Sorry to be Sola Scriptura again but:
1 Timothy 3:2
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
Quote, not my interpretation.
Once again the Pope’s words need interpretation.
I am glad he is at least talking about the pediophile problem in the Catholic Church, 2% or 8000 priests are pediophiles? I had not heard that estimate and despite problems previously reported over the years I had no idea it was that bad.
This pope must be the most misinterpreted, mistranslated, misquoted religious leader in all of human history.
Every time I turn around there are threads about what the Pope actually meant/said versus what was written in an article.
I understand this happens from time to time, and that maybe this Pope is doing more interviews with folks that might not ordinarily get the time of day, but maybe the Pope generally means what he says and many of the faithful are just looking for ways to excuse some of his statements.
When it comes to economics at least, I don’t think there can be any question anymore that Pope Francis is very far to the left. Despite all the “well he didn’t really mean that” posts, it is clear that this Pope is essentially a socialist - which is no surprise at all considering he is a South American Jesuit.
Other early statements concerning the disciple of celibacy for the clergy include:
· Council of Elvira (c. 305)
(Canon 33): “It is decided that marriage be altogether prohibited to bishops, priests, and deacons, or to all clerics placed in the ministry, and that they keep away from their wives and not beget children; whoever does this, shall be deprived of the honor of the clerical office.”
· Council of Carthage (390)
(Canon 3): “It is fitting that the holy bishops and priests of God as well as the Levites, i.e. those who are in the service of the divine sacraments, observe perfect continence, so that they may obtain in all simplicity what they are asking from God; what the Apostles taught and what antiquity itself observed, let us also endeavour to keep… It pleases us all that bishop, priest and deacon, guardians of purity, abstain from conjugal intercourse with their wives, so that those who serve at the altar may keep a perfect chastity.”
· St. Epiphanius of Salamis (d. 403)
“Holy Church respects the dignity of the priesthood to such a point that she does not admit to the deaconate, the priesthood or the episcopate, nor even to the subdeaconate, anyone still living in marriage and begetting children. She accepts only him who if married gives up his wife or has lost her by death, especially in those places where the ecclesiastical canons are strictly attended to.”
Don't fall for the media's "spin" that the incidents of Catholic priests abusing minors was part of a "pedophile scandal." Although prosecuted for sexual abuse of minors, the vast majority of the priests in that scandal were not actual pedophiles, but simply homosexuals. Didn't you wonder why almost all the victims were adolescent males, and why almost none of them girls? It's because it was not their young age that was the attractor (very few were less than 13 or 14) but the fact that they were boys. The offenders were motivated not by pedophilia, but by homosexuality.
Of course, I'm sure this makes little difference to the victims, nor should it. But that's not the point. The point is that while the Church (and to some extent society) busy themselves looking under every bush for pedophiles, gay predators end up being overlooked. When society hides its head in the sand, it becomes harder to prevent FUTURE crimes.
Which is arguably the same thing as saying it was "established" 900 years ago.
Do I hate all these debates about what the Pope said and didn't say? Yes, and I'm disappointed that he again, with even the same "reporter" as last time, didn't ask that the session be recorded. Didn't be learn anything from last time?
With that said, it strikes me that this instance in particular, if not the other times, are all debates about semantics. Which are stupid and childish.
Those who want to hate him for whatever reason will do so, and use his ambiguity (which of course is his fault but still), they will use that against him, assuming he means the worst when in fact, at least in this instance, he's just trying to speak to as many people as possible.
People who aren't theologians and don't really care *when* the discipline started but just about the issue *today*. That's to whom his words here are obviously intended. Obviously, to anyone without an agenda against him.
Again though, it doesn't help that he isn't careful with his words and also apparently, not careful how they are recorded. That does bug me. It only bugs me though, ultimately, because if gives the "usual suspects" (here and elsewhere) another toy to chew with, to bludgeon the Church with in sardonic sadism. Which is apparently their mission in life.
Maybe I shouldn't let that bug me so much; we all have pet peeves I guess.
Why doesn’t he just say what he “meant” to say?