Posted on 09/26/2023 12:02:03 AM PDT by Morgana
The lives and careers of Liberty University’s leadership (including Falwell, Jr.) sound like it could provide the material for a Netflix series: “Preacher Kids Gone Wild.” And it demonstrates one of the reasons why the Roman Catholic Church (wisely or not) originally went for priestly celibacy: too many offspring who are entitled and undisciplined when the clergy are married.
“And it demonstrates one of the reasons why the Roman Catholic Church (wisely or not) originally went for priestly celibacy: too many offspring who are entitled and undisciplined when the clergy are married.”
Sexual misconduct will always manifest itself one way or the other, as it has in the celibate priesthood in the Catholic church having a history of homosexual relationships rather than heterosexual ones. Limit heterosexual and you will get homosexual behavior. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Little community churches are struggling to pay the electric bill, while some of the financial schemes of these big churches want to make me throw up.
The authorities ought to come clean on the opioid problem in Lynchburg as well, and the links to Liberty U.
How about we let God’s word tell us what a good pastor / priest is?
1 Timothy 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach;
Mandating celibacy only created a bigger problem, it did not solve a problem.
It never improves anything when we add to God’s word our own desires or intentions, no matter how noble we may think it is.
Yet, with a general decay of standards, there were also more than a few episodes of heterosexual priests who strayed. I believe that some were even deliberately protected by the "gay mafia" as way to divert attention from their broad and systemic misconduct.
Although little known, there are validly married Catholic priests in the US and worldwide in the several Eastern Rite Catholic Churches that acknowledge the Pope's authority. The most sensible resolution for the issue to me seems to be to keep priestly celibacy in general but establish a separate Roman Catholic ordinate of married priests under rules similar to those applied by the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches.
As part of this evangelization there was a strategy to establish Christianity and its priests as different from the local pagan priests and shamans. Distinct and austere dress and celibacy were part of that. Since torture and martyrdom were often also involved, requiring celibacy tended to weed out those unwillingness for the full sacrifice of self.
As I said
“It never improves anything when we add to God’s word our own desires or intentions, no matter how noble we may think it is.”
You are basically trying to justify how “man” knows better than God as to what constitutes the requirements for God’s priesthood.
Do you honestly believed God overlooked the challenges of early evangelism and needed man to correct the requirements He Himself created?
Where does God say “require celibacy” to ensure willingness to serve? I would think the Creator of everything might have mentioned such an extreme requirement if it was actually so.
Matt 19:10-12 - Jesus lays the foundation for the Catholic Church call to priestly celibacy. Verse 10 ends with “... there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.”
The Catholic priest is acting as Jesus Christ (”Alter Christus” or “in Persona Christi”) in the administration of the sacraments; he is no longer merely a man. Jesus was not married, so the Church, by extension, recommends priests not be married.
Thousands of years of prayer and fasting have gone into the thinking and decisions of the Church. The path is not easy, though it is simple.
Peace.
You have wildly mis-read that verse and read it out of context from the chapter itself.
Math 19 was our Lord’s response to the Pharisees when they tried to test him about marriage and divorce. Our lord’s reply was specific to how sanctified and committed a marriage should be, one man, one women, no divorce. His reference to being a eunuch was specific to those who can not treat marriage as such and therefore accept celibacy, it was Him showing how serious a marriage must be approached. Basically if you cannot treat marriage that seriously, remain celibate. No where does he align this to being in the priesthood.
Classic example of taking one verse and applying eisegesis. It does not matter what you want the verse to say, one must let God’s word interpret God’s word.
The verse I quoted was specific to the subject of priests and the chapter itself supports that directly. What is known as exegesis, one should not push their own presuppositions into God’s word.
The verse you refer to does not support your opinion.
Oh and I must add, in your thousands of years of “mans” fasting and prayer interpretation you are not forced to explain how God was wrong when he said a priest should be a man of one wife. You have set up a contradiction against God’s word.
Jesus addressed this as well when he talked to the Pharisees who with at least centuries of tradition allowed giving donations to the temple above caring for one’s parents
Math 15:3 Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ a and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ b 5But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is ‘devoted to God,’ 6they are not to ‘honor their father or mother’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
Cuck klown with suppressed homo tendencies
What sort of man enjoys watching his wife get railed by a younger “stamina” man?
A few years ago, I read of a young priest in Marseilles whose parish church was in an area that had many Muslims. To the astonishment of local Muslims, unlike his predecessor, he went about in a full cassock and addressed Muslims in a friendly manner in perfect Arabic.
The priests got to know the local imams and became friendly with them, often being asked about Catholicism and its defining aspects like the Mass, the sacraments, and the reason for Roman Catholic practices like priests being celibate. Gradually, relations between the Muslims and local Catholics improved. Lapsed Catholics began to return to church.
Was Muslim interest in priestly celibacy part of what opened the door to conversation? So it seemed.
True, except that Eastern Rite Catholic priests can be and often are married. There is a theological basis for priestly celibacy but it is not required.
Can you stick to the point you made, which was the defense of the RC church’s current requirement on priestly celibacy.
I am aware of what you wrote, but in this conversation it only serves as a diversion from the original point. The point is, in my opinion, the Bible clearly teaches priests can have a wife and it does not support any requirement to the contrary.
What you just wrote appears as an attempt to obscure and change what you originally were defending in the conversation.
Sorry, meant to address my last post to Montana_Sam
Really? You want to censor my comments so that I am required to agree with you? Obviously, I (and the Roman Catholic Church) simply do not agree with your claim that the Bible forbids priestly celibacy.
You are free to your own opinion. As I am mine. Peace.
Guess you missed my post above, I misread your post and was thinking I was responding to someone else, said Sorry.
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.