That sneaky desperate Catholic Church is at it again

American Papist ^ | July 22, 2006 | Thomas

[NYer]

... or so claims the Washington Post:

Trying to Hook More Youths on Priesthood

In this era of Eminem and Britney Spears, of sexy sitcoms and sexier commercials, of high-speed Internet and instant gratification, a life of celibacy devoted to God can be a hard sell to a teenager.

So as the nation's Roman Catholic leaders gathered recently and watched a video called "Fishers of Men," designed to draw young men to the priesthood, they had good reason to worry about the future of their chosen way of life.

Church leaders have long been aware of the statistics. There are now about 43,000 Catholic priests in America, down from more than 58,000 in 1965. As the U.S. Catholic population has risen to about 70 million, more churches have had to share priests.

What receives less attention is that the men who go into the seminary generally don't do so until later in life. The average age of newly ordained priests was 36 last year, up from 28 in the 1960s and 26 in the 1940s.

...

Observers of vocational trends say more effort is needed now because of smaller families, with parents who want grandchildren; a secularized culture wary of lifetime commitment and celibacy; Catholic assimilation in America; and increased family mobility, which detracts from parish loyalties. [More...]

Aw dang, Jeff, you caught us red-handed!

[AnAmericanMother]

No, the entire quote is from Luther! You were talking about Luther, remember, citing him as an authority? Although you obviously had no idea what he actually said.

I really am wondering now about your reading comprehension, because the citation to Luther's well-known work on marriage is plainly given at the end of the quotation.

You know, this "sola scriptura" business really CAN be carried too far . . . you need to get out more, read some other stuff.

[sitetest]

Dear marajade,

LOL!

What a creative interpretation of the biblical text!

Please cite for me the Scripture scholars from 2000 years ago who endorse your... interesting interpretation. After all, you told us that there were Scripture scholars who could back up your assertions and interpretations.


sitetest

[Pyro7480]

Yes or no. Do you follow any new teaching that the pope says is docrine?

When it comes to infallibility, the pope's power is limited. His duty is to guard the "deposit of the faith," the perennial teachings of the Catholic Church. He can't contradict anything that was taught before. He can only clarify teachings that have been misunderstood or need to be further explained.

[sitetest]

Dear AnAmericanMother,

"I really am wondering now about your reading comprehension,..."

Well, the posts here may not implicate reading comprehension, but certainly, it's clear that perhaps the poster is unaware of the facts on many issues. Giving the benefit of the doubt, it's difficult to infer anything but lack of knowledge when someone might say, "I support Roe," and then says that no abortions should be permitted except those that are medically-necessary, or perhaps those that result from rape or incest.


sitetest

[neocon]

Please accept my apologies if this has already been mentioned, since I haven't read every post in detail, but I didn't notice that anyone cited 1 Corinthians 7. The entire chapter is St. Paul's reflection on the married vs. the celibate state, but in particular verse 7 states:

I wish all were as I myself am. But each has a particular gift from God, one having one kind and another a different kind.

From the context, it is clear that "as I myself am" refers to St. Paul's own celibacy. I don't see how anyone can claim that Paul was married in light of this verse. (There are others, as well.)

Then, at verse 32, we read:

I want you to be free of anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin are anxious about the affairs of the Lord, so that they may be holy in body and spirit: but the married woman is anxious about the affairs of the world, how to please her husband. ...

So then he who marries his fiancees does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.

The Reformation was anti-clerical in outlook, and Protestants do not have a ministerial priesthood, so it is unsurprising that they would not understand its nature. As such, they don't have a dog in this fight, so it is surprising they would so concern themselves with Catholic sacerdotal discipline, except as yet another convenient stick for beating us up. Nor do they have a well-developed ecclesiology, so it is unsurprising that they would not understand the Church's authority to determine her own discipline.

The fact of the matter is that Catholic practice is precisely Biblical, adopting the recommendations of both Jesus and St. Paul for the discipline of celibacy for those called to the ministerial priesthood, while at the same time recognizing the sacramental value of the married state for most people. Nevertheless, priestly celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine, and can be suspended in exceptional cases, such as admitting married clergy who have converted from the Anglican communion to the Catholic priesthood. Moreover, the Church could, by virtue of her apostolic authority, suspend this discipline more generally at any time. (She could not, however, ever admit women to the ministerial priesthood, since that would violate the ontology (alter Christus) of that office.)

But to abandon the discipline of priestly celibacy would be to de-emphasize its eschatological witness: for in the Kingdom, there will no longer be any "marrying nor giving in marriage" (Matthew 22:30). I do not therefore expect the general requirement of celibacy for the ministerial priesthood will be suspended.

[Petronski]

I'm not sure the pope makes declarations on "docrine." I can't find that word in my dictionary either. Is it German?

[marajade]

You introduced Luther, not I.

[AnAmericanMother]

Yes or no. Do you follow any new teaching that the pope says is docrine?

Since the Pope has spoken ex cathedra only twice in the last 100 years or so, in both cases to clarify a point of already-existent doctrine, I wouldn't think this is something you or anybody else need worry about.

Seriously, marajade, your misapprehensions about the Catholic Church are SO profound and disturbing (and so completely unfounded on fact), I think you need to sit down with a good introduction to the Church and learn what her teachings really ARE. You're wasting a lot of time and effort attacking things that aren't true in the first place.

May I recommend this excellent if somewhat old-fashioned book? It is rather long, but extremely readable, and I think you would find it very interesting:

Then at least you could criticize the Church from a position of knowing what in the world you were talking about.

[marajade]

What do mean? At one time, priests were allowed to be married were they not?

[marajade]

First Timothy.

[Petronski]

You introduced Luther, not I.

The first mention of Luther in this thread was your post in #257.

[Petronski]

First Timothy. . . does not say what you claim.

[marajade]

And his clarifications is how the teachings will be taught from now on right?

[marajade]

What do you call Vatican I and II?

[Petronski]

I call them "Vatican I" and "Vatican II."

[marajade]

What do you call them? They did change things.

[marajade]

Oh yes it does. Read it and learn.

[Petronski]

What do you call them?

I call them "Vatican I" and "Vatican II." Is this a quiz?

[AnAmericanMother]

You introduced Luther, not I.

To: Petronski
And 2000 years of scholarships says they are wrong. What about Martin Luther? He says they are wrong.

257 posted on 07/22/2006 8:49:42 PM EDT by marajade (Yes, I'm a SW freak!)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

I beg your pardon? YOU brought up Luther, and you weren't even posting to me! I never mentioned the man (not that I have anything against him, but as an authority on celibacy in the Catholic Church he is NOT the person who first springs to mind.)

In charity, I believe you may have a memory problem or be letting your desire to have the last word trump your common sense. I won't call you a liar.

[Pyro7480]

And his clarifications is how the teachings will be taught from now on right?

Yeah. Since the infallibility of the Pope has been declared (in 1870 by the 1st Vatican Council), it has only been used a couple of times, such as when the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary was declared in the 1950s, and when Pope John Paul II declared that only men can be priests. Both of these declarations were reaffirmations of previous church beliefs.