Priest paid his male ‘sex master’ from collection plate: lawsuit

New York Post ^ | December 10, 2015 | Julia Marsh

[marshmallow]

Where in the Bible is it written that celibacy is preferable to the married state?

Where in the Bible is it written that celibacy is a requirement for service in the priesthood?

You're Catholic?

This is boiler plate Protestantism. The Church is based on both Scripture and Tradition and the answers to your questions can be easily found by a cursory survey of the voluminous Catholic treatises on this subject. You could start HERE or HERE

I'm sure you're familiar with this already but reject it.

The doctrine of the Mystical Body says that not all are prophets, not all are teachers so it's not a question of which state is "preferable", as you put it. Each has his or her own calling and for some celibacy is that calling after the model of Christ Himself.....

" there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it." Matt 19:12.

Christ's bride is the Church (see Ephesians) and the priest (as an alter Christus) follows the example of Christ.

The Lord commands us to be fruitful and multiply. Holy Matrimony is God's plan.

So you're saying that the Catholic Church is thwarting God's plan by insisting that priests remain celibate?

If that's the case, one has to ask how else is the Catholic Church thwarting God's plan which in turn raises the question of why you would want to belong to it?

C'mon......you know what St. Paul says about the celibate state and how he'd prefer those devoted to the Lord's work to be as he is.

Compulsory clerical celibacy is a Church invention

Right....because the Catholic Church just makes stuff up.....

[marshmallow]

Actually Paul wrote that he preferred it because it created a conflict of duties between family and the type of traveling preaching the Gospel that he did. But he wrote it was not a command but his preference so that clarified that God does not demand it nor prefer it.

So you believe that Paul went to the trouble of writing down his thoughts on the virtues of the married and celibate states simply because he was "on the road" quite a bit?

Too funny!

[Trapped Behind Enemy Lines]

Yes, I am Catholic. But the Church isn’t always right. Look at the current pope for further proof.

In all of those scriptures you quoted, not one of them requires celibacy as a condition for service in the priesthood. In point of fact, St. Paul says a bishop should be the husband of one wife, check out the passage I quoted above 1 Timothy 3:2.

Jesus NEVER taught that celibacy was a requirement for service in the priesthood.

Paul NEVER taught that celibacy was a requirement for service in the priesthood. The contrary is true.

Fact is NO ONE in the Bible ever said that celibacy was a requirement for service in the priesthood.

Most early priests, bishops, and popes in the early Church were in fact married men. Celibacy was not instituted until well into the Middle Ages.

Paul was older when he was writing his letters. He left his religion and became a Christian. He was most likely a widower and had no desire to remarry and he thought Jesus was returning very soon. Paul has no problem with married people serving in the clergy and teaching the gospel. Period.

[Trillian]

The homosexual infiltration of the church continues.

[marshmallow]

Yes, I am Catholic. But the Church isn't always right. Look at the current pope for further proof.

I stopped right there.

Using the words "Church" and "Pope" synonymously tells me plenty.

The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. It is also the "Bride of Christ" as St. Paul tells us. Do I need to post the Scripture?

If the Church "isn't always right" then Christ is a liar.

Well?

[Trapped Behind Enemy Lines]

No.

I think you are brainwashed.

The point I was making is that the Church makes mistakes from time to time just like every other human institution.

The Church has been all over the map on celibacy. Although I am no fan of the current Pope, he has made the following points about celibacy:

1) The policy is considered a discipline, not a dogma or a doctrine.

2) The policy was instituted many centuries after the founding of the Church.

3) The policy is always subject to change.

All true of course. And I would like to add the policy is not universally applied.

[BipolarBob]

I think you are brainwashed.

I see nothing in post #45 to indicate marshmallow is "brainwashed". I think you should explain or apologize/retract.

[Hieronymus]

Given that the Aaronic Priesthood was hereditary, married priests (pax, Jeremiah) are kind of a given in the Old Covenant. At the same time, matrimonial activity was not permitted during the time that the priest was actually functioning as priests. The Levites were not technically priests, but the same sort of thing seems to have applied.

The patristic evidence prior to the 7th century all points in the direction of married men becoming priests, with the permission of their wives, but with the proviso that they would no longer come together as man and wife.

When the council in Trullo happened in 693 (I may be off a year or two—it has been about 20 years since I studied the conciliar side of this), the east began allowing priests to practice a modified form of continence, wherein they would abstain for a certain period of time (in imitation of the Jewish priestly practice, and the three days of Exodus 19). At this time, daily Mass began to fall out of practice in the east. Interestingly enough, the council’s reasoning ended up turning largely on arguing that this was what St. Augustine of Hippo demanded, arguing from a flawed Greek translation of something that St. Augustine had written—if the west can do it, why not the east. Also of interest, three days of abstinence from conjugal relations remained the norm for reception of Holy Communion in the west until St. Pius X chucked it out in the early 20th century.

[BipolarBob]

The patristic evidence prior to the 7th century all points i

Yeah well, I go by Gods Word instead of patristic evidence. I concede conjugal relations were interrupted for short periods of time as priests performed at certain designated holidays or a period of fasting and soul cleansing. But the choice of being married or not was on the priest not some manmade council/denomination.

[ealgeone]

But he didn’t forbid from marriage. Something not supported by the Word.

[ealgeone]

Follow the money!

[ealgeone]

Clergy yes, priesthood no.

[Trapped Behind Enemy Lines]

I don’t mean to offend, but I run across Catholics all of the time who march in lock step with everything that comes out of the Vatican.

In turn, I am often accused of being a heretic, or horrors! an evil Protestant.

I stick with the Bible. That’s how I practice my faith. I am a Bible-believing Christian who happens to be a Catholic.

I apologize if I have offended. I have been called worse by many uber-Catholics around here who think the Church can do no wrong.

Fact is the policy compulsory clerical celibacy, is not etched in stone and has always been subject to change.

[BipolarBob]

I stick with the Bible. That’s how I practice my faith.

Me too. But the label was in reply to post #45 which didn't give off any uber-Catholicism odors. I don't mind you calling marshmallow "brainwashed" if it is context with the post being replied to or if there is a reason given. You did not offend me in the least despite me being an heretic evil Protestant.

[Hieronymus]

But the choice of being married or not was on the priest not some manmade council/denomination.

---

Are you adopting the late 7th century Greek position, conceding (incorrectly) that the sporadic interruption of conjugal relations was the Latin practice, and wanting in too?

Given that the Aaronic priesthood was passed on hereditarily, one needed a very good justification to not be married. Be fruitful and multiply is a general command, but one needs a good reason not to do his share—and this would go doubly for a member of a hereditary priesthood. As Christ points out in Matthew 18:12, it is something that is received, (not something chosen).

[Hieronymus]

The men entering the priesthood were free to marry before entering the priesthood. Just as a married man was free to marry whomever he wanted before he married a particular woman. Some choices are real choices, but it doesn’t mean that the other option was forbidden—just that you can’t choose both.

Though, as Matt. 18:12 points out, if one is given the grace to make a particular choice, one really ought to make the choice.

[marshmallow]

You've consistently refused to discuss the theology of this issue and insist on referring to it as mere "policy" and "invented" as if this is some human construct of convenience, much like a the platform or "policy" of a political party, subject to change on a whim. What follows is a discussion of the theology of this issue for those whose minds may be open and wondering. Much better explanations are available through Church documents and writings of saints and doctors.

Firstly, a celibate priesthood is indeed a discipline as you have stated but that discipline, contrary to what you have stated, was not ....I repeat....was not "invented" nor is it a "policy". It has deep theological underpinnings.

St. Paul compares the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Christ and his Church. That relationship is therefore spousal and for this reason, the Church is often referred to as the "Bride of Christ".

"Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it: That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life: That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish. So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife, loveth himself. For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church: Because we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. or this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the church."
Eph 5: 24-32

The relationship of Christ to the Church, therefore determines the relationship of the priest to the Church. In Catholic theology, the priest is referred to as an alter Christus, or "other Christ". Therefore the priest too, just as with Christ, partakes of a spousal relationship to the Church. The discipline of celibacy, therefore, is an acknowledgment of this fact and an outward sign of it.

Christ gave Himself totally for the Church as Paul says above. He "delivered Himself up for it". The priest, likewise, delivers himself up for the Church in the form of an exclusive spousal relationship.

Likewise, in the Apocalypse, John refers to the Church as a "bride":

And I John saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
Rev; 21:2

And there came one of the seven angels, who had the vials full of the seven last plagues, and spoke with me, saying: Come, and I will shew thee the bride, the wife of the Lamb.
Rev; 21;9

This is how the Church understands the unique office of the priesthood. As always, the Church takes into account traditions, cultures and circumstances and dispensations are granted since it is indeed a discipline. However, when we understand the theology which underlies this discipline, it becomes clear that this is indeed "for the kingdom of heaven", as Jesus teaches in Matthew's gospel and not some sort of half-baked quick fix to some temporal problem dreamed up in the Middle Ages.

For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother' s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.
Matt 19:12

Likewise, continence in Scripture, is always associated with an exclusive dedication to God:

"And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser; she was far advanced in years, and had lived with her husband seven years from her virginity. And she was a widow until fourscore and four years; who departed not from the temple, by fastings and prayers serving night and day".
Luke 2: 36-37

This theology spread throughout the Church and developed just as other theology has; e.g the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary, since the Church is a living body.

Finally, the entire, rich monastic tradition of both Eastern and Western Churches draws heavily on this theology. St. Anthony the Great and the Desert Fathers practiced this discipline long before "the Middle Ages". The rest of the Church just took a little longer to catch on.

[kearnyirish2]

The Catholic Church has married clergy in its Eastern Rites; the Latin Rite doesn’t have it. The fact that the original priests (the Apostles) all died as martyrs (except John) is enough cause for an unmarried priesthood. Many priests martyred by Communism or Nazism may not have accepted that fate if families could be used as leverage against them.

[kearnyirish2]

See # 58; whatever happened to the widows of the married Apostles?

[kearnyirish2]

Voice of the Faithful veered off into heresy and weirdness, but one of their original issues that should be addressed is removing these people from any financial management. They aren’t trained for it, and have shown too often they will abuse it.