Posted on 07/07/2010 3:00:39 AM PDT by Scanian
I'm calling your bluff on that one. The first time you threw it out I simply ignored it as beyond preposterous. Now I am asking you to either substantiate it or admit it is a lie.
I will have to go back and find it..But I posted the definition of celibacy and I was told the Catholic church does not define it that was..”no sex//no sexual thought
Were you a speech writer for Clinton? Because the Catholic Church defines celibacy differently than your secular dictionary does NOT imply that it condones fornication. That kind of fabrication goes beyond simple ignorance. Only one completely blinded by hatred could try to connect those dots.
” He was educated because of the Church. If he had shown promise - but had no money - he might very well have been educated anyway...by the Church.”
Like William Wallace.
Hey you said it
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2546399/posts?page=20#20
The official definition is celibacy is no sexual thoughts , or actions ..seems like you were pretty quick to change that definition.. when it was convenient to do so
You are as wrong about my post as you are about scripture and the Catechism. Read the thread and you will see that I stated the Church definition of Celibacy did not include fornication. No where in my posts or the posts of the Church does it state that fornication for priests or anyone else is OK.
"A vow of celibacy means no porn , no masturbation..it properly practiced means no SEX period"
(A definition taken from a dictionary)
You responded to debate the official definition
I cannot understand why you present yourself as an expert of Catholicism after having admitted to failing to understand even the basic taught to children in the Baltimore Catechism and continue to demand that Catholics and the Catholic Church adhere to the secular definitions you dig up on the internet. The Church is very thorough and defines the terms when it uses them.
The Church defines Celibacy as the renunciation of marriage implicitly or explicitly made, for the more perfect observance of chastity, by all those who receive the Sacrament of Orders in any of the higher grades.
The secular definition of 'celibacy' is often confused today with 'chastity', which means "abstaining from unlawful or immoral sexual activity" (Oxford English Dictionary).
The priest does not take the vow of Chastity...., the nuns do
If it indeed meant more than chastity + to the Catholic church you would not have fought so hard to rebuke my definition of no sexual thoughts ,no porn, no masturbation.. perhaps that is because doing any of the afore mentioned behaviors is because then most or all the priests regularly break their vows.
A very interesting exchange. Natural Law posts, “The Church defines Celibacy as the renunciation of marriage implicitly or explicitly made, for the more perfect observance of chastity, by all those who receive the Sacrament of Orders in any of the higher grades. The secular definition of ‘celibacy’ is often confused today with ‘chastity’, which means “abstaining from unlawful or immoral sexual activity” (Oxford English Dictionary).”
To which RnMomof7 responds, “LOL, LOL I understand enough to see through lies and deception. So to the Catholic church celibacy does not restrict a priest from viewing porn and masturbating nightly or sodomizing a little boy or having sex with a married woman in the parish…or a whore on the streets?”
Let’s review the play. Natural Law says that celibacy is practiced for the more perfect observance of chastity, which he then defines as “abstaining from unlawful or immoral sexual activity.”
And somehow RnMomof7 understands that to mean that “viewing porn and masturbating nightly or sodomizing a little boy or having sex with a married woman in the parish…or a whore on the streets” are not in the category of “unlawful or immoral sexual activity.”
I think we can restate that syllogism.
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Bigfoot is from Mars.
Speaking of secular definitions you just exemplified "slander".
And for the record, since you have presented yourself as a spokesperson for the failed and anti Catholics, maybe you can answer why the anti-Catholics seem so obsessed about what does and doesn't happen below a priest's waist? I believe it is because they can't imagine a world or existences which isn't dominated by the carnal and immoral thoughts and motivations that haunt them so intensely.
You wrote:
“In France the education was either private (for the wealthy) or if a boy was planning on entering the priesthood..it was from the church ...you can go on and on..but that is what it was”
False. Cathedral Schools. Ever hear of them? Apparently not. They were open to anyone who wanted to attend and could either pay or raise schlarship money. Those schools received plenty of donations from clergy and non-clergy alike. Many of the people who went through them never entered religious life. Since you apparently know nothing about this whole system of education, I suggest you look up Chartres Cathedral school.
Anyone who has ever studied the history of medieval France knows it was often the popes themselves who insisted on the education of the poor. If you don’t believe me, you can read about it in Initiation, apprentissage, éducation au moyen âge (Actes du Ier Colloque International de Montpellier (Université Paul Valéry) de Novembre 1991. Published as Cahiers du CRISIMA 1. Montpellier: Université Paul Valéry, 1993.
It should be no surprise to anyone that John-Baptist de La Salle (1651–1719), the founder of the Christian Brothers, established that order to educate poor children all over France and eventuall all over the world.
You might want to read the classic by Jean Leclerq, The Love of Learning and the Desire for God, trans. Catherine Misrahi. New York: Fordham University Press, 1974.
There’s no reason for ignorance in a country filled with libraries.
You wrote:
“Many have found a new identity in Christ”
I am sure some would say that. Then again former Christians often say the same thing when they become Mormons or cult members. I don’t put much stock in the feelings of confused or poorly catechized people.
You wrote:
“I believe it is because they can’t imagine a world or existences which isn’t dominated by the carnal and immoral thoughts and motivations that haunt them so intensely.”
I always thought the same thing. The anti-Catholic obsession with “Protestant porn” - especially of the kind focused on the sins of priests - seems obvious (and unhealthy).
probably because God gave men a sex drive for His purpose and it seems even the "ordained" can not turn it off..
God meant it for good" , but too many use it for evil
1 Tim4 1 Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils,
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared,
3 Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and by them that have known the truth.
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving:
5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
'Insha Allah' (If Allah Wills?) God created animals that act upon instinct and urges. To man He gave intellect and freedom to go along with the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Sin occurs when man prefers himself to God and acts on his urges.
That is an alien concept to those who believe that God is the author of all sin and that no human act, indulgence, or surrender to sin can interfere with the salvation of the elect. 'Insha Allah' may be acceptable to Calvinists and Muslims, but it is incompatible with Christianity.
1Ti 4:1 — Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
Sex is not dirty, the sex drive is not dirty but for some reason the Catholic church seems to portray it as such
Nice try, but that scriptural citation is as clear as mud. How about you ponder these:
"Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" (Matt. 19:11–12).
An example of ministerial celibacy can also be seen in the Old Testament. The prophet Jeremiah, as part of his prophetic ministry, was forbidden to take a wife: "The word of the Lord came to me: ‘You shall not take a wife, nor shall you have sons or daughters in this place’" (Jer. 16:1–2).
"Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" (Mat. 19:11–12).
The scripture does not bear on the words of Paul to Timothy because the words of Paul do not speak of a voluntary single/ celibate state it speaks to FORBIDDEN to marry ..which is the case with the Catholic church FORBIDDING a man seeking to be ordained the right to choose marriage . He does not choose to be celibate ..the church forbids him from the ministry if he desires a wife
1Ti 4:3 — Forbidding to marry, [and commanding] to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
Gay priest?
Shouldn’t he be either a homo or a priest, but not both?
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.