Call To Action: Dump Celibacy

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel ^ | 11/8/03 | Tom Heinen

[HonorInPa]

The actual reason the Church pushed for celibacy was (see Second Lateran Council of 1139) that the church and thusly the priest was one of the wealthiest institutions in each town. To the detriment of the church, married priests were leaving their assets (the church's assets?) to their heirs instead of the church.

Like most issues in life -- follow the money and you find the truth.

[DallasMike]

Perhaps you forget that Peter was the first Pope, and Paul was a trusted adviser. Peter did not always take Paul's advice.

I'm learning all sorts of things -- I didn't know, for example, that the scriptures were just advice that the church may or may not decide to take. What's next -- the Ten Suggestions?

Moreover, and more to the point, you once again post a portion of a letter from Paul, written to married couples, as though this letter were written to priest-candidates and their wives--a highly disputable conclusion which you casually make into a "universal Fact."

Funny, but I didn't see any "priest-exception clause" in there. So what do you think of the scriptures where Paul describes bishops and other clergy as being married to one wife. Do you think that Paul really didn't mean what he said?

Oh, I forgot -- the entire New Testament is just advice to Peter.

To quote BlackElk in one of his most wisdom-laden and oft-used dicta: "That's YOPIOS." And again, to paraphrase BE, thanks for your advice, but we really don't need it.

No, do your research -- what I have stated was the universal belief of the church during the first few centuries. Considering the state of the clergy -- the Kansas City Star reports that Catholic clergy have AIDS at 4 times the rate of the general population -- perhaps you need to take the advice of scripture instead of making smart-aleck remarks to make up for your lack of knowledge.

[DallasMike]

Nor is it doctrine now. Like fasting, it is a discipline, not a doctrine.

doc·trine n. -- That which is taught; what is held, put forth as true, and supported by a teacher, a school, or a sect; a principle or position, or the body of principles, in any branch of knowledge; any tenet or dogma; a principle of faith; as, the doctrine of atoms; the doctrine of chances. ``The doctrine of gravitation.'' --I. Watts.

Call it what you want, but it's still a doctrine. With a few exceptions, the Catholic church refuses to ordain married priests. Those who wish to marry must leave the priesthood.

[eastsider]

May I assume that you consider fasting a doctrine?

[DallasMike]

May I assume that you consider fasting a doctrine?

If it's made mandatory, yes.

[DallasMike]

To quote BlackElk in one of his most wisdom-laden and oft-used dicta: "That's YOPIOS." And again, to paraphrase BE, thanks for your advice, but we really don't need it.

Note in your posted article that it was 169 Milwaukee-area priests who issued letters in support of optional celibacy for priests. Are they Catholic bashers? Are they "YOPIOS?"

Maybe they've studied a bit more than you and realize that marriage for clergy was a practice that is both permitted by scriptured (which you apparently just consider "advice") and was widely practiced during the first few hundred years of church history.

The real definition of YOPIOS is "I can't engage you intellectually and I lose on the facts so I'll just call you names."

[RobbyS]

At that time and place, if clerical celibacy had not been made the general rule, most of the holdings of the Church would been secularized, as in the case of the Hohenzollerns at the time of the Reformation. The popes had seen what happenen ed in Rome when the papacy itself fell into the hands of noble families. All religious considerations were put aside. Something similat corrupted the papak court during the Renaissance. Only the rule of celibacy prevented someone like the Borgias from "owning" the papacy. By and large Europe was a vast oilgarchy divided into 10,000 eststates, each owned by a particular family. The Church was the only institution in Europe independent of these families. Without such independence, all religious purposes would have been made subordinate to the secular except where a religious group might find a noble patron.

[eastsider]

I see what you're saying: that since celibacy for priests is required by canon law, it is a doctrine. In that case, I would say it is a mutable doctrine to distinguish it from an absolute doctrine, such as the prohibition against adultery.

The prerequisite condition of celibacy in the Roman rite of ordination is a matter of canon law, not an article of faith handed down from the apostles. If a man believes he is being called to both marriage and the priesthood, I'm sure that a vocational director in the Byzantine rite would be happy to hear from him. He should know, however, that he won't be on the bishop track.

[BlackElk]

You really ought to go evangelize those uncatechized enough to be susceptible. I am not interested in joining your methodology by inventing MOPIOS to correspond with YOPIOS. If the pope says so with sufficient formality, it is good enough for me. Some of our RCC scholars may wish to entertain you in a verse swapping match, I am just a street-fighting elk and have but one life to live and it WILL be lived as a Roman Catholic as best I can figure how. When you and I are gone and forgotten, the RCC will be standing solid to the end. It is guaranteed on the very Highest Authority.

The RCC claims the early Church Fathers with good reason. They were Catholic.

The Didache was in circulation early in the 2nd Century AD. New Testament Scripture was NOT in circulation until years after laborious writing and copying.

History does indeed repeat itself. Many disciples rejected Jesus Christ to His face when He told them they must eat His Flesh and drink His Blood to see God. They walked away, finding it a hard saying. Many still do.

[BlackElk]

You are also still confusing discipline with doctrine. If celibacy were doctrinal it would apply to the Eastern Rites and to the incoming former Anglican and Lutheran clergy. It is a discipline not a doctrine.

[BlackElk]

Actually, maybe those Milwaukee priests who are causing trouble and pushing the envelope on the vow of obedience might leave and join your Church. They are obviously dissatisfied with Catholicism and should remove their impuidenmt backsides from the priesthood and the RCC.

YOPIOS is Your Own Personal Interpretation Of Scripture. I cannot see where the term is calling you names. It is clearly a reference to your own self-annointed curious views as to Scripture which vary from those of Catholics.

It is also that there is nothing in the reformation worth giving your views further consideration or time. Why do we need your views when we have the Church and the earthly authority established by Christ Himself. Forgive us for not putting your reformationship on the same plane as God Himself. That you are Martin come latelies does not justify giving you attention. Luther was about 1500 years late trying to found God's Church. Jesus did that for Himself upon Peter. It was in all the bibles (Matthew).

[DallasMike]

Sinkspur, I seem to recall that you underwent a period of formal training in a Catholic seminary and, though we may disagree on some issues, you’ve always seemed well-informed and reasonable.

Is ninenot's assertion in post 276 true that the Catholic church regards Paul as a mere "trusted advisor" to Peter that Pope and that it logically follows that the New Testament (save for what Peter wrote, I suppose) is inferior to the authority of the Pope and the Magisterium?

I've read some bizarre things on this thread from both Catholics and Protestants, but this one takes the cake. Any thoughts on the article that inspired this whole thread?

Does my scriptural synopsis of the issue in post 182 cover things or am I just completely off base in assuming that they have anything to do with priestly celibacy?

What about the writings of Eusebius and Clement of Alexandria that I cited in post 226 . Do they accurately represent the belief of the church during the first few centuries of its existence?

I'm not having a lot of success on this thread in actually getting people to address facts, as you might notice. But apparently I am a very bad person....

[RobbyS]

Celibacy is a practice, based on the Pauline view that virginity is preferable to marriage although not required. And it is expected only of the few who are willing to bear the burden, who are willing to give up family for a life of service. Apparenty it is not more of a burden than monogamous marriage since husbands and wives are more likely to break their vows than priests, not only in committing adultery but in ending their marriages.

[BlackElk]

Peter was pope. Paul was not. Peter wrote Scriptures and so did Paul. The Scriptures are God's word written through individual human beings and their validity has nothing to do with the ecclesiastical positions of the human scribes of the respective Scriptural works. The Scriptures (not YOPIOS or MOPIOS) AND tradition in the form of the Teaching Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church are the Catholic sources of authority. No attempt by one who wishes to set up impossible opposition between Scripture (which we gave your spiritual predecessors four hundred eighty-five years ago) and Roman Catholic authority as established by Jesus Christ is likely to succeed with any adequately catechized Catholic.

You may pick off the uncatechized stragglers but we still bring in the Robert Borks, the Senator Brownbacks, the Lew Lehrmans, the Bernard Nathansons and a lot of other converts, famed and modest. Seminary training, in most American seminaries claiming Catholicism without evident cause means little or nothing in the credentialing of students who will exercise authority. They are cesspools of heterodoxy.

Your late and great Rev. Dr. Criswell of Dallas, though certainly reformed, was more of a Catholic in many ways than the half vast little army of anti-Catholic Catholics in anti-Catholic AmChurch who are forever seeking to undermine doctrine in favor of novelty for its own nefarious sake.

As I recall, Rev. Dr. Criswell was the truly brilliant and admirable teacher at Dallas Theological Seminary who said something to the effect that: "A church begins to die when its throat is grasped by the palsied hand of liberalism."

If he is still alive, the AmChurch "Catholic" Dallas "Pink Palace" Seminary which raised such AmChurch molestation exemplars as Fr. Rudy "Jailbird" Kos, now cosmetically defrocked in a vain attempt to protect the rest of the guilty, would do well to hear that principle of the Rev. Dr. Criswell from his own lips and, after he passes, from the lips of those of his faith thouroughly knowlegdable as to and loyal to the prudential principles of Rev. Dr. Criswell.

I might add that, if Sinkspur comes to your assistance, as you have requested, you will be in even more trouble with the Catholics at FR. He reliably posts articles from the various AmChurchian publications like the National "Catholic" Reporter, America and Commonweal. What he posts are reliably the speculations of the usual , aging and dying religious revolutionaries of yesteryear and their handful of youthful sycophants, each and every one praying to "God if there is a God" to send a "progressive" pope before it is too late and the revolution is entirely lost. Just a bit of whistling past their own graveyard, so to speak.

You should be familiar with his bishop: Bishop Joseph Delaney of Fort Worth who imported a lavender priest, his "old pal'", already thoroughly discredited in Rhode Island for buying a car for a teenaged boy and taking other teenaged boys on Caribbean vacations without other adults, to be, voila, the Fort Worth diocesan Boy Scout director. What else? Maybe next time, Fort Worth will get an actual Catholic and prudent bishop to restore the Faith in that sad diocese.

Itchy, restless "Catholic" liberals would find authority in a Mickey Mouse Comic book if it supportwed the trend du jour in opposition to Vatican authority.

[DallasMike]

First of all, BlackElk, thank you for your kind response. I don't mean to denigrate anyone but this is the first intelligent post representing your view that I've seen on this thread.

Peter was pope. Paul was not. Peter wrote Scriptures and so did Paul. The Scriptures are God's word written through individual human beings and their validity has nothing to do with the ecclesiastical positions of the human scribes of the respective Scriptural works.

That's encouraging. The poster calling Paul a mere "trusted adviser" to Peter -- who didn't have to take Paul's advice -- was disturbing. If you'll check Galatians 2:11-14 you'll note that Paul -- the last of the apostles to be called -- openly rebuked Peter and Peter submitted to the rebuke. Peter didn't seem to have much of a choice in the matter either.

The Scriptures (not YOPIOS or MOPIOS) AND tradition in the form of the Teaching Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church are the Catholic sources of authority. No attempt by one who wishes to set up impossible opposition between Scripture (which we gave your spiritual predecessors four hundred eighty-five years ago) and Roman Catholic authority as established by Jesus Christ is likely to succeed with any adequately catechized Catholic.

• This is the part that I have trouble with:

1. The Magisterium is the only body that can determine the meaning of scripture.
2. The Magisterium is the only body that can determine correct tradition (which varies according to what day it is and, in many cases, was not "remembered" until many, many centuries after the birth of the church).
3. Thus, it all boils down to the fact that the Magisterium is the sole authority for the Catholic church. The scriptures and traditions are just niceties.

Believing that the scriptures and tradition truly play any meaningful role in the Catholic church is like believing that Ahmad Alaa is really the prime minister of Palestine and that Yasser Arafat just plays an advisory role. It may play well with the unwashed masses but it just doesn't pass the intellectual smell test.

Regardless, you might be surprised to find out that the Catholic church in Divino Afflante Spiritus (1943) states that only a very few biblical passages have been definitively interpreted in defending traditional doctrine and morals. I believe that the passages number only seven:  John 3:5, Luke 22:19, 1 Corinthians 11:24, John 20:22, John 20:23, Romans 5:12, and James 5: 14. There's a lot more leeway for YOPIOS than you think.

• I would argue that it was God who gave us the scriptures, not the Catholic church. The church's role was to receive it. Catholicism did not pre-date the New Testament.

2Ti 3:16

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

2Ti 3:17 that the man of God may be proficient, having been thoroughly equipped for every good work.

• I would, of course, argue strongly against the idea that out of the "keys to the kingdom" phrase one can derive the whole idea of the papacy with all its trimmings, but that's another discussion. The idea that the Bishop of Rome somehow had authority over all churches was unknown even in Rome for 180 or so years after the birth of Christ and wasn't really accepted even in the west for several hundred more years -- after the powerful church in Africa was overrun by vandals. Of course, the eastern church never has accepted the pope's authority from day one.
• If the posts on this thread are representative of the knowledge of "catechized Catholics," then you're in big, big trouble!

You may pick off the uncatechized stragglers but we still bring in the Robert Borks, the Senator Brownbacks, the Lew Lehrmans, the Bernard Nathansons and a lot of other converts, famed and modest. Seminary training, in most American seminaries claiming Catholicism without evident cause means little or nothing in the credentialing of students who will exercise authority. They are cesspools of heterodoxy.

That's nice, but we still bring in the C.S. Lewis's, the G.K. Chesterton's, and the Billy Graham's. I've been a long-time reader of First Things and am impressed by its intellectual standards though.

Your late and great Rev. Dr. Criswell of Dallas, though certainly reformed, was more of a Catholic in many ways than the half vast little army of anti-Catholic Catholics in anti-Catholic AmChurch who are forever seeking to undermine doctrine in favor of novelty for its own nefarious sake.

As I recall, Rev. Dr. Criswell was the truly brilliant and admirable teacher at Dallas Theological Seminary who said something to the effect that: "A church begins to die when its throat is grasped by the palsied hand of liberalism."

I am also more of a Catholic than you might believe. Were it to throw off its man-made doctrines I would gladly join up. However, I think that it is evident that the Catholic church is just like the Jewish "church" of Jesus' day, who had their own version of infallibility and believed that they had an oral tradition passed down to them from Moses which superseded scripture. Jesus didn't have kind words for them. Remember the frequent phrase, "You have heard it said .... but it is written that ...?" Jesus was confirming that a supposed oral tradition does not override what the scriptures say. He also heavily chastised the Jewish leaders for elevating man-made traditions above scripture.

As I said:  History repeats itself.

I agree that a church begins to die when it is infiltrated by liberalism. However, I don't think it is correct to label liberalism something that means returning to the practices of the early church, as with the notion of priestly celibacy. God clearly permits it and Paul called it a heresy that would enter the church in latter days. We're paying the price for it now.

I might add that, if Sinkspur comes to your assistance, as you have requested, you will be in even more trouble with the Catholics at FR.

LOL! I don't need the assistance of sinkspur as I'm perfectly capable of handling these discussions on my own. In truth, he's been the only Catholic I've run into that seems to actually have a knowledge of the scriptures and church history. He may or may not agree with me on this issue but at least he's capable of an intelligent discussion and knows the subject matter.

All I've gotten on this subject is (1) some vague tradition that maybe Peter's wife had died by the time Peter was called by Christ; and (2) another vague tradition that if Peter's wife were really alive, they would have taken a vow of permanent continence. This despite that the fact that Paul, Clement of Alexandria, and Eusebius clearly refer to Peter's wife being alive and with him during the apostolic period and the fact that Paul clarified that continence was only to be practiced for a limited amount of time -- not permanently. That's the plain reading of the scripture, not MOPIOS. When a sign says STOP, I don't need an interpretation.

He reliably posts articles from the various AmChurchian publications like the National "Catholic" Reporter, America and Commonweal. What he posts are reliably the speculations of the usual , aging and dying religious revolutionaries of yesteryear and their handful of youthful sycophants, each and every one praying to "God if there is a God" to send a "progressive" pope before it is too late and the revolution is entirely lost. Just a bit of whistling past their own graveyard, so to speak.

I haven't noticed any of what you said in sinkspur's posts, though I only run into him occasionally. I would argue also that the notion of priestly celibacy -- which was unknown in the early church -- is itself a progressive doctrine. A truly conservative pope who wanted to restore the Catholic beliefs and practices of the apostolic days would lift the requirement of priestly celibacy in a heartbeat.

I find that "conservative" Catholics often oppose all or portions of Vatican II. If the Catholic church is inerrant in terms of faith and morals, then how could Vatican II have been a bad thing?

If the next pope lifts the ban on priestly celibacy, will you support it? If not, then why not? Wouldn't it be an infallible ruling?

You should be familiar with his bishop: Bishop Joseph Delaney of Fort Worth who imported a lavender priest, his "old pal'", already thoroughly discredited in Rhode Island for buying a car for a teenaged boy and taking other teenaged boys on Caribbean vacations without other adults, to be, voila, the Fort Worth diocesan Boy Scout director. What else? Maybe next time, Fort Worth will get an actual Catholic and prudent bishop to restore the Faith in that sad diocese.

I don't judge sinkspur on who his bishop is. For what it's worth, Dallas isn't much better when it comes to bishops.

One of the reasons I am so anxious for the Catholic church to purge itself of pervert priests and the bishops who protect them is because I'm familiar with the property that the Catholic church had to sell in Dallas to settle the lawsuit several years back. It could have been used for much good but it (plus the hard-earned money of a lot of parishioners) went to atone for the sins of someone who should never have been a priest at all.

 

[A.A. Cunningham]

Read 1 Corinthians 6:9-10