Call To Action: Dump Celibacy

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

[DallasMike]

Or was he saying that there is a higher calling than family and children?

There is a higher calling and Paul says that if a person can accept not being married, then it is a good thing. However, he also said that it was a heresy for the church to forbid marriage to someone, and he also made it plain that Peter and many of the apostles had wives who travelled with them.

The fact remains that forbidding clergy to marry is a Gnostic heresy that entered the church long after the early days.

[been_lurking]

give up the greatest joys of being human

This is the biggest flaw in your arguement, yet it serrves as the foundation of your arguement.

By your definition, there are a vast number of people (those too young, those too old, those physically unable) whom are not fully human.

You need to adress this logically.

[gcruse]

Those too young haven't had the chance to.
Those too old should have, and should still be.
Logically, I'm wondering if celibacy is to be
preferred right up into the point the society
cannot repopulate itself, whence it would then
become a sin. This is a slippery slope founded
on a fallacy. Is it okay to eat something vile
if you only eat a little? Religious botox?

[ninenot]

Welcome to the Catholic wars!!!

The possibility of ordaining men (who are married) to the priesthood has been raised, using the excuse that there are too few priests in the USA.

First, we have the definition of terms: what's "too few?" No one answers that question--this is your first clue.

Secondly, as the numbers will tell you--this 'shortage' of ordinands is not restricted to the Catholic faith: it's all over--Baptists, Lutherans, Greek Orthos--you name it.

Thus we can conclude that the 'shortage' (whatever that really means) is not caused by the celibacy requirement, because none of the OTHER traditions require celibacy, yet THEY don't seem to be getting ministry-recruits, either.

Finally, it is clear from empirical evidence that there are two kinds of seminaries in the USA: ones which are full to bursting, and ones which are full of nothing but hot air. The ones which are full are used by (or exist in) Dioceses in which the Bishop allows no dissent: no screwy Masses, no queers in the Seminary, no nuns dancing in the aisles, and no cute variations on doctrine and dogma.

The Dioceses which just can't find priest-candidates usually are to one extent or the other, heterodox.

That should not come as a surprise to anyone.

Summarily, we have a bunch of liberals who have created a "crisis" and have determined that their "solution" is the only one. Sound familiar? Look at the Dimowit Party for the role model(s).

[Kenny Bunk]

Yo Snuff God calls some to celibacy, but not all.

And he obviously doesn't call all opriests to celibacy. Ya gotta think a little outside the box here. When the RC's accept married converts who are already in Holy Orders from the Anglicans, or Lutherans, they often ordain them as RC Priests. Happens all the time. Priests of the Uniate (Eastern Rite under Papal Authority) Eastern Churches are allowed ordination if they are married, (although I don't think they are allowed to marry afterwards.)

Of course, the converted clergy are allowed to keep their wives and families, even as they serve as RC Priests. The point is, Celibacy is a rule of their Church, they recognize it is not a "Rule from God" and that it has scant Scriptural provenance. It's like an organizational thing. The Roamn Catholics could change this and probably will when they get around to it. Who knows, might even be a good idea.

Right now, it might look as if they were allowing marriage among their clergy because of the paedophilic-queer scandals. Clerical Marriage and these buggering bastards have nothing to do with each other. They are the result of the RC's relaxing another rule they had which was a damn good one: that is they actively used to discourage homosexuals from entering the seminaries. (duh!?)

[ninenot]

Neat response.

He also does not play linebacker for the Green Bay Packers, although He may have been a defensive end about 6 years ago.

[ninenot]

Well--the REAL poison-in-the-well returns.

Can't say it's nice to read your posts again--nor your cute little ingratiating lie about "respecting the Catholic Church."

[ninenot]

Well, a few of us have discussed reviving Torquemada's Tribunal and Torture House. It could be a rather nice facility, located in the Appalachians, surrounded by acreage sufficient to keep prying eyes away--and sufficient for a large, new cemetery.

More seriously, there are many homosexual priests, some of which are criminals (having abused children.) When they are accused and civil trial/conviction takes place, they are no longer functioning as priests and will (after a Church canonical trial) be laicized. End of those problems.

Another group are practicing homosexuals, but are not violators of children--and unless they are arrested, tried, and convicted of something (you pick it,) they are not easily removed from the priesthood, due to the Church's rather comprehensive canon law surrounding the rights of the accused, etc., etc.--but it IS possible that they can be removed, IF there is a public scandal.

The third group is homosexual but does NOT practice it. I can't figure out a reason to remove them until they retire.

[NeoCaveman]

Call to action A left-wing feminist organization

[ninenot]

Yeah--CTA's been around a while disseminating their silliness as though it were important.

The most noteworthy graph of the article contained the numbers. After all the drum-beating in the Press and the lefty-wacko parishes, and the publicity, etc., etc.,....

They've only come up with 4,250 signatures--and are hoping to have 6,000 after their "convention."

Now even in the Milwaukee Archdiocese ALONE, 4,250 signatures is less than 1% of the nominal Catholics (600+K). If that number of signatures is a NATIONAL total, it's less than pathetic: it's laughable.

[RobbyS]

Paul obviously thinks of the single life as being more appropriate for a Christian, especially an Christian than the married life, although he says it is up to the individual."Better to marry than to burn." No one is absolutely bound by the Church to celibacy. It is always a voluntary act. Both priests and nuns can receive release from their vows. And priests who marry still remain priests, but they may no longer exercise their powers publicly, only in an emergency.

[RobbyS]

From a " human " standpoint, a highly romantic notion. Luther had a good marriage but he was quite ambiguous in his feelings about his choice. Sometimes he praised marriage to the heavens, sometimes not. Marriage imposes heavy burdens on the "natural" man and the "natural" woman --the feminist who wants the same "freedom" as the male. All in all marriage is as heavy a person burden as celibacy.

[RobbyS]

The single person does not lose his sexuality. Of course some cultures think so. The macho culture of Spain made men think less of the priest as a man because he did not lie with women and was very forgiving of him if he took a concubine. A famous tale of Junipero Serra has him taking a branding iron and in the presence of the soldiers with him searing shut a badly ulcerated knee without flinching.

[gcruse]

All in all marriage is as heavy a person burden as celibacy.

I've been married and divorced twice.  I'll take celibacy!  LOL

[Snuffington]

Ya gotta think a little outside the box here

I'll have to disagree. I think we've had so much thinking "outside the box" that we're having trouble remembering where the box is located lately.

You make several valid points. I have no beef with those married priests the Church recognizes. But I also believe, as the Church teaches, that the celibate priesthood is a superior rule.

And even if I thought it was a good idea, I'd argue against it at this time as a simple matter of pragmatism. The Church is reeling from an onslaught of bishops and activists who seem bent on changing absolutely every Church tradition within their own lifetime. I'll flatly state that I believe the wisdom of the current generation is inferior to the collected wisdom of the preceding generations - as represented in the traditions we inherited from them. We need to slow the heck down and give our predecesors the benefit of the doubt that perhaps they were not complete idiots for a change.

[gcruse]

Isn't that the fellow whose statue in on the Interstate north of Santa Clara, CA? I've read a lot of stories about him. He was a robust fellow, alright, for better or worse depending on whether you were an Indian on not. LOL

[RobbyS]

You and I read Paul differently. The Catholic Church has very condemned gnostic teaching. Celibacy is a practical oblgation. imposed on priests in the Latin rite. It has been retained because it has worked very well. The problems encountered by the Protestant ministry/Orthodox priesthood do not take away from the benefits of a married clergy. My personal objection to the movement for a married clergy is that it is being driven by ideologues who make it part of a radical makeover of the Church.

[gcruse]

A little googling confirms it to be who I thought it was.  But robust was a pitiful understatement.

"His Herculean efforts subjected him to near-starvation, afflictions of scurvy, and hundreds of miles of walking and horse riding through dangerous terrain. Moreover, he was notorious for his mortifications of the flesh: wearing heavy shirts with sharp wires pointed inward, whipping himself to the point of bleeding, and using a candle to scar the flesh of his chest. His sacrifices bore fruit for the missionaries; by his death in 1784, the nine missions he had founded had a nominally converted Indian population of nearly 5,000."

[RobbyS]

The Spanish missionaries have been somewhat mischaracterized by indian lobbyists. But their roughanded efforts to convert and assimilate the indian were still better than the Anglo method of military conquest and eradication. You may or may not have noticed that most Mexicans have indian complexions.