Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Rum Tum Tugger
Actually, in its historical citations, the article is right on target.

The Church maintained much temporal power through the early Middle Ages, including the power to tax and a system of courts with as much power of life and death as any court in history. As a secular nobility arose in Europe following the collapse of the Roman Empire, clashes occurred between these two networks of temporal power. Those clashes were lessened most effectively by the renunciation, by the holders of benefices and bishoprics, of the privilege of engendering families that could inherit their positions and accumulations. Apparently the secular nobles felt that clerics who had no dynastic aspirations could be trusted better to wield the temporal powers they claimed. Over time, this became uniform Church policy. But as late as the 5th Century, it was noncontroversial for priests to marry and beget.

Christ never said anything about celibacy as a requirement for the priesthood. But then, He never spoke of a priesthood in the first place. It's the way the Church chose to organize itself; its celibacy requirement is a personnel policy, rather than an absolute graven into stone like the Ten Commandments. As an example, there are a handful of married Catholic priests even today. They were ordained Catholic, left the Church for an Anglican or Episcopalian ministry, and were then "recruited back" into the Roman order, and allowed to keep their wives and families. Therefore, even the Holy See does not regard priestly celibacy as a Divine requirement. Whether it's the policy of the Church is, of course, solely for the Holy See to determine.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

5 posted on 04/18/2002 11:15:41 AM PDT by fporretto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: fporretto
QED
8 posted on 04/18/2002 11:22:23 AM PDT by Rum Tum Tugger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: fporretto
They were ordained Catholic, left the Church for an Anglican or Episcopalian ministry, and were then "recruited back" into the Roman order, and allowed to keep their wives and families.

Actually, they weren't. They were ordained as Episcopalians or even Lutherans originally, left those denominations, and were welcomed into the Catholic priesthood. There are about 100 of them in the United States.

There are Catholic priests who left the priesthood in the 70's or 80's, married, fathered children (in some cases), and divorced, and are now being accepted back into the priesthood. They are NOT allowed to bring their families, as they are not married validly in the eyes of the Church.

11 posted on 04/18/2002 11:31:56 AM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: fporretto
Actually, the article is a farrago of modernistic claptrap and ghastly "scholarship" festooned with typical liberal griping.

The definitive text is "The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy" by Christian Cochini. Please read the book before biting on the bitter bait trolled by those adrift from the barque of Peter. The NCR promotes authentic Catholicism as well as the Sierra Club promotes authentic care of the environment

Christian Cichini's book is packed with evidence and real actual Documents. Documents such as the Decretal written by Pope Siricius prior to 400 A.D. In this text, the Pope reminds ALL priests of their DUTY of perpetual continence (celibacy). He reasons the O.T. priests had the requirement to spend their year in the Temple without sexual congress with their wives. The N.T. priests do not sacrifice for just one year. They sacrificed daily; ergo, perpetual celibacy.

Cochini's scholarship is called remarkable. Henri Cardinal de Lubac; "This work is of first importance. It is the result of serious and extensive research. There is nothing even remotely comparable to this work in this whole 20th century"

I have owned my book for YEARS. Buy it yourself and quit the perfidy and ignorance of the NCR

56 posted on 04/18/2002 4:00:31 PM PDT by Catholicguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: fporretto
All well and good, but the "5th century" was nowhere near the "early Middle Ages".
116 posted on 04/19/2002 11:01:57 AM PDT by foghornleghorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson