German philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer Posted on 07/13/2023 6:23:37 PM PDT by ebb tide
VATICAN CITY (ChurchMilitant.com) - The new head of the Vatican's doctrine watchdog is hinting at the prospect of ending the requirement of celibacy for priests in the Latin Rite of the Roman Catholic Church.
German philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer
Asked if abolishing mandatory celibacy would "undermine doctrine," Abp. Víctor Manuel "Tucho" Fernández, prefect-designate of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, said that it would be Pope Francis' prerogative to make a considered judgment on the matter.
"It is a possible hypothesis, as indeed happens in the East. But this is a prudential decision that the pope must weigh," Fernández told Italian newspaper Quotidiano Nazionale in an interview published Tuesday.
Responding to a majority of the synod fathers at the Amazon Synod calling for married priests, the prefect-designate said he could not expect "very concrete answers" but preferred "to wait to see where the Spirit wants to take us."
The archbishop, who will be elevated to the cardinalate in September, further lamented the "problem of theological language" used to describe the phenomenon of homosexuality as "objectively disordered" in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Such terminology "sometimes ignores the effect it can have on people's hearts, as if it were indifferent to the pain it produces," Fernández explained. "But, as you know, this is not the case for Pope Francis, who would undoubtedly use different language."
The cardinal-elect, who has been appointed as head of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, expressed his disagreement with the way traditionalist Catholics interpreted the biblical texts on homosexual relations.
"There are biblical texts that cannot be interpreted in a 'material' way. I don't mean 'literal,'" the theologian, who has a licentiate in biblical theology, remarked. "The Church has long understood the need for hermeneutics that interprets them in their historical context."
"This does not mean that they lose their content, but rather that they should not be taken completely at their face value. Otherwise, we should obey the command of St. Paul which requires women to cover their heads, for example," the archbishop argued.
Fernández recently revealed that his methodology in interpreting biblical texts has been "deeply influenced" by the agnostic philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900–2002), who was brought up as a liberal Protestant in Germany.
Gadamer, one of the most influential thinkers in philosophical hermeneutics, emphasized the dialogical nature of interpretation, highlighting that the reader is in conversation not only with the text but also brings his own preconceptions and prejudices to the text.
While Gadamer dethrones the Enlightenment focus on rationalism and empiricism in hermeneutics, he encourages the interpreter to move beyond questions of historical context and engage in applying the biblical text to their own context.
But since people are conditioned by their own prejudices, a text is never approached in the same way twice. As a result, a text contains an "inexhaustible multiplicity of answers," and "to understand at all is always to understand differently."
In an earlier interview, Fernández clarified that Pope Francis was referring to the Inquisition, the forerunner of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, when the pontiff spoke of how the doctrinal watchdog had historically used "immoral methods" to suppress dissenters.
"Today, there is a widespread acknowledgment that the Church no longer employs "immoral methods" in its teachings of the Faith. It is evident that the Pope's reference is directed towards the era of the Inquisition," the archbishop elaborated.
Woodcut depicting a scene from the Spanish Inquisition
"However, it is important to recognize that over the past few decades, numerous theologians have voiced their concerns about a prevailing sense of persecution and constant scrutiny from ecclesiastical authorities," he added.
The prefect-designate said that the stifling environment has had a detrimental effect on theological discourse, as it has resulted in a repetitive cycle of regurgitating established ideas to avoid any potential risks.
"Francis understands that without unfettered theological debate, the teaching of the Church will hardly grow and develop," the archbishop stressed, arguing that while doctrine and objective morality remain fixed, there is a "spiral growth" in the development of doctrine.
Fernández continued:
During the era when modernism was being vigorously contested, a discernible system of surveillance persisted, albeit in a more veiled manner. Nonetheless, if I am to share my most vivid recollections, focusing on the recent years, I must acknowledge that under the leadership of Cdl. [Luis] Ladaria as prefect, a notably tranquil atmosphere prevailed.
Earlier, expressing openness to overturning the Vatican's ban on same-sex blessings, a ban that was categorically asserted by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2021, Fernández candidly urged, "It wouldn't be bad to rethink it," Church Militant reported.
"If a blessing [to same-sex couples] is given in such a way that there will be no such confusion, it will have to be the subject of analysis and confirmation," Fernández insisted.
The prelate reiterated that "the greatest care" must be taken to "avoid rites or blessings that could feed this confusion" between the sacrament of marriage and liturgies offering blessings to homosexual couples.
But "there is a point where it [the issue of same-sex blessings] moves from a proper theological discussion to a more prudential or disciplinary question, as you will see," the prefect-designate explained.
Thank you for your response. We’ll just have to disagree on what God has decreed. Applying medieval practices to now just seems like a stretch. To compare how modern day priests live with what the Apostles did is a night and day difference. I’m sure your Cardinals are well established in nice furnished homes. The priests have parsonages. Even the Pope has a luxurious palace with many servants. For them to have a family may cost a little more but if it saves your denomination from the consequences of pedophilia, it would be worth it. I think the parishes cow and chickens would be safe enough. But it should really be about what God wants and not what some church committee has decreed. Peace be unto you.
The Episcopalian church is catholic lite with marriage.
There is no denomination where homosexuality runs more rampant.
Celibacy is a discipline not a dogma. There are a few married priests in the Roman Rite. They were Episcopal priests and they converted and became Catholic priests. There are also married priests in the Maronite Rite. That is an Eastern Rite that is loyal to Rome but has an orthodox style liturgy.
Shame on them. But God doesn’t grade on the curve. His standard for us is very high. And Grace does not cover willful sin, contrary to popular belief.
On the other hand, family does wear shoes in-doors—hence the prodigal son being shod. We are now sons—shoes are appropriate if one is to use shoes as symbolism.
Using your logic, the priests aren't servants of God (they're shod). And your Church must not be a holy place either (people walk there with shoes).
PS. There's nothing wrong with being a servant of God.Romans 1:1
I never said celibacy is dogma. See Post #13.
Secondly, exceptions don’t make the rule.
I was clarifying for people who are not as informed as you.
Yer not wrong. There is nothing stopping the Catholic church from waiving the vow of celibacy. I’m catholic I wouldn’t have a problem with it.
Can you show me in the Bible where it says where it says that every component of the Christian faith must be "biblical"?
(Realizing that the Bible came about centuries after Christ.)
Now again...
You accuse the Church of being "unbiblical" in requiring Priestly Celibacy ....
Can you back up that statement with something from the Bible-
that claims that the Church Christ promised to build
Must follow a mandate or requirement from the Bible?
What is the authority of your "unbiblical requirement" claim...
Or is it just a tradition of man?
Though unbeknowst to you Paul advocates FOR celibacy...so...
Now you want to deflect to the silly "dont add to the bible text."
Where has the Church formally added to the canon of the Bible text- requiring priestly celibacy?
What book or verse then has the Church added text to as you claim?
The text of the Bible has remained the same and never has changed/ added to- to include priestly celibacy.
Where in the Bible does it say there are guidelines that we must stay within? Is there a guideline that binds a Priest to a required sexual nature?
Is the doctrine of the Trinity outside those guidelines you mention?
I think it is you who have made up
non-existent "unbiblical" rules to serve your personal purpose...
And are using the Bible as a way It was never intended for.
That's where we differ. I am interested in his writings. He was for celibacy for him personally. He was thought to be a widower. He was a man of God and God spoke to him. His words have weight. "Every word of God is pure, He is a shield to them that put their trust in Him. Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." Prov. 30:5,6.
Though unbeknowst to you Paul advocates FOR celibacy.
How stupid of me to not know this. How exactly brought you to the conclusion I did not know this?
You made a claim that priestly celibacy in his Church is "unbiblical".
No, I made a claim that it is not a requirement of celibacy to become a priest or pastor. God didn't make that a requirement. Man did that. Man made denominations did that. Not God.
That happens when Jesus gives the leaders of the church the power to bind and loose. And your view that whatever is not mentioned in Scripture is banned is erroneous. If you want to take that view then stop wearing modern clothes, go back to robes and only meet in people’s houses.
Jesus gave those leaders that power. Those He chose and knew and had the Holy Spirit in them.
This was not handed down inherently to others who would abuse such power for selfish purposes. While God may imbue proven saved Christians with certain attributes (such as healing, prophecy, etc.), it is not taken for granted any denomination or group has such wide sweeping authority granted to those that were just starting a fledgling movement to evangelize the world at that time.
They can’t stop all the pedophile priests—so they might as well throw in the towel...
;-)
My view escapes you. If you were to require me to wear robes, that would be unBiblical. There's nothing to stop me from wearing robes and/or meeting in peoples houses for worship. Which I've done but without the robe wearing. I wore modern clothes.
"Every word of God is pure,
He is a shield to them that put their trust in Him.
Jesus Christ tells us celibacy is for a greater good...
Some have made themselves eunuchs
for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.
So WE KNOW how Christ felt about celibacy.
That cannot be ignored.
Would Jesus have a problem with celibate Catholic priests?
I dont think so.. why?
"He who is able to receive this, LET HIM receive it.”
Christ gave his authority to the Apostles to bind and loose for the new Christian converts.
He did not say "bind and loose according to the bible" (which did not exist yet)
Thats how the Jerusalem Council in Acts was able to happen.
That was a MAN made decision. Would Christ disagree with that decision?
You dont have a valid argument to deny the Church's authority to require celibacy of the Priest.
It was originally Christ's idea,
St. Paul mimics his teaching- and the practical advantages in ministry
to commit oneself to a life of serving God is something we should let those receive that gift.
I never said I did. I acknowledge that you can require celibacy, purple pants and red hats if that is what you want. I merely said it wasn't Biblical to require it.
"Some have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." ""He who is able to receive this, LET HIM receive it.”
Notice the wording "made themselves" (of their own volition) and the words "let him" (not force him and not require him).
Plus those times were different, walking from town to town and not knowing where you would spend the night.
Your man made denomination can make whatever rules you want. The same as the VFW hall or Book-of-The-Month Club. But understand God never required it.
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.
