Posted on 10/25/2009 4:31:29 PM PDT by Salvation
Peace/calm is it. : )
Matt. 19:11-12 - Jesus says celibacy is a gift from God and whoever can bear it should bear it. Jesus praises and recommends celibacy for full-time ministers in the Church. Because celibacy is a gift from God, those who criticize the Church's practice of celibacy are criticizing God and this wonderful gift He bestows on His chosen ones.
Matt. 19:29 - Jesus says that whoever gives up children for the sake of His name will receive a hundred times more and will inherit eternal life. Jesus praises celibacy when it is done for the sake of His kingdom.
Matt. 22:30 - Jesus explains that in heaven there are no marriages. To bring about Jesus' kingdom on earth, priests live the heavenly consecration to God by not taking a wife in marriage. This way, priests are able to focus exclusively on the spiritual family, and not have any additional pressures of the biological family (which is for the vocation of marriage). This also makes it easier for priests to be transferred to different parishes where they are most needed without having to worry about the impact of their transfer on wife and children.
1 Cor 7:1 – Paul teaches that it is well for a man not to touch a woman. This is the choice that the Catholic priests of the Roman rite freely make.
1 Cor. 7:7 - Paul also acknowledges that celibacy is a gift from God and wishes that all were celibate like he is.
1 Cor. 7:27 – Paul teaches men that they should not seek marriage. In Paul’s opinion, marriage introduces worldly temptations that can interfere with one’s relationship with God, specifically regarding those who will become full-time ministers in the Church.
1 Cor. 7:32-33, 38 - Paul recommends celibacy for full-time ministers in the Church so that they are able to focus entirely upon God and building up His kingdom. He “who refrains from marriage will do better.”
1 Tim. 3:2 - Paul instructs that bishops must be married only once. Many Protestants use this verse to prove that the Church's celibacy law is in error. But they are mistaken because this verse refers to bishops that were widowers. Paul is instructing that these widowers could not remarry. The verse also refers to those bishops who were currently married. They also could not remarry (in the Catholic Church's Eastern rite, priests are allowed to marry; celibacy is only a disciplinary rule for the clergy of the Roman rite). Therefore, this text has nothing to do with imposing a marriage requirement on becoming a bishop.
1 Tim. 4:3 - in this verse, Paul refers to deceitful doctrines that forbid marriage. Many non-Catholics also use this verse to impugn the Church's practice of celibacy. This is entirely misguided because the Catholic Church (unlike many Protestant churches) exalts marriage to a sacrament. In fact, marriage is elevated to a sacrament, but consecrated virginity is not. The Church declares marriage sacred, covenantal and lifegiving. Paul is referring to doctrines that forbid marriage and other goods when done outside the teaching of Christ and for a lessor good. Celibacy is an act of giving up one good (marriage and children) for a greater good (complete spiritual union with God).
1 Tim. 5:9-12 - Paul recommends that older widows take a pledge of celibacy. This was the beginning of women religious orders.
2 Tim. 2:3-4 - Paul instructs his bishop Timothy that no soldier on service gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim his to satisfy the One who enlisted him. Paul is using an analogy to describe the role of the celibate priesthood in the Church.
Rev. 14:4 - unlike our sinful world of the flesh, in heaven, those consecrated to virginity are honored.
Isaiah 56:3-7 - the eunuchs who keep God's covenant will have a special place in the kingdom of heaven.
Jer. 16:1-4 - Jeremiah is told by God not to take a wife or have children.
Where do you get "widowers"? It is not in the text, nor in the context.
It said that St. Paul is referring to widowers, not me.
Deacons are ordained clergy, not laity.
What about the sacrament of holy orders?
It’s not “hypocrisy.” It’s simply a way of dealing charitably with an existing situation...that is, many of these Anglican ministers who have served as priests and who will receive valid ordination to the priesthood are already married. It is very likely that new vocations even in the new Anglican Rite will not be permitted to marry.
And there are many other issues: for example, what about Anglican clergy who are divorced and remarried? And as for their current married bishops, they will not be consecrated as bishops and will merely be ordained and serve as priests. The bishop is considered to have the fullness of the priesthood and you will note that in the Orthodox Church as well, bishops may not be married.
This is a pragmatic solution. Interestingly, in the Anglo-Catholic movement of 19th century England, many of the young men who went into the priesthood voluntarily chose celibacy. I think you will actually see a deeper understanding of celibacy spreading into the Anglican rite, and that this in turn will reaffirm Latin Rite practice.
Celibacy for priests is a disciplinary decision and is not a matter of dogma. However, priests have not been allowed to marry in the Western Church since the very earliest centuries, and bishops have never been permitted to marry; doctrine and practice develop over time, based on precedent, and this was how it evolved in the Latin Rite. A rich theology of clerical celibacy has grown up around it.
There have, of course, often been corrupt clergy, including members of the heirarchy, who had their live-in girlfriends, illegitimate children, etc. But they are hardly a model to be followed, and much effort was expended trying to clean up practice in this area.
Another thing that affected it was the fact that forcing priests to marry was one of the first things that heretical groups or the Muslims did. When the Muslims captured parts of Spain, priests married (either in reality or in appearance) in order to be able to continue to secretly function as priests without attracting the attention of the Islamic authorities. The Protestants also forced priests to marry when they took over parts of Europe, and even evicted monks and nuns from their monasteries and forced them into “marriages.”
Clerical celibacy is an ancient sign of the Roman Catholic Church and it is usually one of the first targets of attackers.
You raise some interesting observations and look at my article in a unique way. Let me, right off the bat, say this; I do not hate men. I am in a traditional catholic marriage of 20 years. I am the barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and bedroom type. I homeschool my youngest son, my middle son is entering the priesthood next fall, and my oldest son is a devout catholic, preparing to enter the sacrament of matrimony in January, at the age of 22, to a wonderful young lady who plans to be barefoot and pregnant, stay home, raise a family, and respects my son as the head of their family.
I believe NO one has the right to abort a child. God is the author of life, he just allows us to participate.
It is not just the church that has become “pansified” as you put it, it is the culture itself. I am repulsed by the metrosexual man, who is worshipped today. My article pointed out nothing about making a man sensitive or pansylike, it sought to point out that marriage is a sacrament, and once entered into, unbreakable. To paint all women with this broad brush as you do, makes it seem as though there are none of us out here that value a man for being a man, knowing what a true man is, and submitting our authority to one.
Submission to our husbands is key to making a marriage work. Each week at Mass, when we both receive communion and return to our pew, we kneel and pray silently for a moment and then, we join hands and pray for OUR marriage and the strength to continue to endure in Gods will. When we are finished, I kiss his wedding ring as a sign of my fidelity and submission to his authority. He does not kiss mine. I do this publicly every week because I recognize his authority in the marriage and because I am so thankful for the gift of a real man who practices his faith without fear.
All this being said, the things you talk about ARE good material for an article. Prior to the 1960’s, the balance was as it ought to be within the church. The sexual revolution brought about alot of this change. The give peace a chance/make love not war mentality permeated the church, just as it did society, and the sexual revolution caused a paradigm shift in both. I do not know how it happened, but it was men who were in power in both the church and society, and women caused a coup in both and took over.
In fairness, your statement that absolute power corrupts absolutely goes both ways, or we would not have had treated women as property, men would not have been allowed to beat them as long as the stick width was not wider than their finger, and been denied the right to own property throughout history either. It is also very hard to submit to a man who takes longer in the mirror than you do, is abusive or devalues his wife, or worships football instead.
I absolutely see that real men today are given a bum rap. They are considered chauvanists,domineering, rednecks,and other derogatory terms designed to castrate them. They have had the right to have a say in their unborn childs life taken away, and that is tragic and must be changed (although I would be much happier if abortion was just against the law altogether since it is murder no matter who gets to “choose”). I also agree that women initiate more divorces, but, many of those are because men (at least until very recently) did most of the cheating, domestic abuse, leaving, becoming addicted to porn, substance abuse,etc. I think part of what happened was in the 60’s, men were confronted with the opportunities of sex and drug abuse in new ways and weren’t prepared to handle the pressure. If they had pushed back at that time, when they DID have the power, and squashed it, perhaps alot of these things would not be so prevelant today?
I have done the best I can to add 3 manly men to society by marrying one manly man. I am sad to see that instead of using your manliness to raise manly men, you have chosen instead to blame ALL women as well as marriage, for the failure of society. You have not helped to correct the situation by being fruitful and multiplying and training up a child the way he should go, you have left the task of doing to others. By withdrawing yourself from being eligible to marry and pass along the correct view to your children, you have weakened Gods army by the number of children you could have added to the fight. As to the Theology of the Body discussion, I have taken the course, and it is NOT in any way a teaching that a mans body is wrong and he has to submit to his wifes will, it merely teaches the couple to know when she is fertile and they can then CHOOSE to abstain from sex during that period to prevent pregnancy or to have sex and conceive. You know, God did create both sexes, and both are very different; complementary if you will. Neither is bad or wrong.
You are 100 percent correct in your last paragraph about matrimony. When it crumbles, so do our rights. It is precisely the reason I wrote the article in the first place, to explain WHY matrimony is UNBREAKABLE and to point out the importance God placed upon it and why. I am sorry you took away from it that I was a man hater from it, as nothing could be further from the truth.
Incorrect. Invest in a dictionary.
Explain the shortage of Priests in the 21 Churches in the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church which ordain, as a norm, married men?
Based on your flawed and selective interpretation of Scripture.
It is implied. Is it your assertion that Scripture is always absolutely explicit?
nor in the context.
Based upon your interpretation. St. Jerome for one, who was a lot brighter than you are, disagrees.
If you believe what Cozzens writes, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
What on earth are you talking about?
9 No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband, 10 and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the saints, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds.
11 As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. 12Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge. 1 Tim 5:9-12
I'm pleased to see that although I'm getting up there, I would still be considered young enough to be married off again to keep me from causing trouble, LOL!
BTW, in 1 Tim 3, it goes on to discuss the qualifications for deacons...does that refer to widowers also?
Here's what my Bible says:
1 [1-16] After a few words of general advice based on common sense (1 Tim 5:1-2), the letter takes up, in its several aspects, the subject of widows. The first responsibility for their care belongs to the family circle, not to the Christian community as such (1 Tim 5:3-4, 16). The widow left without the aid of relatives may benefit the community by her prayer, and the community should consider her material sustenance its responsibility (1 Tim 5:5-8). Widows who wish to work directly for the Christian community should not be accepted unless they are well beyond the probability of marriage, i.e., sixty years of age, married only once, and with a reputation for good works (1 Tim 5:9-10). Younger widows are apt to be troublesome and should be encouraged to remarry (1 Tim 5:11-15).
Please apply some context:
Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 1 Cor 7:1, 2 & 3
I think that's a stretch!
I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. 1 Cor 7:6,7
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.