You do?!?
That's the nicest thing a FR Catholic has ever said to me!
Posted on 05/06/2015 6:38:42 AM PDT by don-o
Genesis 1
English Standard Version (ESV)
26 Then God said, “Let us make man[h] in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
28 And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29 And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. 30 And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so. 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
Not everyone thinks the married priests are perfect for their assigned jobs. Obviously I am repeating the opinion of those close to the situation.
Marriage and family cannot bring balance to the life of a priest since it is all encompassing, it is a vocation, not just a job. I must know the particularly dedicated type because they hardly get any rest, everyone always wants something from them. As I said, I observe this close up, not from a distance.
As for the scandalous behavior, 80% per cent of that over the fifty years they looked at was by homosexuals. They would not be helped by marrying a woman, it would not be a valid marriage.
Our congregations are much larger than the Orthodox, therefore much more work.
Calling this a 'policy' rather dismisses the Grace that Our Lord gives to those He calls. Virginity is a very high calling, it has always been valued in the Church, it is never valued by pagans.
I call it a policy because it something that was institutionalized by the Church much later and for reasons which have nothing to do with anything that can be found in the Bible. The policy was instituted at the First Lateran Council in 1123. At that time there were huge corruption issues in the Church, specifically nepotism and simony were big issues in the Middle Ages.
Now as for the full job description for service in the clergy, look no further than the New Testament:
” This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous. One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God? Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.”
1 Timothy 3:1-7
There you go. The complete job description for service in the clergy directly from the Holy Bible. Why would anyone want to change it?
Every single faith group that has actually accepted homosexual acts and ‘gay marriage’ also allows for married clergy. Heck, they now allow married gay clergy. And it’s not like the gays in those groups are working to do away with their current married clergy policy and institute a celibacy requirement. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. The Catholic gays aren’t the defenders of celibacy, they are the loudest and most consistent voices urging to now relax the discipline.
As far as attracting gays who can hide in plain sight or whatever, I would say that would only be a factor when the greater culture doesn’t embrace gays. It now does, at least in the West. No gay has to hide anywhere. They can get married in almost 4/5ths of US states, and if they want to get into religion there are numerous faiths that will openly accept them and put them in positions of leadership where they can openly be in relationships and be celebrated for it.
Freegards
Yes of course you right on so many points. In our current culture homosexuality is exalted and glorified and given special rights. Our news media, our schools and universities, the entertainment industry, not to mention advertising all glorify homosexuality and gays in these settings are always portrayed as youthful, attractive, cool and hip. You never see the dark side of what the behavior causes.
But back in the day this was not so. Homosexuality was frowned upon once upon a time. It was viewed as deviant an immoral behavior. Back in those days, many homosexuals did in fact join the priesthood. It was an escape. No one would ask a priest why aren’t you married? No one would question a priest. Plus there was the added attraction of having plenty of access to teenagers, among the parishioners, among the altar boys. It was the perfect cover. Plus you had so many bishops covering up for these priests shuffling them around from one parish to the next.
Of course times have changed and there is no reason these days for a gay person to join the priesthood as his lifestyle is so glorified in our current society.
Our pastor has said the average age of person entering into the seminary these days is 35. Many considerably older. For those wishing to keep the celibacy policy in place, this might be somewhat encouraging. At least they attracting sexually and psychologically mature men. Many of whom have been around the block a few times and know what is expected of them. Plus theses days they are now subjected to a full range of psychological and physical examinations not to mention thorough background check ups. That all said, since the policy does not come from the Bible, and since it was instituted centuries after the founding of the Church, I think we can at the very least weigh the merits of it.
Right. Same here on the family.
A secular mindset could not see the beauty of sacrifice and the Grace that flows from something freely given.
In the OT, priests had to abstain before they offered sacrifice to God. Since ours offer daily Mass, and Mass is a sacrifice, they would have to abstain completely if married. This is way the Orthodox do not have daily liturgies.
St Paul was writing to those already married who may have had children, the man chosen would then be perfectly continent and his family would be cared for by the local church. Obviously this would only work well in a small group situation.
I will leave it here as my spouse it demanding my attention and I have way too much to do today.
I know you have to leave but this is total nonsense. The Bible specifically permits a married clergy. Paul’s job description is quite clear and unambiguous. And the Church did not introduce the canon prohibiting marriage until the First Lateran Council in 1123. We’ll take it up later if you like. I know your spouse is beckoning.
FWIW, a couple of things to keep in mind:
There is NOTHING in the Bible requiring such a policy.
True, but such a policy is commended (not mandated) in Scripture.
For example, Matt 19:12 [12] For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother' s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.
Likewise, Paul commends perpetual celibacy in I Cor 7 (e.g., v 7-8: For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. and v32-33 But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided.)
..not to mention the unmentionable problem of divorce settlement problems if the RCC allowed priests to marry. I’m pretty sure Rome wouldn’t want to fork over child support in that priests are paid by the church..
If that was true, then why in the world would the Church allow married priests in the Eastern Rites and convert ministers into Holy Orders?
I’m pretty sure Rome wouldn’t want to fork over child support in that priests are paid by the church..
How many employers are responsible for child support? Give me a break.
Do you think that it would be possible to employ a modicum of common sense and logic when attacking the Church? Seriously. I recognize that, based upon your posting history, that you do not appear to be favorably disposed to the teachings of the Catholic Church. But an attack like the one you used here are utterly ineffective and, in fact, laughable and, frankly, ignorant.
There are plenty of people around here who have no love for the Catholic Church but who, at least, can present a cogent argument for their disagreements. Examples include (but are not limited to) Gamecock, Alex Murphy, Rnmomof7, and metmom. You should look to them as examples -- while I, in no way, can endorse their arguments against the Church, I can at least have respect for how they craft their arguments. I commend their posts to you.
Let me put it this way, markomalley. How many employers are responsible for settling lawsuits brought about that involve their employees?
I can think of any number of employers who would be responsible. For example:
But what in the world does that have to do with a child support case? Your argument is a non-sequitur. You are trying to throw dirt at a wall to see if any of it sticks.
Like I said before, you should attempt to follow the example of those distinguished FReepers I mentioned above. They don't need to resort to that type of thing.
You do?!?
That's the nicest thing a FR Catholic has ever said to me!
You are reading into what Paul is saying. In the scripture that you quoted in no way does Paul say that in order to serve the Church, you must be celibate. Fact is NO ONE in the Bible does. Celibacy is a Catholic Church requirement. Not a Biblical requirement for service in the priesthood. In point of fact Paul accepts a married clergy. Please read again 1 Timothy 3: 1-7 which I quoted above.
“in no way does Paul say that in order to serve the Church, you must be celibate. “
I said “commend.” I didn’t say mandate. The two words are not synonymous.
“Please read again 1 Timothy 3: 1-7 which I quoted above.”
I’m working from a tablet right now and so it’s difficult to communicate an analysis of the Greek. I can do so when I get home tonight.
In the meantime, one question for you to ponder...In regards to 1 Tim 3.2, if a bishop becomes a widower, is he removed from office immediately?
I know that in the Bible, some people-—including Paul, seemed to have an issue with a widowed person remarrying. I personally have no issue with a widow or widower remarrying. Even my Church, the Catholic Church has no issue with a widow or widower remarrying after the death of a spouse. As far as the clergy goes, my Church doesn’t allow clerical marriage at all-—so it is a mute point. I hope some day my Church will change its rules prohibiting clerical marriage. And I personally have no issues with widows or widowers remarrying after the death of a spouse. Clergy or laity. Remember when you are standing on the altar you say “until death do us part.” That works for me at least.
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.