogma are both official teachings and contain Divine Revelation. Doctrine is all church teachings essential and non essential to salvation, plus all teachings that are clearly defined and undefined. While Dogma is specifically defined and to disagree would be heresy.

The documentation of Church Discipline is found in Canon Law, the Catechism, and other Church documents (all of which have a name based on what kind of document it is).

I pray I’m making sense.

God Bless
 
Last edited:
De_Maria said:
Matrimony is a teaching and a practice.

Fidelity in matrimony is a teaching and a practice.

Almost every single moral teaching is a practice, as well.

How may of the Sacraments do you practice? I hope, all of the ones to which you are subject.

Priestly celibacy is also a teaching. We aren’t born with the innate knowledge that Catholic Priests don’t marry. I know someone had to tell me. And I was surprised.

When did Catholics throw the English dictionary out the window?
Click to expand...
You’re understanding of the purpose of the dictionary and the nature of language is EXTREMELY flawed. You’re engaging in the fallacy of equivocation to refuse to see a point.

Celibacy is not a teaching nor does it has a thing to do with morality. Moreover, it IS NOT chastity. If a priest keeps a mistress, he’s violating the moral law BUT HE IS NOT breaking his vow of celibacy. He only breaks his vow of celibacy if he attempts to contract a marriage with his mistress.

It is a discipline because he can leave the priesthood to marry, and on a case by case basis, the Church does ordain married men to the priesthood.

And while there are good arguments for keeping the vow of celibacy as a spiritual discipline (like requiring Catholics to abstain from meat on Fridays or do acts of penance during lent), there is also the historical practical end for why the Church doesn’t allow priests to marry. A lot of it had to do with not wanting Church property to be inherited by the priest’s children as well as not wanting to give the priest a salary that could support the large Catholic family he’d likely have.

I’m not advocating getting rid of the vow, but the purpose of the discipline isn’t entirely spiritual.
 
Last edited:
De_Maria said:
40.png
Catholicwife32:
Priestly celibacy is not a teaching but a practice
Click to expand...
Matrimony is a teaching and a practice.
Fidelity in matrimony is a teaching and a practice.
Almost every single moral teaching is a practice, as well.
How may of the Sacraments do you practice? I hope, all of the ones to which you are subject.

Priestly celibacy is also a teaching. We aren’t born with the innate knowledge that Catholic Priests don’t marry. I know someone had to tell me. And I was surprised.

When did Catholics throw the English dictionary out the window?
Click to expand...
  1. the Church doesn’t use the English dictionary. It uses the Latin and Italian dictionaries.
  2. Priestly celibacy is NOT a teaching. If it was a teaching, then ALL Catholic Priests would have to be celibate. Since, there ARE married Catholic Priests, it cannot be a “teaching” of the Church. It is a discipline.
Another discipline is the amount of time you must fast before receiving communion. Today, the Church discipline is 1 hour. But within my parents’ and grandparents’ life time, it used to be from Midnight and 3 hours before (which I think we should return to). Therefore, this is not a teaching, but a discipline.
 
De_Maria said:
40.png
phil19034:
Wrong because the Church doesn’t use English as it’s main language.
Click to expand...
But the Church uses English to communicate to it’s English speaking members.
Click to expand...
And the Church as defined what she means by the terms: discipline, doctrine and dogma.

We don’t use the Webster’s Dictionary for these terms when dealing with the Church.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top