Split from "A question for some Protestants who try to proselytize Catholics": Are Catholic priests "Forbidden to Marry?"

[Dokimas]

Not everyone in the seminary is there to become a priest.

Didn’t say they all did.

If this were a true statement, there would not be such a gross scandal of sexual abuse. In fact, far too many priests are sexually active and remain priests. I just heard on the news yesterday that a case is being brought by a priest that fathered three children with two different women,a nd that they had no idea he was even a priest!

It’s either a true statement from the CC perspective (until they find out about the sex abuse and take away their position) or the CC lets them continue. Remember, we’re not just talking about a priest becoming married and remain a priest, you’re speaking of a priest sinning - sex outside marriage is fornication and is sin. If the CC let’s them continue, they are NOT dealing with sin in their leadership.

Some people are married when they receive the call to become priests. They agree not to take another if their wife dies, or leaves them. They are considered married to the Church, the Bride of Christ.

Understood but that’s not part of my discussion. The CC does well to allow them to be ‘called’.

I appreciate that. This context is often missed, and many modern evangelicals read it and think being married and having children is a required element.

I speak to my own understanding not other Christians. I am responsible for me not others and visa versa. I won’t blame anyone for any misunderstandings of God’s will; I’m to blame.

 

[Dokimas]

Exactly.

It’s like when a Math teacher corrects an English teacher and says, “No, English Teacher, 2 + 2 = 4, not 5” and the English teacher responds, “Well, you just think you’re right–that’s arrogant and condescending!”

No…it’s simply proclaiming a truth. It may be distasteful to hear that one is wrong, and mistakenly assign arrogance to the Truth-speaker, but it is* not* condescending to proclaim the truth.

Saying 2 + 2 = 4 to correct misunderstanding is not condescending.

But saying you are not a math teacher so no wonder you don’t know what 2 + 2 equals. BTW, I’ve told you hundreds of times what 2 + 2 equals and you are so arrogant not to admit you’re wrong. This is condescending.

 

[Dokimas]

Christian widows (a class of persons in leadership of the Church - not preaching or sacraments in public liturgy, but still a teaching role with children and younger women) were commanded by St. Paul to remain celibate, rather than remarry.

The Church does not command all single men to remain celibate. However, when a single man, of his own free will, makes a commitment to celibacy, the Church may (though not always, depending on other factors) invite him to attend Seminary to see if he can become a priest.

The point is, the man himself has made the choice. Unlike St. Paul’s widows, no one is commanding them to be celibate - they have chosen freely to be celibate.

:banghead:

 

[jmcrae]

:banghead:

No one has the right to become a priest. God doesn’t call people privately in their hearts to become priests. The call from God to become a priest is given through the Church.

God, through the Church, invites celibate men to become priests, if they are also qualified in other areas, as well.

 

[PRmerger]

Saying 2 + 2 = 4 to correct misunderstanding is not condescending.

Exactly! But to the receiver, who is the one who is wrong, he may feel as if being told the truth was condescending.

But it is not.

Just like here–the truth is being told, but you’re perceiving it as being condescending.

 

[PRmerger]

But saying you are not a math teacher so no wonder you don’t know what 2 + 2 equals. BTW, I’ve told you hundreds of times what 2 + 2 equals and you are so arrogant not to admit you’re wrong. This is condescending.

Oh, but it isn’t, if the receiver keeps saying, “NO! It’s 5!” even when we show the receiver, look, here’s 2 apples. Here’s 2 more. What does it equal?

And the receiver continues to say, “I don’t care. It’s 5.”

 

[Dokimas]

Exactly! But to the receiver, who is the one who is wrong, he may feel as if being told the truth was condescending.

But it is not.

Just like here–the truth is being told, but you’re perceiving it as being condescending.

Guanophore apologized. Was he wrong to apologize?

BTW, Guanophore, no big deal!!

 

[Dokimas]

Oh, but it isn’t, if the receiver keeps saying, “NO! It’s 5!” even when we show the receiver, look, here’s 2 apples. Here’s 2 more. What does it equal?

And the receiver continues to say, “I don’t care. It’s 5.”

From your perspective, I come up with ‘5’ and argue it’s ‘5’. Correct? Maybe it is I who says ‘4’ and it is you that is saying ‘5’?

I know I could be wrong. Can you make the same admission? Let me clarify: I’m speaking of the doctrinal understandings we are on different sides of.

 

[PRmerger]

Guanophore apologized. Was he wrong to apologize?

BTW, Guanophore, no big deal!!

He was not wrong to apologize, if he was condescending. (However, I never ever think any of his posts are condescending. In fact, guanophore, I always try to model my posts after yours! :bowdown

However, even if he wasn’t condescending, to apologize as he did shows humility and Christian charity, and as we are the “hosts” on the CAFs we owe a bit more courtesy to our non-Catholic Christian brethren.

Yet, simply proclaiming the Truth is not condescending. Many thought Jesus was arrogant, too, eh?

 

[PRmerger]

From your perspective, I come up with ‘5’ and argue it’s ‘5’. Correct?

Yes! And, to top it all, you keep insisting that we’re saying it’s 5 as well!

I know I could be wrong. Can you make the same admission? Let me clarify: I’m speaking of the doctrinal understandings we are on different sides of.

Again, Dokimas, this is NOT a doctrinal understanding. It’s a DISCIPLINE. NOT Doctrine.

So, the CC is never wrong on its doctrinal teachings. It can, however, change its disciplinary practices.

But, YOU ARE INDEED WRONG IN SAYING THAT THE CC ‘FORBIDS’ PRIESTS FROM MARRYING.

What exactly are you asking if we’re wrong about in this disciplinary practice?

 

[Dokimas]

What exactly are you asking if we’re wrong about in this disciplinary practice?

I’m asking a fair look at what the Bible teaches and at ‘our’ understanding if it lines up with the Bible. I know Guanophore will say the Bible doesn’t teach. Maybe I should say, 'the Holy Spirit teaches through our reading and studying the Bible. Is that better, Guanophore?

 

[jmcrae]

I’m asking a fair look at what the Bible teaches and at ‘our’ understanding if it lines up with the Bible. I know Guanophore will say the Bible doesn’t teach. Maybe I should say, 'the Holy Spirit teaches through our reading and studying the Bible. Is that better, Guanophore?

The Bible is a record of what was going on back then. It is completely silent on the subject of what we should be doing today with regard to the discipline of the Sacraments.

That’s what the Catholic Church is for - that’s why Christ established it, and why He gave it His authority.

 

[guanophore]

Didn't say they all did.

Actually, what you said is:

Again, misleading; we were told that catholic seminaries will allow married men. This next statement acknoledges this and goes the next step. Catholic seminaries only choose single men that are willing to vow celibacy to finish their education and become priests.

I am not sure who “we” is that is being told, but you seemed to be under some misapprehension that people cannot finish seminary if they do not wish to be celibate, or do not wish to be a priest. There are many varieties of students in seminary, and not all of them are there to prepare for the priesthood. Some of them are married, and are preparing for the priesthood.

It’s either a true statement from the CC perspective (until they find out about the sex abuse and take away their position) or the CC lets them continue.

No, Doki, it is not true from any perspective.

You said that a person who does not remain celibate is not longer a priest, and this is not accurate. Whether or not they continue in their position is not relevant to their priesthood.

 Remember, we're not just talking about a priest becoming married and remain a priest, you're speaking of a priest sinning - sex outside marriage is fornication and is sin.  If the CC let's them continue, they are NOT dealing with sin in their leadership.

This is true, but beside the point. You are making a false statement.

They must remain celibate to remain priests.

Violating their vows does not make them cease being priests. Neither does getting married.

I speak to my own understanding not other Christians. I am responsible for me not others and visa versa. I won’t blame anyone for any misunderstandings of God’s will; I’m to blame.

Ok. Not sure who those “we” were that were told that people cannot be in seminary unless they take a vow of celibacy.

 

[guanophore]

Saying 2 + 2 = 4 to correct misunderstanding is not condescending.

But saying you are not a math teacher so no wonder you don’t know what 2 + 2 equals.

The Teaching of the Apostles is avaialable to anyone who wishes to receive it. Most people do not realize that they were cut off from it during the Reformation. In fact, most modern American Evangelicals believe the Catholics “added to Scripture” and “added traditions of men”. These misunderstandings come from a lack of knowledge about the history of the faith. Those that are sincere about learning eventually find that Reformers subtracted.

BTW, I've told you hundreds of times what 2 + 2 equals and you are so arrogant not to admit you're wrong.  This is condescending.

This is a good example of what PR was saying. It is not arrogant or condescending to cling with dogged determination to that which was handed down to us from the Apostles. This is what they commanded us to do, and they explained that, if we accept your modern innovations of doctrine, it will constitute “a different gospel”, and we will be accursed.

It is regrettable that you are insulted because we cling to that which was entrusted to us, but of the two consequences, it is better for us to be misunderstood by you than to be eternally accursed!

:banghead:

Why is it so hard for you to believe that people are willing to forgo the pleasures of sex in order to serve God?

Yet, simply proclaiming the Truth is not condescending. Many thought Jesus was arrogant, too, eh?

Actually, it seems like they did find HIm condescending. They were constantly saying things like “where did this man get all this?” and “by what right or authority do you do these things?” It kinda sounds like “who do you think you are”?

I’m asking a fair look at what the Bible teaches and at ‘our’ understanding if it lines up with the Bible. I know Guanophore will say the Bible doesn’t teach. Maybe I should say, 'the Holy Spirit teaches through our reading and studying the Bible. Is that better, Guanophore?

YES!!

The HS is a Person, and does indeed teach through the Holy Scriptures, especially when a person reading them prays and asks for HIs guidance. The problem is, He will never guide one individual in an opposite direction than He has led the Church for 2000 years.

 

[Dokimas]

Actually, what you said is:

Notice: I was relaying what was told to us (all the readers on that read the article provided by, I think it was WMScott). It was NOT my opinion.

I am not sure who “we” is that is being told, but you seemed to be under some misapprehension that people cannot finish seminary if they do not wish to be celibate, or do not wish to be a priest. There are many varieties of students in seminary, and not all of them are there to prepare for the priesthood. Some of them are married, and are preparing for the priesthood.

I answered ‘we’ above.

Nope again. Context, context, context. The context of our discussion is becoming a priest, not finishing seminary. I believe it was you that told ‘us’ that in the 3rd yrs of seminary, priests-to-be must vow to be celibate or they can not become a priest. That’s the context.

No, Doki, it is not true from any perspective.

You said that a person who does not remain celibate is not longer a priest, and this is not accurate. Whether or not they continue in their position is not relevant to their priesthood.

Context, context, context. Can a priest remain a priest if he decides to get married because he falls in love with a woman?

If he has sex with a child or a woman and is not married, and the CC knows about it, can he remain a priest?

This is true, but beside the point. You are making a false statement.

Is it true or false. Which is it?

Violating their vows does not make them cease being priests. Neither does getting married.

So the man in Florida is still a priest? The CC still embraces him as a priest?

Ok. Not sure who those “we” were that were told that people cannot be in seminary unless they take a vow of celibacy.

I have no clue why you are asking this of me, especially because it came after a quote from me that has nothing to do with this statement to me. BTW, I’m not under the idea a man must vow celibacy to remain in seminary, only to become a priest.

 

[Dokimas]

The Teaching of the Apostles is avaialable to anyone who wishes to receive it. Most people do not realize that they were cut off from it during the Reformation. In fact, most modern American Evangelicals believe the Catholics “added to Scripture” and “added traditions of men”. These misunderstandings come from a lack of knowledge about the history of the faith. Those that are sincere about learning eventually find that Reformers subtracted.

Thanks for your understanding. We disagree.

This is a good example of what PR was saying. It is not arrogant or condescending to cling with dogged determination to that which was handed down to us from the Apostles. This is what they commanded us to do, and they explained that, if we accept your modern innovations of doctrine, it will constitute “a different gospel”, and we will be accursed.

 

[PRmerger]

.D. You think if you looked at the ‘teaching’ of the Bible and desided that infant baptism was incorrect, you’d be eternally accursed???

If we look at the teachings of the Apostles and decide that they’re wrong and we’re right, then that’s a little arrogant, isn’t it?

Why are we still going over this point. I understand people are willing to forgo the pleasures of sex to serve God. That’s NOT the issue here and never was. This statement of yours is OFF topic.

Since “celibacy” is about “forgoing the pleasures of sex” (among other things) then it most certainly is on topic.

And I really feel that the Mods should be the arbiters of what’s off topic. They are quite liberal (thankfully, IMHO) about diversions and conversational-tributaries, which I feel are the natural progression of conversations. Lots of threads go off topic in many ways and I’m ok with that!

 

[Dokimas]

If we look at the teachings of the Apostles and decide that they’re wrong and we’re right, then that’s a little arrogant, isn’t it?

Why avoid a specific question? Whether it is arrogant or correct is not the question. The question if you disagree with the CC teaching on infant baptism, as a catholic, will you be eternally accursed? I realize for you to answer it as you really feel, could open this discussion in a whole new direction which may challenge you.

How about this question: if a priest decides to get married (intead of his emotions burn within him) will be be eternally accursed because he’s going against his ‘vow’?

Since “celibacy” is about “forgoing the pleasures of sex” (among other things) then it most certainly is on topic.

The topic is marriage (to be celibate by not being married) is the issue. Not just celibacy. As Guanophore pointed out, a person can stop being celibate and NOT be married (that’s clearly sin, IMO.)

And I really feel that the Mods should be the arbiters of what’s off topic. They are quite liberal (thankfully, IMHO) about diversions and conversational-tributaries, which I feel are the natural progression of conversations. Lots of threads go off topic in many ways and I’m ok with that!

If my memory serves me, Guanophore told me to get back on topic a few weeks ago. Did you tell him to let the mod’s do their job or did you agree with him?

BTW, I don’t care if anyone gets off topic. That was NOT the point I was very poorly making. The issue was marriage so my comments pertain to marriage, NOT just celibacy. Any attempt to corner me about celibacy is off MY part of this topic which is about ‘forcing’ priests to stay unmarried so they can remain priests.

Oh, and did you notice I only brought it to Guanophore’s attention what the real topic was; that topic is NOT celibacy, but marriage of priest. I was not telling anyone to get on topic only to reveal what I’ve been saying on this issue.

 

[jmcrae]

So the man in Florida is still a priest? The CC still embraces him as a priest?

He would be an unemployed priest, but once a man is ordained to the priesthood, he is a priest forever - it is not possible to “undo” his ordination. Merely firing him does not reverse the ontological change in his nature that took place at his ordination.

Again - the priesthood is not a “job” that one applies for at the unemployment office - it is a vocation - it is the man himself; not merely the work that he does.

A Protestant who gets fired from the ministry can say “I used to be a church minister,” but a priest is always a priest, for all of eternity - even if he goes to Hell, he goes to Hell as a priest; not as an ordinary man.

 

[jmcrae]

How about this question: if a priest decides to get married (intead of his emotions burn within him) will be be eternally accursed because he’s going against his ‘vow’?

What’s up with the quotation marks? Whether you agree or not that the vow of celibacy is necessary or appropriate, it’s still a solemn vow before God, and as such, must be taken seriously. God will not be mocked. And yes, the Scriptures seem pretty clear about what happens to people who break their vows to God - it’s not very pretty!